From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 00:04:59 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 20:04:59 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco...
Message-ID: <bd8.cefcd7.31fff4ab@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156274

>Alla:

>One thing they did right in russian translation was to  stuck 
with "philosopher stone". :)

Why does Sorcerer stone sets  negative connotations? You mean occult 
as in  witchcraft?

Nikkalmati:
 
When I hear Sorcerer, I think of Mickey Mouse  making the brooms haul  water 
<bg>.  But, yes, I think the term has connotations of evil  magic and Satanism 
for many people.
Nikkalmati


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




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug  1 00:09:46 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:09:46 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re:  muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <eam4l9+kpai@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eam64a+r79r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156275

> > > zeroirregardless:
> > 
> > > If DA members repel a mass Dementor attack in  Book 7, we could
> > > look back on the DA as vital.
> > 
> > Julie:
> >
> > Though if the DA members specifically use Patronuses to repel
> > Dementors, you may be right. Especially if this turns out to be 
> > the  most effective method of dealing with those soul-sucking     
> > monsters.
> >  
> > Julie, who really, *really* wants to know Snape's method of  
> > repelling Dementors, and is hoping to find out in Book 7. 
> > 
> Mike now:
> 
> Occlumency. I'll bet that's what Snape thinks works better against 
> dementors. No need to conjure a *very* happy thought. Saves you from 
> their draining your energy and allows you to keep your situational 
> awareness. <SNIP>
> 
> If the dementors do become a big problem, and IMHO they will play a 
> big role in book 7, then just learning how to cast a patronus charm 
> should give the ex-DA kids a big head start.

Aussie:
"When you meet a dementor, remember, they are looking to take happy
thoughts. So make sure you are with someone happier than you. The
dementor will attack them and you can escape."  

Great personal defence that Snape may teach.

But the patronus is a charm "well beyond" OWL level that even well
accomplished wizards have problems cunjuring according to Lupin as he
started teaching Harry. That made the DA an incredible asset to
families in Dementor breeding grounds (ie: anywhere in UK)







From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug  1 00:23:39 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:23:39 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re:  muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <eam4l9+kpai@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eam6ub+pepk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156276

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
 
> 
> Occlumency. I'll bet that's what Snape thinks works better against 
> dementors. No need to conjure a *very* happy thought. Saves you from 
> their draining your energy and allows you to keep your situational 
> awareness. I'm sure that's what Voldemort does when he's around 
> them, he doesn't want to drive them away, he wants to plot with them.
> 
> 

colebiancardi:

I dunno.  To conjure a Patronus is supposed to be hard and
advanced(for a 5th year, Harry's examiner was pleased as punch when
Harry produced a Patronus.  

Snape states that Occlumency is an obscure branch of magic.  And it
seems that it requires total control over ones emotions, which, as we
all know, teenagers are nothing BUT a mass of emotions :)

but it could be one of the other ways to defeat a bunch of dementors
for Snape.  And I would think that Snape teaching Occlumency in DADA
would be skating on very thin ice, if that ever got back to LV somehow.

colebiancardi....
(thinking happy thoughts right now)






From kjones at telus.net  Tue Aug  1 01:28:57 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 18:28:57 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <ealmrn+ftbv@eGroups.com>
References: <ealmrn+ftbv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44CEAE59.40208@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156277

abergoat wrote:
> What about this: 
> In HBP, JKR told us Eileen was captain of a HOGWARTS team (delibrately
> avoiding her house) and this team was important enough to get in the
> Daily Prophet. The presence of a picture implies they were
> participating in an international competition (the Daily Prophet
> doesn't seem to be interested in Harry's quidditch captaincy - only
> his tri-wizard champion post). Doesn't this sound like a clue that the
> woman cowering in Snape's OoP memory was not Eileen? Why would a
> magical Eileen with the leadership skills to captain an international
> team cower in front of a MUGGLE husband? Seems unlikely. I bet JKR
> wanted us to question Harry's assumption that those people were
> Snape's parents rather than some other relatives. 
> 
> Abergoat

  KJ writes:

    I find this topic interesting as it kind of falls into my own 
theory. I am thinking that something happened to Snape's parents, or at 
least his father, and that he was raised by his Prince relatives.  To 
me, this makes it more likely that the name "Half-blood Prince" was used 
in a more derogatory manner. If he was raised by pure-blood 
grandparents, it could account for the number of curses he knew, 
indicating practice in a magical household, and his joining of the DE's. 
It would also explain the old, expensive books that are kept in what we 
are led to believe is his house. To me, his manner has always been 
portrayed more like Lucius Malfoy than like Gilderoy Lockheart, or even 
Arthur Weasley. It may be that his childhood has been much like Harry's 
and Voldemorte's. It may well play into Book 7 in a comparison of the 
choices made by each of these individuals. Perhaps Eileen is a hostage 
of some sort to Snape's good behaviour, or was killed as a punishment 
for bad behaviour. I tend to think that just because we have not been 
given any indication that she is alive, she may well turn up yet.

KJ




From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 01:42:11 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:42:11 EDT
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco AND
Message-ID: <411.4b4b6300.32000b73@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156278

 

Jordan: And Draco is a powerful figure. Maybe, even if Blaise _does_  agree
with him, he only developed that ideology after several years  at
Hogwarts, rather than having come to hogwarts already  indoctrinated.

Joe: How is Draco a powerful figure? I  might not be remembering things right 
but hasn't he failed/been beaten at  everything he ever tried except the 
Vanishing Cabinet?

I thought by Book  Six that Draco had become a bit of a joke. Sort of a 
progession of Harry's from  silly childhood rivals to real enemies.


Julie:
You are not alone, Jordan. Draco was discussed on this group before Book  6
came out, and I seem to remember most of us considered him a bit of a  joke,
a one-note character whose time (as Harry's childhood rival) had definitely 
passed. I didn't expect he would play any kind of pivotal role in the  next
book at all, and I don't think many others did (though if I'm wrong, I'm  sure
it will be pointed out!). I also never expected him to display even a  minimal
layer of depth and complexity, as in fact he did. Now the idea of  Draco 
being a "powerful figure," which does indeed seem laughable in the  first
5 books, actually seems a possible achievement for the little  ferret after 
Book 6 ;-)
 
That is what I really love about the HP books, and about JKR's writing  of
them. She always delivers something unexpected, she hasn't yet failed
to deliver a twist to a character most fans assumed they'd figured  out
top to bottom and dismissed from any further examination. I'm sure 
Book 7 will also deliver more than a few surprises that we won't have
deduced in all our endless speculation on characters and events ;-)
 
Julie 







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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 01:46:28 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 01:46:28 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <44CE8EA2.10503@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <eambpk+afrm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156279

> > Alla:
> > 
> > What is your definition of **their pack** though?

Irene: 
> The Marauders, obviously. Plus maybe the Gryffindor, to a lesser 
degree. 
> Maybe James confined his bullying to outside of his own house. 
That's at 
> school. A "grown-up" Sirius cares for Harry and to a lesser 
degree, 
> Harry's friends.

Alla:

I thought we were talking about grown-up James. Here is my question 
then. Could you name **one** person excluding Snape who has one bad 
word to say about grown up James? I maintain that James likeable 
only to his pack is an unsupported assertion. IMO of course, since I 
don't remember anybody who disliked him, when he was out of school.


Alla:
> > If that means 
> > everybody but Snape, then sure I agree with you. :) ( and in 
Sirius 
> > case Kreacher and his dear old mom).

Irene: 
> Oh, let's continue the list, why not? And Mrs. Weasley, and Ron 
(before 
> he becomes a pack member), and anyone who stood between him and 
Peter, 
> and even Harry himself, the moment he stopped playing by what 
Sirius 
> considered the rules of the pack.

Alla:

Erm... I am confused. Sirius disliked Molly and Ron or Molly and Ron 
disliked him? What canon support do you have for that, if you don't 
mind?

Ron not liking Sirius when he did not yet know that Sirius was not a 
murderer? Um, yes, none of the Trio did when they were unaware of 
that fact or do you mean something completely different and I am 
totally confused?

Molly disliked Sirius or Sirius disliked her? Or was it more like 
two fellow Order members fighting over the wellfare of the boy they 
both loved?

Do you have any canon support for Molly disliking Sirius except her 
remark in OOP, which IMO had nothing to do with Sirius and 
everything with Molly's fears over Harry?

And Sirius not liking Harry, not loving him? Are you arguing that 
**one** hurtful remark takes precedent over Sirius rushing to help 
Harry when he needed it in GoF, when Sirius rushed to save Harry in 
OOP?

What do you mean when you wrote Harry ""stopped playing by the rules 
of the pack"? Who invented those rules?

I am sorry, I cannot buy your examples, I don't find them convincing 
at all. JMHO.


People who love each other hurt each other too sometimes, I find the 
examples of their mutual love and respect to be more convincing than 
the other thinfs.

I still maintain that the **only** people Sirius was ever mean to 
was Snape, Kreacher and his mom. I am sorry, but I cannot begrudge 
Sirius for being mean to the last two people. As to Snape, since JKR 
said that their hatred was entirely mutual and we will find out more 
about that, I guess we shall see in the book 7 whether there was 
more to their animosity.

 
Alla: 
> > Seems to me like James and Sirius' pack included a lot of 
people. 
> > Seriously, do people who are likeable to everybody even exist?

Irene: 
> I didn't I measure them against the "likeable to everybody" 
standard, 
> it's an impossible one, obviously. But against "would I like to be 
> anywhere near them at school"? They fail miserably. They are 
exactly the 
> sort of people to make a life of a quiet, introverted child into a 
hell.

Alla:

You said that they were only likeable to their pack. That means to 
me that only limited number of people would like them. I am drawing 
a blank as to who else did not like them, but Snape. IMO of course.

Not with whom Sirius had arguments, but who had a permanent not even 
**hatred**, that's Snape prerogative, but dislike.

 
Irene:
> Yes, that's right. The limited number of people, not including 
those 
> James apparently hexed at will. They couldn't have all been 
Snape. :-)

Alla:

Names, please? :)  Of the people who did not like **grown up** James?

JMO,

Alla 







From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 01:59:34 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 21:59:34 EDT
Subject: Eileen Pince
Message-ID: <4d3.4c4d17d.32000f86@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156280

 



wynnleaf
I'm a firm believer in "Eileen Prince is Irma Pince  (I'm a Prince)" 
and that Eileen came to Hogwarts at the time Snape became  disloyal 
to LV and started to spy for DD.  My theory is that Snape  was 
definitely willing to spy for the Order, but wanted his mother in a  
safe place just in case he was discovered as a spy.  So DD put her  
into his "wizard protection program" (like his comments to Draco), 
and  hid her as the librarian at Hogwarts.  There, she never sees any  
adults who would recognize her except for the older members of the  
Hogwarts staff, who are all sworn to secrecy.  The one time she goes  
out in public (DD's funeral), she's covered in a long heavy veil.   
She's described with similar physical features as Snape and she 
hates  to see someone write in a book (ha, ha, and Snape wrote in her 
book, but  she doesn't know that).  Spinners End practically has its 
own  library, leather bound books no less.  But most professors I 
know  (and I work at colleges), are really insistent on carrying all 
their books  with them where ever they teach, so I'd think Snape 
would keep most of his  at Hogwarts.  





Julie:
I happen to agree with you. At the very least I think it's a definite
possibility Eileen Prince and Irma Pince are the same person.
It would certainly be a good reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape,
if he has Snape's mother under his protection. And she does look
and act quite a bit like Snape, doesn't she? The only drawback to
the theory is that no one has connected her to the Daily Prophet
article (though she would have changed a great deal since being
a teenager), and that Harry doesn't recognize the woman in the
Pensieve scene--who is presumably Snape's mother--as Irma 
Pince (er, wait, we are talking about Harry, aren't we? ;-)
 
This could also make Eileen Prince the person Dumbledore might
have been referring to when he told Draco that "You can't be killed
if you are already dead" and "We can hide you more completely 
than you can know." Too bad he didn't also add "We can hide you
in plain sight"! Though since JKR didn't even want the first two
sentences left in HBP, the third one would certainly be a goner, if
the "hidden" dead person exists and turns out to be Eileen Prince.
 
Anyway, I think it's a very workable theory. It may not be right, as
I'm sure most of our theories won't be, but it could work. 
 
Julie 


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




From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 02:11:41 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:11:41 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <361.97fab2b.3200125d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156281

>Carol 
While I agree that Eileen wouldn't cower in front of a Muggle  husband
and that we may be expected to question Harry's assumption that  the
people in the memory are Severus's parents (wouldn't Harry  have
noticed that the man was dressed as a Muggle if he were Tobias?),  I've
always believed that the hook-nosed man in the memory is more  likely
to be Eileen's father, Grandpa Prince, than Tobias. I can't see  young
Severus coming to school knowing more hexes than most seventh years  if
he had a forceful, even cruel, Muggle father dominating his mother  and
preventing hier from teaching the child magic (or him from learning  it
on his own). IMO, something happened early on to get Tobias out of  the
picture and that Eileen perhaps moved in with her parents. It  seems
that young Severus identified with that side of the family even if  the
"pureblood Princes" rejected the precocious little half-blood.  (Why
else give himself that name?)
 
Nikkalmati:
 
I think the scene could be between Severus' parents.  We have seen two  
witches who lost their powers under the influence of rejection in love:   Merope 
and Tonks, so something like that could have happened to Eileen.   The scene was 
very dramatic and fleeting so Harry might not have noticed the  clothes.   On 
the other hand, I also like the argument that Snape was  brought up in part 
by his grandparents and taught magic by his mother.   Otherwise, I can't see 
him coming to school from a Muggle-father dominated  household knowing so much 
magic and using his mother's old  books.
Nikkalmati
 
>Carol
<snip>
>But I have trouble understanding (even  though I've read the interview
in which JKR made the comment) how the plot of  HBP could have been
used for CoS. <snip>
I'm completely thrown by  this particular piece of information,
frankly. Does anyone have any ideas how  the HBP plot could have been
interwoven with the Chamber of  Secrets/diary/interwoven wit
 
Nikkalmati:
 
Perhaps, JKR only intended to introduce the Half-Blood Prince title and the  
fact that Snape is not a pureblood.  I agree I can't meld these two plots  
(although I think JKH may have intended to introduce the UV scene in COS to  
confuse us more about Snape at an earlier stage of the books).  Clearly,  she 
decided that would be a bad idea.
Nikkalmati





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




From kjones at telus.net  Tue Aug  1 02:33:01 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:33:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicked James/Siri...
In-Reply-To: <bb8.2a998f0.31ffe0b8@aol.com>
References: <bb8.2a998f0.31ffe0b8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <44CEBD5D.1050409@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156282



> Julie:
snip
> I guess it boils down to these three possibilities:
> 1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell
> that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage.
> 2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to
> cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble, because
> he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason.
> 3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the
> Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak. 
>  
> Really, it could be any of the three, but to me #2 seems the least
> likely given Snape's disposition and inability to control his  rage/hate
> once it surfaces, even as a nearly 40 year old adult. All IMO,
>  
> Julie 

   KJ writes:

     It would not be surprising to me that Snape had more of a 
conscience back then.  That would make his resentment even stronger when 
he forced  himself to control the damage that he did, but James and 
Sirius did not feel it necessary to restrain themselves likewise. This 
would make the unfairness of their behaviour even more pointed and would 
weaken Snape's own inhibitions over time. He would be drawn to more and 
more violent means of retaliation. At the end, he was unable to match 
Sirius willingness to inflict damage by sending him into the tunnel 
after Lupin. I wonder how Dumbledore managed to keep them separated 
after that until graduation.

   KJ




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  1 00:54:02 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 00:54:02 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <eam170+193g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eam8na+h2dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156283

Aberforth says:
Sorry for the long post - but everyone has interesting ideas that I
cannot resist making too many comments!

Carol wrote:
> Harry's assumption that the people in the memory are Severus's parents 
> (wouldn't Harry have noticed that the man was dressed as a Muggle if he 
> were Tobias?)

Abergoat responds:
Great catch! I think Grandpa Prince is a good possibility, but I'll
admit that I think Grandpa or Uncle Snape is a possibility too. We
know that Tobias was non-magical - but Neville says his family thought
he was 'all muggle' in PS/SS. I'm hoping that Snape knew next to
nothing about his mother when he came to Hogwarts. Which could work
with a Grandpa Prince...but I'm counting on Eileen Prince having the
Ravenclaw relic so I don't want her to have too much family about. I'm
sure my idea is doomed...but it is fun to see where the idea goes.

Carol wrote:
> Maybe the mutual love of Eileen and her son
> will prove important in Book 7, but I highly doubt that *she's*
> responsible for any of the potions hints or spells,

Abergoat responds:
Agreed, I suspect Eileen was indifferent to potions. I'm thinking
Snape was only interested in potions and the healing arts because
something happened to Eileen that he hoped to 'fix'.

Carol wrote:
> But I have trouble understanding (even though I've read the interview
> in which JKR made the comment) how the plot of HBP could have been
> used for CoS.

Abergoat responds:
If Eileen is tied up in Hagrid's story that may have been completely
removed from CoS. We only know that Hagrid was blamed for the events
and his name was never completely cleared. I'm sure I'm wrong - but
tying Snape's goals to his mother and tying his mother to Snape would
help JKR tie up the loose ends into the 'big knot' she has promised
us. And the entrance to the CoS is in the GIRLS bathroom. A sharp
Ravenclaw with a lot of family books may have known the story...and
found the entrance.

> colebiancardi wrote:
> I still think those people were Snape's parents. As far as why would a
> woman who has a strong character cower in front of her husband - ask
> any woman who was in an abusive marriage - ask her if her character
> changed when confronted by her husband and she reacted in a manner that
> her friends and family would say is out of character for her.

Abergoat responds:
You make an excellent case. Being a witch gives a woman power that
most women don't have but I suppose she would need her wand - he could
have taken that away. The dynamics of abuse are far above my knowledge
level. As a witch Eileen had far greater capacity to protect herself
and her child...but I see your point, if her huband took away her wand
then she may have been powerless. I am thinking JKR will not repeat
Merope, though. I think Eileen WANTED to protect her son, whether she
was prevented from doing so because she is 'gone' or because of abuse
I guess we will not learn until book 7. I like to think the woman
wasn't Eileen because I have a series of events that stem from
that...involving the Ravenclaw relic.

> wynnleaf wrote:
> I'm a firm believer in "Eileen Prince is Irma Pince (I'm a Prince)"
> and that Eileen came to Hogwarts at the time Snape became disloyal
> to LV and started to spy for DD. 

Abergoat responds:
A short while ago I would have been right there with you, but now I'm
wondering if wizards have a difficult time hiding under an assumed
name, as a wizard anyway. The Ministry has a record of every wizard
born so the sudden appearance of a magical 'Irma Pince' might raise
eyebrows. The MoM seems to keep good track of magical people and we
know the Ministry is riddled with LV supporters. I'm thinking that
'dead' (hidden) wizards have to hide as muggles. At this point I'm
voting for Irma Pince to be a relative of Snape's (and Filch too?
Snape went to him to have his leg wrapped in PS/SS). 

Potioncat wrote:
> That's strange. Why doesn't she look pleased? Did her team just lose?

Abergoat responds:
That was my thought, or better yet she thinks her team should be off
practicing for the big match not wasting time getting their pictures
taken!!! (lol) The game seems to be big, in OoP we are told the MoM
has Gobstones listed with Quidditch - like they are on par with one
another.

Potioncat wrote:
> Someone else has commented that all the books we saw in Spinner's End
> may have been Eileen's and she could have been a Ravenclaw. I think we
> see by the very fact that she still has her text books by the time
> Snape is 11 that she loves books.

Abergoat responds:
I mentioned it, trying to drum up interest in Eileen - although the
idea is hardly new so I'm not claiming it! As I've mentioned, I think
Eileen Prince was Voldemort's source for the Ravenclaw relic. Which is
why Eileen is now out of the picture...although I suspect Voldemort
didn't kill her just like he didn't kill Morfin Gaunt (the source for
the ring). Snape is not a fountain of good will - I think he only
learned healing arts to heal his mother. I believe he has failed to
heal her and eventually turned his focus on revenge. Actually, I think
he didn't figure out Voldemort was involved until he was a teenager
(Was this why Snape first learned legilimens? To penatrate the damaged
mind of his mother? Was Eileen fighting Voldemort's memory
modification in an attempt to give information to her son? And was
this the conversation that Petunia overheard? An emotional Snape
frothing over what Voldemort had done to his mother and vowing revenge?)

Potioncat wrote:
> I do wish Hermione had said clearly to us how she knew Tobias was a
Muggle.

Abergoat responds:
Yes, and why Neville said his family thought he was 'all muggle' for
ages in PS/SS! Had JKR not developed the term squib yet? Or is squib a
term that 'polite' society avoids? Are we going to find out that
Tobias is non-magical, but he was actually a squib? Is Filch related
to Tobias? Did they fail to achieve 'magic' because of a brutal
parent? Will Filch be the squib that JKR told us will do magic late in
life? He certainly wants to - and Irma seems to care for him...and
Filch seems to care for Snape. For a while I considered the idea that
Filch was actually Tobias (as a non-magical person no one would bother
to investigate whether he was who he claimed he was) but I eventually
let go of that idea. Sniff.

I think Eileen is a an untapped goldmine of speculation.

Abergoat









From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 02:55:43 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:55:43 EDT
Subject: Scene with likable James
Message-ID: <234.36072200.32001caf@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156284

 
 
 
 
wynnleaf
> <SNIP>
> > I'm curious as to why JKR has  given us just one big scene with 
James
> > and that he's sooo awful  in the scene. Sure we see a sort of 
shade of
> > James at the end  of GOF, but it's not really even him -- DD says 
it's
> > not even  his ghost. We don't actually get a scene with a 
likable 
>  >James.
> 
> >
wynnleaf
<snip>
What I meant was that it's curious that JKR  has only given us this 
one scene that actually has James in it -- action,  dialogue, etc. -- 
and it's a scene where he comes off as unambiguously a  bully, acting 
in this very cowardly manner by hexing someone without  provocation, 
then hexing and insulting a person already at his  mercy.
<snip>-- I really wondered what JKR wants 
us to feel about  James? She *tells* us admirable things through the 
memories of other  characters, but she *showed* us a bully. 
Nikkalmati:
 
You have brought up a very interesting point about JKR and her way of  
writing.  This scene really hits the reader in the gut.  After all the  build up of 
James being this great guy, we see this?  After seeing Dudley  harass and 
pummel Harry, we see this from his father?  What a shocker, and  it is typical of 
JKR to turn our impressions upside down and shake us (and  Harry) up.
I can believe that teenaged boys can be aggressive (what are sports for  
after all? <g>), but not all are bullies.  There was a thread several  months ago 
about how horrible this experience would be for a teenage boy  (Snape).  
Someone mentioned the worst humiliation for a boy this age  is to be "pantsed" and 
this is what is about to happen in the part we don't  see.  Also, having a 
girl come to your rescue would be humiliation in  turn.  There is no way to 
"spin" this scene as positive for James and  Co.  JKR even lays it on thicker by 
telling us he hexed other people in the  halls and we know he probably has a 
drawer to himself ,or shared with Sirius, in  Filch's office.   What kind of 
excuse does Sirius give Harry?  He  says something like - he grew out of it 
(except for Snape, of course).  
 
I think JKR likes to shatter our conceptions of people in her  books.  I 
expect more of these revelations in Book 7.  It is part of  the excitement and 
suspense of reading HP.  She wants also to show that  James was human, but why no 
balancing with a good scene of some  kind?  I believe his having witnessed 
the memory in the Pensieve will help  Harry in Book 7 to reconcile with Snape in 
some way.  He did have a  momentary sympathy for Snape and  think JKR will 
use this memory and also  sympathy for Draco to bring Harry to a more tolerant 
and inclusive view of the  world, before he smashes LV to a pulp 
 
Nikkalmati (who is sorry she did not include a subject line to her last  
post, but is forgetful and doesn't know how to recall and repost.) 




 




.

 
   


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




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 03:00:45 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:00:45 -0000
Subject: Mean Sirius? (was Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince)
In-Reply-To: <eambpk+afrm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eamg4t+gnd4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156285

> Alla:
> 
> Erm... I am confused. Sirius disliked Molly and Ron or Molly and Ron 
> disliked him? What canon support do you have for that, if you don't 
> mind?

zgirnius:
I think I know to what Irene is referring.

In PoA Sirius breaks Ron's leg and disarms him. So I think it is fair 
to say he is not acting in a likable way towards Ron. Was this truly 
unavoidable? Or did Sirius simply not care, because while he was an 
innocent bystander, Ron was not one of Sirius's friends?

In OotP Sirius and Molly Weasley do not get along. Personally, I have 
no opinion of the extent to which either of them dislikes the other. I 
coudl go with you or with Irene.

I'm not sure how much Peter liked adult James (he certainly did not act 
like he did).









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 03:29:30 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 03:29:30 -0000
Subject: Mean Sirius? (was Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince)
In-Reply-To: <eamg4t+gnd4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eamhqq+3b1u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156286

> > Alla:
> > 
> > Erm... I am confused. Sirius disliked Molly and Ron or Molly and 
Ron 
> > disliked him? What canon support do you have for that, if you 
don't 
> > mind?
> 
> zgirnius:
> I think I know to what Irene is referring.
> 
> In PoA Sirius breaks Ron's leg and disarms him. So I think it is 
fair 
> to say he is not acting in a likable way towards Ron. Was this 
truly 
> unavoidable? Or did Sirius simply not care, because while he was 
an 
> innocent bystander, Ron was not one of Sirius's friends?

Alla:

Yeah, that is what I thought too, but no, **simply not cared** is 
not how I would describe Sirius state after Azkaban . More like half 
insane and focused on killing Pettigrew, IMO.

And Ron did not become one of Sirius friends either when he send him 
an owl to keep, IMO. But I suppose by then Ron became a member of 
his pack? :)

I am getting more and more curious how one becomes the member of the 
Sirius' and James pack, because honestly it looks to me that all the 
members of the order and kids were **members of Sirius pack** as in 
he cared for them ( had arguments, but IMO cared for them) and was 
ready to die for them.

I mean which one of the good guys was **not** the member of Sirius' 
pack, except Snape ( if he is a good guy, hehe).


Zgirnius: 
> I'm not sure how much Peter liked adult James (he certainly did 
not act 
> like he did).
>

Alla:

I am not sure we can say whether Peter liked James or not, I mean 
one can betray out of fear and cowardice and still don't hate the 
person. IMO.

But sure that I buy, it is highly likely that Peter is the person 
who did not like adult James and Lily and Harry and Dumbledore. That 
does not seem to me to be the testimony against all those people 
characters though, Peter dislike of them, I mean. IMO of course.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 03:33:45 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:33:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likable James
References: <234.36072200.32001caf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <00e101c6b51b$4c0c3250$997e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156287

> Nikkalmati:
>
> You have brought up a very interesting point about JKR and her way of
> writing.  This scene really hits the reader in the gut.  After all the 
> build up of
> James being this great guy, we see this?  After seeing Dudley  harass and
> pummel Harry, we see this from his father?  What a shocker, and  it is 
> typical of
> JKR to turn our impressions upside down and shake us (and  Harry) up.

Magpie:
Actually, I have to pipe up here and say I was arguing for just this view of 
James pre-OotP because we did see him just this way--through the Marauders 
map!  I think we're tricked into assuming that the map takes Harry's side 
against mean teacher Snape in PoA, but to me it read like this was just the 
way the Marauders spoke to Snape when they were at school--greasy nose etc. 
EvenWormtail's getting in the insults.  McGonagall gets misty over the 
little scamp, but if you think back to your own school years, who knew the 
students more--the teachers or their peers?  Obviously their peers.

Not that Snape is unbiased by any means--but he is describing actual James 
when he talks about him being arrogant and strutting and attacking him when 
he's outnumbered.  Just as Sirius/Remus are talking about the real Snape 
when they say he's a little oddball up to his eyes in the Dark Arts. Draco 
and Harry could probably also amaze and horrify their children with 
unflattering descriptions.

Still, I have to admit I liked James a lot more after the Pensieve.  Not for 
what he does to Snape--he's a bully there.  But when he's walking around 
just being a prat, mussing his hair and being just such a jackass...he made 
me laugh.

Of course, I'm one of the people who was also arguing for more Draco pre-HBP 
and saying that I didn't think he was just Harry's childhood rival that he 
was growing out of, so I may just lean towards the designated bullies of HP 
canon.:-)

-m 





From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 03:39:26 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:39:26 EDT
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
Message-ID: <38b.d271700.320026ee@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156288

 


> Carol wrote:

> I'm completely thrown by this  particular piece of information,
> frankly. Does anyone have any ideas how  the HBP plot could have been
> interwoven with the Chamber of  Secrets/diary/Basilisk plot?

Goddlefrood suggests:

When JKR  informed us all that she had removed all traces of the HBP 
storyline from  CoS it struck me that perhaps the plot of the series 
had changed around  without actually being altered. That is the order 
of events was changed. I'm  afraid I have to say that I do not think 
Dumbledore was ever intended to  have been killed off in book 2 nor do 
I think the Advanced Potions book was  to have made its entrance that 
early.

The basic plot element that is  discovered in HBP is the existence of 
LV's cache of Horcruxes. This is what  I think JKR meant in that she 
would have introduced us to Horcruxes in Cos  (wehich would have been 
called HBP but for the alteration of the sequence of  events), and 
part of the revelation originally was to have come from the HBP  
himself (leaving us in less doubt as to his loyalties). After all, as 
we  now know the diary was a Horcrux container.

Had the Horcruxes been  introduced so early it would have made no 
sense that a hunt for the others  did not start earlier than it has. 
In fact four books later it would be  quite plausible that all 
Horcruxes had been located and neutralised /  destroyed.



Julie:
But didn't JKR also say the title of the second book was  going to
be "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"? If so, then the Half
Blood Prince was going to be present and part of the story. Which
means either Snape would have been revealed as a half-blood at
that early point (before he'd even been revealed as a Death Eater!)
or someone else--Tom Riddle--was going to be the original Half
Blood Prince. 
 
But that would mean the Marvolos were originally going to be the 
Princes. Which doesn't make sense, as Tom Marvolo Riddle is
an anagram for I Am Lord Voldemort, which I have to assume 
JKR had figured out from the very beginning. 
 
Or, perhaps Half-Blood Prince wasn't originally a play on words
based on the mother's maiden name, but was a title similar to
"Lord" Voldemort. Tom started out considering himself a prince,
and later became a lord. And he never used the title "Half-Blood
Prince" as Snape would later do, but it was going to be used 
descriptively. This would likely mean much of Tom Riddle's past
was to have been revealed in CoS, rather than saved for the
pensieve scenes between Dumbledore and Harry in HBP.  
 
Well, it makes more sense than Snape being revealed as a half
blood in CoS, or him being deeply involved enough in the storyline
for JKR to put his teenage name in the book's title. And, for me
at least, it makes more sense than getting started on the whole
horcrux stuff that early, when Voldemort is still in noncorporeal  form 
and hiding out in Albania. It seems more logical to learn more  of
Tom's history first than to reveal the way to destroy the  villian when 
he hasn't even his regained physical form (and won't for two more  books).
 
 
All IMO,
 
Julie 
 







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




From diliapacheco at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 04:30:45 2006
From: diliapacheco at yahoo.com (diliapacheco)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 04:30:45 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, wanted, dead or alive
Message-ID: <eamldm+ho51@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156289

He could not understand how it happened -- Expelliarmus was not a
Freezing Charm -- then, by the light of the Mark, he saw
Dumbledore's wand flying in an arc over the edge of the ramparts and
understood... Dumbledore had wordlessly immobilzed Harry, and the
second he had taken to perform this spell had cost him the chance of
defending himself. (HBP pg 584/545)

Isn't it possible for Dumbledore to have wordlessly protected
himself? I still believe he is alive.

"I can help you, Draco." "No, you can't," said Malfoy, his wand
shaking very badly indeed. "Nobody can. He told me to do it or he'd
kill me. I've got no choice." "He cannot kill you if you are already
dead. Come over to the right side, Draco, and we can hide you more
completely than you can possibly imagine." (HBP pg 591/552 UK Edition
"He told me to do it or he'll kill me. I've got no choice." "He
cannot kill you if you are already dead. Come over to the right side
Draco, and we can hide you more completely than you can possibly
imagine. What is more, I can send members of the Order to your
mother tonight to hide her likewise. Nobody would be surprised that
you had died in your attempt to kill me -- forgive me, but Lord
Voldemort probably expects it. Nor would the Death Eaters be
surprised that we had captured and killed your mother -- it is what
they would do themselves, after all. Your father is safe at the
moment in Azkaban...When the time comes we can protect him too. Come
over to the right side, Draco...you are not a killer..." Malfoy
stared at Dumbledore. (HBP US Edition pg 591)

"Hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine" Maybe he is
referring to making Draco "die" just like Dumbledore did, so that
people can witness it and believe that he is dead.

Plus, I can't remember, at the end, there was no body, Harry only
assumed that it was Dumbledore's body... (I'm referring at the
funeral.)

Dilia










From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 07:56:34 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 00:56:34 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore, wanted, dead or alive
In-Reply-To: <eamldm+ho51@eGroups.com>
References: <eamldm+ho51@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608010056k35f4a9fu377215d674deb516@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156290

> Dilia wrote
> ... snip quote from the tower in HBP...
> Isn't it possible for Dumbledore to have wordlessly protected
> himself? I still believe he is alive.
>
> ... snip DD's (US version) speech to Draco ...
>
> "Hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine" Maybe he is
> referring to making Draco "die" just like Dumbledore did, so that
> people can witness it and believe that he is dead.
>
> Plus, I can't remember, at the end, there was no body, Harry only
> assumed that it was Dumbledore's body... (I'm referring at the
> funeral.)


Kemper now:
The funeral did include a body wrapped in a purple (IIRC) shroud.
Harry (and the Reader) naturally assumes the body is Dumbledore's
though Harry (and the Reader) haven't seen it.

I am a believer (with a smidgen of doubt) that DD is alive.  That
said, I also believe the body Hagrid took to the tomb is Dumbledore.

Kemper, wishing Harry a happy belated



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug  1 08:43:11 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:43:11 -0000
Subject: Snape's Rotten Character (was Re: Eileen Pince)
In-Reply-To: <eal8ji+2oo4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ean46v+rrtd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156291

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:

> 
> What about the reason Snape hates LV so much is because Snape 
figured
> out that LV is responsible for something that has been done to 
Eileen?
> What if Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape 'completely' because he 
knows
> that Snape has been bent on revenge since he was a young man? 
Revenge
> for what happened to his mother?
> 
> Snape doesn't seem like the 'help humanity' type. I bet he went into
> potions and healing because he was trying to heal his mother. And I
> bet his mother needs healing because, like Morfin Gaunt and Hepzibah
> Smith, Eileen Prince had a relic Voldemort wanted. And like Morfin 
and
> Hepzibah, Voldemort couldn't kill Eileen outright because he didn't
> want the trail to lead to him. Tom Riddle didn't kill Morfin at
> all...and if Eileen Prince IS in need of healing then I don't think
> that Voldemort has the SLIGHTEST idea that Snape figured out 
Voldemort
> was responsible.
> 
> abergoat
>

It certainly is an interesting theory, but IMO Snape's hatred for LV 
surely has to involve Lily. JKR has stated we will learn something 
very important about Lily in book 7 - and for me that is her 
connection to Snape. We really have no emotional involvement in 
Eileen, so if LV's treatment of her is the reason for Snape's 
behaviour, I don't think we would care a great deal. 

What I find really fascinating is the possibility that Snape asked LV 
to spare Lily. If it wasn't for that LV would probably have instantly 
AK'd Lily. Instead he tried to spare her, which gave her the chance 
to defend Harry, which ultimately led to Lily's magic protection. 
Therefore Snape is the reason Harry defeated LV that night. This is 
also heightened by the fact that Snape gave LV the incomplete 
prophecy in the first place!!
Snape is the reason LV headed for Harry and Snape is the reason why 
Lily had the chance to protect Harry! All IMO of course.

You really have to love Snape as a character!

Brothergib








From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Tue Aug  1 08:48:18 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 09:48:18 +0100 
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicke
	d James/Siri...
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B83@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 156292

James Adds:

4. Snape had not yet fully developed the spell and the one used was the
strongest version of it he had at the time.

 

Julie:
 I guess it boils down to these three possibilities:
1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell
that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage.
2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to
cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble, because
he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason.
3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the
Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak. 
 



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




From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug  1 09:09:48 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:09:48 -0000
Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <ealkqi+5272@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ean5os+rlb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156293

<SNIP>
> But regardless what various other characters think of James, I'm 
> just curious about what JKR wanted us to think of him.  Back before 
> OOTP, I just assumed James was this heroic, very admirable guy with 
> lots of strength of character.  That was really shot to pieces when 
> I read the Snape's Worst Memory scene.  The emotional impact, for 
> me, was as though I was reading a "Harry At the Mercy of Draco" 
kind 
> of scenario, with James in the Draco role (not that I thought of 
> Snape like Harry).  But the scene was so strong and with such clear 
> bullying and cowardly behavior -- I really wondered what JKR wants 
> us to feel about James?  She *tells* us admirable things through 
the 
> memories of other characters, but she *showed* us a bully.  
<SNIP>
> wynnleaf
>

Interesting that JKR shows us this negative scene with James in, and 
we are shown that Harry is not impressed with his father's behaviour. 
In fact most people I know were shocked by this.

However, I can think of an (almost) direct comparison. When Mad 
Eye/Crouch Jr turns Draco into a ferret. I'm pretty sure that Snape 
went for his wand first to get at James, just as Draco was attempting 
to curse/hex Harry. Mad Eye/Crouch turns Draco into a ferret and then 
torments him a little bit, just as James torments Snape. Finally a 
crowd of onlookers are laughing at this display in both scenes.
The major difference between the scenes is that most of the people I 
know are actually amused by this scene. If you are honest with 
yourselves, how did it make you feel??
My feelings have always been that Draco deserved it. Why? Because I 
have seen Draco's character throughout the books and I don't like 
him, and feel he deserves to be brought down a peg or two.
In 'Snape's worst memory', I did feel sorry for Snape, but I had not 
seen Snape's character prior to this scene. If we had seen Snape as a 
student behaving like Draco, would that scene have upset us so much?

Brothergib








From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Aug  1 09:28:11 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:28:11 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eambpk+afrm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060801092811.51689.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156294


--- dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > Alla:
> > > 
> > > What is your definition of **their pack**
> though?
> 
> Irene: 
> > The Marauders, obviously. Plus maybe the
> Gryffindor, to a lesser 
> degree. 
> > Maybe James confined his bullying to outside of
> his own house. 
> That's at 
> > school. A "grown-up" Sirius cares for Harry and to
> a lesser 
> degree, 
> > Harry's friends.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I thought we were talking about grown-up James. Here
> is my question 
> then. Could you name **one** person excluding Snape
> who has one bad 
> word to say about grown up James?

But that's the point, we don't know anything about
grown-up James. The only fact we know - he was
prepared to die for his family - does not prove
anything about his character either way.

> Alla:
> 
> Erm... I am confused. Sirius disliked Molly and Ron
> or Molly and Ron 
> disliked him? What canon support do you have for
> that, if you don't 
> mind?

OK, likeable is a confusing word. You can be
unpleasant but still liked. Let's talk about decent.
My opinion is that James and Sirius didn't care about
being decent to the people outside of their pack.
Failing "the waitress test", you know.

Sirius didn't care about Ron being scared when he
stood by his bed with knife, or about Ron being hurt
in the Shrieking Shack. Was vicious with Molly when
she disagreed with him.
I would not normally count the Gryffindor portrait,
because to me the portrait is just an object, but
judging by reaction in Hogwarts, it's not so in the
wizarding world.

> Molly disliked Sirius or Sirius disliked her? Or was
> it more like 
> two fellow Order members fighting over the wellfare
> of the boy they 
> both loved?

I hope I clarified it above. But on top of it, I think
Molly genuinely disapproved of Sirius as well. Nothing
to do with my argument here, though.
 
> And Sirius not liking Harry, not loving him? Are you
> arguing that 
> **one** hurtful remark takes precedent over Sirius
> rushing to help 
> Harry when he needed it in GoF, when Sirius rushed
> to save Harry in 
> OOP?

Sirius loved Harry, granted. But he only liked him
when Harry was willing to behave in a way that pleased
Sirius. When Harry for once in his life didn't want to
be reckless, out came the vicious and hurtful nature.

> 
> What do you mean when you wrote Harry ""stopped
> playing by the rules 
> of the pack"? Who invented those rules?

Sirius and James, obviously. I don't think we'll get
ESE!Lupin, but Pippin's doubts about what would have
happened between Marauders if Lupin said "I don't want
to run as werewolf anymore, I'll just stay quietly in
my room" - they are quite founded, IMO.

> 
> I am sorry, I cannot buy your examples, I don't find
> them convincing 
> at all. JMHO.

Never expected otherwise. That's not why we are
talking. :-)

> Alla:
> 
> You said that they were only likeable to their pack.

I said that they only bothered to be decent,
honourable and friendly towards members of their pack.

>  
> Irene:
> > Yes, that's right. The limited number of people,
> not including 
> those 
> > James apparently hexed at will. They couldn't have
> all been 
> Snape. :-)
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Names, please? :) 

Sorry, Lily didn't bother to provide names. :-) And I
didn't know we were speaking about grown-up James
exclusively, would be difficult, what with the canon
having no information whatsoever.

Irene


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html



From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 09:29:42 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 09:29:42 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re:  muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <ealin0+g04p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ean6u6+jk4s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156295

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> But there was a huge difference. Harry learned to cast a Patronus
> using a Boggart that took the form of a Dementor, so he not only 
knew
> the spell but could cast it even while Dementors were sucking out 
his
> happiness (and, of course, he also saw his future self driving away
> Dementors and knew he could do it). The DA members can cast the 
spell
> in the RoR, but they've never used it against even a Boggart
> Dementor--and no one but Harry has a Dementor Boggart, as far as we
> know. 

PJ:

But since the DA meetings were all held in the ROR, anything 
required is available for the asking.  Perhaps even a boggart or two 
to practice on?  The DA members could request the room tuck a couple 
of boggarts in a bureau drawer or something handy like that.  

If Harry himself let it out we know it would turn into a dementor 
and we also know once they're released anyone can interact with it 
(ie: Molly's greatest fears).  So first the kids would learn the 
charm well enough to do it quickly, then they could "graduate" to 
actually working on Harry's boggart-dementors for a taste of the 
real thing.    

>justcarol: 
> Maybe the other DA members, at least the core half dozen, will be 
able
> to use their Patronuses (Patroni?) to communicate with each other, 
but
> I think only Harry can actually use a Patronus to drive away a
> Dementor. 

PJ:

You may be right but the way JKR brought all the parts together... 
the entire DA (including Neville!) able to create something as 
difficult and *advanced* as a corporeal patronus, the ROR, the 
dementors breeding... it just screams dementor attack in book 7 to 
me.  And I'll go out even further on this limb and say the dementor 
attack will either happen at the wedding or in Hogsmead when the 
kids are there for their outing. <g>
 
> Carol, who thinks we'll hear more from some of the DA members but 
that
> they won't be fighting Dementors in book 7
>
PJ,  Who feels the sole purpose of JKR spending so much time telling 
us about how well everyone in the DA learned it was so she could 
have fun writing a huge battle scene between the kids and dementors 
in book 7... 








From random832 at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 12:19:05 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:19:05 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <eam8na+h2dj@eGroups.com>
References: <eam170+193g@eGroups.com> <eam8na+h2dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608010519u4348c72esc68c76f35f758dc6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156296

Abergoat:
> Yes, and why Neville said his family thought he was 'all muggle' for
> ages in PS/SS! Had JKR not developed the term squib yet?

They could be interchangeable. there's no textual basis for there
being any real difference between squibs and muggles, any more than
between muggleborn and pureblood/halfblood/second-gen wizards.
Remember, "you are either magical or you are not".

> Or is squib a term that 'polite' society avoids?

It could be that "squib" is to "wizard-born muggle" as "mudblood" is
to "muggle-born wizard".



From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 12:25:43 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 05:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James
In-Reply-To: <234.36072200.32001caf@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20060801122543.45869.qmail@web61321.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156297

Nikkalmati:

You have brought up a very interesting point about JKR and her way of 
writing. This scene really hits the reader in the gut. After all the build up of 
James being this great guy, we see this? After seeing Dudley harass and 
pummel Harry, we see this from his father? What a shocker, and it is typical of 
JKR to turn our impressions upside down and shake us (and Harry) up.
I can believe that teenaged boys can be aggressive (what are sports for 
after all? ), but not all are bullies. There was a thread several months ago 
about how horrible this experience would be for a teenage boy (Snape). 
   
  Joe: 
   
  Sorry but teenage boys are just that agressive and most do or have done what you call bullying. At different levels certainly but most do it in some form or another.
   
  No offense but I was a teenage boy and I could not fathom how that could be anywhere near the worst memory for Snape. Lots worse happens to boys that age all the time and frankly it made me think even more poorly of Snape than I already did
   
  Nikkalmati:
Someone mentioned the worst humiliation for a boy this age is to be "pantsed" and 
this is what is about to happen in the part we don't see.
   
  Joe:
   
  They were wrong. Very, very wrong.
   
  Nikkalmati:
   Also, having a 
girl come to your rescue would be humiliation in turn. There is no way to 
"spin" this scene as positive for James and Co. JKR even lays it on thicker by 
telling us he hexed other people in the halls and we know he probably has a 
drawer to himself ,or shared with Sirius, in Filch's office. What kind of 
excuse does Sirius give Harry? He says something like - he grew out of it 
(except for Snape, of course). 
   
  Joe:
   
  But we know that lots of students hex each other. Remember in HBP Lupin tells Harry that Levicorpus was very popular in his time. He also goes on to state that "You know that these spells come and go out of fashion." meaning Harry sees it in his times well. Add in all the mentions of people trying to hex the members of various Quidditch teams and it seems pretty clear that JKR was showing us that this scene while perhaps instructive is by no means limited to James and Sirius. She has told us for a fact that students hex each other all the time.


Nikkalmati:
  I think JKR likes to shatter our conceptions of people in her books. I 
expect more of these revelations in Book 7. It is part of the excitement and 
suspense of reading HP. She wants also to show that James was human, but why no 
balancing with a good scene of some kind? I believe his having witnessed 
the memory in the Pensieve will help Harry in Book 7 to reconcile with Snape in 
some way. He did have a momentary sympathy for Snape and think JKR will 
use this memory and also sympathy for Draco to bring Harry to a more tolerant 
and inclusive view of the world, before he smashes LV to a pulp 

Joe:
   
  How so? To show a teenage James hexing Snape is going to cause Harry to forgive Snape for the deaths of his parents or for joining a group of people set on genocide? Or to forgive Draco for Dumbledore's death and Bill's disfigurement?
   
  Exactly how can you draw an equivalence between what amounts to a prank though maybe a mean spirited one and several other actions that lead to the deaths of others? Both Snape and Draco knew that working for Voldemort would lead to peoples deaths and trying to draw any paralell between that and James being a bit stupid is ridiculous.
   
  It is like saying I should forgive my wife for shooting me because I left the toliet seat up.
   
  Joe







.










From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Aug  1 13:40:29 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:40:29 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801092811.51689.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eanlkd+2ab6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156298

Irene: 
> But that's the point, we don't know anything about
> grown-up James. The only fact we know - he was
> prepared to die for his family - does not prove
> anything about his character either way.

Pippin:
We do know some other things. James defied Voldemort
three times. That took rare courage, especially since as
a pureblood it wasn't his fight.

 We're also told that saving Pettigrew from
the vengeance of Sirius and Lupin is something that James 
would have done. In other words, he would have opposed his
friends if he thought what they were doing was wrong.  JKR
has already made it clear that she thinks this is the highest 
form of moral courage. 

I think the pensieve scene is there to make us think about
the possibility  that James *did* change. If we believe what
Sirius says about him, he really was a bully and a law unto himself
for a while, until something  "deflated his head a bit" as Sirius put it. 
And I think we are supposed to be wondering what that thing
was. 

Pippin







From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Tue Aug  1 13:28:38 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:28:38 +0100 
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Prince
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B8B@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 156299

My impression is that there is no actual difference between a squib and a
muggle. The name is probably a derivative of "damp squib" (A small explosive
that fails to go off) and carries the suggestion that squibs really should
have been magical (Due to heritage) but failed to go off.

 

There is a social difference as well, in the general case muggles have no
idea about the magical world, by their very nature the squibs were born into
a world they will never be full members of, so this provides a strong
separation between them and muggles even without any physiological
difference.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com [mailto:HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Jordan Abel
Sent: 01 August 2006 13:19
To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Eileen Prince

 

Abergoat:
> Yes, and why Neville said his family thought he was 'all muggle' for
> ages in PS/SS! Had JKR not developed the term squib yet?

They could be interchangeable. there's no textual basis for there
being any real difference between squibs and muggles, any more than
between muggleborn and pureblood/halfblood/second-gen wizards.
Remember, "you are either magical or you are not".

> Or is squib a term that 'polite' society avoids?

It could be that "squib" is to "wizard-born muggle" as "mudblood" is
to "muggle-born wizard".

 



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




From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 14:26:01 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:26:01 -0000
Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <ean5os+rlb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eano9p+n9kd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156300

Brothergib:

> However, I can think of an (almost) direct comparison. When Mad 
> Eye/Crouch Jr turns Draco into a ferret. I'm pretty sure that 
Snape 
> went for his wand first to get at James, just as Draco was 
attempting 
> to curse/hex Harry. 

Magpie:
Interesting that you're pretty sure, because you're incorrect.  
Snape only takes out his wand at James' intentionally provocational 
shout.  James already has his wand out, ready to hex him.  Draco 
went to his wand after Harry insulted him and was walking away. 
You've left out another "major difference" in the scene, which is 
that Moody is actually a psychotic Death Eater punishing the son of 
a Death Eater who went free.  Draco "deserving it" for throwing a 
hex is only one level of the scene.  Had it been another kid Harry 
and his friends might have been more suspicious of Moody.  As it 
was, the fact that Crouch's hatred overlapped with their own allowed 
him to show himself without being noticed.  Had he bounced one of 
the Weasley Twins or Harry himself for throwing a hex at someone 
(something spoken of and done casually enough throughout the series) 
he would have become a villain at that moment.

Brothergib:
 If we had seen Snape as a 
> student behaving like Draco, would that scene have upset us so 
much?

Magpie:
Probably not, I agree.  Harry himself says just that when he thinks 
the scene would be fine if done to Draco.  Harry also loses sympathy 
for Snape when he has to deal with him as an adult.  But does that 
mean Harry's instinctive reaction to the scene is completely wrong?  
I'm not so sure.

-m






From Cherokee.Angels at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 09:01:21 2006
From: Cherokee.Angels at gmail.com (Cherokee Angels)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 04:01:21 -0500
Subject: Dumbledore, wanted, dead or alive
References: <eamldm+ho51@eGroups.com> <700201d40608010056k35f4a9fu377215d674deb516@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <046001c6b549$13c649c0$0300a8c0@aurora>

No: HPFGUIDX 156301

I have a few things I want to add to this subject for all to think about. I
still believe that He is alive and well and hiding and this is why I think this
again.

First I don't think that DD is dead............ I see too many things that could
be happening with this. First off we know that when Harry and DD went to the
cave to get the locket it was told to Harry that no matter what Harry had to
make DD drink the poison. If the poison was the same when the first locket was
replaced with the fact then it killed RAB also. Because he would have to drink
it to get the locket in the first place. But what if when he got the real locket
you replaced the poison with a draughting poison that would seem to make the
person look like they were died. It Book 6 the Potions teacher was teaching the
class how to make this poison. And in the very First story Snape told the class
that he could teach them a poison that would cheat death and also make them look
like they were dieing. OR something to those words. I am not much for exact
wording...............lol
Now back to my train of thought...........lol What if RAB replaced the first
poison with this draughting poison after drinking the real poison to replace the
fake locket. What if the two poisons looked the same and no one could see the
difference. So I think that DD drank the draughting poison believing that he was
dying and Harry also believing the same. So before not knowing what DD would be
facing when he got there He asked Snape and made him give him the same type of
Unbreakable Vow, That so that DD would die a noble death to kill him so that he
would not die a unforgivable painful death. But if I think that this Draughting
poison works the way I think it does it would protect him from the unforgivable
curse. OR to a point protect him. I believe that DD at the funeral was the
Phoenix that Harry saw in the smoke. I think that we might see that DD knew that
Harry would not try to stop LV if DD was there to help him and Harry needs to do
it all on his own for it to work.,_._,___

Cherokee Angels






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  1 15:25:41 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:25:41 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B8B@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <eanrpl+j5pi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156302

James Sharman wrote:
>
> The name is probably a derivative of "damp squib" (A small explosive
> that fails to go off) 

Abergoat responds:

Thanks for the origins of the words squib. So it looks like the
possibility does exist that the people in Snape's memory (if they were
not Eileen and Tobias) could have been relatives of Tobias OR Eileen.
I do think the books at Spinner's End are Eileen's though. Perhaps the
house was too, Mr Prince could have been a muggle - or descended from
muggles.

James Sharman wrote:

> It could be that "squib" is to "wizard-born muggle" as "mudblood" is
> to "muggle-born wizard".

Abergoat responds:

Very well put. From the courtroom scene where Mrs. Figg came to
testify on Harry's behalf I didn't get the idea that the wizards in
charge bothered with distinctions. If you were non-magical they didn't
care what your origins were...because, like the Black Family Tapestry,
you ceased to exist of you were a squib.

A group I posted with on a forum toyed with the idea that Eileen had a
Ravenclaw wand relic taken from her by Voldemort. Then Irma and Filch
(relatives of Eileen or Tobias) 'filched' the wand back (now a
horcrux) and Irma is hiding it in her featherduster. So Filch's
prowling is more for the protection of Irma and the wand than students. 

If true I doubt they told Dumbledore - they would consider it a family
heirloom and no one else's business - and of course they have NO idea
it is a horcrux. They may not even know Voldemort had taken it because
he may have hidden it at the scene of the crime not anticipating they
would find it (Perhaps Mrs Norris found it! lol). I think the idea has
promise because it echoes Hagrid hiding his broken wand in an umbrella
- another 'strange' muggle object. Why does Irma, a witch, need a
featherduster to dust books?

And both objects (umbrella/featherduster) give the carrier an excuse
to have them about their person all the time. Perhaps Irma needed the
knee-length veil in HBP to hide the featherduster hanging at her belt!
(lol) But hiding a devastated face (from knowledge of Snape's actions)
is more likely. Sigh. But I still think it is a fun idea.

Abergoat









From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 15:28:28 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:28:28 -0000
Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eano9p+n9kd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eanrus+f2ub@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156303

Brothergib
> However, I can think of an (almost) direct comparison. When Mad 
> Eye/Crouch Jr turns Draco into a ferret. I'm pretty sure that Snape 
> went for his wand first to get at James, just as Draco was attempting 
> to curse/hex Harry. Mad Eye/Crouch turns Draco into a ferret and then 
> torments him a little bit, just as James torments Snape. Finally a 
> crowd of onlookers are laughing at this display in both scenes.
> The major difference between the scenes is that most of the people I 
> know are actually amused by this scene. If you are honest with 
> yourselves, how did it make you feel??

When I first read GOF, it was at the end of back to back readings of
the first 4 books.  That was back when I thought of the injuries
people went through in a sort of cartoonish way, or like when Raol
Dahl's characters get hurt.  By the end of GOF, I completely changed
my mind on that -- it was clear that people in HP aren't supposed to
be cartooned or Dahl types, even if their names are often funny. 
Following that realization, I realized that what happened to Draco in
GOF is Not right.  Hermione, in fact, points that out right after that
scene.  I noticed in the film they left out Moody actually bouncing
Draco/ferret painfully on the pavement.  Maybe the filmmakers realized
that the "good" students wouldn't look nearly so nice if they were
actually viewed in a film laughing at that.

In any case, at that point I think JKR wanted the reader to feel what
Harry felt -- Draco is finally getting what he deserved.  Then JKR has
Hermione state the truth.  What fake-Moody did was wrong and Draco
could have been seriously injured.

But in the Snape's Worst Memory scene, we're again supposed to see it
from Harry's viewpoint.  Only this time, Harry is watching some
teenagers who he's never really seen (at least as teens) before.  At
that point, the reality of what is going on is much more plain to
Harry than when Moody hexed Draco.

Joe:

<Sorry but teenage boys are just that agressive and most do or have
<done what
<you call bullying. At different levels certainly but most do it in
<some form or
<another.

wynnleaf
While I'm sure this is the way you experienced things, apparently
that's not a general "truth."  As a mom of three teenagers, I've been
pretty interested in this aspect of the conversation, and so started
asking my kids and their friends (and boyfriends).  It all depends on
how you look at what James and Sirius were doing.  If you see it as
equivalent to mild pranks, then yes, most guys pull pranks on each
other at one time or another.  But if you see if as equivalent to
accosting another kid without provocation, and having your friend hold
him down while you and your friend hit and insult him -- well, that's
not *nearly* a common thing and seems to be regarded by the kids I
asked as bullying behavior.

As regards the "pantsed" thing, I do recall a specific instance among
my kid's friends of a teenager who *was* pretty destressed when that
kind of prank was pulled on him, and he was a fairly popular kid with
lots of public support.  I know that's anecdotal, but I'm not trying
to say, Joe, that you're *wrong,* exactly, but that it's not
necessarily the same among all teenage guys everywhere.

Joe
<How so? To show a teenage James hexing Snape is going to cause Harry <to
<forgive Snape for the deaths of his parents or for joining a group of
<people set
<on genocide? Or to forgive Draco for Dumbledore's death and Bill's
<disfigurement?

wynnleaf
I don't think anyone really expects Harry to be forgiving Snape if
Snape is really an evil Death Eater who murdered Dumbledore. 
Obviously, this is assuming Snape's loyal and Harry will need to
forgive him to get on with destroying LV.  In which case, he'll need
to find it in himself to forgive Snape's initially joining LV and
taking the prophecy to LV.  Understanding the nature of the hatred
between Snape and James *may* help in that, particularly if Harry sees
that much of the blame for the enmity between Snape and James lies
with James.

Brothergib:
>If we had seen Snape as a
> student behaving like Draco, would that scene have upset us so
>much?

wynnleaf
Probably not.  But the fact is, we *haven't* seen that, have we?  We
know that adult Snape comes across as pretty bitter and verbally
abusive.  But we don't really know for sure what Snape was like in
school.  Sure, we've got the reports of Sirius and Lupin, but since
they were part of the Marauders, who we *know* from the pensieve scene
were bullying toward him, we can't really be certain of the complete
veracity of their opinions.  Not that they'd necessarily intentionally
lie about Snape to Harry, but it's pretty typical for people to try to
rationalize or downplay their bullying behavior.  As far as concrete
evidence, we don't have much.  I find it interesting that in Harry's
detention in HBP, he finds many, many files about the Marauder's
misdeeds, but apparently none about Snape's.  Of course, that could
just mean that Snape was better about not getting caught -- but once
again, if we're just looking for concrete evidence of Snape being just
as bad as the Marauders, JKR hasn't given it to us yet.  

Back to my original thought about why JKR doesn't actually show us
scenes with a good James -- I don't know.  But it's interesting.  The
best things we know about James (character, not talent, that is), is
that Lily came to love him, Hagrid appears to have liked him, and DD
says that James would have acted much like Harry did toward Peter.  We
know he served with the Order, defied LV 3 times, and died trying to
protect his family.  On the converse side (character wise), we know he
acted like an arrogant bully, probably to more than just Snape, that
he got into a lot of trouble in school, a number of people in school
seemed to consider him arrogant.  On balance, we see a person with
some major strengths as well as big weaknesses.  It's just interesting
to me that the weaknesses are more dramatically communicated by JKR,
because she shows us them in an action/dialogue sequence rather than
another character simply retelling some info about James.

wynnleaf
wynnleaf






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug  1 15:45:49 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 15:45:49 -0000
Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eano9p+n9kd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156305

 
> 
> Magpie:
> Interesting that you're pretty sure, because you're incorrect.  
> Snape only takes out his wand at James' intentionally provocational 
> shout.  James already has his wand out, ready to hex him.  


Brothergib - OK, you got me. That is the problem of emailing at work 
with no 'canon' to rely on.


> You've left out another "major difference" in the scene, which is 
> that Moody is actually a psychotic Death Eater punishing the son of 
> a Death Eater who went free.  Draco "deserving it" for throwing a 
> hex is only one level of the scene.  Had it been another kid Harry 
> and his friends might have been more suspicious of Moody.  

Brothergib - My point here is that Draco is being abused/bullied in a 
similar manner to Snape. It is irrelevant who is doing the bullying. 
Because we have seen how Draco behaves prior to this point, we do not 
feel much sympathy. We have not seen how Snape behaved prior to the 
Pensieve scene, and therefore we do not have a reason to believe that 
Snape deserved this treatment at the hands of James.

> 
> Magpie:
> Probably not, I agree.  Harry himself says just that when he thinks 
> the scene would be fine if done to Draco.  Harry also loses 
sympathy 
> for Snape when he has to deal with him as an adult.  But does that 
> mean Harry's instinctive reaction to the scene is completely 
wrong?  
>

Brothergib - I am not stating in any way that Harry's instinctive 
reaction is wrong. I am trying to make the point that we seem to 
think badly of James because of how he treats Snape, but we do not 
think badly of Moody for how he treats Draco. I would even suggest 
that we still don't think that badly of Mad Eye Crouch in this 
particular scene even now we know exactly what he is! We are getting 
into theological waters here - Eye for an Eye etc.
We know how Draco has treated Harry prior to this scene.
We do not know how Snape treated James prior to the pensieve scene.
If we had seen Snape treating James badly prior to this scene - would 
we still feel sympathy for Snape?






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 16:00:58 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:00:58 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eantrr+pm4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156306

> Irene: 
> > But that's the point, we don't know anything about
> > grown-up James. The only fact we know - he was
> > prepared to die for his family - does not prove
> > anything about his character either way.
> 
> Pippin:
> We do know some other things. James defied Voldemort
> three times. That took rare courage, especially since as
> a pureblood it wasn't his fight.
> 
>  We're also told that saving Pettigrew from
> the vengeance of Sirius and Lupin is something that James 
> would have done. In other words, he would have opposed his
> friends if he thought what they were doing was wrong.  JKR
> has already made it clear that she thinks this is the highest 
> form of moral courage. 

Alla:

We also know per JKR's interview that both James and Lily worked 
while they did not have to do so, to me that speaks rather good of 
their nature. That they did not just set to enjoy their wealth, etc.

Irene:
> OK, likeable is a confusing word. You can be
> unpleasant but still liked. Let's talk about decent.
> My opinion is that James and Sirius didn't care about
> being decent to the people outside of their pack.
> Failing "the waitress test", you know.

Alla:

What is the waitress test? :) I have just couple more questions and 
them we  will just agree to disagree :) Just want to be absolutely 
clear, in your opinion Weasleys do not belong to the members of the 
Sirius' pack?

Or maybe we should switch from **pack** to friends?

Irene:
> Sirius didn't care about Ron being scared when he
> stood by his bed with knife, or about Ron being hurt
> in the Shrieking Shack.

Alla:

but isn't it the point in Sirius' favor that the moment he started to 
feel a bit less insane, he started caring for Ron? That they did 
become friendly afterwards?

Irene:
 Was vicious with Molly when
> she disagreed with him.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Just to be clear, we are still talking about that one remark, right? 
Well, he was. I would have been too, to tell you the truth. I 
understand Molly's concerns, but I would have at the very least told 
her to shut up.

Irene:
> I hope I clarified it above. But on top of it, I think
> Molly genuinely disapproved of Sirius as well. Nothing
> to do with my argument here, though.

Alla:

Yes, you did, but do you have the support for Molly genuinely 
dissaproving of Sirius in general? Just wondering.

  
Alla:
> > I am sorry, I cannot buy your examples, I don't find
> > them convincing 
> > at all. JMHO.
Irene: 
> Never expected otherwise. That's not why we are
> talking. :-)

Alla:

Of course, we are not talking to convince each other that the other 
one is wrong. We are talking to have fun. What I meant though that 
there are some ( not many, but some) hard canon facts,which  IMO one 
has no choice but to bow to, even if one does not want to, because 
one cannot interpret them the other way. I just don't find your 
examples to be of that variety, that is all.

For example, you know what I think about Snape. :) But there is 
**one** piece of canon that I cannot explain away as him being a 
bastard, so while it does not convince me of Snape being good or 
anything like that, it sure is a hint to me that maybe he has some 
human feelings left in him. Because as you also know one of the 
biggest things I held against Snape is him not expressing any other 
feelings but hate.

The examples of Sirius hurting Ron just out of Azkaban, when he was 
ready to hurt everybody just does not cut it for me as Sirius being 
mean to Ron.

Because I think that **anybody** just out of Azkaban would be in the 
half insane or fully insane mental state. And I just cannot judge 
their true nature,when they are insane. I would not even judge Snape, 
if he would be out of Azkaban. IMO of course. 

> > Alla:
> > 
> > You said that they were only likeable to their pack.

Irene: 
> I said that they only bothered to be decent,
> honourable and friendly towards members of their pack.

Alla:

Well, the original post talked about likeable James, no? 

> Brothergib:
>  If we had seen Snape as a 
> > student behaving like Draco, would that scene have upset us so 
> much?
> 
> Magpie:
> Probably not, I agree.  Harry himself says just that when he thinks 
> the scene would be fine if done to Draco.  Harry also loses 
sympathy 
> for Snape when he has to deal with him as an adult.  But does that 
> mean Harry's instinctive reaction to the scene is completely 
wrong?  
> I'm not so sure.

Alla:

Hmmm, I am pretty sure that Harry's instinctive reaction to the scene 
is right,**but** I also think that we will find out more about the 
reasons for their animosity.

Heeee, but on the other hand, is Harry only right when he feels 
sympathy for Snape? Is his instinctive reaction to what occurred on 
the Tower also right? Because I think that it absolutely is, although 
we may find out more about that. ( just thinking, Magpie, not really 
replying to you in the last sentence).

But as to the whether the scene would have upset us if Snape behaved 
as Draco. But I already know that he behaves horribly as an adult IMO 
of course and I just cannot buy him being quiet and introverted child 
at school either, maybe the one who quietly created deadly curses :), 
we also know that half of the school knew Levicorpus and unless it is 
spelled out in canon that somebody ( marauders or whoever) stole the 
book from Snape, I will go with Snape demonstrating curse on somebody 
or to his Slytherin friends.
Nothing of that has to do with bullying obviously, but with having 
sympathy for Snape.
It is indeed fun to shatter the perceptions of the characters and 
pick them up again.

Brothergib:
<SNIP>
> We know how Draco has treated Harry prior to this scene.
> We do not know how Snape treated James prior to the pensieve scene.
> If we had seen Snape treating James badly prior to this scene - 
would 
> we still feel sympathy for Snape?

Alla:

Yeah, and look how slowly JKR introduces the possibility that Snape 
may 
have treated Marauders badly too. In OOP we only hear Sirius' " James 
always hated Dark Arts" ,which sounds as Sirius justifying James 
behaviour, while in HBP we already see that Snape created at least 
one 
deadly curse, from which person can bleed to death,if not healed as 
aptly demonstrated.

No, Snape is of course not shown to do something horrible to 
marauders 
at school yet, although I would say he had plenty of revenge after 
school on Potters family, but we already know that even in horrible 
Pensieve scene he receives back what he created himself.

I do wonder what we will learn about their relationship in book 7. 
With 
the introduction of Black family tree, I am even more convinced that 
either Snape and James or Snape and Sirius were somehow related. 

JMHO,

Alla







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Aug  1 16:15:43 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 17:15:43 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eanstd+pslj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060801161543.43715.qmail@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156307


--- dumbledore11214 <dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Alla:
> 
> We also know per JKR's interview that both James and
> Lily worked 
> while they did not have to do so, to me that speaks
> rather good of 
> their nature. That they did not just set to enjoy
> their wealth, etc.

Oh, how good-natured it is of Lucius Malfoy then not
to sit on his wealth, but to be so involved with the
running of the Ministry and Hogwarts. ;-)

(I'm not being serious with the above, you don't have
to point to the differences).

> Alla:
> 
> What is the waitress test? :)

Now, that's complete off-topic. Basically, it's how to
find out that your date is a jerk, even if he treats
*you* nicely. Look how he is with the waitress, or the
shop assistant, or anyone else "neutral", that he does
not need to charm, or has no particular reason to like
personally.

And to bring it back on topic, there was some related
canonical bit of wisdom, something about observing how
a man treats his inferiors. :-)

> I have just couple
> more questions and 
> them we  will just agree to disagree :) Just want to
> be absolutely 
> clear, in your opinion Weasleys do not belong to the
> members of the 
> Sirius' pack?

The children became a part, after he found out they
are Harry's friends. Not so sure about the adults.

> Alla:
> 
> but isn't it the point in Sirius' favor that the
> moment he started to 
> feel a bit less insane, he started caring for Ron?
> That they did 
> become friendly afterwards?

I think the reason for a change is that Ron stopped to
be just an anonymous guy, and became Harry's friends
in Sirius's eyes.
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, you did, but do you have the support for Molly
> genuinely 
> dissaproving of Sirius in general? Just wondering.

Nope, just a gut feeling. What with her wanting to cut
Bill's hair and her attitude to Mundungus, I have a
feeling Sirius is not her kind of guy.

> Irene: 
> > I said that they only bothered to be decent,
> > honourable and friendly towards members of their
> pack.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, the original post talked about likeable James,
> no? 

That's why I said likeable is a confusing word. I
didn't realise you mean it in a sense "being liked by
the others", I was thinking of this:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likeable

Irene


	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html



From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 16:30:28 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:30:28 -0000
Subject: Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eanvj4+qmnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156308

> Brothergib - OK, you got me. That is the problem of emailing at 
work 
> with no 'canon' to rely on.

Magpie:
No problem--I do that sort of thing all the time!

Brothergib:
I am not stating in any way that Harry's instinctive 
> reaction is wrong. I am trying to make the point that we seem to 
> think badly of James because of how he treats Snape, but we do not 
> think badly of Moody for how he treats Draco. I would even suggest 
> that we still don't think that badly of Mad Eye Crouch in this 
> particular scene even now we know exactly what he is! We are 
getting 
> into theological waters here - Eye for an Eye etc.
> We know how Draco has treated Harry prior to this scene.
> We do not know how Snape treated James prior to the pensieve scene.
> If we had seen Snape treating James badly prior to this scene - 
would 
> we still feel sympathy for Snape?

Magpie:
Oh yes--sorry, I didn't make that clear.  I'm agreeing with you.  I 
don't think we would feel the same sympathy had we seen Snape 
treating James badly prior to this scene. In fact, I think Snape 
probably *did* treat James badly prior to this scene, and that if we 
were reading the story of the Marauder years Snape would play a very 
similar role to Draco in the story--maybe a worse role since in 
Harry's time Snape himself draws a lot of animosity that might 
otherwise have been more focused on Draco.  I don't actually take 
James' "because he exists" as being just James picking on him for no 
reason--I think in James' head it is connected to Snape's 
association in his mind with the Dark Arts etc.

But I think that's the interesting thing about it, because within 
this scene James isn't getting Snape back or doing anything noble, 
he's just having fun.  During HBP Harry himself starts hexing people 
in the hallways--he gets Filch (a Squib), Goyle (with whom he has a 
history but doesn't seem to have been going after him at the time), 
is looking for an opportunity to try out Sectumsempra on McLaggen.  
Harry has negative experiences with all these people. It seems like 
the "eye for an eye" mentality is being intentionally challenged or 
analyzed.

Alla:

Hmmm, I am pretty sure that Harry's instinctive reaction to the scene
is right,**but** I also think that we will find out more about the
reasons for their animosity.

Magpie:
Me too.  And it's already muddy, as you pointed out.  The HBP's book 
obviously didn't belong to last generation's Neville Longbottom. 

Remember too that the Pensieve memory was something Snape was trying 
to hide, I assume because it was humiliating to him.  So when we 
think how we haven't heard about Snape mistreating the Marauders--
they're not going to tell Harry that anyway any more than Snape 
intentionally told Harry about the Pensieve. Sure they'll say Snape 
was a little spy trying to get them in trouble and deserved what he 
got, or that he was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts, knew hexes, was 
a greasy little oddball, went around with a gang of Slytherins.  But 
they've got no more desire to come off like a pathetic victim than 
Snape does.  Or Harry does--he complains about the Dursley's 
treatment, especially the way he's 
outnumbered/outweighed/overpowered, but he never honestly tries to 
gain sympathy by explaining how they hurt him.  Draco, if asked why 
he hated Harry, I doubt would ever admit Harry hurt his feelings and 
made him feel worthless.  Nor would Harry ever say Draco ever really 
made him feel badly. The correct stance to take always is that that 
other person is a jerk and that makes you hate him, but however many 
times he tries desperately to hurt you, even in a totally unfair 
fight, he doesn't, because you are above him.

-m







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 15:58:27 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eanrus+f2ub@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060801155827.17614.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156309



wynnleaf:
While I'm sure this is the way you experienced things, apparently
that's not a general "truth." As a mom of three teenagers, I've been
pretty interested in this aspect of the conversation, and so started
asking my kids and their friends (and boyfriends). It all depends on
how you look at what James and Sirius were doing. If you see it as
equivalent to mild pranks, then yes, most guys pull pranks on each
other at one time or another. But if you see if as equivalent to
accosting another kid without provocation, and having your friend hold
him down while you and your friend hit and insult him -- well, that's
not *nearly* a common thing and seems to be regarded by the kids I
asked as bullying behavior.
   
  Joe:
   
  No offense intended at all but are you sure your kids and their friends didn't just tell you what they thought you wanted to hear? Honestly if they had done those things do you think they would just tell you?
   
  Even so if I am right neither Sirius nor James used any spell that harmed Snape beyond his being embarassed so wouldn't that fit your kids idea of a prank? As far as I remember only Snape used a spell that caused  bodily harm so only that would be anywhere near related to punching someone.
  
Wynnleaf:
  As regards the "pantsed" thing, I do recall a specific instance among
my kid's friends of a teenager who *was* pretty destressed when that
kind of prank was pulled on him, and he was a fairly popular kid with
lots of public support. I know that's anecdotal, but I'm not trying
to say, Joe, that you're *wrong,* exactly, but that it's not
necessarily the same among all teenage guys everywhere.

Joe:
   
  Somehow I don't think that Snape is so weak willed that a little embarassment would bother him so.


wynnleaf
I don't think anyone really expects Harry to be forgiving Snape if
Snape is really an evil Death Eater who murdered Dumbledore. 
Obviously, this is assuming Snape's loyal and Harry will need to
forgive him to get on with destroying LV. In which case, he'll need
to find it in himself to forgive Snape's initially joining LV and
taking the prophecy to LV. Understanding the nature of the hatred
between Snape and James *may* help in that, particularly if Harry sees
that much of the blame for the enmity between Snape and James lies
with James.

  Joe:
   I don't see Harry being able to forgive Snape if he's good or evil. Snape's actions led to the death of his parents. Dumbledore's death aside. Harry has no reason to forgive Snape.


I think we see the measure of James Potter in the regard the good guys had for him. I know it might not be politically correct but their opinions should matter more than others. At least in the HP universe there are truly good guys and truly bad ones.
   
  As for Snape do we need to see scenes of him doing "bad" things? He joined the Death Eaters right out of Hogwarts. You don't just wake up one day and decide to join a band of genocidal murderers and thugs. 
   
  Joe







 		





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 16:46:59 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 16:46:59 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eantrr+pm4j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eao0i3+7me3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156310

> Alla:
> The examples of Sirius hurting Ron just out of Azkaban, when he was 
> ready to hurt everybody just does not cut it for me as Sirius being 
> mean to Ron.
> 
> Because I think that **anybody** just out of Azkaban would be in the 
> half insane or fully insane mental state. And I just cannot judge 
> their true nature,when they are insane. I would not even judge Snape, 
> if he would be out of Azkaban. IMO of course. 

zgirnius:
Sirius escaped from Azkaban in late July/early August. His attack on 
the Fat Lady (if we choose to count her as a 'person' whose feelings 
are worthy of some consideration) occurred Halloween night, three 
months later. The incident in which he seemed to be attacking Ron with 
a knife occurred well after the Christmas break. And the Shrieking 
Shack incident occured during final exams.

He wasn't 'just' out of Azkaban. By the time of his first attack on 
Ron, he had already befriended Crookshanks and arranged the purchase of 
a new broom for Harry, not the acts of a totally crazed man. It 
involved both the mental capacity to plan, and an ability to connect 
emotionally with others. And he'd seen Ron's terrified reaction to the 
first incident, and had to be aware Ron's friendship with Harry, and 
yet he was still willing to cause Ron a painful injury at the end of 
the year. 

I have to agree with Irene to some extent. He lacks empathy for people 
he does not already like. To me, personally, this is a flaw in his 
personality I can forgive. There is certainly a lot to admire in his 
exceptional courage and devotion to those he does count as friends.









From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 17:04:39 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 10:04:39 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>
References: <eano9p+n9kd@eGroups.com> <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608011004h4c974522yc91d42cba3eb0146@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156311

> > Magpie wrote:   You've left out another "major difference" in the scene, which is
> > that Moody is actually a psychotic Death Eater punishing the son of
> > a Death Eater who went free. Draco "deserving it" for throwing a
> > hex is only one level of the scene. Had it been another kid Harry
> > and his friends might have been more suspicious of Moody.
>
>
> Brothergib - My point here is that Draco is being abused/bullied in a
> similar manner to Snape. It is irrelevant who is doing the bullying.
> Because we have seen how Draco behaves prior to this point, we do not
> feel much sympathy. We have not seen how Snape behaved prior to the
> Pensieve scene, and therefore we do not have a reason to believe that
> Snape deserved this treatment at the hands of James...
>
>
> ...  I am not stating in any way that Harry's instinctive
> reaction is wrong. I am trying to make the point that we seem to
> think badly of James because of how he treats Snape, but we do not
> think badly of Moody for how he treats Draco. I would even suggest
> that we still don't think that badly of Mad Eye Crouch in this
> particular scene even now we know exactly what he is! We are getting
> into theological waters here - Eye for an Eye etc.
> We know how Draco has treated Harry prior to this scene.
> We do not know how Snape treated James prior to the pensieve scene.
> If we had seen Snape treating James badly prior to this scene - would
> we still feel sympathy for Snape?
>
> 

Kemper now:
The two sets of bullies (Moody!CrouchJr and James/Sirius) are
comparable only if the two bullying situations are similar.  And they
are not.

Moody!CJ bullys Draco because Draco was going to hex Harry from
behind.  Sure, that is just an excuse to bully, but the excuse is
obvious.  If we knew nothing of the characters involved, this scene
would still be funny because we (The Reader) see that Draco rightfully
or righteously deserves what he gets.  We have an action followed
immediately by a consequence, so it makes sense to us.  (And... it's a
valuable lesson for Draco regardless if it's from a DE, but that's
another topic)

James and Sirius bully Snape for no obvious reason that The Reader
sees.  Snape is not bullying anyone at the time: physically, verbally
or nvbl-y.

What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione pretended she
didn't know what was going on?  We already know what an arrogant prick
Draco is, but would we think this scene of righteous bullying funny?

I don't think so.  But that's just me.

Kemper



From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 17:47:00 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:47:00 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801155827.17614.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eao42k+g2uf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156312

> 
> wynnleaf:
> While I'm sure this is the way you experienced things, apparently
> that's not a general "truth." As a mom of three teenagers, I've been
> pretty interested in this aspect of the conversation, and so started
> asking my kids and their friends (and boyfriends). It all depends on
> how you look at what James and Sirius were doing. If you see it as
> equivalent to mild pranks, then yes, most guys pull pranks on each
> other at one time or another. But if you see if as equivalent to
> accosting another kid without provocation, and having your friend hold
> him down while you and your friend hit and insult him -- well, that's
> not *nearly* a common thing and seems to be regarded by the kids I
> asked as bullying behavior.
>    
>   Joe:
>    
>   No offense intended at all but are you sure your kids and their
friends didn't just tell you what they thought you wanted to hear?
Honestly if they had done those things do you think they would just
tell you?
>    

Having been a schoolboy myself I have to agree with Joe on this one.
There is an exaggerated, comic book quality to life at Hogwarts, no
doubt about that. The interactions between male students ring true
nevertheless. The scene you are discussing is not the equivalent of
two thugs holding a victim helpless while a third beats him
mercilessly, I don't recall seeing *that* happen outside of movies and
TV shows. Two big guys holding a victim helpless while a third does
*something* to *humiliate* him? Yeah, I saw that several times. And
this was in quiet, small town schools in northern Illinois and central
Wisconsin in the 1950's and 1960's. I even had three fellow students
attempt this on me once but "Crabbe" and "Goyle" found that I was a
little too slippery to hold long enough for "Draco" to get a shot at
me. You might even say I fluttered away like some overgrown bat!

And no, I did not tell and would not have told my parents about any of
this then, whether they pressed me hard for information or not. There
are things that guys just deal with on their own and only discuss with
their mates. 

Ken who, like most guys, has long since outgrown such things






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 17:54:49 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:54:49 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, wanted, dead or alive
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608010056k35f4a9fu377215d674deb516@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eao4h9+n7dd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156313

Dilia wrote:
<snip>
> > Plus, I can't remember, at the end, there was no body, Harry only
> > assumed that it was Dumbledore's body... (I'm referring at the
> > funeral.)
> 
> 
Kemper responded:
> The funeral did include a body wrapped in a purple (IIRC) shroud.
> Harry (and the Reader) naturally assumes the body is Dumbledore's
> though Harry (and the Reader) haven't seen it.
> 
> I am a believer (with a smidgen of doubt) that DD is alive.  That
> said, I also believe the body Hagrid took to the tomb is Dumbledore.

Carol adds:
While I'm almost certain that Dumbledore is dead, chiefly because his
death makes Snape a more tragic figure and I don't think that JKR
would pull a Gandalf and bring him back to life, I agree that we do
have hints, including the references to the Draught of Living Death
and the Phoenix Patronus (or whatever it was) rising from the tomb,
that suggest DD *may* be alive.

However, I agree with Kemper that what Hagrid carried in his arms was
Dumbledore's body wrapped in purple (DD's favorite color). Hagrid
cries easily, but never fakes his tears. I don't think he could have
cried so copiously at the funeral unless he either knows or sincerely
believes that Dumbledore is dead.

IMO, only one character (other than DD himself if he's alive) knows
for sure whether DD is dead and that's Snape.

Carol, still thinking that DD didn't need a wand to summon Fawkes and
must have chosen not to save himself






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  1 18:22:57 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (sherry gomes)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:22:57 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
Message-ID: <E1G7yrv-0005Uq-2x@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156314

>Irene:
> Was vicious with Molly when
>> she disagreed with him.



Sherry now:

Who was vicious in that scene?  I'd have to say it was Molly who 
was vicious, not Sirius.  Talk about hitting below the  belt!  
,the first dinner at Grimauld Place is the first time I felt very 
angry and disappointed in Molly.  She was downright brutal, when 
she had no right or cause to be.  She may have loved Harry as a 
son, but Sirius is his legal guardian, according to his parents 
wishes, no matter what twists DD took upon himself on Harry's 
behalf.  Sirius had every right to react as he did to Molly.  In 
fact, I thought he acted with amazing restraint.  i would not 
have reacted as well, I am quite sure, and I am known as someone 
who never loses her temper at other people.

Sherry



From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 19:09:05 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:09:05 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eao42k+g2uf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eao8sh+6a6m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156315

  
> >   Joe:
> >    
> >   No offense intended at all but are you sure your kids and their
> friends didn't just tell you what they thought you wanted to hear?
> Honestly if they had done those things do you think they would just
> tell you?
   

Ken 
> Having been a schoolboy myself I have to agree with Joe on this one.
> There is an exaggerated, comic book quality to life at Hogwarts, no
> doubt about that. The interactions between male students ring true
> nevertheless. The scene you are discussing is not the equivalent of
> two thugs holding a victim helpless while a third beats him
> mercilessly, I don't recall seeing *that* happen outside of movies and
> TV shows. Two big guys holding a victim helpless while a third does
> *something* to *humiliate* him? Yeah, I saw that several times. And
> this was in quiet, small town schools in northern Illinois and central
> Wisconsin in the 1950's and 1960's. I even had three fellow students
> attempt this on me once but "Crabbe" and "Goyle" found that I was a
> little too slippery to hold long enough for "Draco" to get a shot at
> me. You might even say I fluttered away like some overgrown bat!
> 
>
wynnleaf
Just to clarify or remind... I wasn't trying to say this kind of thing
doesn't happen everywhere, but that this behavior isn't common to
*all* or *almost all* guys.  Certainly I'm sure all guys know of guys
who do this kind of thing, or people who have had that happen to them,
but I don't think most guys would do this themselves.  When I asked
teens around here about it, they were very familiar with that type of
behavior, but catagorized it as coming from (in my son's description
which others agreed with) 1. athletic super jocks who think they're
the greatest and are ticked off at someone 2. unconscionable (yep, my
son's word) bullies 3. and arrogant jerks who are also ticked off at
someone.  

By the way, my kids are not saints.  While they might not tell me
everything they do, they are certainly willing to pass along
incriminating info on their syblings and their sybling's friends --
and no one passed along any such information in this case.  

Ken
<The scene you are discussing is not the equivalent of
> two thugs holding a victim helpless while a third beats him
> mercilessly, 

wynnleaf
I didn't characterize it that way.  I said it was like one boy
accosting another without provocation, having his friend hold the
other kid down, and hitting him.  I didn't say anything about two
people holding one kid down, didn't characterize them as thugs, and
didn't say "beats mercilessly."  Since Sirius *did* basically tie up
Snape with magical bonds, that's equitable to "holding down."  And I
equate knocking someone off their feet, doing the scourgify which
causes gagging and choking, lifting someone upside down and dropping
him, freezing the person to where he falls over without being able to
catch himself at all, lifting the person again upside down from which
position he must have presumably been dropped again as equitable to
having hit the person.  Add to that the "pantsed" part and lots of
verbal insults, *and* doing it in the middle of a large group of
school kids, and I'd say it was pretty bullying behavior.  

Imagine a school yard full of kids.  Two boys accost another kid from
basically out of the blue.  They have some rope and tie him up.  While
he's tied up they insult him and pour soap in his mouth to gag and
choke him.  As he's starting to finally get out of the ropes, he
throws one punch so they turn him upside down, partially undress him
and drop him on his head, then stand him up and tip him over (he's
tied again and can't catch himself ) so he falls again. 
Then they turn him upside down yet again, once again partly undressing
him, and then threaten to take off his underpants and finally drop him
on his head again.  This didn't happen in a dorm, but outside on
school grounds in the middle of a large group of students.  But this
happens commonly you say?  All guys act do this kind of thing to other
guys?  

Yes, this kind of degree of behavior sometimes occurs practically
anywhere, but I don't think all guys do it to that degree.

But to get back to what JKR was doing, she certainly has *Harry* see
this behavior as arrogant.  When Harry talks to Lupin and Sirius about
it, and they say that they were only 15, Harry says, "I'm fifteen,"
clearly meaning that *he* wouldn't act that way.  And in fact, we
*don't* see Harry or his friends act like that.  Of course, that may
just be because JKR's a woman, but my point is that even if she was
writing from a non-guy <g> perspective, she's obviously trying to say
that this *was* bullying behavior and that Harry was appalled by it
and would not do it himself.

wynnleaf







From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 19:17:48 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:17:48 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eam170+193g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eao9cs+6s43@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156317

Carol:
But I have trouble understanding (even though I've read the 
interview in which JKR made the comment) how the plot of HBP could 
have been used for CoS. Was "Half-Blood Prince" originally a 
nickname for Voldemort, which she later assigned to Snape? surely 
she would have had twelve-year-old Harry finding out that much about 
Teen!Snape (finding Sectumsempra in his second-year Potions book and 
using it on Draco when both of them are twelve years old???) And 
obviously, Snape, regardless of his loyalties, would not have killed 
Dumbledore in Book 2, which would have meant closing down the school 
in Harry's third year and otherwise generally ruined the slowly 
unfolding main plot. And the encounter with the HBP's book would 
have worked rather oddly in connection with Ginny's interaction with 
the diary.

I'm completely thrown by this particular piece of information, 
frankly. Does anyone have any ideas how the HBP plot could have been 
interwoven with the Chamber of Secrets/diary/Basilisk plot?


Dung:
Coincidentally I was wondering similarly a few days ago. First, lets 
disentangle the HBP plotline from everything else that occurs in 
book 6, and see what we're left with. 

Well, the answer is not a lot, actually. It's just Snape's old text 
book with the potions additions and the made-up spells which get 
nastier, and his nick-name The Half-Blood Prince, which tells us a 
little about his family. The UV, the DADA job, and the murder of 
Dumbledore I wouldn't class as part of that plotline.

I did consider, like you, the possibility that Voldemort was 
originally going to be the HBP. There's one line of canon I can 
think of which might indicate the possibility, and it's DD at the 
end of CoS:

Ch18 p247(UK):
"[...]On the other hand, I would advise you, Lucius, not to go 
giving out any more of Lord Voldemort's old school things."

But on further reflection I've decided I think it was always going 
to be Snape. It's personal character information about what Snape 
was like at school and his family, it's just not transferable to 
another character, and neither is it an important enough plot point 
that it doesn't matter who was the HBP, we just need an HBP, 
somewhere. No, I think it was always Snape.

Because now you come to mention it, I've always wondered why there 
was so little about Snape in CoS. From where I'm sitting it looks 
like the plan was to drop in a little more information about him 
with each succeeding book, and the information that Snape was a 
highly gifted half-blood with a penchant for the Dark Arts would 
have fit quite neatly into the scheme. 

Consider:
PS: Snape hates Harry because he hated James, but he never wanted 
Harry dead.
CoS: (if the HBP plot had been left in) Snape's a highly gifted 
half-blood with a penchant for the Dark Arts. As it is, we learned 
nothing about Snape, except that he *really* hates Harry.
PoA: The hatred between Snape and the Marauders in more detail, 
along with The Werewolf Caper.
GoF: Snape was a Death Eater, but rejoined DD's side before 
Voldemort's fall.
OotP: Snape is a gifted Occlumens, which is how he manages his 
double-agent role, Sirius *really* hates him, and doesn't think 
he's really reformed.
HBP: Spinners End etc, bang bang bang.
Book 7: Either the cunning ruse which convinced DD to trust him, or 
the big reversal, and his real reasons for wanting Voldy finished. 
(You know which I'm rooting for.)

Most likely, IMO, is that the plotline was moved wholesale. Harry 
would originally have got the HBP's book in year 2 and events would 
have transpired similarly to the way they finally did in HBP; any 
old accident could have been conjured up to give him the excuse of 
needing a school copy, and he could easily have tried out something 
nasty on Draco, though not necessarily Sectumsempra. 

But I'll bet you a box of Honeydukes Best that it wasn't originally 
going to be a potions book, I bet it was going to be a DADA book. 
Snape would have been suspicious immediately if Harry had started 
doing brilliantly in potions right under his nose. 

If that's the case, I can see why she thought better, and put the 
HBP into book 6; quite apart from allowing Lockhart the vanity of 
demanding all his own publications as set texts, having Harry use 
the HBP's notes would have undermined his natural brilliance at 
DADA. Having the HBP revelation in book 6 also allows us to have 
seen Levicorpus used before, and it gives Harry a chance to talk to 
Lupin to get some more clues. 

I also think that the HBP (since the book was 50 years old) would 
have been a red herring suspect for the Heir of Slytherin, and was 
replaced with the Draco Malfoy polyjuice escapade.

Out of interest, did anyone ever figure out what that detail was 
that JKR insisted was kept in the unnameable version of CoS?

Dung.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 19:22:07 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:22:07 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eao0i3+7me3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eao9kv+sc0m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156318

zgirnius:
> Sirius escaped from Azkaban in late July/early August. His attack
on
> the Fat Lady (if we choose to count her as a 'person' whose
feelings
> are worthy of some consideration) occurred Halloween night, three
> months later. The incident in which he seemed to be attacking Ron
with
> a knife occurred well after the Christmas break. And the Shrieking
> Shack incident occured during final exams.

Alla:

Are you arguing that three months being out negate twelve years near
Dementors?

I think that JKR describing Sirius eyes as **hunted** is a pretty
good indication that he was not totally sane.

As to Ron, well yes I would agree with you if he was **really**
willing to cause Ron's injury. I am not saying that Ron's being
terrified does not matter, but we know that Sirius was not planning
to hurt him, no?

What I am trying to say that for the **half or quarter insane** IMO,
I understand Sirius single minded devotion to get Peter. If in the
process he was planning to really hurt Ron, then yes, that would be
bad. That he was willing to terrify Ron, is also not good at all, but
something that I understand since I don't think he was quite normal
then.

Remember in GoF the first thing Harry notices about Sirius is that
his eyes look different? That to me a sign that he got better (IMO of
course)

Too bad that in OOP he had to go to the lovely house of his childhood.
Edited to add:
Ugh. What's wrong with me today? Second post in a row had to delete 
and edit. I am thinking again about emotional and intellectual 
response to the characters.
Obviously I like Sirius character very much, but I just don't see how 
even on pure intellectual level it can be argued that he was 
completely normal through PoA. IMO text does not support it.

Zgirnius:
> He wasn't 'just' out of Azkaban. By the time of his first attack on
> Ron, he had already befriended Crookshanks and arranged the
purchase of
> a new broom for Harry, not the acts of a totally crazed man. It
> involved both the mental capacity to plan, and an ability to
connect
> emotionally with others.

Alla:
See above. I may settle on **half crasy**, but I am unable to agree
that through PoA Sirius was totally normal. Sorry!

As to Shrieking Shack, I will say that all adults went crazy there,
IMO.


Zgirnius:
And he'd seen Ron's terrified reaction to the
> first incident, and had to be aware Ron's friendship with Harry,
and
> yet he was still willing to cause Ron a painful injury at the end
of
> the year.

Alla:

Willing to cause Ron an injury? Didn't he say that there would be
only one murder tonight in Shack? Or am I movie contaminated here?


JMO,

Alla









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 19:34:00 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:34:00 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801092811.51689.qmail@web86209.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaoab8+pve8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156319

Alla wrote: 
> > <snip> What do you mean when you wrote Harry ""stopped playing by
the rules of the pack"? Who invented those rules?
> 
Irene responded:
> Sirius and James, obviously. I don't think we'll get ESE!Lupin, but
Pippin's doubts about what would have happened between Marauders if
Lupin said "I don't want to run as werewolf anymore, I'll just stay
quietly in my room" - they are quite founded, IMO.

Alla wrote:
> > 
> > You said that they were only likeable to their pack.
> 
Irene responded:
> I said that they only bothered to be decent, honourable and friendly
towards members of their pack.
> 
Carol responds:
I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that I'm not even sure
that James and Sirius were "decent, honourable and friendly towards
members of their pack."

We have both of them attacking Severus unprovoked, James hexing other
people in the hallways because they annoy him, James trying to attract
the attention of the girls, especially Lily, by showing off; and
Sirius ignoring the girls who think he's attractive. So if they're
popular, as Harry assumes, it's because James is good at Quidditch and
Sirius is handsome, not because they're decent and kind and honorable
and brave and good. It's also possible that no one stepped up to
defend Severus because they were afraid of James. I don't think we
have any actual evidence in the Pensieve scene that the two were
popular. I agree with Irene that they didn't bother (so far as we
know) to be decent, etc., outside their very small pack.

But how did they treat their fellow pack members? James entertains the
bored Sirius by attacking Severus and indulges him by putting the
Snitch away. Sirius says he wishes it was a full moon, completely
ignoring Remus's feelings on the matter. Sirius also contemptuously
tells Remus that he doesn't need to study for Transfiguration (after
all, he's an Animagus). He doesn't even indulge Remus by helping *him*
study. Sirius sneers at Wormtail, saying that he's about to wet his
pants. I don't see any affection on his part for anyone except James
(his equal as a pureblood who rejected Slytherin?). he seems to treat
the others, both within and outside the "pack," with haughty disdain
similar to Cousin Bellatrix's in the GoF Pensieve scene.

James takes it upon himself to entertain the others (either by showing
off or attacking Severus because Sirius is bored) and jokes about the
werewolf question on the DADA exam. Remus goes along with it by joking
back but becomes concerned when James speaks about it too loudly.
Later we find out that James referred to Remus's condition as "your
furry little problem"--a minor problem that he minimizes and jokes
about. His behavior strikes me as something like Arthur Weasley's
attitude toward Muggles, a condescending fondness.

Their nicknames indicate the way they see one another--as Animagi and
a werewolf--and their behavior in the Pensieve shows their relative
status in the pack. James is the leader; Sirius is his best mate;
Remus is interesting because he's a werewolf and provides them with
adventures on full moon nights as well as the incentive to become
Animagi in the first place; Wormtail is merely tolerated, treated with
contempt because he's "thick." (Sirius doesn't seem to like him; James
is teasing and condescending.)

So the question arises: suppose that Remus hadn't had a "furry little
problem"? Would he have been interesting to James and sirius? Would
either of them (much less Peter) have become Animagi? It seems to me
that they see Remus solely as a werewolf, the reason for their full
moon adventures. Certainly, they don't respect him as a prefect. They
don't engage him in conversation on any subject other than werewolves,
and Sirius snubs him when he wants to study.

I'm not questioning James's later courage, and AFWK he saved Severus's
life the next year, which certainly seems honorable based on our
current information. But during the Pensieve scene, I don't see either
honor and decency within the pack itself, though I don't see their
opposites either until the unprovoked attack on Severus, when none of
the pack members shows to advantage. And I don't see any real
affection on James's part for Remus or Peter, only a sort of tolerance
based on their shared experiences as Animagi and werewolf, and not
even tolerance on Sirius's part, much less friendliness, toward either
Remus or Peter. That view of them (Remus as a werewolf and Peter as an
inrerior) led to trouble later when Sirius suspected Remus of being
the spy and underestimated Peter's resentment and capacity for treachery.

Carol, who thinks that Teen!Sirius and Teen!James relate to each other
as people but to Remus and Peter as Moony and Wormtail, as far as we
can tell from that single scene 

 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 19:45:14 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:45:14 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re:  muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <ean6u6+jk4s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaob0a+clar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156320

Carol earlier:
> >
> > But there was a huge difference. Harry learned to cast a Patronus
> using a Boggart that took the form of a Dementor, so he not only 
knew the spell but could cast it even while Dementors were sucking out
his happiness (and, of course, he also saw his future self driving
away Dementors and knew he could do it). The DA members can cast the
spell in the RoR, but they've never used it against even a Boggart
Dementor--and no one but Harry has a Dementor Boggart, as far as we know. 
> 
> PJ responded:
> 
> But since the DA meetings were all held in the ROR, anything 
> required is available for the asking.  Perhaps even a boggart or two 
> to practice on?  The DA members could request the room tuck a couple 
> of boggarts in a bureau drawer or something handy like that.  
> 
> If Harry himself let it out we know it would turn into a dementor 
> and we also know once they're released anyone can interact with it 
> (ie: Molly's greatest fears).  So first the kids would learn the 
> charm well enough to do it quickly, then they could "graduate" to 
> actually working on Harry's boggart-dementors for a taste of the 
> real thing.    

Carol responds:
The Boggart would only remain a Dementor while Harry was facing it. If
anyone else faced it, it would turn into a spider or a zombie or
whatever that person's boggart was, or it would become confused
because it was trying to turn into more than one person's greatest
fear. so Harry is the only person who can train himself to face a
Dementor by facing a Boggart. (Maybe Ron could use one to train
himself to stop fearing spiders, but that's another matter.)

> 
Carol earlier: 
> > Maybe the other DA members, at least the core half dozen, will be
able to use their Patronuses (Patroni?) to communicate with each
other, but I think only Harry can actually use a Patronus to drive
away a Dementor. 
> 
PJ responded:
> 
> You may be right but the way JKR brought all the parts together... 
> the entire DA (including Neville!) able to create something as 
> difficult and *advanced* as a corporeal patronus, the ROR, the 
> dementors breeding... it just screams dementor attack in book 7 to 
> me.  And I'll go out even further on this limb and say the dementor 
> attack will either happen at the wedding or in Hogsmead when the 
> kids are there for their outing. <g>

Carol responds:
Oh, I think you're right that the Dementors would be attracted to a
wedding (even a small one, and I don't think that Bill and Fleur will
invite a huge wedding party unless they want to attract the DEs as
well) because of the happiness they can suck up. But I doubt that Ron
and Hermione will find their Patronuses useful in the attack, which is
where Snape's alternate method for fighting Dementors (which Hermione
will surely remember) could come in handy.

Carol, hoping that Madame Maxime won't call attention to the wedding
by arriving in her house-sized flying carriage






From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug  1 19:47:13 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 19:47:13 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eao9cs+6s43@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaob41+i3le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156321

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at ...> wrote:
>
>  > Consider:
> PS: Snape hates Harry because he hated James, but he never wanted 
> Harry dead.
> CoS: (if the HBP plot had been left in) Snape's a highly gifted 
> half-blood with a penchant for the Dark Arts. As it is, we learned 
> nothing about Snape, except that he *really* hates Harry.
> PoA: The hatred between Snape and the Marauders in more detail, 
> along with The Werewolf Caper.
> GoF: Snape was a Death Eater, but rejoined DD's side before 
> Voldemort's fall.
> OotP: Snape is a gifted Occlumens, which is how he manages his 
> double-agent role, Sirius *really* hates him, and doesn't think 
> he's really reformed.
> HBP: Spinners End etc, bang bang bang.
> Book 7: Either the cunning ruse which convinced DD to trust him, or 
> the big reversal, and his real reasons for wanting Voldy finished. 
> (You know which I'm rooting for.)
>  

I believe that in CoS, we learned that Snape was an expert duelist 
and was pretty quick on his feet.   And that he kinda man-handled 
Draco in the dueling scene with Harry.  Or is that the movie?  
Anyway, there seems to be more than just potions to our Potions 
Master - he can duel - a hint of his power to come in HBP

colebiancardi







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 20:10:42 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:10:42 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eao9kv+sc0m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaocg2+qsi6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156322

Alla:
>about emotional and intellectual 
> response to the characters.
> Obviously I like Sirius character very much, but I just don't see 
how 
> even on pure intellectual level it can be argued that he was 
> completely normal through PoA. IMO text does not support it.

zgirnius:
IMO the text does not give us enough 'normal' Sirius for us to know 
what normal is for Sirius. You concede as much, really, because the 
only time you think he was 'normal' was in GoF.

In school: He was a teenager, they are thoughtless; and anyway Snape 
was a special case.
As a young man: he was naturally upset over the deaths of the Potters.
For nearly a year in PoA: He was not right in the head after Azkaban.
In OotP: He was not right in the head, forced to live in his hated 
childhood home.

Did you really fall in love with this character based only on his 
actions in GoF? Personally I fell for him when he was first 
introduced to us in PoA, but recognized that, despite my liking of 
him, he has definitely acted in ways I don't approve. (To join you in 
emotional anaylsis fo the character <g>.)

 
> Alla:
> See above. I may settle on **half crasy**, but I am unable to agree
> that through PoA Sirius was totally normal. Sorry!

zgirnius:
See above...we've barely seen him 'totally normal'. (It would be 
completely cool if we get to meet normal Sirius behinfd the Veil in 
Book 7...)


> Zgirnius:
> And he'd seen Ron's terrified reaction to the
> > first incident, and had to be aware Ron's friendship with Harry,
> and
> > yet he was still willing to cause Ron a painful injury at the end
> of
> > the year.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Willing to cause Ron an injury? Didn't he say that there would be
> only one murder tonight in Shack? Or am I movie contaminated here?

zgirnius:
Ron's leg did not break by itself. I did not suggest he planned to 
murder Ron. I was referring to the fact that he injured Ron.










From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 20:10:04 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaoab8+pve8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156323


justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:    
We have both of them attacking Severus unprovoked, James hexing other
people in the hallways because they annoy him, James trying to attract
the attention of the girls, especially Lily, by showing off; and
Sirius ignoring the girls who think he's attractive. 
<HUGE SNIP>


  Joe:
  You believe the attack on Snape is unprovoked. Not knowing what might have happened earlier that day or the day before or the day before means that all of us are at best making an uneducated guess.
   
  The entire scene lasts what, five minutes maybe?
   
  I think making any deep character judgements about ANYBODY based on a five minute segment of their life is deeply flawed.
   
  BTW you might think that James and Sirius weren't fond of Lupin but Lupin seemed to think otherwise doesn't he?
   
  We do have evidence that others liked them outside their pack. Hagrid, Rosmerta, McGonagall all speak fondly of them.
   
  Honestly I'm glad I didn't have my worst moment picked apart like this with all these assumptions.
   
  I understand the desire to take the good guys down a peg or two esp. when they might seem to be a bit too good to be true but making wild assumptions based on a five minute span in their fifteenth year seems way over the top.
   
  Oh one more thing. Can we please stop calling people bullies because they hexed someone? We have a good bit of canon evidence that supports students hexing each other frequently. Its a guy thing and I'm guessing girls don't understand but boys play rough. The only thing that was wrong was Lily interfering in what obviously seemed to be a long term grudge on both sides.
   
  You think Snape was humiliated by James and Sirius? Having a Mudbllod girl come to try and help him was WAY more humiliating. I'm betting thats a guy thing too.
   
  Joe

















 		





From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Aug  1 20:27:25 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (sherry gomes)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 13:27:25 -0700
Subject: relationships among the marauders
Message-ID: <E1G80oM-0002E5-3w@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156324

We've been discussing the pensieve scene, and the relative merits 
of James, Sirius, Snape and others, all based on that one moment 
in time.  It's been suggested that Sirius was only kind or decent 
to others he considered in his pack, and someone else, I believe 
Justcarol 67, suggested that in reality, James and Sirius treated 
Remus and Peter badly as well.  I'm leaving out Peter in my 
response here, but I want to address how I see the treatment of 
Remus by James and Sirius.

I am a disabled person.  I am blind and I was born with a disease 
called juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.  I have a fused knee, an 
artificial one and two artificial hips.  My disability does not 
cause me to turn into a vicious monster, but it has caused me 
physical pain of course.  It has also taught me about how very 
unkind people can be to those who are different from the norm, 
and about how much discrimination there is out there.  I have to 
try harder and be ten times better than other applicants to get 
jobs.  I face discrimination or condescension in the workplace, 
in the social realm and anywhere else.

Except among my true friends and family.  Those who truly accept 
me the way I am, to the point that they can tease me about it 
without causing offense.  There are slang terms for blind people 
or for people with mobility disabilities.  If my friends and 
family knew these terms, they could get away with using them 
around me, though a stranger could not.  They've been known to 
take me to task for not telling them where to turn in the car, to 
tease me if I bump into something and ask why I wasn't looking 
where I was going.  Occasionally, they refer to me as the "Bionic 
Woman" because of my artificial joints, and I joke back about 
getting the bionics without the super powers.  They don't mean 
any of this to hurt me or offend me.  They never say it because 
they think I'm somehow less than they.  On the contrary, they can 
get away with it, precisely because they do accept me, 100 
percent, completely.

When I first read OOTP, I didn't take the banter with Remus about 
werewolf questions to be anything but the same kind of teasing 
that goes on with my family and friends.  In fact, the rapport 
between the marauders in that scene really cemented their bond 
for me, and made the eventual tragedy even more sad.  Something 
happened between then and later to cause them to distrust each 
other, but this scene doesn't show that to me at all.  In fact, 
it made me love them even more.  Leaving out the Snape thing, I 
mean.  And I'm willing to give them some benefit of the doubt 
even on that, because I've had many, many pages of seeing Snape 
as a mean, twisted, bitter man, who takes his bitterness out on 
those weaker than he is, those who cannot fight back without 
serious consequences.  But I've only seen one small episode of 
James being a bully.  James is no nice guy in that scene, 
obviously, but then, for me, Snape is no nice guy in the entire 
series.

Sherry



From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Tue Aug  1 20:49:18 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 13:49:18 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <eaoab8+pve8@eGroups.com>
	 <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608011349jf0d9479qbe4bdc6a170272ea@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156325

> Carol  wrote:
> We have both of them attacking Severus unprovoked, James hexing other
> people in the hallways because they annoy him, James trying to attract
> the attention of the girls, especially Lily, by showing off; and
> Sirius ignoring the girls who think he's attractive.
>
> <HUGE SNIP>
>
> Joe responded:
> You believe the attack on Snape is unprovoked. Not knowing what might have happened earlier that day or the day before or the day before means that all of us are at best making an uneducated guess.
>
> The entire scene lasts what, five minutes maybe?
>
> I think making any deep character judgements about ANYBODY based on a five minute segment of their life is deeply flawed.
>
> BTW you might think that James and Sirius weren't fond of Lupin but Lupin seemed to think otherwise doesn't he?
>
> We do have evidence that others liked them outside their pack. Hagrid, Rosmerta, McGonagall all speak fondly of them.
>
> Honestly I'm glad I didn't have my worst moment picked apart like this with all these assumptions.
>
> I understand the desire to take the good guys down a peg or two esp. when they might seem to be a bit too good to be true but making wild assumptions based on a five minute span in their fifteenth year seems way over the top.
>
> Oh one more thing. Can we please stop calling people bullies because they hexed someone? We have a good bit of canon evidence that supports students hexing each other frequently. Its a guy thing and I'm guessing girls don't understand but boys play rough. The only thing that was wrong was Lily interfering in what obviously seemed to be a long term grudge on both sides.
>
> You think Snape was humiliated by James and Sirius? Having a Mudbllod girl come to try and help him was WAY more humiliating. I'm betting thats a guy thing too.
>
> 

Kemper now:
I can see the difference between hexing in the halls and the bullying
that James and Sirius throw down on Snape.  The hexing if more
prankish (like 'kick me' taped to someone's back) and the bullying is
more threatening which is why Snape goes for his wand.  And, yes, Lily
defending Snape would be humiliating and emasculating... though I
don't think he would really care about her being Muggle born in spite
of calling her a mudblood.

So Joe, I posed a scenario on a different though similar thread.  Here it is:

 What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione pretended she
didn't know what was going on?  We already know what an arrogant prick
Draco is, but would we think this scene of righteous bullying funny?

Would Harry be in the right here?  Or would we think a little less of
him based on only a 5 minute incident?

Kemper, a guy but not an asshole



From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 20:51:21 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:51:21 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <eaocg2+qsi6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoes9+uiro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156326


>  
> > Alla:
> > See above. I may settle on **half crasy**, but I am unable to agree
> > that through PoA Sirius was totally normal. Sorry!
> 
> zgirnius:
> See above...we've barely seen him 'totally normal'. (It would be 
> completely cool if we get to meet normal Sirius behinfd the Veil in 
> Book 7...)

wynnleaf
I don't know whether or not we're seeing the "real" Sirius in POA, GOF
or OOTP, but it's interesting Dumbledore's treatment of Sirius in OOTP.

Even before Sirius was spotted at the train station in OOTP, he told
Harry that Dumbledore really didn't have any use for him other than
the use of 12 GP as a headquarters.  Why is that?  

We might say it was to keep Sirius safe.  But Sirius had already been
hiding from the MOM for 2 years -- and pretty successfully.  Voldemort
would have known of Sirius' animagus status right away, through
Pettigrew, but why would Sirius have any more difficult time avoiding
DE's as he did the MOM?  

And why be so careful of Sirius' life in particular, when other Order
members are certainly risking their lives?  Remus was sent to the
werewolves in HBP, and Snape has been a spy for a long while.  

I found myself wondering today whether those were really Dumbledore's
reasons for keeping Sirius at 12 GP.  Or maybe he just really didn't
want Sirius directly involved with Order missions.  After Sirius
rather poor judgement in pressing James to use Pettigrew as a secret
keeper, his actions in breaking into Hogwarts in POA, etc.  maybe DD
thinks Sirius is too much of a risk.

wynnleaf






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 20:55:59 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 20:55:59 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaof4v+ts5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156327

>   Joe:
>   You believe the attack on Snape is unprovoked. Not knowing what 
might have happened earlier that day or the day before or the day 
before means that all of us are at best making an uneducated guess.

zgirnius:
We know what has been happening for the last two-three hours, even 
though we do not see it. The kids have all been taking the written 
part of their DADA OWL exam. I feel confident Rowling wrote it this 
way precisely so we would know that the attack was unprovoked in the 
usual sense of the word. Whatever provocation there might have been 
was anything but immediate.

She could have made it a lot more ambiguous, by starting it (say) 
where James and Sirius accost Severus.

The other problem is that there is no reference to anything about 
Severus in the Marauders' conversation. They are not recovering from 
some trauma, angry about some injustice, etc. They are killing time 
before lunch and the DADA practical (which one presumes took place 
that afternoon, based ont he pattern we are shown in OotP). They are 
bored, and Severus happens by.
   
Joe: 
>   I understand the desire to take the good guys down a peg or two 
esp. when they might seem to be a bit too good to be true but making 
wild assumptions based on a five minute span in their fifteenth year 
seems way over the top.

zgirnius:
Except it is not all we have. There's also that business of how Snape 
came to be in a tunnel with a werewolf.

JOe:  
>   Oh one more thing. Can we please stop calling people bullies 
because they hexed someone? We have a good bit of canon evidence that 
supports students hexing each other frequently. Its a guy thing and 
I'm guessing girls don't understand but boys play rough. The only 
thing that was wrong was Lily interfering in what obviously seemed to 
be a long term grudge on both sides.

zgirnius:
I'd be happy to give you the hex thing...but not in this incident. 
The numbers and the crowd of onlookers change things.












From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:01:33 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:01:33 -0000
Subject: Sirius' actions/Scene with likeable James LONG
In-Reply-To: <eaocg2+qsi6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoffd+eqgg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156328

> zgirnius:
> IMO the text does not give us enough 'normal' Sirius for us to know 
> what normal is for Sirius. You concede as much, really, because the 
> only time you think he was 'normal' was in GoF.

Alla:

Well, that is certainly true. In GoF more or less normal, yes.

Zgirnius:
> 
> In school: He was a teenager, they are thoughtless; and anyway 
Snape 
> was a special case.

Alla:

Um, yes, but I did not say that he was insane in school. We just IMO
don't know enough about what happened between them and Snape, but I 
am not saying that he was not normal back there.

Zgirnius:
> As a young man: he was naturally upset over the deaths of the 
Potters.

Alla:

Yes, he was and you are contesting it? JKR said as much when she was 
talking about him laughing ( e.g. that he lost everything in one 
moment - paraphrase).

But again, I think he was pretty normal before this event occurred. 
Just what you said we don't see it, but I would say that the fact 
that it was highly charged event, IMO is clear.

Zgirnius:
> For nearly a year in PoA: He was not right in the head after 
Azkaban.
> In OotP: He was not right in the head, forced to live in his hated 
> childhood home.

Alla:

Yes, again and my question is the same, are you contesting it? I 
mean, yes, that is what occurred IMO.


Zgirnius:
> Did you really fall in love with this character based only on his 
> actions in GoF? Personally I fell for him when he was first 
> introduced to us in PoA, but recognized that, despite my liking of 
> him, he has definitely acted in ways I don't approve. (To join you 
in 
> emotional anaylsis fo the character <g>.)

Alla:

Based on his actions in GoF? Of course not only based on that, I fell 
in love with this character when he offered Harry a home for the 
first time in his life. I was amazed that this character was capable 
of loving somebody, that he was able to have the shred of sanity 
after twelve years in Azkaban, after Remus described the effects of 
the dementors. 
 
>  
> > Alla:
> > See above. I may settle on **half crasy**, but I am unable to 
agree
> > that through PoA Sirius was totally normal. Sorry!
> 
> zgirnius:
> See above...we've barely seen him 'totally normal'. (It would be 
> completely cool if we get to meet normal Sirius behinfd the Veil in 
> Book 7...)

Alla:

But that is not my point whether we see him completely normal or not, 
because we indeed don't. My point is that it is easy enough to see 
IMO that how he acts is **not** normal and that is because of the 
events that triggered it.
 
> > Alla:
> > 
> > Willing to cause Ron an injury? Didn't he say that there would be
> > only one murder tonight in Shack? Or am I movie contaminated here?
> 
> zgirnius:
> Ron's leg did not break by itself. I did not suggest he planned to 
> murder Ron. I was referring to the fact that he injured Ron.
>

Alla:

Um, but if this is an accident, how Sirius was **planning** to cause 
Ron an injury? Of course Ron's leg did not break by itself, it does 
not equal to me Sirius **willing to cause an injury**.


Joe:    
<snip>
>   We do have evidence that others liked them outside their pack. 
Hagrid, Rosmerta, McGonagall all speak fondly of them.
<snip>

Alla:

But they are all **biased** witnesses, you know? ;) Snape on the 
other hand is very neutral witness. ;)

Sherry:
< HUGE SNIP of the whole post>

 But I've only seen one small episode of 
> James being a bully.  James is no nice guy in that scene, 
> obviously, but then, for me, Snape is no nice guy in the entire 
> series.

Alla:

Me too, Sherry, me too. :)

> Kemper now:
<SNIP>
> So Joe, I posed a scenario on a different though similar thread.  
Here it is:
> 
>  What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
> rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione pretended 
she
> didn't know what was going on?  We already know what an arrogant 
prick
> Draco is, but would we think this scene of righteous bullying funny?
> 
> Would Harry be in the right here?  Or would we think a little less 
of
> him based on only a 5 minute incident?

Alla:

I can try and answer that. Funny, I certainly would not find it, but 
would I think of Harry less based on knowing everything that happened 
between him and Draco? Knowing that Draco for example did not 
hesitate to dress up as Dementor and trying to prank him on Quidditch 
match, etc, etc, etc?

Not really, I may think that Harry should have been a bigger man and 
not care less about Draco, but my opinion of him would not go down 
drastically.

I certainly did not think of Harry any less for talking to Dudley the 
way he did in OOP. I thought that after all the crap Dudley gave him 
for years, Harry was entitled to give Dudley just a tiny bit of that 
same treatment.

Of course the fact that Harry afterwards chose to save Dudley helped 
me not to think any less of him.

But of course it is hard for me to imagine that hypothetical as in 
Draco leaving Harry and Co alone, ever.

I have another hypothetical that I posted in the past.

Suppose we get to view Draco's memories in the Pensieve. Suppose he 
palced his memories about GoF train accident in the Pensieve, except 
he only put there **part** of that particular memory, starting with 
Gryffindors hexing him?

Wouldn't you think of Draco as blameless party if you were to see 
**only** that part of the memory?

JMO,

Alla












From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:15:54 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:15:54 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaogaa+a830@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156329

> >>Joe:
> <snip>
> The entire scene lasts what, five minutes maybe?   
> I think making any deep character judgements about ANYBODY based   
> on a five minute segment of their life is deeply flawed.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
In real life, yes, in a work of fiction?  That's how it's done.  
Because the author gets to pick and choose what scenes she shares 
with us, so it's not really "five minutes in the life of". It's a 
key insight into various characters.  In the case of the Mauraders 
it's the *only* insight, so far, that we've been allowed to see for 
ourselves.  That this is the scene JKR chose to share should not be 
taken lightly.

> >>Joe:     
> Oh one more thing. Can we please stop calling people bullies      
> because they hexed someone? We have a good bit of canon evidence   
> that supports students hexing each other frequently. Its a guy     
> thing and I'm guessing girls don't understand but boys play rough. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So I questioned my husband about this (I'm betting there are quite a 
few guys out there getting similarly grilled -- I'm sure they're 
loving you, Joe <g>) and he disagreed that what James and Sirius do 
to Snape is normal highschool play.  He also pointed out that any 
time a statement is made, "All guys __________", it's wrong.  Too 
much individualism out there.

Also, just because we've been told that James and Sirius regularly 
hexed people doesn't mean that it's a good thing.  The fact that 
they were punished so often for doing so is telling, IMO.  I'd also 
say that what we see happen to Snape goes far and beyond a mere hex 
in the hallways.  It was vicious, cruel and physically painful for 
Snape.  Harry was put off (and actually thought his father capable 
of rape) for a reason after witnessing it.  Harry, being a boy 
attending Hogwarts, should have a fairly good idea as to what 
consitutes normal boyish rough-housing at his school, and what goes 
above and beyond.

All that being said, of course we all know there's more to the story 
of James.  He grows enough to be named headboy by Dumbledore, and he 
breaks out of Sirius's thrall enough to save two friends and one 
enemy from a truly gruesome fate.  So yeah, we can't just write 
James off as an arrogant bully.  There's more to him than that and 
hopefully we'll get to see it in book 7.  But that doesn't mean we 
should white-wash this scene.  It's there for a reason.

Betsy Hp







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:26:45 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:26:45 -0000
Subject: "Moody"/Draco vs. James/Severus (Was:Scene with likable James)
In-Reply-To: <eansvd+c42h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaogul+m6lf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156330

> Brothergib wrote:

> I am not stating in any way that Harry's instinctive 
> reaction is wrong. I am trying to make the point that we seem to 
> think badly of James because of how he treats Snape, but we do not 
> think badly of Moody for how he treats Draco. I would even suggest 
> that we still don't think that badly of Mad Eye Crouch in this 
> particular scene even now we know exactly what he is! <snip>
> We know how Draco has treated Harry prior to this scene.
> We do not know how Snape treated James prior to the pensieve scene.
> If we had seen Snape treating James badly prior to this scene -
would we still feel sympathy for Snape?
>
Carol responds:
I think you're correct regarding JKR's *intentions* in depicting the
two scenes (though perhaps she's assuming a child reader sympathetic
to Harry and not to Draco). Even many adult readers react as you did
to the ferret scene, but the reaction is not universal. (For me, it
was the second clue that "Moody" was a bad guy, the first being that
he deduced a bit too much about what had happened with the Goblet of
Fire. And when he Crucio'd the spider in front of Neville, I thought
he was unfeeling if not sadistic. At any rate, you and I didn't react
in the same way to the scene on either the first reading or a
rereading, nor do I think that JKR intends the reader to see it the
same way once we know who and what Crouch!Moody is.)

But we are, I think, supposed to think badly of James (and Sirius) and
to sympathize with Severus in "snape's worst Memory"--as Harry does
until the adult Lupin and Black help him to rationalize his feelings
away and the adult Snape's continued antagonism toward Harry snuffs
out Harry's flicker of pity and empathy (which is a shame, IMO,
because Harry returns to his idealized view of James, as we see in
HBP, not to mention his willingness or even eagerness to think the
worst of Snape, with his hatred and mistrust growing like a cancer
throughout HBP and turned to a full-grown malignancy by the events on
the tower).

At any rate, I think that JKR's intentions with the two scenes are
different. One scene is intended to mislead the reader into thinking
that "Moody" is a good guy, with JKR expecting antagonism toward Draco
to blind the reader, as it blinds Harry, to the sadism behind
"Moody's" punishment of Draco (who should have lost some House points
or at most received a detention, not be turned into an animal and
painfully bounced against the paving stones). The other scene is
intended to revise the reader's understanding of and feelings about
both James and Snape and to show that Snape was actually right about
James's arrogance, however wrong he may be about Harry. If Severus had
provoked James in any way, or if it had been a fair fight, the scene
would have had no such effect.

IMO, the scene helps to show why the adult Snape hates James so
much--not jealousy of James's abilities, which are roughly equal to
his, but resentment of the recognition that the "arrogant berks"
(especially James) received--being made Head Boy despite all his
pranks and bullying, for example. It's interesting that while the
adult Snape continues his mutually antagonist relationship with Sirius
Black in OoP (not helped by Black's discovery that Snape was once a DE
or by Snape's disappointment that Black wasn't the traitor after all),
it seems to be James whom Snape really hates (How dare he die and
leave me owing him a life debt?). Even in the Pensieve scene, Severus
focuses on James, as if Sirius doesn't exist, even though Sirius sets
up the confrontation ("Look who it is!") and casts two of the hexes.
It's almost as if Severus sees something likeable or admirable in
James that he doesn't see in Sirius and would have liked to be his
friend, if only the anti-Slytherin prejudice didn't prevent it. I'm
not saying that's the case, but it seems to me as if Sirius hates
Severus; Severus hates James; and James is merely bullying Severus
(with no better excuse than that he exists), to humor Sirius. It's
like a distorted variation on a love triangle but with hatred in the
place of love. (I don't see any actual hatred on James's part even
after Severus calls Lily a "mudblood," which he thinks makes *his*
behavior look a bit better. It's only when Lily says that James makes
her sick and walks away that James turns really ugly and threatens to
remove Severus's pants, using him as a scapegoat because he's angry at
Lily.)

I don't know the answers, but I do know that "we" don't all react in
the same way to these two scenes, and I suspect that JKR's intention
was much simpler and more easily deducible in the first than in the
second. One scene is primarily intended to fool the reader, the other
to surprise him or her (and raise additional questions). The Pensieve
scene may play a part later as Harry re-examines his history with
Snape and/or learns more about his parents. the Crouch!Mood/Draco
scene has pretty much played its part (except to show how Harry's
feelings color his perception and, perhaps, for some readers, to
conjure a bit of sympathy for Draco).

Carol, who *does* think badly of Crouch!Moody in the ferret scene and
the one where he Imperios the students, especially his sadistic
pleasure in the prolonged Crucio of the spider in front of Neville,
and thinks that "we" are meant to view the scene differently on a
second reading of the book







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 21:31:08 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:31:08 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eao8sh+6a6m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoh6s+db8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156331

>   
> > >   Joe:
> > >    
> > >   No offense intended at all but are you sure your kids and their
> > friends didn't just tell you what they thought you wanted to hear?
> > Honestly if they had done those things do you think they would just
> > tell you?
>    
> 
> Ken 
> > Having been a schoolboy myself I have to agree with Joe on this one.
> > There is an exaggerated, comic book quality to life at Hogwarts, no
> > doubt about that. The interactions between male students ring true
> > nevertheless. The scene you are discussing is not the equivalent of
> > two thugs holding a victim helpless while a third beats him
> > mercilessly, I don't recall seeing *that* happen outside of movies and
> > TV shows. Two big guys holding a victim helpless while a third does
> > *something* to *humiliate* him? Yeah, I saw that several times. And
> > this was in quiet, small town schools in northern Illinois and central
> > Wisconsin in the 1950's and 1960's. I even had three fellow students
> > attempt this on me once but "Crabbe" and "Goyle" found that I was a
> > little too slippery to hold long enough for "Draco" to get a shot at
> > me. You might even say I fluttered away like some overgrown bat!
> > 
> >
> wynnleaf
> Just to clarify or remind... I wasn't trying to say this kind of thing
> doesn't happen everywhere, but that this behavior isn't common to
> *all* or *almost all* guys.  Certainly I'm sure all guys know of guys
> who do this kind of thing, or people who have had that happen to them,
> but I don't think most guys would do this themselves.  

Ken:

No, it is not something that most guys do. It is something that a lot
of guys have had done to them or attempted against them. I do think
that most guys have witnessed this kind of behaviour, bearing in mind
that what we see at Hogwarts is exaggerated as I will discuss below.
Only a few perpetrate this kind of behaviour and they *are* usually
jocks, bullies, or both. 

> Ken
> <The scene you are discussing is not the equivalent of
> > two thugs holding a victim helpless while a third beats him
> > mercilessly, 
> 
> wynnleaf
> I didn't characterize it that way.  I said it was like one boy
> accosting another without provocation, having his friend hold the
> other kid down, and hitting him.  I didn't say anything about two
> people holding one kid down, didn't characterize them as thugs, and
> didn't say "beats mercilessly."  Since Sirius *did* basically tie up
> Snape with magical bonds, that's equitable to "holding down."  And I
> equate knocking someone off their feet, doing the scourgify which
> causes gagging and choking, lifting someone upside down and dropping
> him, freezing the person to where he falls over without being able to
> catch himself at all, lifting the person again upside down from which
> position he must have presumably been dropped again as equitable to
> having hit the person.  Add to that the "pantsed" part and lots of
> verbal insults, *and* doing it in the middle of a large group of
> school kids, and I'd say it was pretty bullying behavior. 


Ken:

Ok, maybe I have exaggerated a bit myself in how I characterized your
description but I see the point of this episode as humilating Snape,
not beating him. I think that I am not alone in seeing a very stark
fault line running through the description of the Potterverse that we
see in these books. I see many of you as not reacting to it but
instead treating everything in the books as "real" and directly
relateable to real life. When I read the scenes at Hogwarts and at the
Dursleys I hear a constant "beep, beep" sound in my head. For those
who don't follow that I am reminded of the Saturday morning cartoons
we "boomers" watched as kids, eg "The Roadrunner and Wile E. Coyote".
I see these scenes as symbolic of real life but very exaggerated. They
may teach life lessons, we may not agree on what those lessons are,
but we cannot take their details overly seriously. In real life your
classmates did not polyjuice themselves into housecats and teachers
did not remove all the bones in your arm while giving you first aid.
The events at Hogwarts and the Dursleys are hilarious yet serious too
when you look at them this way.

And in a way that works very well in this Snape scene. The kids who
witness these types of hazing incidents are often both amused and
repulsed by them. 

The cartoonish character does not obscure the lessons these scenes
teach unless you get all hung up on gagging and choking and all the
other dreadful things that happen to these students and their Muggle
family members on a daily basis. Yes, all these things are truly
dreadful, or would be in our world, but they aren't all that real to
me since a flick of the wand puts them right. In most cases. We don't
know how poor Dudley or Marietta will turn out, we know Snape was
deeply hurt by the pensieve scene or else he would not have hidden it.
And yet I think it is precisely the hurt that is inflicted that we
should concentrate on and not the outrageous details that are used to
inflict them. The former is symbolic of the hurts that real people
really cause each other, the latter is just cartoonish window dressing.

On the other side of the fault line is the somewhat realistic
depiction of LV and the DE. It is very jarring to me as a reader when
the author constantly drags us back and forth across the dividing line
between Toonville/Hogwarts and the deadly serious land of Pure Evil
Incarnate. I don't know what her artistic purpose in this is, or if
she has one. I'm not sure the technique works for me. Maybe it does.
It reminds me a bit of a similar fault line that occurs in Handel's
Messiah. There is this delightful little Baroque choral ditty about
the attractions of sin, "All we like sheep", that bounces along for a
while and really draws you in and then without pause crashes headlong
into the somber chords of "And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity
of us all". What a very effective way of illustrating that scriptural
lesson. Maybe Rowlings intent is something similar, I just can't
detect it yet. I do think that the events that involve the DE can be
more directly related to real life examples than most of the Hogwarts
scenes.


> wynnleaf 
> Imagine a school yard full of kids.  Two boys accost another kid from
> basically out of the blue.  They have some rope and tie him up.  While
> he's tied up they insult him and pour soap in his mouth to gag and
> choke him.  As he's starting to finally get out of the ropes, he
> throws one punch so they turn him upside down, partially undress him
> and drop him on his head, then stand him up and tip him over (he's
> tied again and can't catch himself ) so he falls again. 
> Then they turn him upside down yet again, once again partly undressing
> him, and then threaten to take off his underpants and finally drop him
> on his head again.  This didn't happen in a dorm, but outside on
> school grounds in the middle of a large group of students.  But this
> happens commonly you say?  All guys act do this kind of thing to other
> guys? 

Ken:

No, as I said above only a few would do this and almost never in
public. To do it in public would be to get caught and that is
something these perps avoid at all costs. Harry is right to be
distressed to see his dad act this way. Decent boys don't act this
way. Decent headmasters would not allow Snape to do what he does in
his classes either. Bully boys can grow out of it and James & company
apparently did. I don't know how to excuse DD. Harry truly is better
than his father in this respect, we have to admire him for that.

Ken

 








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:39:52 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:39:52 -0000
Subject: Sirius' actions/Scene with likeable James
In-Reply-To: <eaoffd+eqgg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaohn8+8899@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156332

> >>Kemper:
> > <SNIP>
> > What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
> > rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione         
> > pretended she didn't know what was going on?  We already know    
> > what an arrogant prick Draco is, but would we think this scene   
> > of righteous bullying funny? Would Harry be in the right here?  
> > Or would we think a little less of him based on only a 5 minute 
> > incident?

> >>Alla:
> I can try and answer that. Funny, I certainly would not find it,   
> but would I think of Harry less based on knowing everything that   
> happened between him and Draco?
> <snip>
> Not really, I may think that Harry should have been a bigger man   
> and not care less about Draco, but my opinion of him would not go 
> down drastically.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The funny thing is that Harry can't even imagine *himself* doing 
something like that to Draco.  He can *possibly* think of the twins 
doing something similar, but even that seems a bit reluctant to me.

"...Harry could not imagine Fred and George dangling someone upside 
down for the fun of it...not unless they really loathed 
them...Perhaps Malfoy, or somebody who really deserved it..." [OotP 
hardback scholastic p.653]

And even reading the above I remember thinking to myself on first 
read-through that Harry and Ron would *never* treat anybody like 
that.  Not even Draco.  Because though Harry might laugh if Draco 
were put in a similar situation, he's never been the type to attack 
someone coldbloodedly, merely because he or Ron were bored.  The 
only times Harry lashes out is when he's angry.

If Harry *were* capable of doing something like that...  Hmm, I 
think I would have a harder time liking him.  Gosh, I can't even 
imagine *Draco* doing something similar, and he's supposedly the 
bully of their year. But yeah, I'm not a big fan of pack behavior 
(as I've said before).  It usually brings out (in my experience) the 
very worst sides of human nature.  And Harry tends to avoid running 
with the pack.  (Probably because he's been the victim of pack 
behavior himself.)

> >>Alla:
> I have another hypothetical that I posted in the past.
> Suppose we get to view Draco's memories in the Pensieve. Suppose   
> he palced his memories about GoF train accident in the Pensieve,   
> except he only put there **part** of that particular memory,       
> starting with Gryffindors hexing him?
> Wouldn't you think of Draco as blameless party if you were to see 
> **only** that part of the memory?

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, Alla, do you really want to start that conversation up again? 
<bg>  Honestly I think Draco and Crabbe and Goyle *were* hard done 
by in that particular scene.  Though I wouldn't go so far as to call 
him *blameless*.  (Poor Crabbe and Goyle were though.  They, as 
usual, didn't say a word.)

However, we do get quite a bit of build up into James and Sirius's 
attack on Snape.  So I think this is a bit apples and oranges, 
really.  Since you'd have to start the memory right at the moment of 
attack.

And really, *Harry* is appalled at his father's and Sirius's 
behavior.  And Harry knows Snape.  If Harry is so bothered by the 
pensieve scene, why is it weird that so many reader are bothered too?

Betsy Hp







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:47:13 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 21:47:13 -0000
Subject: Sirius' actions/Scene with likeable James LONG
In-Reply-To: <eaoffd+eqgg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoi51+c1ij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156333

> > zgirnius:
> > Ron's leg did not break by itself. I did not suggest he planned 
to 
> > murder Ron. I was referring to the fact that he injured Ron.
> >
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, but if this is an accident, how Sirius was **planning** to 
cause 
> Ron an injury? Of course Ron's leg did not break by itself, it 
does 
> not equal to me Sirius **willing to cause an injury**.
> 

a_svirn:
"All they could see now was one of Ron's legs, which he had hooked 
around a root in an effort to stop the dog from pulling him farther 
underground -- but a horrible crack cut the air like a gunshot; 
Ron's leg had broken, and a moment later, his foot vanished from 
sight". 

I'd say it's pretty obvious that Sirius was willing to take the risk 
of injury. Of causing that same injury to be precise. Or was it 
Ron's fault for trying to resist? 








From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 21:51:02 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 17:51:02 -0400
Subject: Scene with likeable James
In-Reply-To: <1154461521.3357.1645.m34@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1154461521.3357.1645.m34@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C883CBB73A061D-1194-A5B@mblk-d31.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156334

 

> Irene: 
> > I said that they only bothered to be decent,
> > honourable and friendly towards members of their
> pack.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Well, the original post talked about likeable James,
> no? 

Irene:
That's why I said likeable is a confusing word. I
didn't realise you mean it in a sense "being liked by
the others", I was thinking of this:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/likeable


Julie:
Likeable or well-liked, I'm not sure it's very pertinent to
James' character, good or bad, or anyone else's. After all 
we've been told Tom Riddle was charming and likeable, able
to ape perfect social skills even when he no doubt didn't feel
them. Apparently Ted Bundy was quite likeable and socially
skilled--when he wasn't busy murdering women he'd befriended.
 
I'd take honestly unlikeable, a Snape or wacky Luna, any
day over a charming and likeable Tom Riddle or Ted Bundy. 
 
And I'm not saying James was a bad person at all, he likely
was a good person in most aspects, especially once he grew up.
I'm just saying that using likeability to judge character is
not a very reliable method at all. Which is why I'm fine with
a teenage James who was liked by his friends and housemates,
but disliked by those he routinely hexed--go figure--whether
they were all Slytherins, 1st years of other houses, etc. At
least that makes him honestly deserving of said feelings of
others.
 
Julie 
 



    
    
        
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 22:01:33 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:01:33 -0000
Subject: Is there really a divide?
In-Reply-To: <eaoh6s+db8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoivt+56qv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156335



> Ken:
I think that I am not alone in seeing a very stark
> fault line running through the description of the Potterverse that 
we
> see in these books. I see many of you as not reacting to it but
> instead treating everything in the books as "real" and directly
> relateable to real life. When I read the scenes at Hogwarts and at 
the
> Dursleys I hear a constant "beep, beep" sound in my head. For those
> who don't follow that I am reminded of the Saturday morning 
cartoons
> we "boomers" watched as kids, eg "The Roadrunner and Wile E. 
Coyote".
> I see these scenes as symbolic of real life but very exaggerated. 
They
> may teach life lessons, we may not agree on what those lessons are,
> but we cannot take their details overly seriously. In real life 
your
> classmates did not polyjuice themselves into housecats and teachers
> did not remove all the bones in your arm while giving you first 
aid.
> The events at Hogwarts and the Dursleys are hilarious yet serious 
too
> when you look at them this way.
> 
> And in a way that works very well in this Snape scene. The kids who
> witness these types of hazing incidents are often both amused and
> repulsed by them. 
> 
> The cartoonish character does not obscure the lessons these scenes
> teach unless you get all hung up on gagging and choking and all the
> other dreadful things that happen to these students and their 
Muggle
> family members on a daily basis. Yes, all these things are truly
> dreadful, or would be in our world, but they aren't all that real 
to
> me since a flick of the wand puts them right. In most cases. We 
don't
> know how poor Dudley or Marietta will turn out, we know Snape was
> deeply hurt by the pensieve scene or else he would not have hidden 
it.
> And yet I think it is precisely the hurt that is inflicted that we
> should concentrate on and not the outrageous details that are used 
to
> inflict them. The former is symbolic of the hurts that real people
> really cause each other, the latter is just cartoonish window 
dressing.
> 
> On the other side of the fault line is the somewhat realistic
> depiction of LV and the DE. It is very jarring to me as a reader 
when
> the author constantly drags us back and forth across the dividing 
line
> between Toonville/Hogwarts and the deadly serious land of Pure Evil
> Incarnate. I don't know what her artistic purpose in this is, or if
> she has one. I'm not sure the technique works for me. Maybe it 
does.
> It reminds me a bit of a similar fault line that occurs in Handel's
> Messiah. There is this delightful little Baroque choral ditty about
> the attractions of sin, "All we like sheep", that bounces along 
for a
> while and really draws you in and then without pause crashes 
headlong
> into the somber chords of "And the Lord hath laid on Him the 
iniquity
> of us all". What a very effective way of illustrating that 
scriptural
> lesson. Maybe Rowlings intent is something similar, I just can't
> detect it yet. I do think that the events that involve the DE can 
be
> more directly related to real life examples than most of the 
Hogwarts
> scenes.


wynnleaf
First, Ken, thanks for your reply about the pensieve scene.  Once 
you explained again and responded to my comments, I *think* we're 
mostly in agreement on what would be considered typical vs. uncommon 
behavior and as to whether "all" or "most" guys engage in that 
degree of bullying behavior.

I found your comment above very interesting.  I have wondered about 
this often.  At first, I thought like you that many of the things 
that go on at Hogwarts are to be taken somewhat lightly, like the 
things that happen to people in a Dahl book, or Wile E. Coyote's 
plunges down cliffs.  The notion that "nobody really gets hurt," 
seemed to apply.  

But while I could accept that through most of COS, by the end of POA 
I felt somewhat differently.  Sirius was about to have his soul 
sucked out, which is pretty permanent and horrible, and being in 
Azkaban 12 years sounded like a sentence of constant psychological 
torture.  

Then by GOF, especially the scenes at the end, I had changed my 
mind.  

I think JKR wants to lure the reader into a sense of false 
acceptance and false "safety," for the characters, so that we accept 
the risks and actions that they take or are involved in, and then 
she presents us with unmistakably awful events where we can no 
longer pretend that all will be okay.  

I'd love to hear the opinions of others, but I think that JKR does 
not mean for there to be a real divide.  I think she is using the 
appearance of a divide to lure the reader into accepting events and 
characters that we might otherwise question.

wynnleaf






From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  1 22:01:27 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:01:27 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re:  muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <eaob0a+clar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaoivn+4ck2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156336

> Carol:
> The Boggart would only remain a Dementor while Harry was facing 
it. If
> anyone else faced it, it would turn into a spider or a zombie or
> whatever that person's boggart was, or it would become confused
> because it was trying to turn into more than one person's greatest
> fear. so Harry is the only person who can train himself to face a
> Dementor by facing a Boggart. (Maybe Ron could use one to train
> himself to stop fearing spiders, but that's another matter.)

PJ:
We've seen on numerous occasions (always involving Lupin oddly 
enough) that a second party *can* interact with a boggart without 
changing or confusing it.  For instance: Ch. 9 (pg176)OOtP...

*** CRACK. Dead twins.  CRACK. Dead Percy.  CRACK. Dead 
Harry... "Mrs. Weasley just get out of here!" shouted Harry, staring 
down at his own dead body on the floor.  "Let someone else --"  
Lupin had come running into the room, closely followed by Sirius, 
with Moody stumping along behind them.  Lupin looked from Mrs 
Weasley to the dead Harry on the floor and seemed to understand in 
an instant.  Pulling out his own wand he said, very firmly and 
clearly, "RIDDIKULUS!"  Harry's body vanished.  A silvery orb hung 
in the air over the spot where it had lain.  Lupin waved his wand 
once more and the orb vanished in a puff of smoke.***

So, whether it's been Neville's boggart in class, Molly's boggart at 
9 GP or Harry's boggart during the Patronus lessons, Lupin has shown 
that it's really quite possible for a second party to work with the 
form that's already established by the fears of others.  Once 
comfortable with the Patronus Charm I don't see why the kids of the 
DA couldn't be quick enough to use Harry's boggart to practice on.  
The Patronus Charm takes no longer than Riddikulus...
> 
> Carol:
> Oh, I think you're right that the Dementors would be attracted to a
> wedding (even a small one, and I don't think that Bill and Fleur 
will
> invite a huge wedding party unless they want to attract the DEs as
> well) because of the happiness they can suck up. But I doubt that 
Ron
> and Hermione will find their Patronuses useful in the attack, 
which is
> where Snape's alternate method for fighting Dementors (which 
Hermione
> will surely remember) could come in handy.

PJ:

I'd find it much more satisfying to watch the kids using the spell 
they practiced so long and hard rather than trying something they'd 
just done a parchment on in class.  However, I agree that if anyone 
would use Snape's method (whatever it is) it would be Hermione.  She 
tends to get rattled when having to use practical magic rather than 
following from a book...

PJ, who apologizes if this is a duplicate post.  Yahoomort is 
messing with my computer today...







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 22:16:14 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:16:14 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaoh6s+db8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaojre+grjh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156337

> >>Ken:
> <snip>
> I think that I am not alone in seeing a very stark fault line     
> running through the description of the Potterverse that we see in 
> these books. I see many of you as not reacting to it but instead   
> treating everything in the books as "real" and directly relateable 
> to real life. When I read the scenes at Hogwarts and at the       
> Dursleys I hear a constant "beep, beep" sound in my head. For those
> who don't follow that I am reminded of the Saturday morning       
> cartoons we "boomers" watched as kids, eg "The Roadrunner and Wile 
> E. Coyote".
> <snip>
> The cartoonish character does not obscure the lessons these scenes
> teach unless you get all hung up on gagging and choking and all the
> other dreadful things that happen to these students and their     
> Muggle family members on a daily basis. Yes, all these things are 
> truly dreadful, or would be in our world, but they aren't all that 
> real to me since a flick of the wand puts them right. In most     
> cases.
> <snip>
> On the other side of the fault line is the somewhat realistic
> depiction of LV and the DE. It is very jarring to me as a reader   
> when the author constantly drags us back and forth across the     
> dividing line between Toonville/Hogwarts and the deadly serious    
> land of Pure Evil Incarnate. I don't know what her artistic       
> purpose in this is, or if she has one.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I've heard this idea before, that Hogwarts (or the Potterverse) is 
cartoonish, that the hurts visited upon the students are therefore 
as real and harmful as Elmer Fudd falling off a cliff.  So you're 
not alone in thinking this.  But, I'm pretty sure I disagree.

For one, as you point out, the cartoon nature of it all doesn't 
carry through.  If Draco being slammed into a stone floor is a 
cartoon, than Harry carving words into his hand should be a cartoon 
too, right?  I mean, Elmer Fudd or Bugs Bunny, falling off a cliff 
is equally harmless to both.

So instead there's this argument (not yours, Ken, I think) that, no, 
only the painful things that happen to the *bad guys* are 
cartoonish.  What happens to our heroes is as real and as painful as 
real life.  And... that really doesn't make sense to me.  I mean, 
both Draco and Harry are terrified when they stumble upon Quirrell!
Mort feeding off that unicorn in PS/SS.  Are we meant to read 
Harry's terror as real, but Draco's as running through a brick wall 
funny?  Doesn't that ask for too much of a disconnect on the readers 
part?

Also, for me the Voldemort aspects are the *less* real moments of 
the books.  I wouldn't call it cartoonish, but certainly mythical or 
fantastical, where you have a villain who's practically pure evil, 
with the blood-thirsty (literally) henchmen and all.

Whereas the school moments strike me as very "real": Harry's nerves 
at having to ask a girl to the big dance; Draco and Harry both 
equally nervous before the big quidditch match; Hermione and her mad 
color coding before big exams.  It's all very mundane and very 
universal, I think.  Sure there's a bit of magical flair added on, 
but at the end of the day, these are students behaving like 
students, IMO.

I don't know, I think maybe the inclination to color the Potterverse 
as a cartoon is ducking the big questions.  If it was bad for a 
teacher to make Harry carve words into his hand,  might it not have 
been equally bad for a teacher to slam Draco repeatedly into the 
floor?  And what does it say about us that we were amused at first?

A lot of this depends on the outcome of book 7, of course.  Are the 
Slytherins as real as the Gryffindors?  Is Draco just as much a 
human being as Harry is?  I think JKR will take the real rather than 
the cartoon path.  I think.  Though I'm betting the Voldemort bits 
are going to be pure fantasy.

Betsy Hp






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug  1 22:33:46 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 18:33:46 -0400
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince LONGish
In-Reply-To: <1154461521.3357.1645.m34@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1154461521.3357.1645.m34@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C883D1AFDA9969-1194-D9B@mblk-d31.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156338

 
Alla:
For example, you know what I think about Snape. :) But there is 
**one** piece of canon that I cannot explain away as him being a 
bastard, so while it does not convince me of Snape being good or 
anything like that, it sure is a hint to me that maybe he has some 
human feelings left in him. Because as you also know one of the 
biggest things I held against Snape is him not expressing any other 
feelings but hate.

Julie:
What is that one piece of canon? I'm curious. You know I am
pretty convinced that Snape is DDM, but if I can come up with
an intepretation for that bit of canon that would paint Snape
as a bastard (even if I don't buy it), I'll post it :-)
 
Julie 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 22:38:11 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:38:11 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaob41+i3le@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaol4j+i1et@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156339

Dungrollin wrote:
<snip>
> > CoS: (if the HBP plot had been left in) Snape's a highly gifted 
> > half-blood with a penchant for the Dark Arts. As it is, we learned 
> > nothing about Snape, except that he *really* hates Harry.
<snip>

Colebiancardi responded:
> I believe that in CoS, we learned that Snape was an expert duelist 
> and was pretty quick on his feet.   <snip>
> Anyway, there seems to be more than just potions to our Potions 
> Master - he can duel - a hint of his power to come in HBP

Carol adds:
I was going to something similar--Snape makes a fool of Lockhart in
the duelling club scene (a hint that he really is good at DADA) and at
the same time teaches the students Expelliarmus, which comes in handy
against Lockhart later in CoS and against Voldemort in GoF. in fact,
it may be the most useful defensive spell Harry and his friends have
learned. It appears from the petrified cat scene ("I believe I am the
Potions Master at this school") that Snape makes the Mandrake
Restorative Potion that Madam Pomfrey administers to the Basilisk's
victims, just as he later makes the Wolfsbane Potion for Lupin. It's
Snape who suggests that Draco use Serpensortia, the spell which
reveals that Harry is a Parselmouth, and it's Snape who reminds
Lockhart that he's the DADA teacher, so it's his job to go after the
Basilisk, and we see McGonagall and the others back Snape up. Maybe
they're just getting Lockhart out of their hair, but it's snape who
forces Lockhart to show his hand (do his job or get out of Hogwarts)
and who (indirectly) gives the eavesdropping Ron and Harry the idea to
go to Lockhart, initiating the whole Chamber of Secrets sequence. And
we see Snape's gripping the back of his chair so that his knuckles
turn white when he hears that a student has been taken into the
Chamber--a clear indication that he does care about the welfare of the
students.

So even though I'd love to have seen more of Snape in CoS and any
other book, I think we see enough of him that (at least after reading
the other books) we can deduce something of the close relationship
between Dumbledore and Snape from the evidence in CoS. For example,
it's undoubtedly Snape who reports to DD that Harry is a Parselmouth,
whether or not he deliberately told Draco to cast that spell to
discover exactly that piece of information. (Since he knows a lot
about DADA, he may already have suspected that the monster was a
Basilisk and that the Heir of Slytherin must speak Parseltongue. He
may actually have thought that Harry was the Heir, or at least wanted
to explore the possibility.) It's also interesting that McGonagall,
the assistant headmistress, is the first to follow Snape's lead with
regard to Lockhart, even though, as we later learn, she's about twice
Snape's age and was once his Transfiguration teacher.

Still, to return to my original comment about not seeing how the HBP
plot could fit into CoS, I don't see how the HBP's Potions text or
DADA text could have been used in a book about Harry's second year.
Aside from having an interaction between Harry and two different books
(one magical and one not), it would have been premature to show Snape
inventing spells like Levicorpus, much less Sectumsempra, not to
mention having Harry cast it on Draco in second year and Snape saving
Draco from death at Harry's hands when the two boys are twelve years
old. I think the HBP's Potions book is a great device for an ironic
interaction between Harry and Teen!Snape, but it fits much better in
sixth year, when the relationship between Harry and the adult Snape is
worsening by the minute and the whole situation at Hogwarts is
hurtling toward disaster. It's just hard for me to comprehend that JKR
would even think of including it so early.

As I think I said in an earlier post, I'd love to get my hands on the
draft and/or notes of the HBP/CoS combined plots. What a disaster it
would have been for the series if she hadn't realized her error!

Carol, wondering how she would have fleshed out the plot of Book 6 if
she'd already used up the HBP plot with all its lovely irony







From flowerchild4 at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug  1 23:00:02 2006
From: flowerchild4 at sbcglobal.net (Christine Whittaker)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 16:00:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
Message-ID: <20060801230004.53908.qmail@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156340

I tried this on the smaller group, now I'll ask this here.  Any ideas? Comments?



Ok, questions about Patronuses. I'm sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I didn't find anything in the archives that answers this question. What can we learn about the character by knowing what form their Patronuses take?

>From "One-on-one interview with J.K. Rowling, ITV, 17 July 2005" 

Emma: What one spell would you like to bring to life and why?

JKR: 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.

From "America Online chat transcript, AOL.com, 19 October 2000" 

Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality? 

Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! (I can't find it, but IIRC, we were told that the animagus and patronus take the same form.)

So, here are the characters patronuses that I could find. What can be deduced from knowing their form? 

>From "Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005" 

MA: What's Ron's Patronus?

JKR: Ron's Patronus? Have I never said that either? Oh no, that's shocking! [Laughter.] Ron's Patronus is a small dog, like a Jack Russell, and that's a really sentimental choice, because we've got a Jack Russell. He's insane.

Harry's is a Stag, from (GOF pg 411 AmEd) "The Patronus turned. It was cantering back toward Harry across the still surface of the water. It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag." 

DD's is a Phoenix (JKR'S website, FAQ, About the Books) She states, "And, as many of you have deduced, Dumbledore's Patronus is indeed a phoenix". 

Hermione's is an Otter (OoP pg 607 AmEd) "Hermione's Patronus, shining silver otter, was gamboling around her." 

Cho's is a Swan (OoP pg 606 Am Ed) "Oh, don't be such a killjoy," said Cho brightly, watching her silver swan-shaped Patronus soar around the Room of Requirement during their last lesson before Easter." 

We have been told that if we knew Snape's it would give too much away (World Book Day chat 03/04/2004) 

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. 

Ok, if your Patronus reflects who you are, what can we deduce??? what form is Snape's???? (My daughter-in- law thinks it will be an animal known for it's cunning, like a fox!!)

What does everyone think?

Chris (flowerchild4)
Visit Your Group 
SPONSORED LINKS
Entertainment new york
Magic entertainment
Magic tricks
Harry potter
Yahoo! Search
Start Searching 
Find exactly
what you want.
Yahoo! Avatars
Express Yourself
Show your face in
Messenger & more.
Yahoo! 360?
Start Now
Your place online
Share with friends. 
 

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




From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Tue Aug  1 23:06:48 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:06:48 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen
 Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <20060801201004.14320.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <44CFDE88.7000509@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156341

Joe Goodwin wrote:
>
> The entire scene lasts what, five minutes maybe?
> 
> I think making any deep character judgements about ANYBODY based on a
> five minute segment of their life is deeply flawed.

It's not only the 5 minutes of OOtP. To me, James and Sirius read like a 
couple of bullies even before that book was published.
(And now that Yahoo does half-decent search, I can prove it. Messages
38387, 43255 and surrounding threads).


> 
> Oh one more thing. Can we please stop calling people bullies because
> they hexed someone?

Do you thing that Dudley is a perfectly normal teenage boy as well? If 
no, can you please provide a definition of "bully" that includes Dudley 
but excludes the Pensieve scene?

And I'm going to repeat it again: "everyone is doing it" is a silly 
justification, that a bully himself can use. But unworthy of a grown-up 
person. In a group of 30 teenagers only 1 or 2 can be bullies. There 
will be one or two victims, and the rest will be neutral. Enablers, if 
you will. *Not everyone is doing it*.

Irene



From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  2 00:30:30 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 00:30:30 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore, wanted, dead or alive
In-Reply-To: <eao4h9+n7dd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaorn6+9us9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156342

Carol:
> IMO, only one character (other than DD himself if he's alive) knows
> for sure whether DD is dead and that's Snape.


SSSusan:
If that is true, then I'm even more convinced than I was before that 
DD is dead.  

Since I am a quite firm DDM!Snaper, I cannot imagine the meaning 
behind that look of hatred and revulsion on Snape's face if he was 
aware they were only faking DD's death.  Nope, I think the hatred 
and revulsion were genuine and were there precisely because DD was 
asking/telling/commanding [take your pick] Snape to kill him for 
real, and he [Snape] really, really did not want to do so.

It's a good question, though.  If DD *is* alive, who do people think 
would know about it?  Is it a total secret to all?  Does Aberforth 
know?  McGonagall? 

Siriusly Snapey Susan







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 01:16:37 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:16:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <20060801230004.53908.qmail@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <20060801230004.53908.qmail@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608011816t22a8edc2y5975dc49e73022ca@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156343

> Christine Whittaker <flowerchild4 at sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>
> Ok, questions about Patronuses. I'm sorry if this has been discussed to death, but I didn't find anything in the archives that answers this question. What can we learn about the character by knowing what form their Patronuses take?
>
> From "One-on-one interview with J.K. Rowling, ITV, 17 July 2005"
>
> Emma: What one spell would you like to bring to life and why?
>
> JKR: .... Erm, I think for me there ... the outstanding spell is 'Expecto Patronum'.... 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.
>
> From "America Online chat transcript, AOL.com, 19 October 2000"
>
> Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your personality?
>
> Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! (I can't find it, but IIRC, we were told that the animagus and patronus take the same form.)
>
> So, here are the characters patronuses that I could find. What can be deduced from knowing their form?
>
> From "Anelli, Melissa and Emerson Spartz. "The Leaky Cauldron and MuggleNet interview Joanne Kathleen Rowling: Part Three," The Leaky Cauldron, 16 July 2005"
>
> MA: What's Ron's Patronus?
>
> JKR: Ron's Patronus? Have I never said that either? Oh no, that's shocking! [Laughter.] Ron's Patronus is a small dog, like a Jack Russell, and that's a really sentimental choice, because we've got a Jack Russell. He's insane.
>
> Harry's is a Stag, from (GOF pg 411 AmEd) "The Patronus turned. It was cantering back toward Harry across the still surface of the water. It wasn't a horse. It wasn't a unicorn, either. It was a stag."
>
> DD's is a Phoenix (JKR'S website, FAQ, About the Books) She states, "And, as many of you have deduced, Dumbledore's Patronus is indeed a phoenix".
>
> Hermione's is an Otter (OoP pg 607 AmEd) "Hermione's Patronus, shining silver otter, was gamboling around her."
>
> Cho's is a Swan (OoP pg 606 Am Ed) "Oh, don't be such a killjoy," said Cho brightly, watching her silver swan-shaped Patronus soar around the Room of Requirement during their last lesson before Easter."
>
> We have been told that if we knew Snape's it would give too much away (World Book Day chat 03/04/2004)
>
>
> Ok, if your Patronus reflects who you are, what can we deduce??? what form is Snape's???? (My daughter-in- law thinks it will be an animal known for it's cunning, like a fox!!)
>
> What does everyone think?
> 


Kemper now:
Nice to have a new thread...

Not only is Harry's Patronus a stag, but, as it's a patronus, it's
white (right?).  A white stag is a symbol of Christ; Harry's white
stag patronus walks across the lake, a body of water.

I disagree with a fox, but can see a chameleon, bat, spider, dragon
(Hungarian Horntail), unicorn.  Yes, I said unicorn.  Does anyone
really see otter characteristics for Hermione?  If so, then I can see
unicorn characteristics for Snape (difficult to approach to start).

Kemper



From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Aug  2 01:38:39 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:38:39 EDT
Subject: (no subject)
Message-ID: <bbf.1d605c5.32015c1f@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156344

>Alla
Suppose we get to view Draco's memories in the Pensieve. Suppose he  
placed his memories about GoF train accident in the Pensieve, except 
he  only put there **part** of that particular memory, starting with 
Gryffindors  hexing him?

Wouldn't you think of Draco as blameless party if you were to  see 
**only** that part of the memory?

> Joe:
> You believe  the attack on Snape is unprovoked. Not knowing what 
might have happened  earlier that day or the day before or the day 
before means that all of us  are at best making an uneducated guess
 
 
>Joe
>As for Snape do we need to see scenes of him doing "bad" things? He  joined 
the Death Eaters right out of Hogwarts. You don't just wake up one day  and 
decide to join a band of genocidal murderers and thugs. 


Nikkalmati:
 
You are speaking as if this were RL or these scenes were chosen by  chance.  
Jo Rowling is in charge and she shows us what she wants us to  see.  She shows 
us, by her own choice, that the attack on Snape was  unprovoked.  She could 
easily have given us an indication that it was  retaliation, but, in fact, she 
goes out of her way to show us it was not merited  and that it was typical 
behavior for James and Sirius toward other  students.  That is canon and 
speculation isn't really needed to fill in the  gaps.  She made it crystal clear. I 
don't think this scene is the  whole of James and Sirius' character and I am 
willing to grant them good  qualities later, but Jo doesn't leave us any excuse 
for what happens  here. 
 
It is also within her power to show us or to let us hear about bad things  
Snape may have done for the DE's at the time of the first war.  She has not  
done that; I assume for a reason. Any speculation on that point is just  
speculation because Jo has decided not to tell us anything about horrible  actions as 
a DE.  The reporting of the prophecy is disputed on this list  both in its 
extent and its motive, as you know.  DD who had the  best knowledge about it 
seems not to have held it against Snape.  In the  Second war, we still don't see 
or hear about any bad  actions  (unless you want to take Snape's own words at 
Spinner's End  as gospel truth <g>) except for killing DD and again that 
incident is in  dispute, as I am sure you know. 
 
 I happen to think that when Jo doesn't show us something, we  have to take 
that seriously and not act as if she just forgot to include  it.  The burden is 
on anyone who proposes that things happened that we  are not shown in canon 
to explain why Jo is withholding this information from  us. I am not trying to 
defend a particular character, I am just trying to  discern where Jo is 
leading us.  
 
Nikkalmati   


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




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 03:09:39 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 03:09:39 -0000
Subject: Powerfully Magical and other Qualities(was Sectumsempra )
In-Reply-To: <bb8.2a998f0.31ffe0b8@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eap51j+80i9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156345

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
> > > >Julie
> > > <snip>
> > > And,  most importantly of all, he's FIFTEEN! No fifteen
> > > year old boy is going to  exert such rational thought and
> > > self-control in that situation 
> 
> > Potioncat:
> > But, it seems in other  situations, lack of control have made 
> > spells more extreme--like in charms  when Flitwick is knocked  
> > over, or pillows fly too wildly. <snipped and moved>
> > 
> > When Harry uses Sectumsempra, Draco is cut wide and deep in  
> > several places and blood pours. When Snape used a spell on 
> > James, the boy received a small cut. No one seemed to react and 
> > the cut appeared to be done with by the time the fight was over. 
> > No mention is made of James wiping away blood. It seems as   
> > unsurprising and insignificant as a slight nosebleed in a fight.
> 
> > It really is hard to tell if it was the  same spell or not. But 
> > if it was, it was being controlled. IMO, of  course.
>  
> Julie:
<snip>
>  
> I guess it boils down to these three possibilities:
> 1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell
> that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage.
> 2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to
> cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble,      
> because he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason.
> 3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the
> Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak. 
>  
> Really, it could be any of the three, but to me #2 seems the least
> likely 
<snip>  

Mike now:

Hey Julie, how about a number 4? Harry is an inately more powerful 
wizard, especially compared to other 16 year olds, therefore Harry's 
S-curse does more damage than Snape's did at the same age or 
younger. We were shown how Harry's 'Protego' was so powerful it 
almost knocked Snape off his feet, even tho it's a defensive curse 
and Snape hadn't yet cast a spell to deflect/rebound. Also, Harry 
*overdoes* his cheering charm on Ron during their Owls. I submit 
that Harry's charms/spells are all going to look like they're 
*overdone* when compared to his peers, simply because Harry is more 
*powerfully magical*. And, of course, who can forget the duel in the 
graveyard. So, no, I don't think Snape was deliberately controlling 
his S-curse, I think that was all he could muster. I'm opting for 
doors number 3 and 4.

Which brings us to Potioncat's repositioned post piece:

> > Potioncat (from above):
> > Or in GoF when DD's spell breaks down a door and sends Crouch!  
> > Moody across the room.

I really don't think this is an example of "lack of control" or 
letting your spell 'run away' from you. Rather, IMO this is the 
first and most stunning example of how powerfully magical Dumbledore 
actually is. His stunning spell blasts through a door!, then 
continues on to hit Moody!Crouch and knocks him out! I didn't get 
the impression any other wizard, even LV, could blast a spell 
*through* a solid object, or in this case, blast the solid object 
out of the way. Heck, even AKs and Crucios done properly still get 
deflected by solid objects, even Voldemorts.

The way I read the books, these two points are connected. I think we 
are meant to understand that there are 3 qualities that determine 
how successful a spell or spell caster is going to be.
1. How powerfully magical the caster is.
2. How tactically sound the caster is. This ranges anywhere from 
what spell to use and when to use it all the way to how sneaky the 
caster is (e.g. Occulumency, non-verbal, and just plain shooting 
them in the back)
3. How much magic does the caster know as well as which spells s/he 
is capable of employing/operating.

Taken in reverse order: I think it's obvious that LV and DD surpass 
everyone else in this quality, and by a far margin. LV has travelled 
far and wide and consorted with the "worst of our kind". In fact, I 
postulate that LV knows more than DD in this capacity. I know 
Minerva thinks that DD is just too *noble* to employ all he actually 
knows, but DD himself admits that LV learned more than any other 
wizard in our age. Someone like Snape is going to score high in this 
quality. Anyone who makes up his own spells has most likely learned 
a lot of the already established spells and how to use them.

Of course our hero is woefully behind here, despite the fact that 
JKR has told us (Melissa/Emerson interview) that Harry has learned 
more than he realizes. One of my pet Peeves (can he be trained?) is 
how poorly Harry is in employing new spells and quite frankly I do 
blame JKR for this. In HBP he still uses 'PT', something Hermione 
showed us she could do in year one. In fact, he seems to have 
learned a bunch of combat spells in GoF and hasn't learned anything 
new since (besides the HBP spells, only one of which is really a 
combat spell and he won't use that one again). He just finished a 
NEWT level course with the best DADA instructor (yes, better than 
Lupin) that Hogwarts has shown us, and Harry (or is that JKR) has 
nothing to show for it.

In this regard, Harry has been rather intellectually sloppy. If it 
weren't for Hermione, Harry would be in dire straights by now. To be 
fair, probably because of Hermione's bookish capacity, Harry is 
learning a lot more than his peers, given the overall poor quality 
of DADA instructors at Hogwarts. But for someone that has known 
since the end of his first year that the most evil wizard in the 
world is after him, Harry doesn't seem to take his situation nearly 
as seriously as he should.

In our second quality, Tactical Ability, LV and Snape both lead the 
league. And I would put Snape in Voldemorts league here. Snape has 
all the abilities to act tactically sound and even seems to try to 
teach Harry in this area, although Harry doesn't seem to realize 
that's what he's doing. I'm sorry to disappoint everyone, but 
Dumbledore is not at the top of this category. Whether out of 
*nobility* or sense of *fair play*, Dumbledore will never fight 
dirty and fighting dirty gives one an edge. Dumbledore would never 
endanger innocent bystanders, in fact, he will lose tactical 
advantage to protect them (Tower scene anyone? What about jinxing 
Bella before she got Sirius instead of letting them continue to 
duel?). 

And after Harry and Snape's encounter on the lawn, does anyone doubt 
that Harry is nowhere near their league? Harry is encumbered with 
his sense of *fair play* (or at least he won't use Dark Magic, 
whatever that is). But Harry can't do Occlumency, doesn't seem to 
know but one non-verbal spell (Really! after a whole year of 
practice), and would never hit em when their down or not looking; 
although I have a feeling he might bend that rule for Voldemort.

So how can Harry compete? Ah, now we're at *Powerfully Magical*. 
Canon has told us that Dumbledore is more powerfully magical than LV 
(the only one he feared), and showed us that he is more powerfully 
magical in the duel at the MoM. DD had him beat, until LV turned to 
*dirty tricks*. Let their be no doubt, had Harry not been there to 
give LV a "tactical advantage", LV would have been caught by DD. As 
it was, LV just barely escaped when DD turned his attention to 
Harry's well being. Even without Harry, LV may have just apparated 
out of there once it became apparent he couldn't win. But Dumbledore 
is definitely more powerfully magical than Voldemort.

So what about Harry. Well, we've only been given hints, but those 
hints seem pretty obvious to me. Harry not only has the *power of 
love* in spades, he is also is powerfully magical.

I have wondered, ever since Sirius told us that Barty Crouch Sr. was 
*powerfully magical*, what the nature of this quality is. One learns 
spells, learns how to employ them and when to employ them. One can 
even learn tactics and the peripheral skills in this area. But it 
seems to me that being *powerfully magical* is something inate. It 
is not something that one can learn, not something one can get 
better at, not a skill at all. It is a quality of being.

I think we will find that Harry has this quality. I think we will 
discover in book 7 that Harry will be shown to be the *most* 
powerfully magical wizard, even more than Dumbledore. This will be 
Harry's lone advantage over Voldemort. A spell cast by a powerfully 
magical wizard has the chance of overcoming the best defence/shield. 
It can make up for lack of good tactical sense with the ability to 
*blast* through one's mistakes. Harry's advantage is more 
significant than his weaknesses, indeed has the ability to make up 
for his shortcomings in the other areas.

My question lies in how *powerfully magical* will manifest itself. 
My money is on something Harry will discover in the *Love Room* of 
the DoM or in that spell DD used on LV in the Duel. My gut tells me 
that Harry will discover what that spell was and when he throws it 
at LV, no shield will block it!

If you've read this far, thanks for your indulgence :-)
Mike







From aceworker at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 03:25:03 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:25:03 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
Message-ID: <20060802032503.84338.qmail@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156346

<snip> Dung said: < Out of interest, did anyone ever figure out what that detail was 
that JKR insisted was kept in the unnameable version of CoS? <snip>
   
  DA Jones here: 
  
The answer to that is easy enough. The silver and opal necklace that Katie is cursed with in the chapter Silver and Opals in HBP chapter 12 (pg. 248-252 HBP, scholastic) is the same necklace mentioned on page 52 of chapter 4 Flourish and Blotts from COS (Scholastic). 
   
  This entire scene seems to have been transplanted intact from its planned place in the orig draft of novel 2, except for minor details such as Leanne replacing Alica or Angelina. (Leanne has the biggest walk on part in all the series, I'm sure we will never see her again!)
   
  This is another example of a subtle Chekov's Gun. Another is prob. the locket Ginny cleaned in OOTP which nearly everyone seems to think is the real Slytherin Horcrux. 
   
  What do you think 
   
  DA Jones
     

   

 		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs.Try it free. 

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




From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 03:40:35 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 20:40:35 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Sectumsempra (was Re: Snape should have kicke d James/Siri...
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B83@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
References: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B83@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <700201d40608012040k53a26fesf380ef272617bd7@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156347

> James Adds to Jullies list below (The Elves are going to get you James.  Duck!):
>
> 4. Snape had not yet fully developed the spell and the one used was the
> strongest version of it he had at the time.
>
> Julie:
>
> I guess it boils down to these three possibilities:
> 1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell
> that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage.
> 2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to
> cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble, because
> he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason.
> 3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the
> Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak.
> 

Kemper now:
Adding to James 4 but not going to 5...

I, too, think the curse was in it's beta stages.  More specifically, I
think the spell at the time was 'Sectum' (which according to the
Lexicon is latin for cut).  So the spell cuts the skin if it hits the
opponent.  What makes Sectumsepra more powerful is that when it hits
an opponent it cuts continually (apparently).Even if Umbridge used the
spell on Draco, he would be in a world of hurt.

I think Snape is at least as powerful as Sirius/James at school

Now that I'm thinking of power level.  Here's my thought on top 5 most
powerful:

1. Dumbledore
2. Voldemorte
e. Harry
3. Snape
pi. Bellatrix

Kemper



From aceworker at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 04:01:14 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:01:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting )
Message-ID: <20060802040114.1222.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156348

<snip>> Carol -- The DA members can cast the
spell in the RoR, but they've never used it against even a Boggart
Dementor--and no one but Harry has a Dementor Boggart, as far as we know.<Snip> 

  DA Jones here:
  
Cho said not be a killjoy, but sorry Carol I have to ppint out that you have canon wrong. According to OOP, only the follwoing DA members can cast Patronus. (of course it was only Harry's first leason and it was cut short by the raod by the inquistorial squad)
   
  (see pg. 606-607 OOP, Scholastic) 
   
  1) Cho. - A swan.
  2) Hermione - an otter 
  3) Harry -- a silber buck (prongs)
  4) Seamus almost had it (" Look - aj-its gone...but it was definitely something hairy, Harry!; (pg. 607)
   
  Lavender and Neville are shown to be esp bad at it (pg. 606). It is implied that a couple of more were at least partially succesful  "The few Patronuses people had managed to conjurer faded away into silver mist" (which implies more then 2 succ tries, but we don't kknow who else was succesful (pg. 607)
   
  I suppose given Lavender's past, that if she ever did manage to conjur a patronus it would be a rabbit, due to her pet rabbit that died. 
   
  But, I've  always wondered what "happy thought" JKR had in mind for Cho's patronus as she seemd to bew such a natural at it; esp considering that she was app. borderline depressed for such a long part of the year.
   
  Was this due to Harry, a memory of Cedric, a memory of times with Marietta or just family or another Ravenclaw like MIchael Corner who she ends up dating. Maybe it was a thought of Quidditch. This is something we will never know. 
   
  DA Jones

 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.

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




From shanhut at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 22:09:03 2006
From: shanhut at yahoo.com (shanhut)
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 22:09:03 -0000
Subject: State of the DA /Did Ron and Hermione use the coins?
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0607301517q1e1e598cp6e2b80bc01f02e93@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaojdv+vf6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156349

> Lynda:
>
> In the pandomonium and hubbub of the DE attack on Hogwarts,
Hermione might
> not have had a chance to use the coins.  Stranger things than that
have been
> known to happen in non-fictional crises.  As for this not being
mentioned
> due to unreliable narrator, I don't think that's necessarily so.
It's
> simply that if she used the coins, it wasn't mentioned in the
text.  That's
> not unreliable narrator. That's writer's prerogative in
storytelling.  JMHO,
> of course.
>


They were able to used the Marauder's Map, that Harry left with them,
to find people and watch for Draco and Snape.  Also on page 552 in
HBP, Harry says "Use anyone else who you can rustle up from the D.A.,
Hermione, those contact Galleons will still work, right?"  I think
they used both.  Anyone who believed in the D.A. and still were
hoping it would be reprised, kept their coins so they could be
contacted if and when needed.  Some may have showed up but when they
saw the death eaters come out of the Room of Requirement, ran for
help or wnet back to their houses.  They really weren't prepared for
that big a fight.

Shan









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 04:08:18 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:08:18 -0000
Subject: Powerfully Magical and other Qualities(was Sectumsempra )
In-Reply-To: <eap51j+80i9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eap8fi+nkah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156350

Mike:
> And after Harry and Snape's encounter on the lawn, does anyone 
doubt 
> that Harry is nowhere near their league? Harry is encumbered with 
> his sense of *fair play* (or at least he won't use Dark Magic, 
> whatever that is). But Harry can't do Occlumency, doesn't seem to 
> know but one non-verbal spell (Really! after a whole year of 
> practice), and would never hit em when their down or not looking; 
> although I have a feeling he might bend that rule for Voldemort.

zgirnius:
HI Mike, nice post, overall, I like your division of the three 
factors that determine a wizard's success....but I have to take issue 
here. First, Harry IS willing to do Dark Magic, he tries both Crucio 
and Sectumsempra in the scene in question, and gets blocked. As far 
as 'fighting dirty', he tries to Stun Snape from behind (a tactic I 
applaud enthusiastically in any real fight, by the way, I am just 
adopting your terminology), and misses. (He probably just needed to 
wait to get a bit closer...but then Book 7 would be much less 
intyresting!) Snape is not winning here because he is fighting dirty 
and Harry is fighting clean. On the contrary, he is winning despite 
the *opposite* being true. With one exception, (the very last spell) 
every spell Snape casts against Harry is a defensive one.

Mike:
> So what about Harry. Well, we've only been given hints, but those 
> hints seem pretty obvious to me. Harry not only has the *power of 
> love* in spades, he is also is powerfully magical.

zgirnius:
I thought the end of PoA was a pretty big hint of this, actually. I 
think, though, that there might be a fourth factor in play. Maybe 
Harry is not innately superior to Voldemort and Dumbledore in his raw 
magical power, or even at hteir level...but is able to function as if 
he were when his positive emotions are strongly engaged. In PoA, he 
was motivated to save Sirius, and was therefore able to cast a 
Patronus of amazing power. This would also explain why Snape had zero 
trouble with him at the end of HBP. A desire for revenge is not the 
most positive of emotions, so he had no chance to blast through 
Snape's various defensive spells.







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 01:14:31 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:14:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <44CFDE88.7000509@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <20060802011432.9665.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156351


IreneMikhlin <irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com> wrote:
Do you thing that Dudley is a perfectly normal teenage boy as well? If
no, can you please provide a definition of "bully" that includes Dudley
but excludes the Pensieve scene?

And I'm going to repeat it again: "everyone is doing it" is a silly
justification, that a bully himself can use. But unworthy of a grown-up
person. In a group of 30 teenagers only 1 or 2 can be bullies. There
will be one or two victims, and the rest will be neutral. Enablers, if
you will. *Not everyone is doing it*.

Joe:

  If everyone is doing it then it isn't bullying it is normal behavior dictated by the society at large. If it is so horrible and abnormal where are the Prefects? It was a large crowd surely there was one near by.

  Maybe a school that lets Peeves run loose making students set their pants on fire knows that students hex each other as a matter of course.

  I'm not even saying that James and Sirius should have done what they did. I am saying that I suspect and canon supports that their grudge with Snape went a lot longer and deeper than one scene. If Snape(and other Slytherins) hex James and Sirius at times and get hexed at times then it isn't bullying it is fighting. I suspect from the way Snape is surprised that he and the Gryffindors are in a state of semi-open battle and he got distracted by their OWLS and wasn't paying attention to where he was at. They got the jump on him. I am willing to be that book 7 shows us times where Snape(and maybe others) got the jump on them.

  Bullying has become a buzz word for any times a "misunderstood", unpopular person has any altercation with a popular, athletic type person.

  My wife says I should stop posting about it because as she says "People who had certain experinces at school will see it one way and others will see it another," So I'm just going to go with that.

  Joe













From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  2 01:24:55 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:24:55 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaol4j+i1et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaout7+shqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156352

Abergoat says:
Here is the address of JKRs comments about the link we are discussing:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=56

Dung wrote:
It's personal character information about what Snape
was like at school and his family, it's just not transferable to
another character, and neither is it an important enough plot point
that it doesn't matter who was the HBP, we just need an HBP,
somewhere.

Abergoat adds:
I originally brought up the topic of the HBP being the working title
of the CoS because of speculation that Eileen Prince was involved with
Hagrid's CoS story. I think Hagrid's story was almost completely
removed from the book so Eileen and her son, the half-blood Prince,
went too.

Dung wrote:
I also think that the HBP (since the book was 50 years old) would
have been a red herring suspect for the Heir of Slytherin, and was
replaced with the Draco Malfoy polyjuice escapade.

Abergoat adds:
Nice idea. I am still suspicious that Eileen was involved in finding
the opening to the Chamber of Secrets. As I mentioned earlier, I
imagine it is significant that it is in a girls bathroom. Also, If
Snape inherited his courage from his mother (possible given her
Gobstones notoriety) she may well have been the one to find Myrtle's
body and possibly talk to Myrtle's ghost. This would be how she is
able to confirm to Dumbledore it could not have been Hagrid's pet. An
archnid has black (faceted?) eyes. The eyes described by Moaning
Myrtle were NOT those of a spider.

Carol wrote:
Still, to return to my original comment about not seeing how the HBP
plot could fit into CoS, I don't see how the HBP's Potions text or
DADA text could have been used in a book about Harry's second year.

Abergoat responds:
I'm not sure that any of the HBP plot was in CoS - I got the
impression it was just the title and the 'story' of the half-blood
Prince. 

The pertinent bit from the link I provided is as follows (JKR's words):
'The Half-Blood Prince' might be described as a strand of the overall
plot. That strand could be used in a whole variety of ways and back in
1997 I considered weaving it into the story of 'Chamber'. It really
didn't fit there, though; it was not part of the story of the basilisk
and Riddle's diary, and before long I accepted that it would be better
to do it justice in book six. I clung to the title for a while, even
though all trace of the 'Prince' storyline had disappeared, because I
liked it so much (yes, I really like this title!). I re-christened
book two 'Chamber of Secrets' when I started the second draft.

Abergoat adds:
So the important bit is "'The Half-Blood Prince' might be described as
a strand of the overall plot". The Eileen Prince thread has been
covering the idea that Eileen was involved with Hagrid in CoS, that
Eileen may have been attacked because she had the Ravenclaw relic,
that Snape is trusted by Dumbledore because of his desire for vengance
for his mother and the possibility that even now Eileen may reside in
St. Mungo's and Snape worked with Lily on potions to heal her. If
these are true then the 'half-blood Prince' is most definitely a
strand of the overall plot and was only tangentially related to CoS.
She gave birth to the man (and her memory drives the man) whose
actions led to Harry being marked. 

I still think 'half-blood' is doing double duty. Snape may just be
proud he shared half of Eileen Prince's genes if not her name. So he
may view the 'half-blood' as 'half a Prince' with a nod to his father
thrown in as a clever word play. I suspect the most important part of
that moniker may be his mother. The Ravenclaw relic probably passes
through women so surnames have little meaning. 

Abergoat









From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 01:40:52 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 01:40:52 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaojre+grjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaovr4+5mu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156353

Betsy wrote:

> 
> I don't know, I think maybe the inclination to color the Potterverse 
> as a cartoon is ducking the big questions.  If it was bad for a 
> teacher to make Harry carve words into his hand,  might it not have 
> been equally bad for a teacher to slam Draco repeatedly into the 
> floor?  And what does it say about us that we were amused at first?

Or those of us who still find that scene incredibly amusing.  Karmic
justice usually is.  It is one thing that JKR does do quite well, when
she chooses to.  Which is why I'm hoping dearly that good old abusive
Snapey-poo is next on the list.  Along with Umbridge and the Dursleys,
of course.

Is it revenge?  Sure.  But justice inevitably has a component of
revenge.  Indeed, a trial lawyer I know once told me that the justice
system serves many purposes -- protection of society, rehabilitation,
etc.  But one purpose it serves is a limited and legitimated mechanism
of revenge, and there is nothing wrong with that.  It's natural human
behavior.


> 
> A lot of this depends on the outcome of book 7, of course.  Are the 
> Slytherins as real as the Gryffindors?  Is Draco just as much a 
> human being as Harry is?  I think JKR will take the real rather than 
> the cartoon path.  I think.  Though I'm betting the Voldemort bits 
> are going to be pure fantasy.
> 

Human?  Sure.  Deserving of sympathy?  Mostly not.  Neither of course
is Snapey-poo.  Simply because someone is human does not release them
from paying for their actions, such as letting DEs into Hogwarts,
abusing Harry and Neville, etc.  Indeed, because they are human
necessitates that they receive the hand of justice, because their
humanity places a special burden on them.  Animals are not the subject
of justice, only pragmatic disposition.  Killing a mean dog is an act
of practical problem management.  Punishing a child abuser or someone
whose actions have led directly to murder, that is justice.


Lupinlore, who like Pinhead from the Hellraiser movies, will find
suffering very sweet, as long as it's the well deserved suffering of
abusers such as Snapey-poo, Umbridge, and the Dursleys -- or of the
treacherous little ferret









From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 04:30:59 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:30:59 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060802011432.9665.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <44CFDE88.7000509@btopenworld.com>
	 <20060802011432.9665.qmail@web61317.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608012130u5c48f752q4e56dd08785735b0@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156354

> IreneMikhlin <irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Do you thing that Dudley is a perfectly normal teenage boy as well? If
> no, can you please provide a definition of "bully" that includes Dudley
> but excludes the Pensieve scene?
>
> And I'm going to repeat it again: "everyone is doing it" is a silly
> justification, that a bully himself can use. But unworthy of a grown-up
> person. In a group of 30 teenagers only 1 or 2 can be bullies. There
> will be one or two victims, and the rest will be neutral. Enablers, if
> you will. *Not everyone is doing it*.
>
>
> Joe responded:
>
> If everyone is doing it then it isn't bullying it is normal behavior dictated by the society at large. If it is so horrible and abnormal where are the Prefects? It was a large crowd surely there was one near by.
> 


Kemper now:
Lupin's a Prefect. And he's near by.
It's obvious in text that he /knows/ the instigation of the fight
(leaving out the 'b' word) is wrong.   But he does nothing.  Why?
Because he's not strong enough to stand up to his friends.  Neville
has bigger balls at age 11 than Lupin does at age 15.  Maybe the wolf
was neutered.

Kemper



From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 04:32:07 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:32:07 -0000
Subject: Snape and Marauders
In-Reply-To: <bbf.1d605c5.32015c1f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eap9s7+arie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156355

> >Alla
> Suppose we get to view Draco's memories in the Pensieve. Suppose 
he  
> placed his memories about GoF train accident in the Pensieve, 
except 
> he  only put there **part** of that particular memory, starting 
with 
> Gryffindors  hexing him?
> 
> Wouldn't you think of Draco as blameless party if you were to  see 
> **only** that part of the memory?
> Nikkalmati:
>  
> You are speaking as if this were RL or these scenes were chosen 
by  chance.  

Alla:

No, I am saying that the gaps were not filled yet for the reason and 
there are multiple examples of the information withhold ( Snape is 
the primary example IMO) and filled later and IMO she still 
continues doing it.

I am also saying that  IMO there is a **very** clear example that 
tampering with Pensieve memory **is** possible.

Yes, Pensieve is objective, but could Snape change his memory before 
he put it in? I would not put it behind him, especially if the 
speculation that he wanted Harry to see this memory is true, and if 
he did I think he would have done a much better job than dear Horace.

Nikkalmati:
> Jo Rowling is in charge and she shows us what she wants us to  
see.  She shows 
> us, by her own choice, that the attack on Snape was  unprovoked.  
She could 
> easily have given us an indication that it was  retaliation, but, 
in fact, she 
> goes out of her way to show us it was not merited  and that it was 
typical 
> behavior for James and Sirius toward other  students.  That is 
canon and 
> speculation isn't really needed to fill in the  gaps.  She made it 
crystal clear.

Alla:

Eh, okay. She made it crystal clear to you, to me it is very far 
from being clear. May I still speculate on this subject? :)

We do not know till book 4 of Snape being a DE. Dumbledore does not 
let us know who the eavesdropper was in book 5, when he mentions it. 
Why? IMO for dramatic effect and succeeds too.

Although this was the only thing I got right, Snape being the 
eavesdropper.

Was it clear to you that Snape was hit in the Pensieve scene by his 
own **creation** that as it turns out whole school knew? Isn't it a 
very good example of deliberately withholding information personally 
to spring on us later?



Nikkalmati:
 I 
> don't think this scene is the  whole of James and Sirius' 
character and I am 
> willing to grant them good  qualities later, but Jo doesn't leave 
us any excuse 
> for what happens  here. 

Alla:

Excuse, no. Does she leave empty spaces in the story of Marauders 
and Snape? To me, absolutely she does and she already filled some of 
them in HBP and as far as I am concerned they don't make Snape in 
school look good.

Nikkalmati:  
> It is also within her power to show us or to let us hear about bad 
things  
> Snape may have done for the DE's at the time of the first war.  
She has not  
> done that; I assume for a reason. 

Alla:

????

I thought telling Voldemort about Prophecy was pretty bad, but that 
is just me.

Nikkalmati:
  The reporting of the prophecy is disputed on this list  both in 
its 
> extent and its motive, as you know.  DD who had the  best 
knowledge about it 
> seems not to have held it against Snape. 

Alla:

Yes, I know, but I seem to think that canon does not dispute Snape's 
reporting the prophecy and all Snape's deeds are disputed on the 
list, that I know too. :) That does not make them  look any better 
to me, sorry.

Nikkalmati:
<SNIP>
  The burden is 
> on anyone who proposes that things happened that we  are not shown 
in canon 
> to explain why Jo is withholding this information from  us.

Alla:

To make the story more interesting and the revelations even more 
unexpected or expected depending on how you look at it?


Nikkalmati:
 I am not trying to 
> defend a particular character, I am just trying to  discern where 
Jo is 
> leading us.  

Alla:

Aren't we all? :)

JMO,

Alla







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 04:51:59 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 04:51:59 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaoh6s+db8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eapb1f+11ud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156357

 Betsy Hp:
> Ooh, Alla, do you really want to start that conversation up again?
> <bg> Honestly I think Draco and Crabbe and Goyle *were* hard done
> by in that particular scene. Though I wouldn't go so far as to
call
> him *blameless*. (Poor Crabbe and Goyle were though. They, as
> usual, didn't say a word.)

Alla:

Heee, not really, but we can agree at least that Draco is not
blameless if we know the whole story? That is all I am saying that
perception can change drastically or not drastically but at least
somewhat, if we know whole story.


Betsy Hp:
> However, we do get quite a bit of build up into James and Sirius's
> attack on Snape. So I think this is a bit apples and oranges,
> really. Since you'd have to start the memory right at the moment
of
> attack.

Alla:

I did not necessarily mean that the scene itself was cut off,
although that is possible too. I meant to compare that we don't know
what happened between them before in general, maybe even in the
whole year.


Betsy Hp:
> And really, *Harry* is appalled at his father's and Sirius's
> behavior. And Harry knows Snape. If Harry is so bothered by the
> pensieve scene, why is it weird that so many reader are bothered
too?

Alla:

No, not wierd at all, if readers are just as
appalled by Snape's five years bullying of Harry and Neville, but
when the five year bullying gets dismissed, but Marauders are casted
off as bullies on the basis of five minutes scene ( disgusting one
to be sure, but **one** scene,and despite what I posted in the
earlier post,
I do think that the scene is likely real, although anything is
possible) then yes, it is a
little bit strange to me. But of course that is just my opinion.

And of course I do think that their mutual grudge went much deeper
than what we saw so far.

It is what I said to Magpie . IMO we will find out that Harry was
right to be appalled, but we will also find out that Snape was not
blameless in the war between them. He may have been blameless in
that particular scene, but IMO not in the fights between them.
Speculating but IMO with canon hints.

> Ken:
<SNIP>
>Harry is right to be
> distressed to see his dad act this way. Decent boys don't act this
> way. Decent headmasters would not allow Snape to do what he does in
> his classes either. Bully boys can grow out of it and James & 
company
> apparently did. I don't know how to excuse DD. Harry truly is 
better
> than his father in this respect, we have to admire him for that.
>

Alla:
Word, Ken to each and every word of this paragraph. :)

JMO,

Alla






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 01:43:53 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 18:43:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <44CFDE88.7000509@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <20060802014353.48694.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156358


IreneMikhlin <irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com> wrote:
And I'm going to repeat it again: "everyone is doing it" is a silly
justification, that a bully himself can use. But unworthy of a grown-up
person. In a group of 30 teenagers only 1 or 2 can be bullies. There
will be one or two victims, and the rest will be neutral. Enablers, if
you will. *Not everyone is doing it*.

  Joe:

  I went back and read the Pensieve scene and it looks like Snape went for his wand first. James and Sirius stood up. There was no mention of their having drawn wands. Then James said "All right there Snivellus?" and Snape went for his wand.

  So it was obvious that James and Sirius were going to confront him on some level but it was Snape who went for his wand first. So tell me, is Snape now the bully because he resorted to magic first? Or he tried to.

  I also noticed something I had never noticed before. Harry states during the Pensieve scene that Snape is clearly unpopular. There were some people a few threads ago saying their was no canon for Snape's not being liked by anyone other than the Marauders but it seems there is.

  Joe












From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Wed Aug  2 08:34:39 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 01:34:39 -0700
Subject: CoS vs. HBP & SHIP: H/G, Lupin/Tonks
In-Reply-To: <38b.d271700.320026ee@aol.com>
References: <38b.d271700.320026ee@aol.com>
Message-ID: <43571207.20060802013439@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156360

Brothergib:
> ... Tonks in HBP (Her patronus has changed due to her unrequited
> love for Lupin)

Dave:
Her love for Lupin wasn't/isn't unrequited -- Remus was just doing the
Bogie-as-Rick-in-Casablanca bit. (Much as Harry is doing with Ginny at
the end of HBP -- See below.)


Julie:
jac> But didn't JKR also say the title of the second book was  going to
jac> be "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince"? If so, then the Half
jac> Blood Prince was going to be present and part of the story. Which
jac> means either Snape would have been revealed as a half-blood at
jac> that early point (before he'd even been revealed as a Death Eater!)
jac> ...

Dave:
Perhaps the original plot of Book 2 didn't involve a Chamber or the
monster that lived in it at all...  Maybe the whole book was to
basically involve Harry finding the Diary, which then revealed *many*
of Riddle's memories (which ended up in Dumbledore's Pensieve in Book
6), and then Harry fought Diary!Riddle and destroyed the Horcrux.

I think the HBP was originally to be Riddle... Almost certainly Snape
was always meant to be an enigma, so Dumbledore must have explained
Horcruxes to Harry after the Diary was destroyed.  Snape probably had
little to do with it.  Maybe the words, "This book is the property of
the HBP" was meant to appear in the Diary, rather than Riddle's name.


One other thought: I just re-read the last chapter of HBP, and
I was wondering if anyone else had noticed: Ginny refers to Voldemort
by name!!  I'm wondering what this may imply as far as Ginny's
"spunkiness" factor in Book 7.  I have a feeling she's not going to
stand around like a good little leading lady and let Harry just
march off into the fog (with Ron and Hermione standing
in for Claude Raines).  Besides, Harry worries about LV finding out
about him and Ginny if they stay together -- But what makes him think
that Snape hasn't informed LV already??

-- 
Dave




From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Aug  2 11:13:26 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:13:26 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060802014353.48694.qmail@web61324.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaq1cm+hngn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156361

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin <joegoodwin1067 at ...>
wrote:
>
> 
> 
>   I went back and read the Pensieve scene and it looks like Snape
went for his wand first. James and Sirius stood up. There was no
mention of their having drawn wands. Then James said "All right there
Snivellus?" and Snape went for his wand.
> 
>   So it was obvious that James and Sirius were going to confront him
on some level but it was Snape who went for his wand first. So tell
me, is Snape now the bully because he resorted to magic first? Or he
tried to.
> 
>   I also noticed something I had never noticed before. Harry states
during the Pensieve scene that Snape is clearly unpopular. There were
some people a few threads ago saying their was no canon for Snape's
not being liked by anyone other than the Marauders but it seems there is.
> 
>

the actual passage 
"Snape was on his feet again, and was stowing the O.W.L. paper in his
bag.  As he emerged from the shadows of the bushes and set off across
the grass, Sirius and James stood up.  Lupin & Wormtail remained
sitting.  Lupin was still staring down at his book, although 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 bad, he plunged his hand inside of his robes,
and his wand was halfway into the air when James shouted, "Expelliarmus!"

now, based on that passage - with the look of disapproval(frown lines)
on Lupin's face and Wormtail's look of glee on his and Snape's
reaction - it seems that James & Sirius did this type of ambush to
Snape frequently.   James called out to Snape, not using Snape's name,
but an insulting nickname - loudly and clearly for all to hear.  A
challenge, so to speak.  Snape went on the defensive by trying to get
his wand out, but James, although not mentioned, must have had his
wand out already, as I doubt that 5th years had learned yet to cast a
spell without a wand.  

with or without the wand, James initiated this scene, goaded on by
Sirius and Wormtail.   This is bullying.  Regardless of past
altercations, Snape was minding his own business.  Sirius was *bored*
to tears and James made things lively for the group, by starting the
attack - James provoked it.  Not Snape.  Snape would have probably
walked on by without a word.  Lupin doesn't say anything, but his
disapproval is written on his face, and he seems to be afraid to say
anything - is it because he worries that his friends won't like him
anymore?  That they will let slip his secret?  Peer Pressure is a
horrible thing at that age.  Say the wrong thing and you are dumped
like a hot potatoe.

As far as the observers not liking Snape or their behavior makes Snape
to be unpopular, there is a passage that leds me to believe that some
of the students were also afraid of James & Sirius - " Some looked
apprehensive, others entertained"  Another passage states that "may of
surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius & Wormtail included, but Lupin,
still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and neither did Lily"

I remember middleschool & grade school and bullying was also done by
girls.  I was picked on, because I was small and wore glasses, by a
BIG girl(not fat) and got my face punched in for no reason at all.  I
never spoke to her, never said anything to her, but for some reason,
she wanted to rearrange my face.  Only one person had the guts to
stand up to her, but that didn't work.  After the fight, if you can
call it that as I am creampuff, and after that girl walked away
laughing, some people came out of the woodwork to help me up and get
me home.  Their excuse for not helping me?  They were afraid they
would be targeted next by this girl if they tried to take my side.  I
understood - heck, I tried to avoid this girl all the time by lying low.

I see the same thing here in the scene.  I think that there were some
people who didn't like Snape, some people who did like Snape, but were
too scared for their own skins to help him at the time.

Bullies are bullies - I don't care if they are beautiful people or
not.  In this scene, James & Sirius were the ones that started the
attack.    Lupin knew it to be wrong, as did Lily.  Perhaps Snape's
attacks on James & Sirius was in reaction to their picking on him.  I
don't know.  But to paint this scene as something else is just
excusing bad behavior.

colebiancardi
(there is a reason why the term "frat boy" is not considered a good
term.  I consider James & Sirius, at that point in their lives, to be
frat boys.  They did grow out of it, at least James did.  I don't
think Sirius ever really did)






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Wed Aug  2 12:02:24 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:02:24 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <20060801230004.53908.qmail@web81903.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaq48g+kp46@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156362

<flowerchild4 at ...> wrote: 
> Ok, questions about Patronuses. I'm sorry if this has been 
discussed to death, but I didn't find anything in the archives that 
answers this question. What can we learn about the character by 
knowing what form their Patronuses take?

Potioncat:
I don't think we learn too much about the character, except where (to 
whom) the character looks for strength and protection. Harry was 
looking to his father or to his father figure--even though he had no 
idea his father was a stag. 

I would suggest that other characters in the story wouldn't recognise 
the symbolism of the form, except that Snape clearly does when he 
sees Tonks's Patronus and DD recognised the stag as Prongs.


snipping bits of the quote: 
 >>It creates the Patronus, it creates a kind of spirit guardian in a 
way. compares to: 
>> Does the animal one turns into as an Animagi reflect your 
personality? 
> 
> Very well deduced, Narri! I personally would like to think that I 
would transform into an otter, which is my favorite animal. Imagine 
how horrible it would be if I turned out to be a cockroach! (I can't 
find it, but IIRC, we were told that the animagus and patronus take 
the same form.)<<

Potioncat:
 The Patronus is a Guardian and can protect the one casting the spell 
and others who are nearby. 

The Animagus reflects who you are.

I do have to disagree with one comment, Flowerchild, I've never seen 
any information that says the Animagus and the Patronus are the same 
form. In fact, I would think it would not be. We know the Patronus 
changes if there has been a major change in the character's life that 
perhaps changes who they would look to for Protection.

I think it is also unlikely the Animagus would ever change (Of 
course, that's up to JKR) 

Here's my guess about two of the Patronuses and what they may show:

Ron: Jack Russel---looks to his hyperactive twin brothers as Guardians
 
Hermione: Otter--Otters and Weasles are in the same family, she looks 
to the Weasley family for Protection.


> Kemper now:
> Nice to have a new thread...

Potioncat:
Merlin, yes!

>Kemper:  
> I disagree with a fox, but can see a chameleon, bat, spider, dragon
> (Hungarian Horntail), unicorn.  Yes, I said unicorn.  Does anyone
> really see otter characteristics for Hermione?  If so, then I can 
see
> unicorn characteristics for Snape (difficult to approach to start).


Potioncat:
I think Snape's Patronus will either be a symbol of Dumbledore (bee, 
phoenix, giant lemon sherbet) or (gasp) a symbol of Harry Potter.

If he were an animagus, I'd guess Hebridean Black Dragon.(take a look 
at the description.)

Now, to be honest, I thought Snape was a cockroach long before I ever 
saw JKR's quote. HOLD ON, I mean, I thought his Animagus would be a 
cockroach. Wouldn't it be just his Karma, to find out about the 
Marauders' Amimagus skills, go after it himself---and be a disgusting 
bug? He'd keep quiet about it I think.

However, I don't really think he is an Animagus. JKR writes in animal 
images for most of her characters. She's said Ginny's cat-like 
qualities won't go any farther. Still, I like the idea of the 
Hebridean Black.









From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  2 12:26:13 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:26:13 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaout7+shqk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaq5l5+3cu0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156363

Colebiancardi:
I believe that in CoS, we learned that Snape was an expert duelist
and was pretty quick on his feet. And that he kinda man-handled
Draco in the dueling scene with Harry. Or is that the movie?
Anyway, there seems to be more than just potions to our Potions
Master - he can duel - a hint of his power to come in HBP

Dung:
Actually, it's Flitwick we find out was the ex-duelling champion, 
Snape just managed to knock Lockhart off his feet at the one and 
only meeting of the duelling club, which is hardly cause for 
crowning him champion. And the manhandling of Draco is definitely 
film-nonsense.

Carol:
<snipping list of Snape stuff in CoS>
So even though I'd love to have seen more of Snape in CoS and any
other book, I think we see enough of him <snip>

Dung:
That's not quite what I meant. I meant that there's important 
information given out about Snape in each book except CoS, not that 
he doesn't appear in CoS, nor that we can't speculate anything 
about him from what he does or says in CoS. I was talking about 
specific personal information about his past, and if you look at a 
list of the books and what we discover about Snape, CoS is 
conspicuously uninformative. (I forgot to put discovering that 
Snape was the one who sent Voldy after the Potters as important 
info we find out about him in Book 6, btw.)
 
Carol:
Still, to return to my original comment about not seeing how the 
HBP plot could fit into CoS, I don't see how the HBP's Potions 
text or DADA text could have been used in a book about Harry's 
second year. <snip>
It's just hard for me to comprehend that JKR would even think of 
including it so early.

Dung:
That's precisely my point. It doesn't make sense, and she was 
right to move it to book 6, but if you take the view that when she 
was planning out the series she wanted to drop in a new bit of info 
about Snape in every book, it makes perfect sense that she was 
originally going to have Harry discover that Snape was a clever 
half-blood who was drawn to the dark arts in book 2.

Carol:
it would have been premature to show Snape inventing spells like 
Levicorpus, much less Sectumsempra, not to mention having Harry 
cast it on Draco in second year and Snape saving Draco from death 
at Harry's hands when the two boys are twelve years old.

Dung:
Weeeelll... Sort of. It's unlikely she would have had the nonverbal 
Levicorpus. But she could easily have substituted something else, 
or made levicorpus verbal and Sectumsempra easy to pull off, or 
would she simply have moved the time that the students learn about 
nonverbals to second year? Difficult to tell, and IMO, not 
terrifically important. The way it ended up being written of 
course seems like a more natural progression, because that's what 
we've been reading for the last howevermany years, but she could 
have changed things, switched them around, and generally fudged 
stuff to make it fit.

Carol:
As I think I said in an earlier post, I'd love to get my hands on 
the draft and/or notes of the HBP/CoS combined plots. What a 
disaster it would have been for the series if she hadn't realized 
her error!

Dung:
I certainly think it wouldn't have tricked so many readers into 
thinking that Snape wasn't a main character <g>.

Goddlefrood:
The basic plot element that is discovered in HBP is the existence 
of LV's cache of Horcruxes. This is what I think JKR meant in that 
she would have introduced us to Horcruxes in Cos (wehich would have 
been called HBP but for the alteration of the sequence of events), 
and part of the revelation originally was to have come from the HBP 
himself (leaving us in less doubt as to his loyalties). After all, 
as we now know the diary was a Horcrux container.

Dung:
I think you're confusing the Half-Blood Prince *book* (book 6) with 
the Half-Blood Prince *plotline*, which is only a very small part 
of that book. In fact, I think that "plotline" is a bit of a 
misnomer, because all it really is is information about Snape which 
is revealed painfully slowly over the course of a book. I'm certain 
it's important for book 7, in that it gives us a bit more 
background about Snape, and may affect whatever decision harry is 
going to have to make with regards to him. 

All those who think the HBP was originally going to be Voldemort, 
can you tell me why? What use is it for the plot? Why is the 
plotline in there at all? Why is it so important to have a 
character who nicknames himself the Half-Blood Prince, yet it 
doesn't matter *which* character it actually is?

Abergoat:
If Eileen is tied up in Hagrid's story that may have been 
completely removed from CoS. We only know that Hagrid was blamed 
for the events and his name was never completely cleared. I'm sure 
I'm wrong ? but tying Snape's goals to his mother and tying his 
mother to Snape would help JKR tie up the loose ends into the 'big 
knot' she has promised us. And the entrance to the CoS is in the 
GIRLS bathroom. A sharp Ravenclaw with a lot of family books may 
have known the story...and found the entrance.

Dung:
I admire your dedication to Eileen! But I'm afraid I don't agree. 
I never got the impression that there were any big nagging questions 
posed by the Chamber affair which needed clearing up. I'm not sure 
what your theory actually solves, what holes it actually fills. But 
don't listen to me being a killjoy :D. Theorise away! (With lots of 
gruesome deaths and back-stabbings, please ... has anybody tried to 
make you wear a FEATHERBOA, yet...?)

Just out of interest, though, to put a little flesh on the bones of 
your theory, why would any kind of Ravenclaw be interested in 
finding the legendary secret chamber of Slytherin? And if she 
didn't speak Parseltongue, how did she realise that the little 
serpent scratched into the tap in the bathroom signified that 
she'd found the entrance? 

Abergoat:
An archnid has black (faceted?) eyes. The eyes described by Moaning 
Myrtle were NOT those of a spider.

Dung:
No, spider eyes are not faceted, but neither are they yellow, or 
anything like a snake's eyes, and they generally have 8 of them, 
though always in 4 pairs.  

Dung, previously: < Out of interest, did anyone ever figure out 
what that detail was that JKR insisted was kept in the unnameable 
version of CoS? <snip>

DA Jones:
The answer to that is easy enough. The silver and opal necklace 
that Katie is cursed with in the chapter Silver and Opals in HBP 
chapter 12 (pg. 248-252 HBP, scholastic) is the same necklace 
mentioned on page 52 of chapter 4 Flourish and Blotts from COS 
(Scholastic).

Dung:
::Slaps forehead:: Ah, yes! Bravo! Though actually, I'll have to 
sheepishly admit to not remembering at all whether we saw the 
necklace in the film. 

Cheers,
Dungrollin







From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 13:14:31 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:14:31 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] (no subject)
In-Reply-To: <bbf.1d605c5.32015c1f@aol.com>
References: <bbf.1d605c5.32015c1f@aol.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608020614l229448afn1d2c8afa93990b65@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156364

Nikkalmati:
> You are speaking as if this were RL or these scenes were chosen by  chance.
> Jo Rowling is in charge and she shows us what she wants us to  see.  She
> shows us, by her own choice, that the attack on Snape was  unprovoked.

She shows us that Snape picked the memories so as to give the
impression that it was unprovoked.

>  She could
> easily have given us an indication that it was  retaliation,

How? IMO, It would be _very_ OOC for Snape to reveal this. It's not at
all "easy" to give an indication of this without it coming from snape.

Nikkalmati:
>  I happen to think that when Jo doesn't show us something, we  have to take
> that seriously and not act as if she just forgot to include  it. The burden is
> on anyone who proposes that things happened that we  are not shown in
> canon to explain why Jo is withholding this information from  us.

I think it's perfectly obvious why _Snape_ is withholding this
information, if said information indeed exists.

-- 
Random832



From treason_iscaria at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 06:27:20 2006
From: treason_iscaria at yahoo.com (JD)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 06:27:20 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaol4j+i1et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eapgk8+n2v1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156365

Imagining the Half-Blood Prince in the Chamber of Secrets.

>Carol (156339):
What a disaster it would have been for the series if she hadn't
realized her error!

JD: I don't agree. Whilst there are some advantages to putting the
Half-Blood Prince storyline in Books 6 there are also some advantages
to placing it in Book 2. The post will try to explain.

>Carol (156269): And obviously, Snape, regardless of his loyalties,
would not have killed Dumbledore in Book 2, which would have meant
closing down the school in Harry's third year and otherwise generally
ruined the slowly unfolding main plot.

>Goddlefrood (156271): I think JKR meant in that she would have
introduced us to Horcruxes in Cos

JD:  I don't think either of these things belong to the "Half-Blood
Prince strand." Snape killing Dumbledore belongs to the "Unbreakable
Vow strand." Dumbledore teaching Harry about Voldemort's past and
Horcruxes belongs to the "House of Gaunt strand." The Half-Blood
Prince strand is separate to these. At its most basic level, the
information scrawled on the book means that: 
1. Harry wins the Felix Felicis
2. Harry saves Ron from poisoning 
3. Harry accidentally injures Draco
4. A few key things about Snape are revealed.

I think what we learn about Snape belongs in Book 6. Learning about
the dark spells he created as a teenager and finding out he referred
to himself as a Prince and emphasised his pureblood side belong in the
same book as his apparent betrayal. The book also introduces the idea
of a trusted friend betraying you- Harry is betrayed by the book when
it gives him Sectumsempra.

Winning the Felix Felicis could easily have been done without the
Potions book. I think that in a HBP-free Book 6 (perhaps called "Harry
Potter and the Unbreakable Vow") Harry would have won the Felix
Felicis simply because he found that he could prepare potions quite
easily with an amicable teacher and without Snape distracting him
(which is what happened in his OWL exam).

But I think the other two aspects of the story strand work better in
Book 2.

I found the scene where Ron gets poisoned contrived. I think this is
due to it being slotted in somewhere that it doesn't belong. Draco
sends poison to Dumbledore but Slughorn intercepts it and gives it to
Ron several months later just so that Harry can use a hint from the
Potions book to save him. Nevertheless, the scene's main point it to
give Harry a genuine reason to trust the Half-Blood Prince. This scene
would have slotted fairly easily into Book 2. I can imagine quite
clearly Lockhart in the place of Slughorn. He would have definitely
taken the wine for himself because of his vanity. Slughorn the Potions
Master failing to think of the bezoar when Harry does is a slightly
unrealistic, but incompetent Lockhart having no clue what to do would
have been completely in character and also hilarious. In this
alternate version of Book 2 perhaps it was Lucius Malfoy who sent
Dumbledore the poison to try and get rid of him. This fits with
Lucius's character and would have strengthened his role as a villain
in Book 2.

>Carol (156339): It would have been premature to show Snape inventing
spells like Levicorpus, much less Sectumsempra, not to mention having
Harry cast it on Draco in second year and Snape saving Draco from
death at Harry's hands when the two boys are twelve years old. 

JD: I disagree. I think moving this scene forward robbed it of its
power. Book 2 is when Harry begins to suspect that he may be evil.
Other students call him the Heir of Slytherin, suspect that he is
petrifying people and gossip that the reason Voldemort tried to kill
him as a baby was so that he wouldn't have any Dark Lord competition.
Harry doubts himself and asks the Sorting House for reassurance that
he is supposed to be a Gryffindor. A scene where Harry accidentally
does dark magic would build on these events. Simply being a
Parselmouth is enough for Harry to wonder if he is evil, but the
Sectumsempra scene would cause serious doubts in his mind. It doesn't
have the same effect in Book 6 because Harry doesn't have the same
doubts about himself anymore.

I found Harry's reaction to using Sectumsempra to be out of place in
Book 6. Harry says, "You know I wouldn't've used a spell like that,
not even on Malfoy" (Chapter 24 "Sectumsempra"). Yet Harry used the
much worse unforgivable torture curse on Bellatrix Lestrange a few
months before. Harry WOULD use a spell like that and he HAS. If he had
said the same thing in Book 2 it would have made more sense.

It's also easy to see how the logistics of the Sectumsempra scene
could be transposed 4 years earlier. It takes place in a bathroom and
features Moaning Myrtle, both key parts of Book 2. In this alternate
version of Book 2 I don't thing Draco would have been talking to
Myrtle about his isolation (I think that is part of the Unbreakable
Vow strand, not the Half-Blood Prince strand). He may have been
snooping on Harry. A duelling `rematch' between Draco and Harry would
give Draco a bit of comeuppance for cheating the first time and would
give the students something to gossip about: "Draco outs Potter as a
Parselmouth so Potter tries to bump him off in the girls' lavatory."

>Carol (156269): the encounter with the HBP's book would have worked
rather oddly in connection with Ginny's interaction with the diary.

>Dung (156317):
I also think that the HBP (since the book was 50 years old) would have
been a red herring suspect for the Heir of Slytherin

JD: I agree that it would have been a red herring. Harry would have
assumed that the owner of the diary and the owner of the Potions book
were one in the same. Including the Potions book in Book 2 would also
have made a nice parallel between the two books and therefore the two
owners.

The diary was bought 50 years ago and the Potions book was bought 50
years ago. Tom Riddle is a half-blood and the owner of the Potions
book is a half-blood. Tom Riddle earns Harry's trust by showing Harry
his capture of Hagrid and the Half-Blood Prince earns Harry's trust by
teaching him how to excel in Potions and giving him special spells.
Both Tom Riddle and the Half-Blood Prince betray Harry's trust- Hagrid
was innocent and the Sectumsempra spell caused real injury.

This red herring would have been useful. It would have given Harry a
real reason to immediately trust Tom Riddle's diary- he would have
already believed that he knew the owner (as the Prince) and that he
was a decent person.

>Dung (156317): But I'll bet you a box of Honeydukes Best that it
wasn't originally going to be a potions book, I bet it was going to be
a DADA book. Snape would have been suspicious immediately if Harry had
started doing brilliantly in potions right under his nose.

JD: I don't think it could have been a DADA book because Lockhart was
that year's teacher and assigned all his own books. Eileen Prince
couldn't have had a 50 year old Lockhart book, could she? In addition,
Harry didn't get practical DADA lessons until third year. A DADA book
with hand-written hints and tips helping Harry excel in class would
have been useless when Harry spent second year DADA answering quizzes
about Lockhart's favourite colour, writing poems about Lockhart's
achievements and pretending to be a werewolf so Lockhart could
re-enact his triumphs.

I like the irony of Harry excelling at Potions right under Snape's nose.

>Dung (156317):
Harry would originally have got the HBP's book in year 2 
snip
 any
old accident could have been conjured up to give him the excuse of
needing a school copy 

JD: Perhaps in this alternate version of Book 2 Harry swapped all his
new books with Ginny's second-hand ones at Flourish and Blotts and
discovered the Half-Blood Prince's Potion book.

>Carol (156339): wondering how she would have fleshed out the plot of
Book 6 if she'd already used up the HBP plot

JD: The Half-Blood Prince strand isn't really that important in Book
6. I think the Unbreakable Vow strand is more developed and important.
The only aspect of the Half-Blood Prince strand that is essential to
Book 6 is what it reveals about Snape. Knowing that Snape created dark
spells as a teenager, called himself a Prince and emphasised his
pure-blood side means we are more likely to believe his apparent betrayal.

JD










From annemflynn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 12:51:02 2006
From: annemflynn at yahoo.com (annemflynn)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 12:51:02 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
Message-ID: <eaq73n+dl9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156366

Coming out of lurkerdom to post (and it's a really long one, too)...I 
attended a reading last night at Radio City Music Hall (in NYC for 
those that have actually never heard of it). It was a benefit for 
Doctors Without Borders and The Haven Foundation.  They had huge t.v. 
monitors set up, so the people in the cheap seats (i.e. me, who was 
literally in the last row) could see. The authors there were Stephen 
King, JK Rowling, and John Irving. It was a real treat. The place was 
sold out, 6,000 people were there. People were dressed up and the 
whole bit, there were Gryffindors all over the place, except poor 
Luna Lovegood, lion on her head and all. 

Jo read the chapter out of HBP where DD first goes to meet Tom at the 
orphanage (sorry, don't have the book handy while posting). My 
sister, who works for Scholastic, was convinced she was going to read 
something new that was non-commital to the plot or something, but I 
thought she's read something out of HBP. A perfect selection, IMO. 

Well, she took questions at the end. A father and his daughter got up 
and the father thanked Jo profusely (and incredibly eloquently, I 
might add) for getting kids excited about reading again and creating 
a character like Hermione who was such an excellent role model for 
girls, etc. When the cameras came back to Jo, she was crying at that. 
How sweet!

And now, the OTHER questions that were asked. I'll put in the spoiler 
space, just in case (and just in case you can actually consider them 
spoilers)...
S 
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

One girl got up and asked if Herimone looked in the Mirror of Erised, 
what would she see? Which very much impressed Jo because she had 
never had that question before.  Jo said that Hermione would see them 
all safe and unscathed and see herself happily entwined in an affair 
of her own. (No big surprise there, I suppose).

Another asked about whether or not she felt her characters had any 
redeemable qualities, i.e. Draco Malfoy (to which, Jo had to shake 
her head over why girls were so infatuated with Draco). The question 
was worded really well, too, the girl had made reference to Snape 
being on the side of good in it, to which, Jo's expression didn't 
change (Dammit!). Well, Jo said that while she believed everybody had 
redeemable qualities in them, for the sake of the story, Draco was 
not one of them. And she reminded us what the terms of his assignment 
were and what the consequences would be, should he not be able to 
carry it out. And then told us to draw our own conclusions from that.

She said that she has the last chapter to book 7 already written 
(which I believe she has said before) and that the series is ending 
not because she's tired of writing Harry, but because she's afraid of 
running out of story. How can one run out of stories in a mythical 
world? I certainly have no idea!

So, that's what she said. I don't know whether she has eluded to any 
of that yet outside of the books, but thought I'd pass it along and 
how great she was and how fun she was to watch. 

Oh, and they did a close up of her bitchin's shoes. High heels, with 
gold SNAKES twined through them. They were great!

Anne Marie
(And for anyone interested, Stephen King and John Irving were 
obviously awesome, as well, but this list isn't about them)









From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:19:23 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608011349jf0d9479qbe4bdc6a170272ea@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060801211923.67030.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156367


Kemper now:
I can see the difference between hexing in the halls and the bullying
that James and Sirius throw down on Snape. The hexing if more
prankish (like 'kick me' taped to someone's back) and the bullying is
more threatening which is why Snape goes for his wand. And, yes, Lily
defending Snape would be humiliating and emasculating... though I
don't think he would really care about her being Muggle born in spite
of calling her a mudblood.

  Joe:
  The canon evidence I refered to included members of various houses trying to hex members of other houses Quidditch teams and at least implied that it was to intimidate or injure them so that they did not play well. As I said before most boys play hard. I'm not saying James and Sirius should have done what they did because I don't know the whole story. I am saying that it could very well be that Snape deserved it for things he had done but we haven't seen yet. I am also saying that what happened wasn't that bad and I think some people have blown it WAY out of porportion. It's like those people who cry on talk shows about things that happened in high school. You don't know if you want to laugh or tell them to grow up.

  I mean we know Snape was up to his ears in the Dark Arts and people are like "Oh well the poor misunderstood boy" but take James and Sirius to task for ONE meanspirited but HARMLESS act. Where is the sense of scale here? Or has everything just been so picked apart in the HP universe that every tiny mole hill has to be made a mountain?

  Also why would you think Snape would not care that Lily was muggleborn? Not only did he call her a mudblood which is evidence right there that it did matter to him but only two years down the road he joined a group of people who were pleged to drive the muggleborn out of wizarding society.

  That makes no sense at all.


  Kemper:
So Joe, I posed a scenario on a different though similar thread. Here it is:

What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione pretended she
didn't know what was going on? We already know what an arrogant prick
Draco is, but would we think this scene of righteous bullying funny?

Would Harry be in the right here? Or would we think a little less of
him based on only a 5 minute incident?

Joe:
  No I wouldn't think one bit less of Harry. Not a bit less. Malfoy has been asking for something like that since their first year. He has pushed, prodded, insulted and been a general jerk to the three of them for so long I wonder why they haven't done it. So much so that it makes the books a little less believable. In a real school they would have stuffed him in his locker at best and bat him down at worst long before fifth year. Harry is a saint for not having given him the beat down he has been asking for.

  In fact I think if someone had taken Malfoy down a few pegs earlier he would not have been willing to let things go as far as they did.

  I don't know if Snape acted like Malfoy but if he did I have zero, I repeat zero, sympathy for him.

  I don't like Snape but I am betting that what James and Sirius did wasn't the worst memory. I don't think he was that big of a wimp. I think it was Lily defending him in public that was his worst memory.

  Joe
















From annemflynn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 13:34:02 2006
From: annemflynn at yahoo.com (annemflynn)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:34:02 -0000
Subject: Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
Message-ID: <eaq9ka+lda6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156368

Oops! I forgot some more things that Jo said.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

S
P
A
C
E

One question was why Ollivander (Jo) chose the magical components of 
the wands that he did, and didn't use Veela hair and such in his 
wands. Jo said that well, 1) those were her three favorites (phonenix 
feather, etc); and 2) that the wands are made specific to regions and 
that different regions would use differet things in their wands 
because they had different magical creatures. 

Another girl asked if a muggle were to follow the exact instructions 
to a potion and use the exact ingredients, could it be correctly 
made? Jo said no, because sooner or later they'd have to use a wand 
and a muggle cannot use a wand correctly without disaster or a 
violent occurrence happening because they don't have magical 
qualities in them, as we'll see more of in book 7. So, I'm left to 
wonder what muggle is going to use a wand? Probably one of the 
Dursleys obviously, and I'm supposing Harry's wand. Maybe this will 
be the whole Petunia thing coming into play.

She also said that she was surprised at how much left there was to 
explain. She said she'd hadn't really realized that she had left that 
much unexplained, and she did give a chuckle over shippers, etc., 
when asked if she ever read anything on line. She said one bored day 
she Googled Harry Potter and was totally blown away at what came. She 
said she had no idea! 

Anne Marie










From mros at xs4all.nl  Wed Aug  2 00:33:53 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 02:33:53 +0200
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
References: <eaojre+grjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001701c6b5cb$55120270$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156369


Betsy Hp:

>>>I don't know, I think maybe the inclination to color the Potterverse 
as a cartoon is ducking the big questions. If it was bad for a 
teacher to make Harry carve words into his hand, might it not have 
been equally bad for a teacher to slam Draco repeatedly into the 
floor? And what does it say about us that we were amused at first?

A lot of this depends on the outcome of book 7, of course. Are the 
Slytherins as real as the Gryffindors? Is Draco just as much a 
human being as Harry is? I think JKR will take the real rather than 
the cartoon path. I think. Though I'm betting the Voldemort bits 
are going to be pure fantasy.<<<



Marion:

I think that the tendency to see the 'bad guys' being hurt, humiliated or terrified as 'cartoonish' (and therefore fun and unimportant) is an example of dehumanization.
I know this is a rather heavy subject, and I hope I convey it well, so please bear with me.
IMO, JKR is making characters we're not supposed to like and situations where these characters are being hurt or humiliated grotesk and cartoonish on purpose. We are invited to laugh off their misery because they are so over the top ugly, stupid, fat or shrewish and the way they are hurt so grotesk. We are invited to laugh off their hurt because they are the 'bad guys', and what does it matter if someone hurts the bad guy? They probably deserved to be hurt, right?
The bad guys are Them. We are not supposed to care about Them. They are weird, nasty, ugly. They probably smell funny too.

(yes, I know that some of you are probably itching to write a scathing reply at this point, but please read the rest, I'm trying to make a point)

I'm convinced that this is the whole idea of the series. The books are about racism and prejudice, right? That trying to keep your blood or your culture 'pure' is futile and plain *wrong*. And every HP fan would agree with this: they are certainly not racist! All the little ten-year old HP fans that I have spoken to would love to be Sorted into Gryffindor so they could bravely fight those nasty racist Slytherins.

Ah. 

I admit it, I've tried the first three times a child-fan said something about Gryffindor being Good because the fight Evil Slythering to explain that the books are about Harry and that Harry has been told before entering Hogwarts that all evil wizards were from Slytherin (which wasn't true in the first place) and that Harry doesn't like certain Slytherins, but that just because Harry was fed misinformation and has certain opinions, it doesn't mean that his opinions are facts. I even tried to tell them that even *if* all Slytherins were supposedly 'bad' because a magical hat had sorted them into that House, that didn't mean that 'good' Gryffindors could just go ahead and do really nasty things to them *because* they were Slytherin.
I tried. Didn't work though. I got nothing but glassy looks. And I even didn't use big words like 'dehumanization' and 'scapegoating'.

Although I know that my listsibs know the term dehumanization, I'll include the definition from trusty Wikipedia (who could live without it!) underneath:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehumanizing

"Dehumanization is a process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization (such as a state) or may be the composite of individual sentiments and actions, as with some types of de facto racism. <snip> A common theme (or meme) is that of scapegoating, where dehumanizing the target provides a release from guilt for the person that scapegoats them, who typically begins to see themselves as a victim of the dehumanized person, rather than as a potential oppressor."

Marion again:

Now, I know that Slytherin is the 'pureblood House', but we also know that it's Head is/was a Half-blood. That it's previous Head happily invited muggleborns into his prestigeous club. We also know that 1/4 of wizarding population remains pureblood, 1/4 is muggleborn and 1/2 has muggleborn somewhere in it's ancestry (whilst I'm typing this I wonder if these numbers are correct: a full quarter of the population being first generation 'immigrants' is a rather high number. But then, wizards have a longer lifespan. Hmm.) There are four houses. If a quarter of the population (and therefore the children entered at Hogwarts) are pureblood, then every pureblood child must be in Slytherin, and none in the other Houses. There just aren't enough pureblood kids to go around. But then, what about the Weasleys? Purebloods all, but in Gryffindor. So were the Potters and Sirius Black. What about Cedric? Wasn't he a pureblood? And Susan Bones? 
What?! Purebloods in Hufflepuff and Gryffindor? But that must mean that Slytherin might have.... (drumroll) children of mixed blood! 
In fact, of the three known halfbloods (Seamus, Snape and Tom Riddle are the only wizards known to have a Muggle parent, not a Muggleborn parent), *two* were in Slytherin!

But they're all supposedly racist? (well, I mean, more racist than the average wizard-on-the-street, of course)

They're all supposedly *bad*?

No, of course they're not. I've read an interview with JKR where a young reader asked her why Hogwarts didn't do away with House Slytherin because all the members were 'Junior DeathEaters'. JKR explained that not all Slytherin children were bad, and that several children in the other Houses had DE's as a parent.
I am convinced, however, that she has deliberately planted this suggestion, with several cunning devices, the 'cartoonish' and the 'grotesque' depiction of 'bad characters' and their suffering is but one of them.
I believe she does this for a very specific reason.

Have you ever heard of the book 'The Wave' (it was made into a movie as well) by Todd Strasser? It is based on a true experiment by an American High School Teacher in 1963. The teacher starts a club which claims to things like chilvalry, bravery and brotherhood as its virtues. If you become a member you get a badge. You also get a few privileges. And they organise sporting events ("a healthy mind in a healthy body!") and parades. The club is popular and members encourage their friends to become members. There are, however, kids that do not want to belong to the club. Soon the clubmembers start to bully and terrorize the non-members. This is not seen as wrong, since the Wave members are chivalrous, brave and brothers. Those who do not choose to be a member must therefore be cowardly cads and deserve to be harassed.
The climax comes of course when it is revealed that the Wave is patterned on the Hitler Youth movement of the thirties. It uses exactly the same propaganda techniques and dehumanization techniques.

In my opinion, JKR is showing us in exactly the same way how easy it is to laugh at people being hurt or humiliated because we were told that they were bad and deserved it, or because they looked different or were from another group, because they were somehow less human than the characters we're supposed to love.



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






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 14:01:29 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:01:29 -0000
Subject: Snape's Worst memory
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608020614l229448afn1d2c8afa93990b65@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaqb7p+tu8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156370

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:
> She shows us that Snape picked the memories so as to give the
> impression that it was unprovoked.
> 
> How? IMO, It would be _very_ OOC for Snape to reveal this. It's not 
at
> all "easy" to give an indication of this without it coming from 
snape.

zgirnius:
You are proposing, then, that Snape picked three memories he very 
much *wanted* Harry to see, in hopes he would have an opportunity to 
leave Harry alone with them? And continued this ploy even after an 
oppportunity presented itself, and Harry very properly left the 
office with Snape? (On the occasion of Umbridge's firing of 
Trelawney). 

First, that seems really complicated and unreliable to me. Second, it 
seemd hugely OOC. Snape did not seem to me to be acting when he 
discoevred Harry viewing the memory. He really seemed not to want 
anyone to know what had happened to him.








From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 14:06:14 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 10:06:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
In-Reply-To: <eaq9ka+lda6@eGroups.com>
References: <eaq9ka+lda6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608020706l6a26acefva9b8e2d5ab3a328d@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156371

Anne Marie:
> One question was why Ollivander (Jo) chose the magical components of
> the wands that he did, and didn't use Veela hair and such in his
> wands. Jo said that well, 1) those were her three favorites (phonenix
> feather, etc); and 2) that the wands are made specific to regions and
> that different regions would use differet things in their wands
> because they had different magical creatures.

So that means some wizards don't get their ideal wand because it would
have been one with a core that's not available at Ollie's? What does
he do if every wand in the shop "rejects" them? Send them to another
country?

Anne Marie:
> Another girl asked if a muggle were to follow the exact instructions
> to a potion and use the exact ingredients, could it be correctly
> made? Jo said no, because sooner or later they'd have to use a wand
> and a muggle cannot use a wand correctly without disaster or a
> violent occurrence happening

Whoa. There is no indication in canon that _every_ potion requires use
of a wand. This seems like one of those evasive answers, where the
real meaning is "Yes, there are some potions that they can make, the
ones that don't require a wand"

> Maybe this will be the whole Petunia thing coming into play.

I'd be very disappointed if "the whole Petunia thing" turned out to be
a whole lot of nothing, but given the sheer _number_ of things that
"have to" turn up in Book 7, there's no way to fit them all in.



From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  1 21:32:46 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 14:32:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaogaa+a830@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060801213246.72372.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156372

horridporrid03 <horridporrid03 at yahoo.com> wrote:    
Betsy Hp:
In real life, yes, in a work of fiction? That's how it's done. 
Because the author gets to pick and choose what scenes she shares 
with us, so it's not really "five minutes in the life of". It's a 
key insight into various characters. In the case of the Mauraders 
it's the *only* insight, so far, that we've been allowed to see for 
ourselves. That this is the scene JKR chose to share should not be 
taken lightly.

   
Joe:
Sure but once we start applying real life judgments then don't we have to start taking it all together?


Betsy Hp:
So I questioned my husband about this (I'm betting there are quite a 
few guys out there getting similarly grilled -- I'm sure they're 
loving you, Joe ) and he disagreed that what James and Sirius do 
to Snape is normal highschool play. He also pointed out that any 
time a statement is made, "All guys __________", it's wrong. Too 
much individualism out there.
  
Joe:
I agree not all of them do it. I am saying that I imagine a lot of them do though.

   
Betsy Hp:
Also, just because we've been told that James and Sirius regularly 
hexed people doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The fact that 
they were punished so often for doing so is telling, IMO. I'd also 
say that what we see happen to Snape goes far and beyond a mere hex 
in the hallways. It was vicious, cruel and physically painful for 
Snape. Harry was put off (and actually thought his father capable 
of rape) for a reason after witnessing it. Harry, being a boy 
attending Hogwarts, should have a fairly good idea as to what 
consitutes normal boyish rough-housing at his school, and what goes 
above and beyond.
   
Joe:
I'm not saying James and Sirius hexing people is a good thing. I am saying it isn't the horror some might try and make it out to be.
   
Yeah Harry did misunderstand it but Harry lived under a cupboard when he should have been interacting with people his own age. He is behind on that sort of thing even after a few years at school.
   
  
Betsy Hp:
All that being said, of course we all know there's more to the story 
of James. He grows enough to be named headboy by Dumbledore, and he 
breaks out of Sirius's thrall enough to save two friends and one 
enemy from a truly gruesome fate. So yeah, we can't just write 
James off as an arrogant bully. There's more to him than that and 
hopefully we'll get to see it in book 7. But that doesn't mean we 
should white-wash this scene. It's there for a reason.
   
Joe:
I agree it is there for a reason and I don't think it should be white washed. I also don't think it should horribly blown out of porportion either.
   
Joe






From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 14:23:24 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:23:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaq1cm+hngn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060802142325.19818.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156373

colebiancardi <muellem at bc.edu> wrote:

<snip actual passage>
now, based on that passage - with the look of disapproval(frown lines)
on Lupin's face and Wormtail's look of glee on his and Snape's
reaction - it seems that James & Sirius did this type of ambush to
Snape frequently. James called out to Snape, not using Snape's name,
but an insulting nickname - loudly and clearly for all to hear. A
challenge, so to speak. Snape went on the defensive by trying to get
his wand out, but James, although not mentioned, must have had his
wand out already, as I doubt that 5th years had learned yet to cast a
spell without a wand.      

  Joe:
  Sorry but that doesn't make sense. JKR shows Snape going for his wand but makes no mention of either James or Sirius having their wands out. As I said James WAS looking for a confrontation. It is canon however that Snape went for his wand while there is no mention of either of the other boys having drawn theirs. PS doesn't James later cast Levicopus non-verbally?

  
Colebiancardi:
with or without the wand, James initiated this scene, goaded on by
Sirius and Wormtail. This is bullying. Regardless of past
altercations, Snape was minding his own business. Sirius was *bored*
to tears and James made things lively for the group, by starting the
attack - James provoked it. Not Snape. Snape would have probably
walked on by without a word. Lupin doesn't say anything, but his
disapproval is written on his face, and he seems to be afraid to say
anything - is it because he worries that his friends won't like him
anymore? That they will let slip his secret? Peer Pressure is a
horrible thing at that age. Say the wrong thing and you are dumped
like a hot potatoe.
   
  Joe:
  I agree James was probably going to say something very unpleasant. Sanpe however is the one who from all appearances initiated the real aggression. James and Sirius were so loyal to Lupin that not only did they not drop him as a friend but they did all the work to become Animagi to help him with his issues. You peer pressure comments ring very hollow in the face of canon evidence.


Colebiancari:
As far as the observers not liking Snape or their behavior makes Snape
to be unpopular, there is a passage that leads me to believe that some
of the students were also afraid of James & Sirius - "Some looked
apprehensive, others entertained." Another passage states that "many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius & Wormtail included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and neither did Lily."
   
  Joe:
  Yet the only observer we state states "That Snape was clearly unpopular."  With no other canon evidence to the contrary it is safe to say that he WAS clearly unpopular.


Colebiancardi:
I remember middleschool & grade school and bullying was also done by
girls. I was picked on.... <snip>
Their excuse for not helping me? They were afraid they would be targeted next by this girl if they tried to take my side. I
understood - heck, I tried to avoid this girl all the time by lying low.

I see the same thing here in the scene. I think that there were some
people who didn't like Snape, some people who did like Snape, but were
too scared for their own skins to help him at the time.
   
  Joe:
  Nope, we have someone on the scene who is observing it. None of those things were even considered. The only canon statement was that Snape was unpopular. Your own personal experiences aside we have no reason to think that. Harry is quite clear on his interpertation and as others so often say "Harry is the view we get." If we are to accept Harry's view that James was out of line then why should we not accept his view that Snape was obviously unpopular?


Colebiancardi:
Bullies are bullies - I don't care if they are beautiful people or
not. In this scene, James & Sirius were the ones that started the
attack. Lupin knew it to be wrong, as did Lily. Perhaps Snape's
attacks on James & Sirius was in reaction to their picking on him. I
don't know. But to paint this scene as something else is just
excusing bad behavior.
   
  Joe:
  Once again I have to say you are wrong. James and Sirius were going to create a confrontation to be certain. As I said above it was Snape who went for what is for all intents and purposes a weapon.


Colebiancardi:
(there is a reason why the term "frat boy" is not considered a good
term. I consider James & Sirius, at that point in their lives, to be
frat boys. They did grow out of it, at least James did. I don't
think Sirius ever really did)
   
  Joe:
  Thas is of course your own personal bias. Plenty of people have no negative connotation with the term "Frat boy". I know as well as most people who went to college that there were frat guys who acted like jerks and frat guys who spent tons of time working for charities. I don't think real world predudices have any place in this discussion however.
   
  Joe







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug  2 15:01:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:01:48 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS/Real or cartoon?/JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <eapgk8+n2v1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqeos+cpp6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156374

> JD: I disagree. I think moving this scene forward robbed it of its
> power. Book 2 is when Harry begins to suspect that he may be evil.
> Other students call him the Heir of Slytherin, suspect that he is
> petrifying people and gossip that the reason Voldemort tried to 
kill
> him as a baby was so that he wouldn't have any Dark Lord 
competition.
> Harry doubts himself and asks the Sorting House for reassurance 
that
> he is supposed to be a Gryffindor. A scene where Harry accidentally
> does dark magic would build on these events. Simply being a
> Parselmouth is enough for Harry to wonder if he is evil, but the
> Sectumsempra scene would cause serious doubts in his mind. It 
doesn't
> have the same effect in Book 6 because Harry doesn't have the same
> doubts about himself anymore.
> 
> I found Harry's reaction to using Sectumsempra to be out of place 
in
> Book 6. Harry says, "You know I wouldn't've used a spell like that,
> not even on Malfoy" (Chapter 24 "Sectumsempra"). Yet Harry used the
> much worse unforgivable torture curse on Bellatrix Lestrange a few
> months before. Harry WOULD use a spell like that and he HAS. If he 
had
> said the same thing in Book 2 it would have made more sense.
> 
> It's also easy to see how the logistics of the Sectumsempra scene
> could be transposed 4 years earlier. 

Magpie:
I disagree--at least with Sectumsempra in its present form.  The 
spell is far too bloody and dangerous for CoS, which is still 
carefully substituting petrifying curses for death (except Myrtle, 
who's "alive" as a ghost).  Sectumsempra is, imo, important for 
Draco's story in HBP as much as Harry's, and I wouldn't be surprised 
if that incident isn't fully resolved yet. If Draco came that close 
to death in CoS he couldn't be getting as much of a wake up call to 
the meaning of it in HBP, Lucius would presumably have gotten 
involved, and it probably would have become relatively unimportant 
by Book VII.  Harry and Draco's animosity is on a different level in 
HBP.  If Harry had done Sectumsempra in CoS it would be, just as you 
said, a kid making a mistake and being wrongly paranoid that he was 
bad because of it (and in its present form would stick out like a 
sore thumb in the level of brutality).  In HBP Harry's old enough 
and experienced enough to be more realistically guilty about the 
spell--he knows he didn't know what it did, but still feels guilty 
for doing it. (The Prince really didn't "betray" him at all with 
Sectumsempra--he gave Harry exactly what he promised.)  It walks the 
line between serious fight out of control and spell Harry uses by 
accident.

Joe:
No I wouldn't think one bit less of Harry. Not a bit less. Malfoy 
has been asking for something like that since their first year. He 
has pushed, prodded, insulted and been a general jerk to the three 
of them for so long I wonder why they haven't done it. So much so 
that it makes the books a little less believable. In a real school 
they would have stuffed him in his locker at bestand bat him down at 
worst long before fifth year. Harry is a saint for not having given 
him the beat down he has been asking for.

In fact I think if someone had taken Malfoy down a few pegs earlier 
he would not have been willing to let things go as far as they did.

Magpie:
Actually they have taken him down a few pegs more than once--taking 
him down a peg was the start of Malfoy's animosity.  He's been 
beaten and hexed more than once.  (To compare it to the Snape/James 
scene as described, Malfoy often says something unpleasant and 
Harry's friend start the real aggression.) Amazingly (not), it 
doesn't actually solve him as a problem any more than it apparently 
fixed Snape. I think JKR's going for something more with Harry than 
James had acheived by this scene. 

Jordan:
Whoa. There is no indication in canon that _every_ potion requires 
use of a wand. This seems like one of those evasive answers, where 
the real meaning is "Yes, there are some potions that they can make, 
the ones that don't require a wand"

Magpie:
If that's an evasive answer, I don't know how the woman ever manages 
to say anything!  The answer reads as pretty direct to me, with your 
re-interpretation being exactly the opposite of what she said.  Why 
would there need to be a specific mention in canon that every Potion 
requires a wand?  She just said every Potion did require a wand to 
answer the question: no, Muggles can't make Potions.   

-m







From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 15:05:46 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 11:05:46 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape's Worst memory
In-Reply-To: <eaqb7p+tu8f@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608020614l229448afn1d2c8afa93990b65@mail.gmail.com>
	 <eaqb7p+tu8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608020805pdf1193dic8933debfcd97ec8@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156375

On 8/2/06, zgirnius <zgirnius at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...>
> wrote:
> > She shows us that Snape picked the memories so as to give the
> > impression that it was unprovoked.
> >
> > How? IMO, It would be _very_ OOC for Snape to reveal this. It's not
> at
> > all "easy" to give an indication of this without it coming from
> snape.
>
> zgirnius:
> You are proposing, then, that Snape picked three memories he very
> much *wanted* Harry to see, in hopes he would have an opportunity to
> leave Harry alone with them? And continued this ploy even after an
> oppportunity presented itself, and Harry very properly left the
> office with Snape? (On the occasion of Umbridge's firing of
> Trelawney).
>
> First, that seems really complicated and unreliable to me. Second, it
> seemd hugely OOC. Snape did not seem to me to be acting when he
> discoevred Harry viewing the memory. He really seemed not to want
> anyone to know what had happened to him.

If he were really hiding them, why didn't he leave the pensieve in his
private quarters, locked up? Or at least not make a big show of taking
them out in front of Harry... It seems to me quite obvious he was
_goading_ Harry. The only question is whether he wanted him to see
those memories in particular or if he wanted an excuse to stop the
lessons.

And it seems that anyone who can lie to voldemort's face (or
dumbledore's, if you believe in ESE!Snape) and not get caught would
have to be good at faking emotions - that's one aspect of occlumency,
isn't it?

And remember, _everything_ we see is through the harry filter -
suppose Harry assumes that snape will be angry, as long as he puts any
effort at all into acting angry, he can be secretly smug that Harry
might no longer see James in a positive light, no problem



From muellem at bc.edu  Wed Aug  2 15:16:42 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:16:42 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060802142325.19818.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaqfkq+79ug@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156376

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
 
> 
--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
>
> >   Sorry but that doesn't make sense. JKR shows Snape going for 
his wand but makes no mention of either James or Sirius having their 
wands out. As I said James WAS looking for a confrontation. It is 
canon however that Snape went for his wand while there is no mention 
of either of the other boys having drawn theirs. PS doesn't James 
later cast Levicopus non-verbally?
> 

colebiancardi:
alas, I don't have my book in front of me.  However, I still stand by 
my statement that Snape was on the defense - James was on the offense 
and had the upper hand and was the attacker.  It doesn't matter if 
their wands weren't drawn - they looking for a fight.

  >   
> Colebiancardi:
> with or without the wand, James initiated this scene, goaded on by
> Sirius and Wormtail. This is bullying. Regardless of past
> altercations, Snape was minding his own business. Sirius was *bored*
> to tears and James made things lively for the group, by starting the
> attack - James provoked it. Not Snape. Snape would have probably
> walked on by without a word. Lupin doesn't say anything, but his
> disapproval is written on his face, and he seems to be afraid to say
> anything - is it because he worries that his friends won't like him
> anymore? That they will let slip his secret? Peer Pressure is a
> horrible thing at that age. Say the wrong thing and you are dumped
> like a hot potatoe.
>    
>   Joe:
>   I agree James was probably going to say something very 
unpleasant. Sanpe however is the one who from all appearances 
initiated the real aggression. James and Sirius were so loyal to 
Lupin that not only did they not drop him as a friend but they did 
all the work to become Animagi to help him with his issues. You peer 
pressure comments ring very hollow in the face of canon evidence.
> 
colebiancardi:  you misunderstood what I posted.  Lupin DID NOT speak 
out - why not?  He states in OotP that he should have, but he 
didn't.  Was it because of that fear?  If you go along with the flow, 
as he did, there was no reason *not* to drop him as a friend.  
However, what would have happened to Lupin if he did speak out, 
publically, as Lily did, to James & Sirius and took Snape's side in 
this matter?  I don't think my peer pressure comments ring at all 
hollow - the canon shows that teen Lupin didn't do anything, yet 
adult Lupin thinks he should have said something to them about this.



> Colebiancari:
> As far as the observers not liking Snape or their behavior makes 
Snape
> to be unpopular, there is a passage that leads me to believe that 
some
> of the students were also afraid of James & Sirius - "Some looked
> apprehensive, others entertained." Another passage states 
that "many of the surrounding watchers laughed, Sirius & Wormtail 
included, but Lupin, still apparently intent on his book, didn't, and 
neither did Lily."
>    
>   Joe:
>   Yet the only observer we state states "That Snape was clearly 
unpopular."  With no other canon evidence to the contrary it is safe 
to say that he WAS clearly unpopular.

Colebiancardi:
Ah, but we only see that scene and what Harry saw.  If Snape was "so" 
clearly unpopular, why did some watchers look apprehensive?
> 
> 
> Colebiancardi:
> > I see the same thing here in the scene. I think that there were 
some
> people who didn't like Snape, some people who did like Snape, but 
were
> too scared for their own skins to help him at the time.
>    
>   Joe:
>   Nope, we have someone on the scene who is observing it. None of 
those things were even considered. The only canon statement was that 
Snape was unpopular. Your own personal experiences aside we have no 
reason to think that. Harry is quite clear on his interpertation and 
as others so often say "Harry is the view we get." If we are to 
accept Harry's view that James was out of line then why should we not 
accept his view that Snape was obviously unpopular?
> 
colebiancardi: 
well, a) Harry saw, with his own eyes, what James did to Snape.  And 
he knows about bullying, being that he was bullied for years.  And b) 
Harry NEVER hears anyone state that Snape is unpopular.  As a matter 
of fact, doesn't Sirius or Lupin state that Snape was "thick" with 
those witches & wizards who later became DE's?  
(I wish I had my book on me - that is what I get for posting at work -
 LOL)

also, not everyone watching was watching with glee or laughing at the 
scene.  Please read the quotes from the book again.  It makes it 
quite clear that there was a difference of opinion on what was 
happening.

> 
> Colebiancardi:
> Bullies are bullies - I don't care if they are beautiful people or
> not. In this scene, James & Sirius were the ones that started the
> attack. Lupin knew it to be wrong, as did Lily. Perhaps Snape's
> attacks on James & Sirius was in reaction to their picking on him. I
> don't know. But to paint this scene as something else is just
> excusing bad behavior.
>    
>   Joe:
>   Once again I have to say you are wrong. James and Sirius were 
going to create a confrontation to be certain. As I said above it was 
Snape who went for what is for all intents and purposes a weapon.
> 
colebiancardi:

James and Sirius were the attackers - they started it.  All Snape was 
doing was defending himself.  How is that wrong?  If someone starts 
goading me into a fight, should I wait for that person to beat the 
carp out of me before I hit back?  
  
> Colebiancardi:
> (there is a reason why the term "frat boy" is not considered a good
> term. I consider James & Sirius, at that point in their lives, to be
> frat boys. They did grow out of it, at least James did. I don't
> think Sirius ever really did)
>    
>   Joe:
>   Thas is of course your own personal bias. Plenty of people have 
no negative connotation with the term "Frat boy". I know as well as 
most people who went to college that there were frat guys who acted 
like jerks and frat guys who spent tons of time working for 
charities. I don't think real world predudices have any place in this 
discussion however.
>  

colebiancardi:
not my "personal bias"  .  Do a google on "frat boy" and tell me if 
it is considered a "nice" term.  It isn't.   One of the nicer 
definations I found is this:
"member of an all male social club. see misogynist, high school 
mentality, social ineptitude, and inferiority complex."

real world predudices?  Aren't you the one who stated that all boys 
behave in this manner - the high-spirited hijinks of teenage years?  
and that we shouldn't blow this "prank" out of proporation?

I am sorry, but holding someone inmobile, knocking them down, washing 
their mouth out with soap and then pantsing them is not a "prank".

I am sure Snape "gave it as good as he got", according to Lupin and 
Sirius, but since we only have this scene to go on, this is 
bullying.  And 2 to 1 is not a fair fight.  

colebiancardi







From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  2 15:34:14 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:34:14 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eapgk8+n2v1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqglm+c6o1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156378

JD:
It's also easy to see how the logistics of the Sectumsempra scene 
could be transposed 4 years earlier. It takes place in a bathroom 
and features Moaning Myrtle, both key parts of Book 2. In this 
alternate version of Book 2 I don't thing Draco would have been 
talking to Myrtle about his isolation (I think that is part of the 
Unbreakable Vow strand, not the Half-Blood Prince strand). He may 
have been snooping on Harry.

Dungrollin:
Indeed, I think you're absolutely right. (Lovely carefully thought-
out post, btw.) I suspect she'd have had Draco snooping around 
looking for the Chamber or the Heir, or figuring out when Myrtle 
died and talking to her about both. But I also think the HBP strand 
was *replaced* with the "Harry suspects Draco's the Heir, and 
Hermione plans the Polyjuice affair" thread. So rather than have 
Draco lead Harry to the location of the Chamber she decided to let 
him figure it out for himself, eventually.

>Dung previously (156317): But I'll bet you a box of Honeydukes Best 
that it wasn't originally going to be a potions book, I bet it was 
going to be a DADA book. Snape would have been suspicious 
immediately if Harry had started doing brilliantly in potions right 
under his nose.

JD: I don't think it could have been a DADA book because Lockhart 
was that year's teacher and assigned all his own books. Eileen 
Prince couldn't have had a 50 year old Lockhart book, could she?

Dung again:
That's something I think which could have been changed relatively 
painlessly.

JD:
In addition, Harry didn't get practical DADA lessons until third 
year. A DADA book with hand-written hints and tips helping Harry 
excel in class would have been useless when Harry spent second year 
DADA answering quizzes about Lockhart's favourite colour, writing 
poems about Lockhart's achievements and pretending to be a werewolf 
so Lockhart could re-enact his triumphs.

Dung:
To be fair, Lockhart tried to start out with the practical on the 
Cornish Pixies, but gave it up when it was a bit of a disaster. We 
mustn't forget that she may have started out with Lockhart as a 
slightly different character in the first draft; moving the HBP 
plotline may have freed up Lockhart's character so he could be a 
bit more extreme, more vain, more egoistic.

The difficulty in working this stuff out is that JKR hasn't told us 
why *she* thought the HBP plotline fitted better in HBP, and she 
undoubtedly moved it for a (or for a number of) very good 
reason(s), so everything we come up with has to be slightly wrong, 
has to not quite fit the story as we know it.

JD:
I like the irony of Harry excelling at Potions right under Snape's 
nose.

Dung again:
Snape never taught from the text book, he only ever wrote 
instructions on the board; I've lent out my copy of PS so I can't 
check to see whether he did the same there. I do remember the text 
book they had in first year was One Thousand Magical Herbs and 
Fungi, which suggests it was a book of the properties of potions 
ingredients, not that it was a book of potions recipes, which would 
make having extra tips difficult. Not impossible though, I'll grant 
you that. I think many people (after HBP) think that Snape was 
putting his own improved recipes on the board, as do I, so having 
his old potions book wouldn't have helped in his class; which is 
why I think it was a DADA book originally. It could also have been 
a Charms or Transfiguration book, but with Snape's love of DADA, I 
think that fits better, and would have been another 'clue'. It 
would make sense that he scribbled his invented hexes in his DADA 
book, rather than in his potions book, too.

Dungrollin






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 15:36:53 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:36:53 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <eaq48g+kp46@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqgql+i9ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156379

>
> Ok, if your Patronus reflects who you are, what can we deduce???
what form is Snape's???? (My daughter-in- law thinks it will be an
animal known for it's cunning, like a fox!!)
>


Tonks:
I agree with Potioncat, that Snape's Patronus will be a symbol of 
DD. I am not sure what form. It would be odd to be a bee. On the 
other hand I expect to see a Phoenix again in book 7, but I thought 
it might be attached to Harry. So I guess a bee or a phoenix would 
fit Snape.

I wonder if Snape does have an anamigus form. And you idea of a fox
would fit. Remember that when they were approaching Snape's house in
Spinners End it was a fox that Bella saw and killed. This might be a
clue that JKR threw in there. And it would also fit, sort of, with
the idea of Snape being Malfoy's "lap dog". One could have a pet
fox, no?

Tonks_op








From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 15:28:43 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:28:43 -0000
Subject: Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608020706l6a26acefva9b8e2d5ab3a328d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaqgbb+p9ag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156380

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:

<snip>
> Whoa. There is no indication in canon that _every_ potion requires 
use
> of a wand. This seems like one of those evasive answers, where the
> real meaning is "Yes, there are some potions that they can make, the
> ones that don't require a wand"
<snip>

bridge13219:
While there may be nothing in canon that directly states that all 
potions require a wand at some point in their preparation, we have to 
assume that since the WW is JKR's creation, what she says IS canon.









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  2 15:12:18 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 15:12:18 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <eanrpl+j5pi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqfci+m70u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156381

Abergoat says:
I guess I will reply to myself in hopes of keeping Eileen's thread
going - it probably isn't permissible so I'll accept the handslap
gracefully if it comes.

I see that posters are now discussing the three memories in the
pensieve. Even this can be tied to Eileen. Although I think the Snape
memory Harry snooped in OoP was hidden from Harry, I think the other
two were hidden from Voldemort looking through Harry. And I speculate
those two memories were

1) Snape's legilimens view of his own mother's memory of the Voldemort
attack on the Snape family (legilimensed off of Eileen, possibly Dog
Lady at St. Mungo's)

and 

2) The memory of the discussion with Lily at Lily's house right after
Snape saw #1. In this memory Snape verbally vows to defeat Voldemort
no matter the cost. And this is the conversation with the 'awful boy'
that Petunia overheard. 

There is pretty much no part of the main plotline that I cannot have
tie into the idea that Snape is bent on revenge (and consumed by hate)
in his quest to avenge his mother. It can even explain a visit to the
St. Mungo's locked ward in a book that is considered overly long but
JKR has said she doesn't think she could have cut anything out. Seeing
the Longbottoms was moving, but I don't see why it was strictly
necessary for the overall plot. We know they aren't going to do
anything themselves. But the basis for Dumbledore's trust in Snape?
That is the HUGE outstanding question and unrequited love or regret
for romantic love lost doesn't fit with JKR's focus that good and evil
in large part stem from one's childhood and whether one was loved by
parents.

Abergoat wrote: 
> A group I posted with on a forum toyed with the idea that Eileen had 
> a Ravenclaw wand relic taken from her by Voldemort. Then Irma and 
> Filch (relatives of Eileen or Tobias) 'filched' the wand back (now a
> horcrux) and Irma is hiding it in her featherduster. So Filch's
> prowling is more for the protection of Irma and the wand than students. 

Abergoat sighs:
A little too far-fetched for everyone? Too bad. At least it fits with
the tarot theory of 'sword, coins, cup and wand'. 

Abergoat









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 16:00:19 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:00:19 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within/One piece of canon
In-Reply-To: <eaq73n+dl9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqi6j+7m52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156382

> Magpie:
> If that's an evasive answer, I don't know how the woman ever manages 
> to say anything!  The answer reads as pretty direct to me, with your 
> re-interpretation being exactly the opposite of what she said.  Why 
> would there need to be a specific mention in canon that every Potion 
> requires a wand?  She just said every Potion did require a wand to 
> answer the question: no, Muggles can't make Potions.   


Alla:

Eh, yes, absolutely that answer was very direct. I also attended the 
yesterday evening ( SO much fun that was) and while I cannot guarantee 
that I remember questions and answers word by word, the question was 
asked ( as far as I remmeber) - can Muggles brew the Potions, the 
answer was **No** and then she started to say that Potions require more 
than brewing that you need a wand at some point, meaning as far as I 
understood that brewer's magic goes into Potions.

In general, she answered very few questions and IMO have out **sero**, 
**zilch**, absolutely nothing.

But I just want to comment on one more question, which I got exactly 
the opposite impression than the list member writing about it.

And I think my friend ( waves at Kathy ) got the same impression.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemflynn" <annemflynn at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> Another asked about whether or not she felt her characters had any 
> redeemable qualities, i.e. Draco Malfoy (to which, Jo had to shake 
> her head over why girls were so infatuated with Draco). The question 
> was worded really well, too, the girl had made reference to Snape 
> being on the side of good in it, to which, Jo's expression didn't 
> change (Dammit!). Well, Jo said that while she believed everybody had 
> redeemable qualities in them, for the sake of the story, Draco was 
> not one of them. And she reminded us what the terms of his assignment 
> were and what the consequences would be, should he not be able to 
> carry it out. And then told us to draw our own conclusions from that.
<SNIP>


Alla:

Welcome to the world of posting :) I may have misheard her answer, but 
I totally did not get the impression that the redemption for the Draco 
is out the question.

What I remember her answering was that indeed for some of the 
characters redemption is not possible, the example she cited was 
Voldemort ( I don't remember her saying that this door is closed for 
Draco), she said that if we take away the wand from Voldemort we can 
call him psychopath ( but at least I am glad she IMO closed the door on 
redeemable Voldie), then she indeed repeated that Draco would not have 
killed Dumbledore and what that means for Draco's future, you just have 
to wait and see, hehe.

I thought that the door for his redemption was left rather wide open, 
personally. :)


Julie:
What is that one piece of canon? I'm curious. You know I am
pretty convinced that Snape is DDM, but if I can come up with
an intepretation for that bit of canon that would paint Snape
as a bastard (even if I don't buy it), I'll post it :-)

Alla:

LOL, I did not realise that would be interesting, hehe, since I got 
asked off list too, but would you like to guess first?

It is easy, but it is not Snape saving Harry's life in PS/SS. To me it 
goes to Snape's character that he may actually care for somebody and 
for no obvious reasons.

JMO,

Alla






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  2 14:53:15 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:53:15 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaq5l5+3cu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqe8r+di9o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156383


Dung wrote:
> I admire your dedication to Eileen! But I'm afraid I don't agree.
> I never got the impression that there were any big nagging questions
> posed by the Chamber affair which needed clearing up. 

Abergoat responds:
I'll admit getting people interested in Eileen is really rough going!
My posts about her seem to have been involved in spawning another
Marauder thread that has zero to say about her and now my post about
the CoS/HBP connection has spawned something else that isn't
interested in her either! (lol) Hopefully I get to snicker at all of
you when the last book comes out ;)

Dung wrote:
> Just out of interest, though, to put a little flesh on the bones of
> your theory, why would any kind of Ravenclaw be interested in
> finding the legendary secret chamber of Slytherin? And if she
> didn't speak Parseltongue, how did she realise that the little
> serpent scratched into the tap in the bathroom signified that
> she'd found the entrance?

Abergoat responds:
I am not suggesting she wanted to find it. I'm merely suggesting she
MIGHT have helped Tom Riddle find it. If she is interested in books he
may have seen her often in the library - given Voldemort's knowledge
I'm sure he spent a fare bit of time checking out books. And Tom
Riddle was a charmer, I'm sure Eileen was horrified by what happened
if she was in anyway involved. But the tie in that I'm certain has a
good possiblity of being what JKR uses is Eileen, Hagrid and Myrtle.
They are only one year apart if not the same year. And I suspect
someone gave Dumbledore information to use in defense of Hagrid. And
JKR even slipped in the information that Myrtle didn't stay at
Hogwarts at the beginning - she went off to haunt Olivia Hornsby (or
something like that). How convenient.

Dung wrote:
> Ah, yes! Bravo! Though actually, I'll have to
> sheepishly admit to not remembering at all whether we saw the
> necklace in the film.

Abergoat adds:
Not only do we see the necklace, we see the hand of glory.

Abergoat










From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Wed Aug  2 16:15:30 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 09:15:30 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060801211923.67030.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <700201d40608011349jf0d9479qbe4bdc6a170272ea@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20060801211923.67030.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608020915k5a5e1833m15d5fa3702073e77@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156384

> Joe wrote:
> ... snip ...
>
> Also why would you think Snape would not care that Lily was muggleborn? Not only did he call her a mudblood which is evidence right there that it did matter to him but only two years down the road he joined a group of people who were pleged to drive the muggleborn out of wizarding society.
>
> That makes no sense at all.

Kemper now:
I haven't read the Death Eater's mission statement, but I'm pretty
sure it doesn't state anything about pledging to drive out
Muggleborns.  Now, that might be the agenda of some within that Dark
Order (Bellatrix, Lucius), but not all.

Also... Snape is Muggleborn.  Voldemort is Muggleborn.  Yes, they both
have witch moms.  Voldemort would not kill off a Muggleborn if he/she
could serve a useful purpose.  Similarly, he wouldn't refrain from
killing a Pureblood who has out last his/her usefulness.

Does it make sense now?


> Kemper earlier:
>
> What if at the end of Harry's written DADA O.W.L's, he and Ron
> rolled-up on and started provoking Draco while Hermione pretended she
> didn't know what was going on? We already know what an arrogant prick
> Draco is, but would we think this scene of righteous bullying funny?
>
> Would Harry be in the right here? Or would we think a little less of
> him based on only a 5 minute incident?
>
>
> Joe responded:
> No I wouldn't think one bit less of Harry.... Malfoy has been asking for something like that since their first year. He has pushed, prodded, insulted and been a general jerk to the three of them for so long I wonder why they haven't done it. So much so that it makes the books a little less believable. In a real school they would have stuffed him in his locker at best and bat him down at worst long before fifth year. Harry is a saint for not having given him the beat down he has been asking for.
>
> In fact I think if someone had taken Malfoy down a few pegs earlier he would not have been willing to let things go as far as they did.

Kemper now:
What are you talking about?!  Draco talks shit a lot in the books.
Harry talks shit back.  Draco's a prick to Hermione and she
righteously hit him.  Harry and his friends have not been passive
limpies when it comes to giving what they've been getting.

So why would Draco deserve my hypothetical scenario wear he gets a beat down?

> Joe wrote:
> I don't like Snape but I am betting that what James and Sirius did wasn't the worst memory. I don't think he was that big of a wimp. I think it was Lily defending him in public that was his worst memory.
> 

Kemper now:
I agree that James and Sirius weren't the reason for this scene tagged
as Snape's worst memory, but I think it has to do with his regret for
calling Lily a Mudblood.

...That, or it's for Harry: the worst memory Harry has seen from Snape
because he has to reevaluate his vision of his dad.

Kemper



From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  2 16:17:47 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:17:47 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060802142325.19818.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaqj7b+tkou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156385


> colebiancardi <muellem at ...> wrote:
> 
> <snip actual passage>
> now, based on that passage - with the look of disapproval(frown lines)
> on Lupin's face and Wormtail's look of glee on his and Snape's
> reaction - it seems that James & Sirius did this type of ambush to
> Snape frequently. James called out to Snape, not using Snape's name,
> but an insulting nickname - loudly and clearly for all to hear. A
> challenge, so to speak. Snape went on the defensive by trying to get
> his wand out, but James, although not mentioned, must have had his
> wand out already, as I doubt that 5th years had learned yet to cast a
> spell without a wand.      
> 
>   Joe:
>   Sorry but that doesn't make sense. JKR shows Snape going for his
wand but makes no mention of either James or Sirius having their wands
out. 

wynnleaf
Are you trying to say that James was using wandless magic when he did
that Expelliarmus?  My guess is you're not.  You can't have it both
ways.  Either JKR just didn't bother to mention James taking his wand
out, or he did wandless magic.  The implication -- that he was
obviously *intending* to start a fight, that he called out to Snape
using a derogatory name and to have some fun and relieve Sirius'
boredom, was that he *did* have his wand out.  When Lily later asked
him for a reason, he certainly didn't say, "because Snape drew his
wand on us and was trying to hex us..." which he *could* have said if
that had occurred.  He said "because he exists."  It's very clear who
was the aggressor, and JKR not mentioning James' wand doesn't change
that -- unless you want to say that you think James was doing wandless
magic, in which case he had a huge advantage and had no need to "draw"
first.

Joe
As I said James WAS looking for a confrontation. It is canon however
that Snape went for his wand while there is no mention of either of
the other boys having drawn theirs. PS doesn't James later cast
Levicopus non-verbally?

wynnleaf
As I said, there's no canon that mentions specifically when James drew
his wand.  There is the strong implication that he did.  And even if
he didn't have his wand out (let's assume that for the moment), he
certainly had a huge advantage being the one to start the altercation
-- knowing the exact timing, etc.  Lupin and Pettigrews different
reactions both indicate they knew James was about to start a fight.  

PS, apparently Snape can do non-verbal spells, too -- the cutting
spell.  DADA classes were so poor at Hogwarts in Harry's day that even
Hermione seems unaware of nonverbal spells in 5th year (tried to
silence a DE as a defence tactic).

>   Joe:
>   I agree James was probably going to say something very unpleasant.
Sanpe however is the one who from all appearances initiated the real
aggression. James and Sirius were so loyal to Lupin that not only did
they not drop him as a friend but they did all the work to become
Animagi to help him with his issues. You peer pressure comments ring
very hollow in the face of canon evidence.

wynnleaf
Since writing the above, I realized we had an eyewitness account.

Quote from "Career Advice" chapter when Harry talks with Lupin and Sirius:

"Yeah," said Harry, "but he just attacked Snape for no good reason. 
Just because -- well, just because you said you were bored."

Eyewitness account -- Harry said James attacked for no good reason. 
I'm sure Harry could see who drew first.

Further, Lupin and Sirius appeared to remember that particular
incident and spoke of getting carried away and not being proud of it.
 On another occasion (sorry, will have to look for where), Lupin said
that Dumbledore made him a prefect to try to curb the activities of
Sirius and James, but that he had failed to do that.   JKR herself has
said that Lupin has a weakness and "his failing is that he does like
to be liked and that's where he slips up because he has been disliked
so often that he's always so pleased to have friends so he cuts them
and awful lot of slack."  

     
>   Joe:
>   Yet the only observer we state states "That Snape was clearly
unpopular."  With no other canon evidence to the contrary it is safe
to say that he WAS clearly unpopular.
    <snips>

Joe
>   Nope, we have someone on the scene who is observing it. None of
those things were even considered. The only canon statement was that
Snape was unpopular.

wynnleaf
My guess is that he really *was* unpopular.  So what??  I was pretty
unpopular in school, too.  Lots of very introverted, geeky, bright
loner people with unusual interests are a bit unpopular. Add to it
being physically unattractive, possibly exhibiting characteristics of
his mill town background, *and* being from the hated house Slytherin.
 He probably *was* unpopular.  I really don't think that's some sort
of justification for anyone else's aggression.  However, it is very
common for some people to prey on the least popular kids in school and
hold them up as objects of scorn, for no other reason than, as James'
says, because they exist.
    
   
>   Joe:
>   Once again I have to say you are wrong. James and Sirius were
going to create a confrontation to be certain. As I said above it was
Snape who went for what is for all intents and purposes a weapon.

wynnleaf
Well Harry's eyewitness account puts that issue to rest, since he
clearly states that James attacked for *no* reason.










From annemflynn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 14:54:10 2006
From: annemflynn at yahoo.com (annemflynn)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 14:54:10 -0000
Subject: Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608020706l6a26acefva9b8e2d5ab3a328d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaqeaj+al9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156386

> Anne Marie:
> > One question was why Ollivander (Jo) chose the magical
> > components of he wands that he did, and didn't use Veela hair
> > and such in his wands. Jo said that well, 1) those were her
> > three favorites (phonenix feather, etc); and 2) that the wands
> > are made specific to regions and that different regions would
> > use differet things in their wands because they had different
> > magical creatures.

> Jordan/Random832:
> So that means some wizards don't get their ideal wand because it
> would have been one with a core that's not available at Ollie's?
> What does he do if every wand in the shop "rejects" them? Send
> them to another country?

Anne Marie:
Yes, I suppose that answer would beg that question, but I thought
that there were other wand makers? Perhaps they use different
magical qualities in their wands, and Ollie would have to send them
over there.

> Anne Marie:
> > Another girl asked if a muggles were to follow the exact
> > instructions to a potion and use the exact ingredients, could
> > it be correctly made? Jo said no, because sooner or later
> > they'd have to use a wand and a muggle cannot use a wand
> > correctly without disaster or a violent occurrence happening.

> Jordan/Random832:
> Whoa. There is no indication in canon that _every_ potion requires
> use of a wand. This seems like one of those evasive answers, where
> the real meaning is "Yes, there are some potions that they can
> make, the ones that don't require a wand."

Anne Marie:
Yes, this did catch my attention. She said that you do more with a
wand in potion making than stirring.

> Anne Marie:
> > Maybe this will be the whole Petunia thing coming into play.

> Jordan/Random832:
> I'd be very disappointed if "the whole Petunia thing" turned
> out to be a whole lot of nothing, but given the sheer _number_ of
> things that "have to" turn up in Book 7, there's no way to fit
> them all in.

Anne Marie:
Me, too. I'm assuming that it will be Petunia that tries to use
Harry's wand, against what is pure speculation, well, as is it
being Petunia trying to use the wand. I suppose it could very well
be Hermione's parents trying to use her wand, too, as they're both
muggles. But, I think the Dursleys will play a bigger role in book
7. I also think that book 7 will probably be the biggest yet, as
she said there was just so much left to explain.











From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 17:41:31 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 17:41:31 -0000
Subject: Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not?
In-Reply-To: <eadoe5+21r4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqo4b+cm5j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156387

Carol <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> I doubt that JKR wants us to think of Dumbledore, McGonagall, et
> al. as "ignoble morons," but I won't attempt to convince you
> otherwise because emotional judgments are impervious to logic.
> Instead, I'll just ask a question: Do we have any canon evidence
> that the adults know what Umbridge did to Harry in her detentions?


Well, according to Ginny's statement about Harry's popularity and
relating it to the scar on his hand in HBP, it seems word has gotten
around.  The adults would be fools indeed, especially McGonagall as
Head of House, not to have heard of it, especially since Harry's is
not the only case.

We also have Dumbledore, who, we are told "knows pretty much
everything that goes on in Hogwarts" and has "watched Harry more
than [he] can have imagined."  Not to mention he's the "epitome of
goodness" and the "greatest wizard in the world."  Once again, he
would have had to have been a first class fool not to know what was
going on or, which is more likely the case, an ignoble moron to
stand aside and allow it to continue.  But, we have plentiful
evidence that the epitome of goodness approves of Harry being
abused, so that is no surprise.


Lupinlore, who really DOES wonder why anybody would have any
admiration for the moronic, uncaring, unhelpful, and incredibly
insensitive adults that surround Harry










From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 18:24:58 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:24:58 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <20060802142325.19818.qmail@web61319.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaqqlq+gu1o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156388


>   Joe:
>   Sorry but that doesn't make sense. JKR shows Snape going for his 
wand but makes no mention of either James or Sirius having their 
wands out. As I said James WAS looking for a confrontation. It is 
canon however that Snape went for his wand while there is no mention 
of either of the other boys having drawn theirs. PS doesn't James 
later cast Levicopus non-verbally?

zgirnius:
Nonverbally means without speaking an incantation. It still involves 
the use of a wand. She just chose not to describe it, because it is 
implicit in what happens that they had them. Certainly, James's was 
both drawn and pointed while Snape was still trying to get at his and 
deal with his knapsack. James might have been a western-movie-style 
quick draw specialist, of course, we are shown those refelxes. <g> 
Sirius might have drawn his after Snape was already disarmed...but 
then who is the aggressor?

    
>   Joe:
>   I agree James was probably going to say something very 
unpleasant. Sanpe however is the one who from all appearances 
initiated the real aggression. 

zgirnius:
You can't possibly know that for two reasons.
1) See above;
2) Snape might have been getting his wand as a precaution.

Joe:
> You peer pressure comments ring very hollow in the face of canon 
evidence.

zgirnius:
In Lupin's own words to Sirius, about Sirius and James:

> OotP, "Career Advice"
> "Did I ever have the guts to tell you that you were out of order?"

Meaning, he thought they were out of order, and he did not have the 
guts to tell them.
  
>   Joe:
>   Yet the only observer we state states "That Snape was clearly 
unpopular."  With no other canon evidence to the contrary it is safe 
to say that he WAS clearly unpopular.

zgirnius:
Not all that unusual a fate for greasy-haired hook-nosed oddballs, I 
might add. 

--zgirnius, thinking Joe's wife is a wise woman...









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 18:29:05 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:29:05 -0000
Subject: Snape's Worst memory
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608020805pdf1193dic8933debfcd97ec8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eaqqth+gs7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156389

"Jordan Abel":
> And it seems that anyone who can lie to voldemort's face (or
> dumbledore's, if you believe in ESE!Snape) and not get caught would
> have to be good at faking emotions - that's one aspect of occlumency,
> isn't it?

zgirnius:
What Snape seems really good at, except when he get extremely angry, is 
hiding emotions, not simulating them. All that coldness, those 
unreadable expressions, etc.

Obviously, you think this was an instance of this. Do you think there 
are other examples in the books where Snape is faking an emotional 
response?









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 18:47:23 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:47:23 -0000
Subject: Ending of Book 7 Prediction and Alchemy 101
Message-ID: <eaqrvr+m5bg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156390

Alchemy 101 studies continued:

Here is a tidbit of information, which makes me think of the mirror 
of Erised. This is part of the poem in "Rosarium Philosophorum"
This part of the poem speaks of the male part of the stone. Remember 
that the stone itself is the union of opposites. What is called in 
alchemy the "hermaphrodite", but which does not mean male/female in a 
literal sense.

"Here is born the emperor of all honor,
There cannot be above him born a higher,
Born through the art, or by the means of nature,
But not through the womb on any living creature.
The philosophers speak of him as their son, 
And everything they do, by him is done.
>From him it can be had what man desires,
He gives good health, which last and never tires,
All precious jewels, he gives, silver and gold,
Full strength and youth, pure, beautiful and bold.
Wrath, sickness, grief and want are all transformed,
Blessed is the man who is by God informed"

Somehow, someway I think we will see this idea represented in book 7 
by the mirror and something that happens to Harry as a result.  
Remember in book 1, Harry was able to get the stone because he wanted 
to "find it, but not use it".  DD set the mirror up in that way. I 
also think that this is the secret of the stone itself. The person 
that can make the stone is the one that wants to seek the stone for 
its own sake and not for what the stone can do for them. This idea is 
like the mystic's spiritual journey to find God for the sake of 
finding God alone and not for the mystical experience or the gifts 
that come with it.

I think that since the HP books are for children, JKR is going to do 
all of this in a simplified form. 

Not for a bit of wild speculation: The books are a `coming of age' 
story. They are also a `hero's quest" story. (I wonder if in her 
depression JKR turned to a therapist. Perhaps she had a Jungian 
therapist. This would explain a lot, IMO.) If we look at the books 
from the perspective of the maturation process and the quest is 
Harry's to find and know himself then what we have is the following:  
LV is Harry's dark side and in the end Harry must unite and transform 
LV into himself.  Because both Harry and LV will have only a half-
life if they are split. LV represents the split off part of Harry, 
that part of himself that Harry does not want to acknowledge as being 
part of his nature. Harry in book 7 will be a man, here he will go 
from being "every boy" as JKR has told us, to being "everyman". As a 
symbol of humanity, whatever Harry can do we all can do. 

My prediction is that Harry will find Love for LV. They will become 
one. This is the union of opposites necessary to produce the stone. 
The process of producing the stone also has a spiritual meaning. The 
stone represents Christ to the Christian alchemist. (Note: Not all 
alchemists were Christian and the stone represents the God of that 
person's religion. Alchemy has been around for thousands of years, in 
all cultures.)

For the Christian alchemist, which IMO is the type of alchemist that 
JKR is, the end product is the transformation of the human into the 
image of Christ.  The alchemist must `first know himself' before this 
can be done.  Harry will know himself, be a mature man, be "whole" 
once he has absorbed LV into himself, and then he will be transformed 
into the image of Christ. Which I think in the books is Fawkes.

Tonks_op








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  2 18:50:05 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 18:50:05 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaojre+grjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqs4t+sjp4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156391

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Ken:
> > <snip>
> > I think that I am not alone in seeing a very stark fault line     
> > running through the description of the Potterverse that we see in 
> > these books. I see many of you as not reacting to it but instead   
> > treating everything in the books as "real" and directly relateable 
> > to real life. When I read the scenes at Hogwarts and at the       
> > Dursleys I hear a constant "beep, beep" sound in my head. For those
> > who don't follow that I am reminded of the Saturday morning       
> > cartoons we "boomers" watched as kids, eg "The Roadrunner and Wile 
> > E. Coyote".
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I've heard this idea before, that Hogwarts (or the Potterverse) is 
> cartoonish, that the hurts visited upon the students are therefore 
> as real and harmful as Elmer Fudd falling off a cliff.  So you're 
> not alone in thinking this.  But, I'm pretty sure I disagree.
> 

Ken:

First, I posted a reply to this last night. Since it has not appeared
here yet I assume that Yahoomort, as someone else calls our host, has
eaten it and I apologise if it appears later on.

For me the Dursleys are completely cardboard characters and as
cartoonish as Wile E. Coyote. So many of the events at Hogwarts, all
the pratfalls in the courses, the hallway battles, the things the
twins to *to themselves* have a very cartoonish, unreal feel to them.

Not everything at Hogwarts is like this, many of the scenes that are
depicted are school days experiences that match my recollections very
well. These things ring true and if a UK author can hit the nail so
squarely on the head for a USA reader they must be nearly universal
experiences.

There is a third class of events portrayed in the book. Mostly these
surround the activities of the DE but the bulk of the MOM scenes are
of this nature too. These are gritty, realistic, often chilling
scenes. I put Umbridge's quill in this class, it is abusive, there is
no humor in it. LV is no cartoon either, he is quite real. Far too
many innocents have been sent to early graves over the millenia by the
LV's of our kind. He walks and talks among us to this day and
sometimes he is a she. LV is portrayed as being Pure Evil, with no
redeeming quality that we can perceive. That, perhaps, is an
exaggeration. Even our worst historical figures are reported to have
had some small charming human qualities about them. Yet many of these
historical figures have done or caused evil deeds orders of magnitude
greater than LV does. He may not have been Pure Evil but it is hard to
give Adolf Hitler much credit for the fact that he treated his dogs
very sweetly. He and several others were as close to Pure Evil as
makes no difference.

Over the last night I think I have come to see the reason for this
variation in treatment. The school days/realistic scenes are there to
anchor the story in a shared experience that draws readers of all ages
in. The cartoonish elements represent the innocent faith that children
have in their world and the adults that protect them. No matter how
outlandishly frightening my troubles seem the adults will help me sort
them out. They also symbolize the many cruel things that children do
and say to each other during the course of growing up. And of course
some of them are just comic relief. The chilling violence represent
the real world problems that adults have to deal with in general and
the all too real violence that we inflict on each other. 

During his career at Hogwarts we see Harry's life fading from the
nearly total Toonville of the Dursely household to the grim reality of
hunting down horcruxes and facing LV. It is a journey that all of us
who have lived long enough have taken. That is why Harry has so many
adult fans. 

Ken










From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 19:24:42 2006
From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:24:42 -0000
Subject: Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
In-Reply-To: <eaqeaj+al9q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqu5q+mmno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156392

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "annemflynn" <annemflynn at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > > Another girl asked if a muggles were to follow the exact
> > > instructions to a potion and use the exact ingredients, could
> > > it be correctly made? Jo said no, because sooner or later
> > > they'd have to use a wand and a muggle cannot use a wand
> > > correctly without disaster or a violent occurrence happening.
> 
> > Jordan/Random832:
> > Whoa. There is no indication in canon that _every_ potion requires 
use of a wand.

Steven1965aaa:

Well, there is now.  







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  2 19:34:47 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:34:47 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eaq73n+dl9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaquon+4je8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156393

Anne Marie wrote:
>
> 
> She said that she has the last chapter to book 7 already written 
> (which I believe she has said before) and that the series is ending 
> not because she's tired of writing Harry, but because she's afraid of 
> running out of story. How can one run out of stories in a mythical 
> world? I certainly have no idea!
> 

Ken:

Thanks for the report on this event, I enjoyed reading it.

I've heard the science fiction author Larry Niven express much the
same thing in a slightly different way. He had written a related
series of novels and short stories that his fans collectively dubbed
the Known Space Series. At one point he stopped writing in that
"universe" and turned his attention elsewhere. When asked why his
response was that over the course of adding exciting new ideas and
technologies from story to story he had reached the point where it was
impossible to devise a conflict to base a new story around that didn't
have a trivial resolution based on a technolgy that he had already
introduced into the series (think time-turners, grrrr). One solution
is to return to writing in an earlier era in the same universe (or to
have a gang of teenagers wreck all the time-turners). He hit on a
different solution, at least for a few novels. He moved one of his
characters to an isolated backwater of the galaxy where much of the
offending technology did not exist and then stranded him there!

We can hope that at some point the fatigue JKR must feel with the HP
stories will abate and she will invent a way to return us there.


Anne Marie:

She also said that she was surprised at how much left there was to
explain. She said she'd hadn't really realized that she had left that
much unexplained, and she did give a chuckle over shippers, etc.,


Ken:

She has this notion that readers like to be tricked. Well, true I
suppose, but only to a point. And readers *don't* like to be tricked
about *everything*. She has left far too many plot lines unresolved
and no clear clues to how most of them will resolve in her desire to
satisfy our supposed love of being tricked. She painted herself into
this corner. I'm surprised she didn't see it coming.

As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she can't
believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well excuse
me but do high school romances always become life long relationships?
Do we readers know if either Ron or Ginny survives to the end of book
7? OF COURSE it is still *possible* that Harry and Hermione pair off
at the end of book 7. For all we know they will be the only two human
beings left alive on planet Earth!! We can see where things are
heading right now and I think the pairings she has set up are very
sweet. We readers won't KNOW until the end of book 7 who ends up with
who and the ships will continue to sail until we have it in our hands.
Rowling seems quite perceptive about human nature, you'd think she
would understand *that*....

Ken










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 19:59:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:59:33 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaq5l5+3cu0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ear075+hf98@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156394

Dungrollin wrote:
> Actually, it's Flitwick we find out was the ex-duelling champion, 
> Snape just managed to knock Lockhart off his feet at the one and 
> only meeting of the duelling club, which is hardly cause for 
> crowning him champion. 
<snip>

Carol responds:
We don't find out that flitwick was really a duelling champion, only
that Hermione has heard that he was. It may be just a silly rumor to
misdirect us. Flitwick's specialty is Charms, not DADA, and he's so
small that he goes zooming around the classroom as the result of a
misdirected Banishing Charm. (If Flitwick really had been a duelling
champion, wouldn't JKR have used him rather than Snape in this scene?)

Snape, OTOH, not only demonstrates Expelliarmus (his spell is so
strong that it sends Lockhart flying into a wall, similar to the
combined effect of three Expelliarmus spells in PoA), he also uses
Finite Incantatem to undo all the spells of the duelling students at
once and vanishes the conjured snake with a silent vanishing spell.
IMO, he not only shows up Lockhart as an inept fraud, he establishes
himself as knowing quite a bit more about duelling (and therefore
DADA) than the "teeny little bit" that Lockhart attributes to him
(note Snape's expression at this point). And of course, there's
Serpensortia, which may be one of Snape's own spells, or one familiar
to Slytherins since Draco seems to know it already. Harry doesn't put
two and two together to realize that Snape is an expert duellist, but
I did, and I suspect other readers did as well. IMO, this scene
prepares us for Snape's expertise at the end of HBP, which would have
seemed to come out of nowhere otherwise.

> DA Jones wrote:
> The answer to that is easy enough. The silver and opal necklace 
> that Katie is cursed with in the chapter Silver and Opals in HBP 
> chapter 12 (pg. 248-252 HBP, scholastic) is the same necklace 
> mentioned on page 52 of chapter 4 Flourish and Blotts from COS 
> (Scholastic).
> 
> Dung:
> ::Slaps forehead:: Ah, yes! Bravo! Though actually, I'll have to 
> sheepishly admit to not remembering at all whether we saw the 
> necklace in the film. 

Carol notes:
We don't see the necklace in the film. In fact, we don't even see
Draco and Lucius in Borgin and Burke's. All we see is the shop itself
and a hand (the Hand of Glory?) that grabs Harry's hand when he's
foolish enough to touch it. Maybe JKR wanted the shop itself to be
retained in the film because it's certainly important in HBP.

Carol







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 20:03:57 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:03:57 -0000
Subject: Judging Characters / Sociable Harry (was:Scene with likeable James...)
In-Reply-To: <20060801213246.72372.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ear0fd+fo3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156395

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > In real life, yes, in a work of fiction? That's how it's done. 
> > Because the author gets to pick and choose what scenes she      
> > shares with us, so it's not really "five minutes in the life     
> > of". It's a key insight into various characters.
> <snip>

> >>Joe:
> Sure but once we start applying real life judgments then don't we 
> have to start taking it all together?

Betsy Hp:
Well, again, we're not judging real life people, we're judging 
fictional characters.  It's good to take all the known facts about a 
character under consideration when attempting to figure that 
character out.  But a large amount of weight will, and I think 
should, be given to things we as readers actually witness.  Good 
authors know this and write their scenes accordingly.

To understand James we *must* accept this scene as indicitive of an 
aspect of his character.  Of course we also have to remember that 
Lily married him, Dumbledore made him Head Boy, he saved the life of 
someone he had seen as lesser than, and he died defending his family 
from Voldemort.   
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> <snip>
> > Harry was put off (and actually thought his father capable 
> > of rape) for a reason after witnessing it. Harry, being a boy 
> > attending Hogwarts, should have a fairly good idea as to what 
> > consitutes normal boyish rough-housing at his school, and what   
> > goes above and beyond.
    
> >>Joe:
> <snip>  
> Yeah Harry did misunderstand it but Harry lived under a cupboard   
> when he should have been interacting with people his own age. He   
> is behind on that sort of thing even after a few years at school.

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I don't recall ever seeing Harry as *that* socially 
backward.  Sure, he didn't have friends in elementary school, at 
least, not anyone to have over for a visit.  But I got the sense 
that most of his school troubles boiled down to him sharing a class 
with Dudley rather than any social oddness of his own.

I don't remember Harry not knowing the proper way to interact with 
his housemates or his teammates, either.  He's a bit of an 
introvert, but I think that also has something to do with his 
natural personality.

Were there moments in the books that stood out to you as Harry being 
especially socially awkward?

Betsy Hp







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  2 19:41:38 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 19:41:38 -0000
Subject: Reading with JK Rowling - One More Thing - Spoiler Warning
In-Reply-To: <eaq9ka+lda6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaqv5i+4j8g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156396

Anne Marie wrote:
> Jo said no, because sooner or later they'd have to use a wand 
> and a muggle cannot use a wand correctly without disaster or a 
> violent occurrence happening because they don't have magical 
> qualities in them, as we'll see more of in book 7. So, I'm left to 
> wonder what muggle is going to use a wand? Probably one of the 
> Dursleys obviously, and I'm supposing Harry's wand. 

Abergoat writes:
What a fun find! Since JKR has told us the Dursleys will appear more
in book seven and Dumbledore spoke the secret of Grimmauld Place in
Petunia's hearing no less than two times I think it is a given that
the Dursleys will end up fighting with Mrs Black's portrait. I suspect
that Petunia will find the locket in a cleaning frenzy.

Does Petunia have something happen to her because of the locket? Does
Vernon try to correct it with the wand? Or does Petunia try doing
violence to Mrs. Black with the wand? What a fun line of speculation
you started!

Abergoat










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 21:02:20 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:02:20 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaqglm+c6o1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ear3ss+l66v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156397

Dungrollin wrote:
> Snape never taught from the text book, he only ever wrote 
> instructions on the board; I've lent out my copy of PS so I can't 
> check to see whether he did the same there. I do remember the text 
> book they had in first year was One Thousand Magical Herbs and 
> Fungi, which suggests it was a book of the properties of potions 
> ingredients, not that it was a book of potions recipes, which would 
> make having extra tips difficult. Not impossible though, I'll grant 
> you that. I think many people (after HBP) think that Snape was 
> putting his own improved recipes on the board, as do I, so having 
> his old potions book wouldn't have helped in his class; which is 
> why I think it was a DADA book originally. <snip>
> 
> Dungrollin
>
Carol responds:
You've hit on an inconsistency that has always bugged me. While JKR
refers on several occasions to "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi"
in connection with Potions, it can't be the actual Potions text, or at
least not the only Potions text, because 1) It fits better with
Herbology, which has no other textbook (see the lists in the various
books), and 2) Harry's first-year booklist includes "Magical Drafts
and Potions" by Arsenius Jigger, which can only be a Potions text (SS
Am. ed. 66). Also, many potions ingredients come from animals rather
than plants--Bezoars, unicorn horns, lacewing flies, and leeches, to
list the ones that immediately come to mind--and a few, such as
moonstone, are minerals, so it makes no sense to have a book on plants
be the sole or even the primary textbook in Potions, especially when a
book on drafts and potions is also on Harry's list.

It seems to me that Harry's reaction to the Bezoar question in Snape's
first lesson ("Did Snape expect him to remember everything in 'One
Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi'?") is an indication that Harry
really doesn't know anything about Potions or magic in general since a
bezoar, which comes from the stomach of a goat, would not be discussed
in a book on herbs and fungi. 

But somehow either JKR or her editors seems to have gotten the idea
that the main Potions text was the one on plants rather than the one
on potions, which IIRC is not mentioned again. Maybe the inconsistency
in textbook titles doesn't matter because, as you say, Snape always
puts his (improved?) Potions directions on the board rather than
teaching from the text, but it bothers me. If I were JKR's copyeditor,
I'd have queried it.

Carol, not taking a stand on whether the HBP's book if used in CoS
would have been Potions or DADA because there's not enough info, IMO,
to make an educated guess 







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 21:04:49 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:04:49 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <eaqs4t+sjp4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ear41h+sokq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156398

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I don't know, I think maybe the inclination to color the        
> > Potterverse as a cartoon is ducking the big questions.  If it    
> > was bad for a teacher to make Harry carve words into his hand,  
> > might it not have been equally bad for a teacher to slam Draco   
> > repeatedly into the floor?  And what does it say about us that   
> > we were amused at first?

> >>Lupinlore:
> Or those of us who still find that scene incredibly amusing.       
> Karmic justice usually is.  It is one thing that JKR does do quite 
> well, when she chooses to.

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I think JKR is crap at writing karmic justice, if that's 
what she's really trying to do.  She's terribly sloppy about telling 
us what sin is being punished, and clearly showing the righteousness 
of the person meting out the karma.  Roald Dahl writes rings around 
her with that sort of thing.  (Of course, I don't think JKR is 
trying to be the next Roald Dahl.  I seriously doubt karmic justice 
is what it's all about in these books.)

> >>Lupinlore:
> Is it revenge?  Sure.  But justice inevitably has a component of
> revenge.  Indeed, a trial lawyer I know once told me that the      
> justice system serves many purposes -- protection of society,      
> rehabilitation etc.  But one purpose it serves is a limited and   
> legitimated mechanism of revenge... <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I do agree that there is an element of revenge or punishment in 
justice.  An *element*.  But justice is also made up of many more 
elements.  The scene where Draco is tortured is as much about 
justice as the scene where Harry is tortured.  Which is none at 
all.  It's vengence pure and simple.  Which most civilized societies 
try not to confuse with justice.

> >>Ken:
> First, I posted a reply to this last night. Since it has not      
> appeared here yet I assume that Yahoomort, as someone else calls   
> our host, has eaten it and I apologise if it appears later on.

Betsy Hp:
::shakes fist at Yahoo!Mort in sympathy::

> >>Ken:
> <snip>
> For me the Dursleys are completely cardboard characters and as
> cartoonish as Wile E. Coyote. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
When I read the first book I agreed with you.  But as the books went 
on the Dursleys became more and more "real" to me.  I mean, sure, 
there's an element of satire to them, but Dudley's fear of the 
Dementors, for example, struck me as quite real.  If a child is 
scared enough that he actually throws up it's hard for me to take 
him as a cartoon.  And both Petunia's and Vernon's reactions also 
struck me as "real".  Vernon is a blow-hard who has *never* accepted 
Harry as family, but I felt that his love for Dudley was quite 
genuine.

I'm not sure if JKR has meant for the Dursleys to slowly become more 
human, or if she kind of changed her mind mid-stream, but I think a 
change has occured.

> >>Ken:
> So many of the events at Hogwarts, all the pratfalls in the       
> courses, the hallway battles, the things the twins to *to         
> themselves* have a very cartoonish, unreal feel to them.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree, to an extent.  Obviously magic isn't real and there's a 
cartoonish aspect to, say Peeves making students set their underwear 
on fire.  But not all the magic is cartoonish.  Dudley has to have 
surgery to remove the pig tail Hagrid gave him.  Draco is in pain 
after his session with Fake!Moody (revealed to be a known sadistic 
Death Eater).  Harry still has the scars from his encounters with 
Umbridge's magical quill.  Goodness, Harry is an orphan because of 
magic.  And while taking part in a magical contest, Cedric Diggory 
is killed.  Also with magic.

For there to be a clear line (and that's the only way I could see 
JKR successfully attempting to integrate a cartoon story and a more 
real story) I think there needs to be a definitive moment when Harry 
moves from one "real" world to the "cartoon" other.  We've already 
seen that the Hogwarts Express is not it.  Honestly I don't think 
there *is* a line.

> >>Ken:
> The cartoonish elements represent the innocent faith that children
> have in their world and the adults that protect them. No matter how
> outlandishly frightening my troubles seem the adults will help me 
> sort them out. They also symbolize the many cruel things that      
> children do and say to each other during the course of growing up. 
> And of course some of them are just comic relief. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Which may be why the cartoon element fades as the books go along.  
But I don't think the cartoon was ever supposed to be the actual 
state of the Potterverse world.  Harry, with his innocent faith, 
*saw* things with a cartoonish clarity where bad people are just bad 
and don't love their families like good people do and don't feel 
pain like good people do.  And part of growing up is recognizing the 
cruel things you've done as a child and deciding to not make that 
sort of mistake again.  Because *all* people feel pain, just as much 
as you do.

Maybe that's what JKR has been trying to do?

> >>Marion:
> <snip>
> I'm convinced that this is the whole idea of the series. The books 
> are about racism and prejudice, right? That trying to keep your    
> blood or your culture 'pure' is futile and plain *wrong*. And     
> every HP fan would agree with this: they are certainly not racist! 
> All the little ten-year old HP fans that I have spoken to would    
> love to be Sorted into Gryffindor so they could bravely fight those
> nasty racist Slytherins.
> Ah.
> <massive snippage>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  I think this is a massive part of what JKR is trying to 
do.  Otherwise why not just have Slytherin *be* evil?  We've all 
read stories, especially childrens' stories where the bad guys are 
*unquestionably* evil.  Why does JKR go and muddy the waters?  Why 
not have *all* the evil wizards be unquestionably Slytherins?  Why 
show Draco agonizing over his task and trapped by his love for his 
family?  (Gosh, why have him deal with the pain and humiliation Fake!
Moody put him through with such dignity?)  Could she be driving 
towards another point?

Betsy Hp







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 21:07:53 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:07:53 -0000
Subject: Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608020915k5a5e1833m15d5fa3702073e77@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ear479+2f16@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156399

> Kemper:
> I haven't read the Death Eater's mission statement, but I'm pretty
> sure it doesn't state anything about pledging to drive out
> Muggleborns.  Now, that might be the agenda of some within that 
Dark
> Order (Bellatrix, Lucius), but not all.

a_svirn:
Well, if you haven't read their mission statement how can you 
be "pretty sure" that eradication of muggleborns and/or banishing 
them from the WW is not at least part of DE's reason d'etre? I'd say 
there are enough not-so-subtle hints in canon that this is one of 
their most important goals. In the PS Draco gave Harry the gist of 
the pureblood-cum-DE ideology. According to Sirius mugglefobia was 
the reason why his brother joined Voldemort. In the Graveyard Scene 
Voldemort implied that muggle-torture is the most popular sport 
among his servants. And we all were privileged to see their *vision* 
statement at the World Cup. 


>Kemper 
> Also... Snape is Muggleborn.  Voldemort is Muggleborn.  Yes, they 
both
> have witch moms.  Voldemort would not kill off a Muggleborn if 
he/she
> could serve a useful purpose.  Similarly, he wouldn't refrain from
> killing a Pureblood who has out last his/her usefulness.
> 
> Does it make sense now?
> 

a_svirn:
Er, well, I must be more than usually dim tonight, but, seriously, 
how one can be muggleborn, is their mother is a witch? Seems to me 
something is not quite right here. 
Besides, what usefulness has to do with mission statements? Politics 
is an art of the possible, as it were. Realpolitik and the higher 
goals rarely coincide. 








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  2 21:29:49 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 21:29:49 -0000
Subject: How HBP could have interwoven into CoS (Was: Re: Eileen Prince)
In-Reply-To: <eaol4j+i1et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ear5gd+l72u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156400

> Carol wrote:
> 
> Still, to return to my original comment about not seeing how the HBP
> plot could fit into CoS, I don't see how the HBP's Potions text or
> DADA text could have been used in a book about Harry's second year.
> Aside from having an interaction between Harry and two different books
> (one magical and one not), it would have been premature to show Snape
> inventing spells like Levicorpus, much less Sectumsempra, not to
> mention having Harry cast it on Draco in second year and Snape saving
> Draco from death at Harry's hands when the two boys are twelve years
> old. 

I think you are projecting too much of the storyline of the HBP book
that we have back into CoS. When the HBP plot element was part of CoS
it was probably considerably different. I think it probably worked
well but made the book bigger than JKR though would fly at that point.
A child's ability to devour a big book was much larger than anyone
thought at the time as it turns out!

Let's say that for some reason Harry gets Snape's old beginning
potions book in CoS. Snapes notes don't include the two spells that
"offend" you above but they do have a lot of helpful advice about
brewing potions. Harry has who perhaps has never seen Snape's
handwriting at this point has no way to figure out that it is Snape's
old book. It is a weakness of HBP that Harry does not notice this,
btw. Even without the pensieve memory it is odd that Harry would not
be familiar with the handwriting of a teacher he had had for 5 years
previously and still had classes with in year 6. In year 2 it is still
barely plausible. Perhaps there is no dueling club but perhaps the
snake casting spell is in the potions book. At some point in the book,
probably late, Harry tries the spell and on its evidence concludes
that the previous owner is the heir of Slytherin. Maybe Harry then
sees an example of Snape's handwriting and accuses him of being behind
the attacks. I don't know where it all goes from there but then I'm
not an author.

The irony of Snape being a difficult teacher for Harry in person but
an excellent teacher for Harry through the written word it still there. 

I doubt I have come all that close to the original way the HBP element
was used. The point is that it was probably reworked heavily when it
was refarmed as book 6 and that book 6 would have been very different
if that element had been used in book 2. Without input from JKR I
doubt you will ever get very close to the way it would have been used
in book 2.

Ken







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 22:30:06 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 22:30:06 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <20060802040114.1222.qmail@web30204.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ear91e+419t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156401

Carol earlier:

<snip> The DA members can cast the spell in the RoR, but they've never
used it against even a Boggart Dementor--and no one but Harry has a
Dementor Boggart, as far as we know.<Snip> 
> 
DA Jones responded:
>   
> Cho said not be a killjoy, but sorry Carol I have to ppint out that
you have canon wrong. According to OOP, only the follwoing DA members
can cast Patronus. 
<snip >

Carol responds:
I'm quite aware that some of the DA members can cast Patronuses *in
the Room of Requirement*, as I indicated in my previous posts,
including the snippet above. Please read my posts more carefully
before telling me that I "have the canon wrong."

My point is that it would be considerably more difficult to conjure a
Patronus when you're facing a Dementor, since as you note in the part
I snipped, conjuring a Patronus requires first concentrating on a
happy memory. The Dementors, if you recall, feed on happiness and will
be busy trying to suck it out of you. So while it's easy enough, under
Harry's tuition, for the DA members to cast the spell in the seeming
safety of the room of Requirement, it would be another matter
altogether to cast one against a real Dementor, or even a Boggart
Dementor.

Harry, as I said, had the advantage of learning to cast a Patronus
against his own Boggart Dementor (so he's really dealing with two Dark
creatures at one time), and though he never managed a corporeal
Patronus during those lessons, he did get in some practice that came
in handy when he faced the real thing. Note that the first time he
tried to cast a Patronus against a real Dementor (or rather, a bunch
of them), he failed. It was only when he saw his time-turned self
casting a corporeal Patronus that he could do it because he'd "already
done it."

The DA members don't have that advantage, nor could they use Harry's
Boggart because a Boggart becomes confused in a room full of people,
and if another person confronted it directly, it would turn into that
person's boggart, as it did for Lupin when he vanished Molly's
Boggart. Also, a Boggart Dementor has powers similar to (though weaker
than) a real Dementor's, and it's unlikely that the DA members would
just rush up to it and cast a Patronus against it even if it didn't
change to some other shape because they'd be feeling cold and
miserable, as Harry did when Lupin first released his Boggart in PoA.
It's hard to come up with a happy memory in those circumstances. Harry
 did it, with practice, but only because he was working with Lupin and
because he was determined to learn to cast a Patronus against real
Dementors, his own worst fear. And even if using Harry's Boggart
Dementor could somehow have worked for the DA members, giving them the
sort of practice he had, the fact is that they only cast the spell in
perfect safety in the RoR, with neither a Boggart nor a Dementor to
interfere with the process. It's a bit like the difference between
hitting a bullseye in target practice and shooting an armed felon
whose attacking you.

So I repeat--being able to cast a corporeal Patronus in the Room of
Requirement when they haven't so much as faced a Boggart Dementor is
no guarantee that the DA members can cast one when faced with a real
Dementor determined to suck out their happiness and just possibly
their souls. Snape, IMO, had good reason to indicate that casting a
Patronus was not the only way, or even the best way, to fight a
Dementor for people other than Harry Potter.

Carol, noting that Harry, despite all his practice against the Boggart
Dementor, is "paralyzed with terror" when a real Dementor forces his
face upward in PoA (Am. ed. 384) and would have had his soul sucked if
it hadn't been for his time-turned self coming to the rescue 






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 23:04:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:04:24 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39B7C@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <earb1o+2a88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156402

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Sharman <jamess at ...> wrote:
>
> I do not believe that DD was necessarily supporting the 
> opinion that Slytherin was inherently bad. He was making
> a point about Harrys choices being the significant factor,
> young harry had come to Hogwarts with a lot potential in
> various directions. We must accept that he had potential
> to go down a very dark road (above all else He has an 
> unnatural connection to the Dark Lord). 
> 
>  
> 
> Harry having heard what he had about the house system 
> made his choice. It was not about the actual house 
> choice, it was about Harry deep down insidechoosing 
> the path of good. I believe it was this that DD was 
> commenting on, not the houses.
> 
 
> 
> wynnleaf
> I agree completely. Further, note that the Slytherins
> are almost entirely described in negative physical 
> terms. Most people can't help their degree of physical
> beauty. Since that's mostly true, why arethe Slytherins
> generally described as ugly or very plain, if not to
> basically say, "being Slytherin is bad?"
> 
> Further, remember when DD told Harry that it was his 
> choices that were important? But he said that about 
> Harry begging the Sorting Hat notto put him in Slytherin.
> Yet most kids probably weren't up there on the stool 
> begging to avoid particular houses. DD made it sound, at
> least on the surface, as though being in Slytherin as a 
> bad "choice," rather than simply the decision of the Hat.


bboyminn:

I'm favoring James (jamess) view on this. I think Wynnleaf has
misinterpreted that scene. The point Dumbledore is making is not that
Slytherin is bad, but that Harry has chosen to be selfless rather than
self-serving. He has chosen to serve others rather than serve his own
ambitions of status and wealth. 

Now we are all selfserving and ambitious to some extent, as is Harry,
and that is not a bad thing. This has been pointed out before, that
none of the Slytherin characteristics are bad in and of themselves.

Further, we see a very warped view of Slytherin in only seeing it from
the view of Draco and the people closely associated with him. The
truth is we can't judge /most/ Slytherins because we don't get to see
/most/ Slytherins. 

To the idea that Slytherins are uniformly depicted as 'ugly', in
return I must ask 'By who?'. They are depicted that way by rivals. For
example, when Cedric Diggory was a rival to Gryffindor, he was
depicted as a useless airhead pretty boy. Once Gryffindor got to know
him, and found out he was fair minded, the preception by our
point-of-view and point-of-view influencing characters changed for the
better.

If Harry and friends meet Slytherins who show more positive character
and characteristics, they will probably have a more positive view of them.

Further, most of this is 'schoolboy' rivalry. The negative stereo type
of Slytherin doesn't seem to carry over to the same extent into the
Adult wizard world. Schoolboy rivalries are set aside for more
practical aspects of everyday business life. 

I think the 'schoolboy' aspect is very big when it comes to
influencing our preception. Rival schools always have negative and
dark opinions of each other. Yet, as they grow up, these petty
'schoolboy' rivalries are set aside. I think that will happen in the
Potterverse as well.

Just a few thoughts.
Steve/bboyminn






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 23:52:42 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:52:42 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <ear91e+419t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eardsa+4er1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156403

Carol:
<SNIP>

> So I repeat--being able to cast a corporeal Patronus in the Room of
> Requirement when they haven't so much as faced a Boggart Dementor 
is
> no guarantee that the DA members can cast one when faced with a 
real
> Dementor determined to suck out their happiness and just possibly
> their souls.

Alla:

I agree, it is **no guarantee** that they will be  able to cast the 
Patronus in the battle, but IMO that was the whole point to make 
them learn it. IMO JKR will not go in the trouble of describing so 
many students learning Patronus spell, just to let it go.

Somebody in this thread earlier speculated that JKR will most 
certainly have fun with the battle scene and beatiful Patronuses 
flying around and driving out the Dementors.

I agree, for literary economy purposes if nothing else.

Yes, kids never did it yet, but never did Harry cast the Patronus to 
drive out real Dementor before he convinced himself that he could.

I speculate that something like this will happen - in a sense that 
kids will be forced to do it to protect their beloved Hogwarts or 
younger kids or something like this. Yes, they will not be sure that 
they could, but I predict that they will manage splendidly.

JMO,

Alla

 






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Aug  3 00:24:47 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:24:47 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts: Real or Cartoon? (was:Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
In-Reply-To: <ear41h+sokq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <earfof+s8hb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156404

 
> Betsy Hp:
> Which may be why the cartoon element fades as the books go along.  
> But I don't think the cartoon was ever supposed to be the actual 
> state of the Potterverse world.  Harry, with his innocent faith, 
> *saw* things with a cartoonish clarity where bad people are just bad 
> and don't love their families like good people do and don't feel 
> pain like good people do.  And part of growing up is recognizing the 
> cruel things you've done as a child and deciding to not make that 
> sort of mistake again.  Because *all* people feel pain, just as much 
> as you do.
> 
> Maybe that's what JKR has been trying to do?

Pippin:
I think our confusion about how to respond to these scenes on rereading
is part of what JKR is going for.

Most people think they would respond instinctively to help someone in 
distress.  But social scientists say  that in real situations we take our
cues from other onlookers and   those in  authority  to a far greater 
extent than most of us realize.  It actually takes an unusual amount 
of awareness and moral courage to react the way we think any decent 
person would.

JKR educates us  by showing us  how much our reactions can be made 
to vary even in what ought to be the open-and-shut case of a child 
subjected to an unprovoked attack. When it comes to subtly manipulating 
a reader's sympathies, Rita Skeeter has nothing on JKR herself. 


The Dursleys are clearly suffering:  "gagging and sputtering",
"yelled and sputtered", "bellowing and waving his arms around"
"screamed",  and "sobbing hysterically"

But JKR cues us to be amused  by using exaggerated figures of
speech:  "tugging Dudley's tongue as though determined to rip it out", 
"bellowing like a wounded hippo", and "lolling around like a great 
slimy python." The animal comparisons literally dehumanize the
Dursleys. 

In contrast the images used to describe the Robertses:
"as though the people above them were marionettes operated
by invisible strings that rose from the wands into the air" and
"spin like a top" emphasize the toylike helplessness of the
captives in the hands of the Death Eaters. 

The figures of speech in the Worst Memory episode : "as though he 
had been expecting an attack" "as though bound by invisible ropes" 
"rigid as a board" are less fanciful  and I think help the reader to
see this scene as more 'real' than either of the others. 

JKR works this into the story itself when she has Hermione
explain what the Daily Prophet has been doing to discredit Harry:
'they say something like 'a tale worthy of Harry Potter' and if 
anyone has a funny accident or anything it's 'let's hope he hasn't 
got a scar on his forehead or we'll be asked to worship him next--"

The Prophet uses the same tricks  to turn Harry into a standing joke
as JKR uses with the Dursleys.

Pippin







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Aug  3 00:41:28 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 00:41:28 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <eaqgql+i9ed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eargno+b04e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156405

Abergoat says:
Flowerchild, what a fun thread!

Tonks wrote:
> Remember that when they were approaching Snape's house in
> Spinners End it was a fox that Bella saw and killed. This might be a
> clue that JKR threw in there.

Abergoat adds:
Interesting tie in. We already know Bella can kill, so the fox wasn't
necessary to tell us that. And I think we got the idea she was on edge
without the poor fox.

Potioncat wrote:
> the symbolism of the form, except that Snape clearly does when he 
> sees Tonks's Patronus and DD recognised the stag as Prongs.

Abergoat asks:
I'm curious about your statment on DD recognizing Prongs. Did
Dumbledore know that James was an animagus? Was it just the
information that Sirius and Peter were animagii that he didn't know?
Or does Dumbledore just guess that the stag is due to his new
knowledge that James was an animagus with a stag form? 

Kemper wrote (about Snape's patronus):  
> > I disagree with a fox, but can see a chameleon, bat, spider,
> > dragon(Hungarian Horntail), unicorn. 

Potioncat wrote:
> I think Snape's Patronus will either be a symbol of Dumbledore (bee, 
> phoenix, giant lemon sherbet) or (gasp) a symbol of Harry Potter.

Abergoat votes:
Of the list my vote is for the spider that Kemper suggested. Spiders
mind their own business unless you invade their space. But I still
think Snape is bent on revenge against Voldemort so a patronus that
reflects that would be interesting too. Perhaps a the dragon you are
discussing for the animagus fits for the patronus...

Potioncat wrote: 
> If he were an animagus, I'd guess Hebridean Black Dragon.(take a
> look at the description.)

Abergoat adds:
I'm with you in doubting that Snape has an animagus, but someone
suggested that if he does it would be a spider. Perhaps even the Argog
variety since some people believe that Snape was the spider in the
Triwizard maze. A spider is an interesting idea because JKR has Harry
describe teenage Snape as moving like a spider (was it twitchy?) and
one of the memories Harry sees is Snape zapping flies with his
wand...but then that could be a frog too ;)  

The riddle from the sphinx that has Lily's almond-shaped eyes really
caps it off. The thing that Harry would least like to kiss? I could
see Harry not wanting to 'kiss and make up' with Snape at this point.
And I do think it is the one thing that will make or break Harry's
success. Harry has to let go of his hatred.

Abergoat













From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  2 23:23:46 2006
From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91)
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2006 23:23:46 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
Message-ID: <earc62+gvq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156406

Flowerchild says
> Ok, if your Patronus reflects who you are, what can we deduce??? 
>What forms is Snapes??? (My daughter-in-law thinks it will be an 
>animal known for it's cunning, like a fox.<

I am convinced that Snape's Patronus is a spider because he is a spy.
(There's a little  clue in the riddle of the Sphinx in GoF.) Spiders 
are very beneficial animals, but most people loath them on sight for 
no reason. Not too many people want to handle them, nor do they want 
to be handled (another characteristic of SS.) Mostly they do not 
play well with others. They are discribed as cautious and secretive.
I believe he is a spider because his whole life revolves around 
playing a secretive double life.

>From the conversation DD had with Harry at the end of PoA I believe 
we can safely deduce that the animagus and patronus form are 
identical. I think it was on this list that I suggusted that the 
enigmatic professor is also an animagus.  Imagine the usefulness of 
being such a small, unobtrusive animal.  For a spy, to be a spider 
would be a wonderful asset. At the end of Chapter Four in HBP a 
spider makes a tiny appearance and casts an interesting meaning on 
the conversation DD has with Harry.  Perhaps the Weasleys had a 
powerful protector they didn't know about when Harry came to stay.

IMO by the end of Book Seven (if he survives, please, Jo...) Snape's 
patronus will have morphed into something else because his life will 
no longer be centered around being a spy.  Perhaps and owl? 

Sue, suffering from the heat and apologizing for these poorly 
developed thoughts












From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 01:12:06 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:12:06 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Significance of missing line (was: HBP paperback)
Message-ID: <405.25e49300.3202a766@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156407

In a message dated 7/30/06 11:37:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
belviso at attglobal.net writes:


> In that case it is called the same thing in the US. It was just they 
> thought Sorcerer was a better word than Philosopher in the title. I don't 
> have the US version, but I would guess it's called the Philosopher's Stone 
> within the actual story and not changed throughout to "Sorcerer's Stone." 
> Just as the movie calls it a Philosopher's Stone even while the title is 
> Sorcerer's. I could be wrong, but that's what I've always assumed.
> 
> -m 
> 
> 

Sandy:

This goes to show how easily I overlook small details. I have read Sorcerer's 
Stone several times but have no idea what the stone is called within the 
text, and I don't have time to check right now. Since I am running four days 
behind on reading the posts I am sure someone will answer downthread, and I am 
anxious to find out. I also will admit to being a dumb American who would not have 
understood Philosopher's Stone, but it wouldn't have kept me from reading the 
book because I *still* don't understand it.

Sandy


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




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Aug  3 01:24:11 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 01:24:11 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
In-Reply-To: <earb1o+2a88@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <earj7r+f5ra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156408

Steve/bboyminn:
> 
> I'm favoring James (jamess) view on this. I think Wynnleaf has
> misinterpreted that scene. The point Dumbledore is making is not that
> Slytherin is bad, but that Harry has chosen to be selfless rather than
> self-serving. He has chosen to serve others rather than serve his own
> ambitions of status and wealth. 

wynnleaf
But Harry didn't say "not Slytherin," because he wanted to serve
others or because he had a problem with ambition.  He said "not
Slytherin," because he didn't want to be in Draco's house, and he
didn't want to be in the house that he'd been told (incorrectly) had
produced all of the Dark wizards.  In a way, his desire to avoid
Slytherin house was somewhat self-serving in itself.

Steve/bboyminn
> Now we are all selfserving and ambitious to some extent, as is Harry,
> and that is not a bad thing. This has been pointed out before, that
> none of the Slytherin characteristics are bad in and of themselves.
> 
> Further, we see a very warped view of Slytherin in only seeing it from
> the view of Draco and the people closely associated with him. The
> truth is we can't judge /most/ Slytherins because we don't get to see
> /most/ Slytherins. 

wynnleaf
While I agree with this, I'd just like to reiterate that Harry wasn't
trying to stay out of Slytherin because of any problems he had with
personal ambition.  He was avoiding a particular rude and arrogant kid
(Draco) and he didn't want to be in what he viewed as the house of
Voldemort.  Later, in COS, he didn't like thinking that the Hat wanted
to put him in Slytherin -- not because of the Hat's stated
characteristics of the house, but once again, because he didn't want
to be associated with Dark Wizards, and because he didn't like the
"heir of Slytherin" possibilities.

Steve/bboyminn
> To the idea that Slytherins are uniformly depicted as 'ugly', in
> return I must ask 'By who?'. They are depicted that way by rivals. 

wynnleaf
At the first sorting, Harry thinks that all the Slytherins look like
an "unpleasant lot."  On the train, Crabb and Goyle are described as
"thick set" and looking "extremely mean."  Crabb has long gorilla like
arms.  Marcus Flint is described as looking like "he had some troll
blood in him."  Pansy is a "hard-faced Slytherin girl," with a "face
like a pug."  Millicent Bulstrode is described a square build, heavy
jaw, no "pixie."  Theodore Nott is "weedy looking" and "stringy."  
Malfoys and Blacks are described very well indeed.  And Zabini gets a
nice description.  But as far as the students go, Zabini is the only
one besides Draco who is described in physically neutral or pleasing
terms.  Head of House Snape is described as physically unattractive. 
Also, the one Slytherin headmaster Phineas Nigelas Black is I *think*
described in physically unattractive terms -- but I can't find it. 
And last, the Bloody Baron is described as far more awful looking than
the other ghosts.

In general, it's the narration that uses these descriptions.  Although
I realize that it's narration that's primarily from Harry's point of
view, I tend to think the purpose is to continue to reinforce within
the reader's mind that Slytherins are nasty as a whole.  If you're a
Slytherin, you're just nasty in general -- including looks.

Steve/bboyminn
For
> example, when Cedric Diggory was a rival to Gryffindor, he was
> depicted as a useless airhead pretty boy. Once Gryffindor got to know
> him, and found out he was fair minded, the preception by our
> point-of-view and point-of-view influencing characters changed for the
> better.
> 
> If Harry and friends meet Slytherins who show more positive character
> and characteristics, they will probably have a more positive view of
them.

wynnleaf
Yes, we may very well see Slytherins described in more attractive
terms in Book 7, if some of them end up helping the side of the Order.
   Basically, I see the physical descriptions as a device to make us
see characters in good or bad terms (well, not necessarily so cut and
dried, but you get the idea I hope).  The question is whether or not
JKR will continue to influence the reader to dislike Slytherins as a
group, or whether she will try to move the readers to view them
differently.

Steve/bboyminn
> Further, most of this is 'schoolboy' rivalry. The negative stereo type
> of Slytherin doesn't seem to carry over to the same extent into the
> Adult wizard world. Schoolboy rivalries are set aside for more
> practical aspects of everyday business life. 

wynnleaf
Well, we do get Hagrid willing to lump all of the death eaters into
Slytherin, even though he personally knows that's not true.

wynnleaf









From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug  3 01:49:21 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:49:21 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
References: <earb1o+2a88@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006001c6b69f$0aee6a10$0b86400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156409

> bboyminn:
>
> I'm favoring James (jamess) view on this. I think Wynnleaf has
> misinterpreted that scene. The point Dumbledore is making is not that
> Slytherin is bad, but that Harry has chosen to be selfless rather than
> self-serving. He has chosen to serve others rather than serve his own
> ambitions of status and wealth.

Magpie:
But doesn't that make him better than a Slytherin since he showed his wish 
to serve others by not wanting to be in that house?  Especially since Harry 
is really just not wanting to be in the house that Voldemort and the kid he 
doesn't like is in?  As far as Harry's concerned the whole house smells like 
poo.

Steve:
>
> Now we are all selfserving and ambitious to some extent, as is Harry,
> and that is not a bad thing. This has been pointed out before, that
> none of the Slytherin characteristics are bad in and of themselves.

Magpie:
They're not virtues either, like courage is.

Steve:
> Further, we see a very warped view of Slytherin in only seeing it from
> the view of Draco and the people closely associated with him. The
> truth is we can't judge /most/ Slytherins because we don't get to see
> /most/ Slytherins.

Magpie:
You know, after 6 books I think this wears a little thin.  I know JKR said 
all Slytherins aren't Draco, but we've actually seen more Slytherins than 
we've seen most houses and they're all usually doing something negative.  I 
don't feel like I'm seeing a tiny sliver of Slytherin in the books, even if 
I don't know all of them.  Even Hermione, who tries to be accurate about 
such things, casually worries that "some Slytherin" will tell Umbridge if 
they're seen.  She could have just meant the IS, but it seemed like she said 
Slytherin meaning literally any Slytherin.

Steve:
>
> To the idea that Slytherins are uniformly depicted as 'ugly', in
> return I must ask 'By who?'. They are depicted that way by rivals.

Magpie:
They're depicted that way by the narrator, sometimes through Harry, 
sometimes not through Harry.  Though of course, lots of characters in HP are 
funny-looking or have homely features.  Draco's description is actually 
fairly neutral.  He's pointy-faced, but that's not necessarily ugly (I think 
Phineas is a bit pointy, or maybe he just has a pointy beard).  Blaise 
sounds attractive.

Steve:
For
> example, when Cedric Diggory was a rival to Gryffindor, he was
> depicted as a useless airhead pretty boy. Once Gryffindor got to know
> him, and found out he was fair minded, the preception by our
> point-of-view and point-of-view influencing characters changed for the
> better.

Magpie:
No, Cedric was always clearly a good guy who was also handsome.  The 
Gryffindor's claims that he was less than that were always obviously colored 
by their resentment for his winning Quidditch that one time.  There's even a 
joke about how Harry just then realized Cedric was a useless pretty boy when 
he finds out he's taking Cho to the dance.  We the readers, as far as I 
remember, always know Cedric's a particularly good-looking boy, and nice. 
Cedric's very handsome and Harry takes notice.

I'm sure that if Harry was friends with a Slytherin he'd start to see 
him/her in a more positive way, but his casual interaction with them now is 
pretty consistent.  In HBP we get two speaking Slytherins we've never seen 
and they both get bigoted lines. That doesn't mean JKR isn't tricking us 
with Harry's limited pov, but I think this is why I've never liked the "good 
Slytherin" stories.  Seems to me it's set up that healing the rift is a lot 
harder than just meeting a nice person in a green tie seventh year.  I'd 
rather see the Slytherins we know and the Gryffindors we know have to work 
together.  Harry can still have gotten things wrong about them.

-m





From mros at xs4all.nl  Wed Aug  2 20:44:20 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 22:44:20 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Scene with likeable James WAS: Re: Eileen Pince
References: <20060801213246.72372.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <003201c6b674$6e632250$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156410

Joe:
>>>I'm not saying James and Sirius hexing people is a good thing. I am saying it isn't the horror some might try and make it out to be.
Yeah Harry did misunderstand it but Harry lived under a cupboard when he should have been interacting with people his own age. He is behind on that sort of thing even after a few years at school.<<<


Marion:
But Joe, Harry *has* been interacting with people his own age. He even *lives* with one: his cousin.
Of course I totally agree with you. A bit of roughing up, a punch or a hex here or there, it's just boy's being boys. So what if they call eachother names like Snivellus or Freak or make other people his own age afraid to associate with him for fear of being punche or hexed by Piers, Big D, Jimmy-the-Stag or DogBoy or whatever those kids call themselves these days, it's just friendly horsing around. 

 Joe:
>> Yet the only observer we state states "That Snape was clearly 
unpopular." With no other canon evidence to the contrary it is safe 
to say that he WAS clearly unpopular.<<


Marion:
Well, if you're unpopular with the kids on the playground you obviously deserve to be horsed around. You're obviously doing *something* wrong if you're not popular, so being punched a bit can be expected, and certainly your own doing. I mean, they're *asking* for it, don't they, with that nose and those glasses and that *scar*! And the *hair*! All over the place and greasy. Really, can't the kid use a comb? Personal hygiene is a dead giveaway, really, at what kind of person one is, and if they can't be bothered to wash their hair... And those clothes! About thirteen sizes too big, and him a scrawny skinny kid. Really, it's just boys being boys, but really, when a skinny, spindly, gawkish, geeky kid goes around wearing clothes so old and crappy that you can hardly see what colour they used to be, they're so grey from all the washing, they're just asking to be the butt of a few jokes. But jokes is all it is, really. Harmless little pranks. They're just kids after all. You can't blame kids for being a bit exuberant! And when weird looking boys walk around the playground like they own it, because they think their so good, so much *better* because they get good grades and stuff, well they need to be taken down a peg or two. They're just begging for a bit of adjustment. It's just boys establishing the pecking-order on the playground. Happens all over. Every boy does it, really. No harm done.


Marion (who hopes the gentle reader understand the meaning of the word 'irony'. No. Not 'rather like iron')
Marion also thinks that Harry has difficulty trusting adults and taking advise, even from his friends, which isn't surprising since Harry had to raise himself. He only trusts himself. A therapist would have a field day with Harry, I suppose.I don't like the character, there's something about Harry that both annoys me and creeps me out and unless he grows enormously in book 7 I doubt I'll ever like him, but I *can* empathize with him. Growing up, ever the Outsider, never allowed to join in, be it in the familyhome or on the playground, must have left it's scars on Harry's psyche, imo. So I agree with Joe that Harry lacks certain socializing experiences in his early youth. He sometimes shows the tendency to overlook iffy behaviour from those he considers on his side and will always look for evidence of evil intent in the behaviour of those he considers enemies, but the implication that this would make his such a bad eyewitness as to totally misinterpret a friendly scrum for bullying or even misreads who the agressor in that memory was, is a bit over the top, imo. 

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







From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 02:32:35 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:32:35 -0000
Subject: Sectumsempra
Message-ID: <earn83+dggr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156411

> Julie wrote:

><SNIP>

>I guess it boils down to these three possibilities:
>1. The spell Snape used was not Sectumsempra but a lesser spell
>that wasn't capable of causing more than minor damage.
>2. Snape cast a Sectumsempra, but deliberately controlled it to
>cause less damage, because he didn't want to get in trouble, because
>he's at heart a humanitarian, or for whatever other reason.
>3. Snape cast a Sectumsempra but his magic was impaired by the
>Impedimenta spell, thus the resulting spell was very weak. 


zanooda:

I just want to add a couple of possibilities before this thread gets
too old:

4. Some spells (curses) seem weaker if cast nonverbally. For example,
when Hermione managed to silence Dolohov before he could curse her in
MoM, the result is described like this:"The curse..., though less
effective than it would have been had he been able to say the
incantation aloud..."(OotP, "The second war begins" chapter). In the
Pensieve scene we don't hear Snape say the incantation out loud either.

5. The amount of damage also depends of the size of the wound.  When
Sectumsempra is cast, the wand acts like a knife or a sword, only from
distance, without touching the flesh. 

When Harry used it on Malfoy, we are told that he did it "waving his
wand wildly". It was probably a very chaotic movement, because Harry
was in an  awkward position, on the floor, all panicky etc., that's
why Malfoy probably got several long cuts going in different directions. 

In "Snapes worst memory" he, for whatever reason, just "directed his
wand strait at James", we don't see any waving, so the cut James got
is short and, therefore, not that damaging. 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 02:47:27 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:47:27 -0000
Subject: Second evening of JKR reading
Message-ID: <earo3v+fjs1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156412

Looks like today she did confirmed something important. Heeee, No, I 
did not go again.

But just check Leaky. 


http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:8917

S
P
O
I
L
E
R

Yes, he is dead and he will not be pulling Gandalf and I wish I knew 
what Salman Rushdi opinion on Snape is :)


Alla








From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Aug  3 03:52:52 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:52:52 -0000
Subject: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <earo3v+fjs1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <earruk+1qlv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156414

It sounded like she inadvertently confirmed that Harry, Ron and
Hermione would live.  Apparently, when asked about who she'd invite to
dinner, she gave those three names and then thought awhile before she
said something about it being hard to think of others since she was
the only one that knew who lived and who died.  She seemed to realize
then that she could "invite" characters who had died.  Of course, that
implied that Harry, Ron, and Hermione didn't die.  She mentioned
Hagrid and Dumbledore afterward, but I don't think that means that
Hagrid necessarily dies (although I always thought he might).  By the
time she mentioned Hagrid, she knew she'd slipped up, so I don't think
she was trying to think of characters that had died.  Of course,
mentioning DD was safe, since that was in HBP.

I'd love to see a transcript that could include Rushdie's question. 
Apparently from reports, people couldn't understand exactly what he
meant, although it seemed to people who were there that he was talking
about Snape being basically good.  JKR said, "your opinion is
correct."  But without knowing Rushdie's comments, it's hard to draw a
conclusion about what JKR meant by her answer.

Does anyone know if there will be transcripts?

Comments in the Leaky Cauldron discussion about the event tonight
seemed to imply that Rowling had said something about James' death and
events surrounding Voldemort's killing of the Potters.  Does anyone
know if that was mentioned?

And Dumbledore is dead.  However, all of the peculiar aspects to his
death which have been dug up by fans do seem to point to something
very odd about events at the Cave and Tower.  I won't be surprised if
we get revelations in Book 7 that relate to some of the peculiarities
that led to the "Dumbledore is not dead," speculation.

wynnleaf






From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Aug  3 03:55:27 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 03:55:27 -0000
Subject: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <earo3v+fjs1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ears3f+ivbv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156415

Alla:

> Yes, he is dead and he will not be pulling Gandalf and I 
> wish I knew what Salman Rushdi opinion on Snape is :)

houyhnhnm:

Salman Rushdie is a Snapist.  I'd stake my life on it. ;-)

"[He Who Got Killed in Book Six] is Really Dead"

"I didn't enjoy killing the character who died at the end of book six 
(I'm being discreet just in case anyone hasn't finished the book)."
http://www.mugglenet.com/jkr/jkr-pressconf-nyc/transcript.shtml

Well.

Her and her Slytherin boots!







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 04:12:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:12:10 -0000
Subject: State of the DA (was:Fear as a Crime (Re: muggle baiting )
In-Reply-To: <eardsa+4er1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eart2q+4dq9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156416

Carol earlier:
> > So I repeat--being able to cast a corporeal Patronus in the Room
of Requirement when they haven't so much as faced a Boggart Dementor
is no guarantee that the DA members can cast one when faced with a
real Dementor determined to suck out their happiness and just possibly
their souls.
> 
Alla responded:
> 
> I agree, it is **no guarantee** that they will be  able to cast the 
> Patronus in the battle, but IMO that was the whole point to make 
> them learn it. IMO JKR will not go in the trouble of describing so 
> many students learning Patronus spell, just to let it go.
> 
> Somebody in this thread earlier speculated that JKR will most 
> certainly have fun with the battle scene and beatiful Patronuses 
> flying around and driving out the Dementors.
> 
> I agree, for literary economy purposes if nothing else.
><snip>
> I speculate that something like this will happen - in a sense that 
> kids will be forced to do it to protect their beloved Hogwarts or 
> younger kids or something like this. Yes, they will not be sure that 
> they could, but I predict that they will manage splendidly.

Carol responds:
But by the same token, JKR wouldn't have mentioned Snape's alternate
method of fighting a Patronus unless it, too, will come up in Book 7.

I'll bet you a ginger newt that Hermione tries and fails to cast her
beautiful otter Patronus against a real Dementor and just in the nick
of time remembers Snape's method, which saves her life and Ron's. Or
something along those lines.

Carol, who thinks that not many people are going to "manage
splendidly" and Harry isn't the only one who's underprepared







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 04:20:41 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 21:20:41 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <ears3f+ivbv@eGroups.com>
References: <earo3v+fjs1@eGroups.com> <ears3f+ivbv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608022120o2de92641qcb405ffa5cb12369@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156417

> houyhnhnm:
>
> Salman Rushdie is a Snapist. I'd stake my life on it. ;-)
>
> "[He Who Got Killed in Book Six] is Really Dead"
> ... snip ...
>
> Well.
>
> Her and her Slytherin boots!
> 


Kemper now:
Please forgive me elves for two no-no's...
Does anyone have a picture of the boots?
I agree, Salman is a Snapist.

To keep it on topic... um... Dumbledore lives!  (see my published works)

Kemper



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 04:38:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:38:56 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <earc62+gvq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <earul0+10ato@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156418

Sue wrote:
<snip> 
> I am convinced that Snape's Patronus is a spider because he is a spy.
> (There's a little  clue in the riddle of the Sphinx in GoF.) <snip>
> I believe he is a spider because his whole life revolves around 
> playing a secretive double life.
> 
> From the conversation DD had with Harry at the end of PoA I believe 
> we can safely deduce that the animagus and patronus form are 
> identical. I think it was on this list that I suggusted that the 
> enigmatic professor is also an animagus.  Imagine the usefulness of 
> being such a small, unobtrusive animal.  For a spy, to be a spider 
> would be a wonderful asset. At the end of Chapter Four in HBP a 
> spider makes a tiny appearance and casts an interesting meaning on 
> the conversation DD has with Harry.  Perhaps the Weasleys had a 
> powerful protector they didn't know about when Harry came to stay.
> 
> IMO by the end of Book Seven (if he survives, please, Jo...) Snape's 
> patronus will have morphed into something else because his life will 
> no longer be centered around being a spy.  Perhaps and owl? 
>
Carol responds:
While the spider/spy idea is interesting, I'm not sure that we have
any evidence that Snape has an Animagus form, and if he does, a bat
form would be just as useful and in keeping with the "large swooping
bat" imagery that has been used to describe him since SS/PS.

However, I'm not at all sure that the Animagus form, which reflects a
wizard's essence (Sirius as a Grimlike dog, Peter as a rat, Rita
Skeeter as an insect pest) is the same as his (or her) Patronus, which
is his spirit guardian, as JKR states directly on her website, and
IIRC, Lupin says something similar in PoA. Harry's Patronus is his
*father's* Animagus form, which is not his own essence but James's. (I
feel like I'm talking in circles here, sorry.)

Can you quote the canon that you interpret as indicating that the
Patronus form and the Animagus form (if any) are identical? Wouldn't
that mean that your Animagus form would change when your Patronus
does, and Tonks's Animagus form (which I don't think she has learned
to use) is now a werewolf? Not good!

Also, I can't think of anyone whose Animagus form *and* Patronus form
we know. Surely McGonagall's Patronus form is not a cat or Rita
Skeeter's a beetle? And imagine Peter Pettigrew casting a rat Patronus
when he was an Order member! (I rather think that Dumbledore's
animagus form was a dumbledore/bumblebee, possibly a white one, rather
different from his Phoenix Patronus.)

Carol, who thinks that Snape's Patronus form is somehow connected with
Dumbledore, but his Animagus form, if any, reflects his brooding,
secretive self








From zanelupin at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 05:27:00 2006
From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 05:27:00 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eaqi6j+7m52@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eas1f4+bse6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156419

Alla wrote: 
 
> And I think my friend ( waves at Kathy ) got the same impression.

KathyK:

Oh, hey, that's me!  *waves back at Alla*  

Anne Marie wrote:

> > Well, Jo said that while she believed everybody had redeemable 
> > qualities in them, for the sake of the story, Draco was not one 
> > of them. And she reminded us what the terms of his assignment 
> > were and what the consequences would be, should he not be able 
> > to carry it out. 
> > And then told us to draw our own conclusions from that.

 
Alla wrote:
 
> What I remember her answering was that indeed for some of the 
> characters redemption is not possible, the example she cited was 
> Voldemort ( I don't remember her saying that this door is closed 
> for Draco), she said that if we take away the wand from Voldemort 
> we can call him psychopath ( but at least I am glad she IMO closed 
> the door on redeemable Voldie), then she indeed repeated that 
> Draco would not have killed Dumbledore and what that means for 
> Draco's future, you just have to wait and see, hehe.
> 
> I thought that the door for his redemption was left rather wide 
> open, personally. :)
 
KathyK:

I had the same impression of Draco's redemption as Alla did.  I 
believe she brought up the point twice that Harry did not think that 
Draco would have killed Dumbledore if he had an unlimited amount of 
time to carry out the mission.  The way she said this, right along 
with saying that most of her characters (Voldemort the Psychopath 
being an exception, as Alla mentioned) had a chance to be redeemed 
left me with the distinct impression that Draco was a strong 
candidate for redemption--even if she did tell us we'd have to wait 
for Book 7 to see what Draco's future holds.  

And on a note completely unrelated to Draco, I see at the Second 
Reading she reportedly said that there is more to Petunia than meets 
the eye and we'll find out about her in Book 7.   I seem to remember 
her saying that before...and I just went and double-checked.  She 
has indeed used that phrase before, at the Edinburgh Book Festival 
in 2004 when asked about Petunia's possible Squibness:

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

So, nothing new there.  Too Bad.  I so like to contemplate Dear 
Petunia and what she knows and what will happen to her. Anything new 
would have been swell.  Ah well.  At least she won't be doing any 
magic in Book 7.*  

KathyK, so very glad to have been able to be there for one night, 
but after all the fun she had, was sorry she hadn't bought tickets 
for both nights ;-)

* see http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37







From Schlobin at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 07:52:12 2006
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 07:52:12 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eaquon+4je8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eas9vc+lmt9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156420

it coming.
> 
> As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she 
can't
> believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well 
excuse
> me but do high school romances always become life long 
relationships?
> Do we readers know if either Ron or Ginny survives to the end of 
book
> 7? OF COURSE it is still *possible* that Harry and Hermione pair off
> at the end of book 7. For all we know they will be the only two 
human
> beings left alive on planet Earth!! We can see where things are
> heading right now and I think the pairings she has set up are very
> sweet. We readers won't KNOW until the end of book 7 who ends up 
with
> who and the ships will continue to sail until we have it in our 
hands.
> Rowling seems quite perceptive about human nature, you'd think she
> would understand *that*....
> 
> Ken
>


Uh, Ken, perhaps Ms. Rowling believes that she is the author of the 
Harry Potter series and knows what is going to happen. Perhaps she 
believes that she has been clear that Harry and Hermione will NOT 
become involved (despite the passionate wishes of a few fans) and 
that Ron and Hermione are attracted to each other... Perhaps as the 
author, she KNOWS....

We now know that Professor Dumbledore is really dead. We also know 
that Harry and Hermione will not become involved.

Susan


If you would like to join Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40 -- it is 
a low volume list.....email me at SusanGSMcGee at aol.com







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 07:20:46 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:20:46 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eas1f4+bse6@eGroups.com>
References: <eaqi6j+7m52@eGroups.com> <eas1f4+bse6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608030020o5865c61bv5586cdfcc7a0c357@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156421

Ken:

She has left far too many plot lines unresolved
and no clear clues to how most of them will resolve in her desire to
satisfy our supposed love of being tricked. She painted herself into
this corner. I'm surprised she didn't see it coming.

Lynda:

Has she really?  As you mention a few times, the series isn't over yet and I
for one don't require every single plot line to be resolved.  A little
leftover mystery can be a good thing.

Ken:

As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she can't
believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well excuse
me but do high school romances always become life long relationships?

Lynda:

But she never gave any indication of a H/H ship.  Not in the books and  not
in any interviews I've heard her give.  I'm not a great one for reading
online transcripts of interviews, but from email posted comments I have read
that refer to them, nothing there either.  Of course, H/H may be the only
two survivors on planet earth after 7, and in that case I suppose a ship is
somewhat inevitable to secure the survival of the species...

Lynda


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






From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Thu Aug  3 06:13:12 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 06:13:12 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
Message-ID: <eas45o+rsku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156422

I have finally put together a theory that hits close to home (I hope 
I am not just redoing someone else's idea)...

Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having 
*more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, and 
identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really 
seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of 
magic ; )  !  She would not know about it, though, and could 
discover it as follows: 

With JKR's remarks tonight about wand use, it got me to thinking.  
If a Half-Blood-Elf-Petunia were to try to wield Harry's wand in an 
emergency, she would be sent an owl informing her that she had 
broken the ban on wand use by non-wizards.  We might be treated to a 
page of the description of Mr. Dursley's face.

I suppose she would have to be Lily's half-sister for this to work.


Too bad about Dumbledore...I guess I lost $5 to my MIL  : (  

BTW, is Fawkes "really dead" before he rises from the ashes?  

Laura - who really should sleep when the kids do












From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug  3 12:18:49 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:18:49 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <eaqfci+m70u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <easpj9+l40r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156423

 
> 
> Abergoat sighs:
> A little too far-fetched for everyone? Too bad. At least it fits 
with
> the tarot theory of 'sword, coins, cup and wand'. 


Potioncat:
Well, the problem with a character like Eileen, is that there's very 
little canon to base theories on and we're not 100% certain of what 
little there is. So, at best, it's hard to tie your ideas about 
Eileen to canon.

Everything we've seen leads to more questions rather than less.

Was that her in Snape's memory? If so, who was the man?

Did her picture show a girl with an unpleasant personality or was she 
upset about something at the moment the picture was taken?

Did she teach Severus about Dark Arts? If not, then who?

How did she meet Tobias? How did they fall in love? Did they fall in 
love?

Did she live at Spinner's End? Where those her books?


How I did want Agnes to be Snape's mother. There was only one 
question about her. How did she get a dog face? and now, another. Who 
is her son?


But I do have another thought about Eileen, given that HBP was a part 
of CoS at one time. If JKR had introduced Snape's half-blood 
background in CoS---then 50 years ago would be the same time as 
Riddle. It's very likely that "50 years" is a vague concept and JKR 
never changed the number when she moved the events a few years. So 
that would place her more firmly in the same time at Hogwarts as that 
first group of Death Eaters.














From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug  3 11:31:29 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:31:29 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eaqfci+m70u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <easmqh+eoad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156424

Abergoat says:

JKR has said she doesn't think she could have cut anything out.
Seeing the Longbottoms was moving, but I don't see why it was
strictly necessary for the overall plot. We know they aren't going
to do anything themselves. But the basis for Dumbledore's trust in
Snape?  That is the HUGE outstanding question and unrequited love or regret for romantic love lost doesn't fit with JKR's focus that good and evil in large part stem from one's childhood and whether one was
loved by parents.


Tinktonks says:

I think that it has been a well covered theory that Eileen Prince &
Neville's gran were enemies, has anyone considered that they were
friends? I'm not necessarily supporting the following theory
exactly, I just want to put forward a theory that there are a number
of possibilities why they were friends and what this could mean.

Longbottom & Prince where both members of the Gobstones club and
became friends. They retained friendship & as Longbottom had no pure
blood mania she went to the wedding to Snape. Longbottom gave Mrs.
Snape refuge when she left her bully husband and took in her and a
young Severus. The reason Snape changed his mind is because of what
happened to Frank whom he shared much of his childhood with. The
reason he is so harsh on Neville is because he (like his
Grandmother) feels that he is letting his father down and not
upkeeping the family honour of the family who helped his mother who
he loved dearly.

Sorry most of that is probably a bit waffling but that thing that
translate an idea into words (a brain I think most people call it)
is mysteriously missing in my case!

Tinktonks - Who is eager for your opinion on this one!








From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Thu Aug  3 12:23:34 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:23:34 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <eaqfci+m70u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <easps6+46s4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156425

All snipped and rearranged to try to put it in some semblance of 
order, and apologies in advance, but all I'm doing is sniping, 
giving reasons why I'm not convinced. But since you want to keep 
the discussion about Eilieen alive, perhaps you won't mind too 
much...

Abergoat: 
I am not suggesting she wanted to find it [the CoS]. I'm merely 
suggesting she MIGHT have helped Tom Riddle find it. If she is 
interested in books he may have seen her often in the library - 
given Voldemort's knowledge I'm sure he spent a fare bit of time 
checking out books. And Tom Riddle was a charmer, I'm sure Eileen 
was horrified by what happened if she was in anyway involved. 

Dungrollin:
And all that guff that DD gives us about Tom Riddle always having 
worked alone, having been independent enough to get all his things 
from Diagon Alley alone at the age of 11? 

Abergoat:
But the tie in that I'm certain has a good possiblity of being what 
JKR uses is Eileen, Hagrid and Myrtle. They are only one year apart 
if not the same year. And I suspect someone gave Dumbledore 
information to use in defense of Hagrid. And JKR even slipped in 
the information that Myrtle didn't stay at Hogwarts at the 
beginning - she went off to haunt Olivia Hornsby (or something like 
that). How convenient.

Dungrollin:
I don't think anybody could have talked to Myrtle's ghost, 
particularly not DD, because they would then have had a shrewd 
idea where the entrance to the chamber was. Throughout CoS it 
wouldn't have been too difficult to post a guard (move a portrait, 
perhaps) outside the door to Myrtle's bathroom, and notice that 
Ginny Weasley went in and out at rather suspicious moments. But 
nobody did, so I can't imagine they talked to Myrtle about her 
death. (Goodness only knows why, perhaps DD, being a teacher and 
male to boot, never knew that Myrtle had taken up haunting that 
girls' bathroom, though since she was officially sent back to 
haunt Hogwarts by the Ministry, you'd think he'd have heard and 
investigated.)

Also, I don't see that anybody necessarily had any information with 
which to defend hagrid, he was expelled, and his wand was snapped 
in two. At the age of 13 it's not *that* surprising that he didn't 
go to Azkaban. All we have canon for is that DD intervened with 
Professor Dippet to get him the gamekeeper's job (though again, 
we're not quite sure how and when, because Mrs Weasley says that 
when she was at Hogwarts the gamekeeper was called Ogg.)

Abergoat:
Eileen, possibly Dog Lady at St. Mungo's 
<Snip>
There is pretty much no part of the main plotline that I cannot 
have tie into the idea that Snape is bent on revenge (and consumed 
by hate) in his quest to avenge his mother. 

It can even explain a visit to the St. Mungo's locked ward in a 
book that is considered overly long but JKR has said she doesn't 
think she could have cut anything out. Seeing the Longbottoms was 
moving, but I don't see why it was strictly necessary for the 
overall plot. We know they aren't going to do anything themselves. 

Dung:
Sorry, but Eileen can't be doglady at St. Mungo's, she's called 
Agnes (OotP, ch23:p452, UK ed.)

Abergoat:
But the basis for Dumbledore's trust in Snape? That is the HUGE 
outstanding question and unrequited love or regret for romantic 
love lost doesn't fit with JKR's focus that good and evil in large 
part stem from one's childhood and whether one was loved by 
parents.

A group I posted with on a forum toyed with the idea that Eileen 
had > a Ravenclaw wand relic taken from her by Voldemort. Then Irma 
and > Filch (relatives of Eileen or Tobias) 'filched' the wand back 
(now a > horcrux) and Irma is hiding it in her featherduster. So 
Filch's > prowling is more for the protection of Irma and the wand 
than students.

Abergoat sighs: A little too far-fetched for everyone? Too bad. At 
least it fits with the tarot theory of 'sword, coins, cup and 
wand'.

Dungrollin:
Now, I have to say I have nothing against the idea of Snape hell-
bent on revenge against Voldy for the murder of Eileen, but I doubt 
it's due to a Hotbrunch. Firstly, I think DD was right when he said 
that nobody but Voldemort, he, and Harry (and possibly Slughorn, 
who's not *too* dim) and obviously now Ron and Hermione know about 
them. Which doesn't preclude that other characters (I'm mostly 
thinking Snape here) won't figure out their existence before the 
end of book 7. 

Secondly, are you suggesting that Voldy *knew* Eileen (and/or 
others) had pinched his hors-tax, killed Eileen (but nobody else) 
and then *didn't* get around to finding out what she'd done with it 
and killing all those involved? (While we're at it, I'm not sure 
that Filch, as a squib, would have been much use in getting hold of 
this Horsecrutch, given the kinds of protections we saw around the 
locket in HBP).  

And thirdly, the 'tarot theory' may well be right on the money, but 
I have absolutely no patience with tarot or astrology in real life, 
let alone in a fictional series in which the divination teacher is 
clearly depicted as a complete fraud. If JKR backtracks on her and 
DD's opinion of divination (aside from the apparently 'real' 
prophecies which nevertheless aren't guaranteed to come true) I 
shall be sorely disappointed in her. So, you might well be right, 
but I reserve the right to not like it at all!

Oh. Oh oh oh. I've just had a thought. It's only tangentially 
related to Eileen, but what if... what if... the parallels between 
Snape and Harry, particularly their childhoods, are more obvious 
than anything we suspected? What if Eileen was indeed murdered by 
Voldy, or on Voldy's orders, and Snape grew up with his aunt. His 
aunt Irma. Who despised her sister for having married a Muggle who 
abandoned her, and therefore hated her only son, the little half-
blood Prince and made him live in a cupboard under the stairs... Oh 
can you hear those mournful violins? 


A long way up-thread...
Abergoat:
I got carried away. My point is that if Hagrid owed Eileen a favor
because of her support Hagrid would have befriended young Snape.
Hagrid may know Snape VERY well indeed. And Snape IS one if the few
professors we know of that will search the forest (end of OoP - 
even with the Grawp there and the angry centaurs). Snape may well 
have spent time in those woods...with Hagrid.

Dungrollin:
So... what do you think Hagrid made of the enmity between Snape and 
the Marauders? Because he does seem to have liked James an awful 
lot. Do you think it's possible to have liked both?

Dung







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 12:14:40 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 05:14:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <earruk+1qlv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060803121440.91508.qmail@web61311.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156426

wynnleaf <fairwynn at hotmail.com> wrote:    
I'd love to see a transcript that could include Rushdie's question. 
Apparently from reports, people couldn't understand exactly what he
meant, although it seemed to people who were there that he was talking
about Snape being basically good. JKR said, "your opinion is
correct." But without knowing Rushdie's comments, it's hard to draw a
conclusion about what JKR meant by her answer.
   
  Joe:
   
  I agree it would be nice to see a transcript. She said in an interview in 1999 I believe, that Snape was "A horrible person" so I would like to see exactly what the question was.

  Joe






From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 12:31:47 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:31:47 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Judging Characters / Sociable Harry (was:Scene with likeable James...)
In-Reply-To: <ear0fd+fo3s@eGroups.com>
References: <20060801213246.72372.qmail@web61314.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <ear0fd+fo3s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608030531r657c74ack6b469c428f585ef5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156427

Betsy Hp:
> To understand James we *must* accept this scene as indicitive of an
> aspect of his character.  Of course we also have to remember that
> Lily married him, Dumbledore made him Head Boy, he saved the life of
> someone he had seen as lesser than, and he died defending his family
> from Voldemort.

I think the statement that "JKR chose to show us this scene for a
reason" contradicts the apparent attitude that she can _not_ have
chosen the scene for a reason _other_ than to indicate what James'
character is like. Even if you don't personally accept the idea that
Snape chose this memory specifically so Harry would see (face it - if
he _really_ didn't want him to see it, surely he doesn't think Harry
is a better Legilimens than Voldemort. And even if the penseive was
necessary, why was it just out? Nevermind his motivations, the
_mechanics_ don't support the idea that Snape was really trying to
hide these memories from Harry, at least not without requiring him to
be stupid), "insight into James' character for the readers" is _not_
the only option.

As for saving Snape's life - purebloods surely know the mechanics of
life debts - I don't agree with ESE!James or even
complete-total-jerk!James, but it remains that having saved his life
out of altruism is not the only possibility.

-- 
Random832



From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 12:57:17 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 08:57:17 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
In-Reply-To: <earj7r+f5ra@eGroups.com>
References: <earb1o+2a88@eGroups.com> <earj7r+f5ra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608030557l311fe9e1gf28fcd5edfc09f6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156428

> Steve/bboyminn
> > Further, most of this is 'schoolboy' rivalry. The negative stereo type
> > of Slytherin doesn't seem to carry over to the same extent into the
> > Adult wizard world. Schoolboy rivalries are set aside for more
> > practical aspects of everyday business life.

wynnleaf
> Well, we do get Hagrid willing to lump all of the death eaters into
> Slytherin, even though he personally knows that's not true.

Hagrid never really left school, though.

Magpie:
> They're depicted that way by the narrator, sometimes through Harry,
> sometimes not through Harry.  Though of course, lots of characters in HP are
> funny-looking or have homely features.  Draco's description is actually
> fairly neutral.  He's pointy-faced, but that's not necessarily ugly (I think
> Phineas is a bit pointy, or maybe he just has a pointy beard).  Blaise
> sounds attractive.

And we haven't heard a single thing about Daphne Greengrass, Tracey
Davis, in terms of looks _or_ personality.

Or most of the people in higher years than Harry, Draco, etc. or
_anyone_ younger. And that's the real issue here.

The one common thread between all our descriptions of slytherin
[student] characters, is Draco. Even Pansy's "Gang of slytherin girls"
doesn't merit identification, I'm sure we only see Pansy herself
mentioned by name because she's Draco's girlfriend. Forget the "Harry
filter", we're seeing the entire house of Slytherin through a Draco
filter. We're only told anything about any slytherin student character
in so far as they relate to Draco.

> Seems to me it's set up that healing the rift is a lot harder than just meeting
> a nice person in a green tie seventh year.

I can count the slytherin students that have had speaking parts for
more than a few lines on one hand (heck, stretch the "more than a few
lines" qualifier far enough, and I can count them on one _finger_),
and they're all in Harry's year. We see a lot of "badness" from very
few Slytherins, and I'd be very disappointed if Harry's judged them
all on this basis. (Not wanting to be in the house is different - he'd
have to share a room with Draco, personally, for seven years)

-- 
Random832



From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 13:24:59 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 09:24:59 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608030020o5865c61bv5586cdfcc7a0c357@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eaqi6j+7m52@eGroups.com> <eas1f4+bse6@eGroups.com>
	 <2795713f0608030020o5865c61bv5586cdfcc7a0c357@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608030624w4db4b6ces9604c94afd53b2b8@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156429

> Ken:
> As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she can't
> believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well excuse
> me but do high school romances always become life long relationships?
>
> Lynda:
> But she never gave any indication of a H/H ship.

I think the point was that the belief that, after HBP, H/G is "the one
true way" (as JKR apparently does) is based on an inherently flawed
assumption that "high school romances always become life long
relationships".



From beatrice23 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 12:35:47 2006
From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 12:35:47 -0000
Subject: Spoiler Alert:  JRK comments at charity reading
Message-ID: <easqj3+ndp0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156430

Hello all,

I hope that you are all enjoying the summer and the heat for those of 
you in effected areas...

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

A

L

E

R

T

Now, down to business.  At a recent charity reading in NYC JKR made 
the following comment when asked what Hermione would see in the 
Mirror of Erised:  (comments can be found on www.hpana.com)

"At the moment, having just completed their penultimate year at 
Hogwarts, Hermione would likely see herself, Ron and Harry out of 
school, alive and unscathed, with Voldemort dead. She would also see 
herself closely entwined with... another person (you can guess who)."

Did you catch that? While many readers indicate that JKR can be a can 
be a bit cagey about her plots, I think that she occasionally either 
purposefully or accidently lets slip some important info.  Earlier in 
the interview she indicated that she was "well into writing book 
seven."  The way I read the above quote is that the trio do return to 
Hogwarts for their final year...  What do you think?

Beatrice











From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 13:47:44 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 13:47:44 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030624w4db4b6ces9604c94afd53b2b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <easuq0+cstc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Ken:
> > As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she 
can't
> > believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well 
excuse
> > me but do high school romances always become life long 
relationships?
> >
> > Lynda:
> > But she never gave any indication of a H/H ship.
> 
> I think the point was that the belief that, after HBP, H/G is "the one
> true way" (as JKR apparently does) is based on an inherently flawed
> assumption that "high school romances always become life long
> relationships".
>
zgirnius:
That assumption is deeply flawed when considering what might happen to 
high school kids of one's own acquaintance, but it is certainly not 
unheard of. My mother was 17 when she first saw my father (20). She 
claims she arranged to be introduced to him, and knew he was 'the one'. 
They were married 2 years later (she wanted to finish college) and they 
are still together 38 years after.

However, the extent to which such an assumption is flawed is not very 
relevant to the question of H/G. Rowling has written her Epilogue. If, 
in it, Harry and Ginny are happily married, that's it. It does not 
matter how young they were when they first became a couple.









From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 14:02:19 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 10:02:19 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <easuq0+cstc@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608030624w4db4b6ces9604c94afd53b2b8@mail.gmail.com>
	 <easuq0+cstc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608030702l1c1390cau330bc40c305da583@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156432

On 8/3/06, zgirnius <zgirnius at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Ken:
> > > As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she
> can't
> > > believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well
> excuse
> > > me but do high school romances always become life long
> relationships?
> > >
> > > Lynda:
> > > But she never gave any indication of a H/H ship.
> >
> > I think the point was that the belief that, after HBP, H/G is "the one
> > true way" (as JKR apparently does) is based on an inherently flawed
> > assumption that "high school romances always become life long
> > relationships".
> >
> zgirnius:
> That assumption is deeply flawed when considering what might happen to
> high school kids of one's own acquaintance, but it is certainly not
> unheard of. My mother was 17 when she first saw my father (20). She
> claims she arranged to be introduced to him, and knew he was 'the one'.
> They were married 2 years later (she wanted to finish college) and they
> are still together 38 years after.
>
> However, the extent to which such an assumption is flawed is not very
> relevant to the question of H/G. Rowling has written her Epilogue. If,
> in it, Harry and Ginny are happily married, that's it. It does not
> matter how young they were when they first became a couple.

"The question of H/G" is not the issue. The idea, as held by many H/G
or R/H shippers (including JKR) that H/H is ridiculous or that anyone
believing anything but H/G and R/H is stupid, is the problem.

The idea doesn't have any merit, just because it's not the same as how
one person wants it to be? That would be seen as _incredibly_ arrogant
coming from anyone else, and I'm not convinced JKR shouldn't be held
to the same standard



From jeterluver2 at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 14:04:58 2006
From: jeterluver2 at aol.com (Marissa)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:04:58 -0000
Subject: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <earruk+1qlv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <easvqa+ber1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156433


> 
> I'd love to see a transcript that could include Rushdie's question. 
> Apparently from reports, people couldn't understand exactly what he
> meant, although it seemed to people who were there that he was 
talking
> about Snape being basically good.  JKR said, "your opinion is
> correct."  But without knowing Rushdie's comments, it's hard to 
draw a
> conclusion about what JKR meant by her answer.
> 

> 
> wynnleaf
>

I was there last night and while I don't remember the exact words he 
said (it was kind of long) but I didn't think it was that confusing 
at the time. A reader from mugglenet pretty much summed up exactly 
what I heard last night. It's not word for word but it's a lot more 
detailed than "Salman Rushdie's confused detailed theory."

At the reading last night they said nothing about James' death or the 
killing of the Potters.

I think that

http://www.mugglenet.com/jkr/jonyc/night2/kate.shtml

Marissa







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug  3 15:35:46 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:35:46 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608030020o5865c61bv5586cdfcc7a0c357@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eat54i+mj8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156434

>
> Ken:
> 
> She has left far too many plot lines unresolved
> and no clear clues to how most of them will resolve in her desire to
> satisfy our supposed love of being tricked. She painted herself into
> this corner. I'm surprised she didn't see it coming.
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> Has she really?  As you mention a few times, the series isn't over
yet and I
> for one don't require every single plot line to be resolved.  A little
> leftover mystery can be a good thing.

Ken:

I understand your sentiment. In fact I think you could make a strong
case for not writing the 7th book. The series could stand quite well
at 6 books as it is written and certainly could with a *few* changes
to HBP. That would intensely dissatisfy many readers but a few of us
would see it as bold way to end the story. However we all know she is
going to write the 7th book unless something tragic happens. Knowing
that I do feel that she has left rather a lot on her plate to clean up
in book 7. Not writing book 7 would be one thing, leaving a lot
unresolved in book 7 would be quite another. In any event the author
herself has said she now sees how much needs to be resolved in the 7th
book so I feel I stand on firm ground when I agree with her ;-)


> 
> Ken:
> 
> As for shippers: I've read a comment from her somewhere that she can't
> believe folks are still shipping Harry/Hermione after HBP. Well excuse
> me but do high school romances always become life long relationships?
> 
> Lynda:
> 
> But she never gave any indication of a H/H ship.  Not in the books
and  not
> in any interviews I've heard her give.  I'm not a great one for reading
> online transcripts of interviews, but from email posted comments I
have read
> that refer to them, nothing there either.  Of course, H/H may be the
only
> two survivors on planet earth after 7, and in that case I suppose a
ship is
> somewhat inevitable to secure the survival of the species...
> 

And Susan:

>Uh, Ken, perhaps Ms. Rowling believes that she is the author of the
Harry Potter series and knows what is going to happen. Perhaps she
believes that she has been clear that Harry and Hermione will NOT
become involved (despite the passionate wishes of a few fans) and
that Ron and Hermione are attracted to each other... Perhaps as the
author, she KNOWS....

We now know that Professor Dumbledore is really dead. We also know
that Harry and Hermione will not become involved.
> 
>

I have two points and perhaps I made neither of them clear. I would
not say there is *no* sign of a H/H ship. There seemed to be a period
where this was in doubt though leaning towards H/R with fair
consistency. There is a true depth of feeling and friendship between
H/H that could blossom into a life long romance. I throw down the
gauntlet and defy anyone to say otherwise! 

The second is that, yes, I know that the author knows the conclusion.
But she ridicules (I've seen the direct quotes from her) those who
persist in shipping H/H. She has been quite plain about the direction
things are *heading*. Only *she* knows which ships reach their
intended ports and which are lost at sea or diverted. A lot could
happen in the 7th book and if Ron and Ginny were to both die H&H are
going to have to fall back on alternate plan B aren't they? It is not
*stupid* to feel that H/H could still happen, even though both have
other options, approximately 3 billion apiece that we have not even
met yet. When she ridicules H/H shipping she is inadvertantly
revealing her intentions and calling others fools while she does so.
It is a quite human failing to trip up and reveal a secret. That is
why they are so beastly hard to keep. I would, however, expect this
author to be able to see the shipping news from the point of view of
the readers who lack her foreknowledge of the conclusion and to have
the good grace to refrain from mocking them.

The third thing ("The *three* most fearsome weapons of the
Spanish...") is that she is still killing off people she did not plan
to kill. At some level then even *she* does not know if H/R is a
certainty and perhaps she should have a little more humility about
that, eh?

Ken who isn't a shipper but who will defend their intelligence







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Aug  3 15:34:56 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:34:56 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince
In-Reply-To: <easps6+46s4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eat530+4jg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156435

Abergoat says:
Potioncat, good set of questions. I agree we don't know much about
Eileen. But we do know she has the potential to tie Snape to Hagrid
and Voldemort and thus may ultimately tie Snape to Harry. In addition
Eileen is a very believable source of Dumbledore's trust in Snape and
fits JKR's statment that the 'Half-Blood Prince' is a strand of the
overall plot. I think that is a highly compeling reason to speculate
on her.

Tinytonks, as the starter of my favorite thread it is good to see you
repost! I don't have any strong feelings on Gran Longbottom versus
Eileen so it will be interesting to see where you go with it.

Dungrollin wrote:
> All snipped and rearranged to try to put it in some semblance of
> order, and apologies in advance, but all I'm doing is sniping,
> giving reasons why I'm not convinced. But since you want to keep
> the discussion about Eilieen alive, perhaps you won't mind too
> much...


Abergoat responds:
Not at all. You are quite right, I'm just happy to discuss her even if
people disagree. Skepticism is good - none of us have any idea what
book 7 will contain. Although I would say some things have a better
chance than others.

Dungrollin wrote:
> And all that guff that DD gives us about Tom Riddle always having
> worked alone, having been independent enough to get all his things
> from Diagon Alley alone at the age of 11?

Abergoat responds:
But I didn't say he worked 'with' her, did I? I think he used her,
just like he used Hepizbah Smith. And that whole line of thought was
idle speculation. What I don't think is idle speculation - and seems
to be supported by Hagrid's attitude towards Snape and Snape's towards
Hagrid - is that Eileen was involved in Hagrid's defense and she may
have been friends with him.

Dungrollin wrote:
> I don't think anybody could have talked to Myrtle's ghost,
> particularly not DD, because they would then have had a shrewd
> idea where the entrance to the chamber was.

Abergoat responds:
But that was my point, wasn't it? I state that Eileen talked to Myrtle
but no one else did because Myrtle had left the castle to haunt Olivia
Hornsby. So just like in PoA it was the word of a 12/13 year girl
against the word of (in this case) the headmaster's favorite student.
She lost, but she planted enough doubt that Dumbledore was able to
persuade Dippet to allow Hagrid to stay on rather than being sent to
some other institution. I doubt she got many details out of Myrtle -
just the eyes.

Dung wrote:
> Sorry, but Eileen can't be doglady at St. Mungo's, she's called
> Agnes (OotP, ch23:p452, UK ed.)

Abergoat responds:
Peter Pettigrew was a rat called Scabbers for most of the first three
books. Agnes (I have mentioned the problem of the name before) seems
to only be able to bark. If they didn't know who she was when she
arrived then she would have been given a convenient name. JKR did a
good job of indicating the nurses at St. Mungo's were overworked. If
my speculation is true (and it is probably not) then St. Mungo's
didn't figure out Eileen's name until Snape showed up as a 13 or 14
year old boy. I speculate Eileen had been in the ward being called
Agnes for well over a decade by that point. The nurses may have had a
hard time changing habits - or perhaps they didn't try figuring she
has the tought processes of a dog.

Dungrollin wrote:
> Now, I have to say I have nothing against the idea of Snape hell-
> bent on revenge against Voldy for the murder of Eileen, but I doubt
> it's due to a Hotbrunch. 

Abergoat responds:
And I agree. Because I don't think anyone has any idea why Eileen was
attacked. Because only Snape (and his confidantes) KNOW she was
attacked. Everyone else just thinks her current form is a mistake of
her own making. Now it is possible that Dumbledore started to be
suspicious once if found out about the horcruxes but Dumbledore is
actually similar to Voldemort, he doesn't share that much. And we saw
Dumbledore pause about giving Snape's story to Harry - I think he
thought about telling Harry about Eileen and his suspicion that she
was a horcrux victim but decided that Harry's hate is too strong at
the moment. I suspect Dumbledore believes Harry's attitude will change
as he learns Snape's story on his own. Piece by piece.

Dungrollin wrote:
> If JKR backtracks on her and
> DD's opinion of divination (aside from the apparently 'real'
> prophecies which nevertheless aren't guaranteed to come true) I
> shall be sorely disappointed in her. So, you might well be right,
> but I reserve the right to not like it at all!

And you have that right ;). But I will say I've managed to spin even
the prophecy into the Eileen theory such that JKR won't backtrack at
all. It was people's actions on the prophecy, not fate itself. And I
consider this proof that Dumbledore would NEVER share the prophecy
with anyone, especially not the Potters or Longbottoms, prior to
Godric's Hollow. To do so would be giving the prophecy validation. I
seriously doubt Dumbledore would do that. Fear was running high already.

Dungrollin wrote:
> What if Eileen was indeed murdered by Voldy, or on Voldy's orders, 
> and Snape grew up with his aunt. His aunt Irma. Who despised her 
> sister for having married a Muggle who abandoned her, and therefore 
> hated her only son, the little half-blood Prince and made him live 
> in a cupboard under the stairs...

Abergoat wrote:
Hmm, now we've moved on to sarcasm? ;) But I'll play along. You'll
have to give me a reason for Voldemort to attack her. Given she is
married to a muggle and most of Voldemort's early followers were
brought in because of bigotry I'm afraid you cannot sell me on the
idea that Voldemort wanted her as a follower and she refused. Killing
her for having married a muggle is possible. Although I seriously
doubt Voldemort would do it personally.

Dungrollin wrote:
> So... what do you think Hagrid made of the enmity between Snape and
> the Marauders? Because he does seem to have liked James an awful
> lot. Do you think it's possible to have liked both?

Considering Hagrid seems to love Harry but still insists Harry is
wrong about Snape I cannot see that this idea should take much of a
stretch.

Abergoat









From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 14:05:34 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:05:34 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <earul0+10ato@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <easvre+lnih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156436

bridge13219:
Does anyone else think that Harry's Patronus will have changed form 
when next we see it? (a Phoenix is my guess).  I was thinking that JKR 
introduced the idea of a Patronus changing form due to a great shock 
(w/ Tonks) so we won't be surprised when it happens to Harry in Book 
7.  Any takers?









From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 16:19:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:19:37 -0000
Subject: Second evening of JKR reading
In-Reply-To: <easvqa+ber1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eat7mp+o6f1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156437

Marissa:

> I was there last night and while I don't remember the exact words 
he 
> said (it was kind of long) but I didn't think it was that confusing 
> at the time. A reader from mugglenet pretty much summed up exactly 
> what I heard last night. It's not word for word but it's a lot more 
> detailed than "Salman Rushdie's confused detailed theory."
<SNIP>
>> http://www.mugglenet.com/jkr/jonyc/night2/kate.shtml


Alla:
Heee, thanks Marissa. I will of course be eagerly awaiting the 
transcripts to read the questions 
and answers , especially based on personal experience from first 
reading that one list member reported the exactly opposite conclusion 
from question and answer that I got, but  from this report it does 
not look to me that Rushdie summed up Snape as good as of the present 
time.

I mean, maybe he did, but seems like ( if what is reported is 
correct) he said that he seemed unpleasant but good, but now he seems 
to be bad, because DD is dead and at this point JKR confirmed that DD 
is dead one more time?

If that is the correct opinion, hehe, that would be lovely. ;)

Alla






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug  3 16:35:56 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 16:35:56 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030557l311fe9e1gf28fcd5edfc09f6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eat8lc+i46c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156438

Jordan:
> And we haven't heard a single thing about Daphne Greengrass, Tracey
> Davis, in terms of looks _or_ personality.
> 
> Or most of the people in higher years than Harry, Draco, etc. or
> _anyone_ younger. And that's the real issue here.

Magpie:
I don't think that's an issue at all, because it's not important 
enough to be in the story.  We read getting information from what's 
written on the page, not by projecting into blank spaces.  

Jordan: 
> The one common thread between all our descriptions of slytherin
> [student] characters, is Draco. Even Pansy's "Gang of slytherin 
girls"
> doesn't merit identification, I'm sure we only see Pansy herself
> mentioned by name because she's Draco's girlfriend. Forget 
the "Harry
> filter", we're seeing the entire house of Slytherin through a Draco
> filter. We're only told anything about any slytherin student 
character
> in so far as they relate to Draco.

Magpie:
Harry looks at Slytherin through Draco and Snape first, but that 
doesn't change what he sees happening in front of him.  Pansy's gang 
isn't identified by name, but he notices them because they are 
cackling with her at him. He notices lots of Slytherins cackling at 
him--the Quidditch team and their hangers-on, for instance. The 
older kids who laugh at Draco's impressions of him. The whole 
section of Slytherin seems to join in in singing at Ron when he's 
having trouble. On the field the team is usually described playing 
in an underhanded way. Blaise talks about blood traitors, the "prat" 
replacement for Draco in HBP also makes a bigoted remark iirc.  The 
entire IS is made up of Slytherins. Millicent isn't described very 
nicely. 

Draco is certainly related to these incidents storywise, but that's 
still an awfully lot of Slytherins being bad examples for Harry. Not 
to mention there's Snape and his own gang of Slytherins who all 
became DEs.  The boys in Harry's year are all but one sons of DEs, 
and the one who isn't still seems to go along with the ideology.The 
one Slytherin we might have known, Ron's cousin, was described as a 
horrid child.


Harry's problem, it seems to me, is not that he's unfairly 
generalizing about Slytherin and so missing all the nice people.  If 
the nice people are there, they are so unimportant they are not in 
the story--and I don't really think they are there.  Even JKR's 
defense of Slytherin is kind of weak: they're not all like Draco, 
they're not all DEs, there are DE kids in other houses.  That's a 
different kind of lesson for Harry to learn: they're not all like 
that, look here's a nice Slytherin who's cool so you don't have to 
hate everyone in the house on principle now.  I don't think that's 
where JKR is going--and good thing too, because that just means 
Harry doesn't have to deal with people he doesn't like. 

Jordan:
We see a lot of "badness" from very
> few Slytherins, and I'd be very disappointed if Harry's judged them
> all on this basis. (Not wanting to be in the house is different - 
he'd
> have to share a room with Draco, personally, for seven years)

Magpie:
But isn't it clear by this point that Harry does judge them all on 
this basis?  It's not like it's hidden or has ever been said to just 
be about Harry not wanting to share a room with Draco personally.  
Harry and Blaise hate each other "on principle."  Slughorn notices 
Harry's immediate negative reaction to his house and asks him not to 
judge him harshly on it. Harry tells Neville he's better than Draco 
since after all Neville's in Gryffindor and Neville's in stinkin' 
Slytherin. When the hat councils the houses to work together Harry 
laughs at the idea of working with Malfoy, but as a symbol of why 
working with Slytherin at all is out.

-m








From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 13:38:11 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 06:38:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030624w4db4b6ces9604c94afd53b2b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060803133811.53302.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156439

Jordan Abel <random832 at gmail.com> wrote:
I think the point was that the belief that, after HBP, H/G is "the one
true way" (as JKR apparently does) is based on an inherently flawed
assumption that "high school romances always become life long
relationships".

  Joe:

  In a world where people use magic to do any number of things in a manner differing from the real world it doesn't seem overly surprising that young love might work differently too does it?

  Once you have magic all the "real world" idea pretty much fly out the window don't they?

  Joe
















From lolita_ns at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 17:43:47 2006
From: lolita_ns at yahoo.com (lolita_ns)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:43:47 -0000
Subject: Spoiler Alert:  JRK comments at charity reading
In-Reply-To: <easqj3+ndp0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatckj+2f0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156440

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" <beatrice23 at ...> 
wrote:
><SNIP> JKR made 
> the following comment when asked what Hermione would see in the 
> Mirror of Erised:  <SNIP>

> "At the moment, having just completed their penultimate year at 
> Hogwarts, Hermione would likely see herself, Ron and Harry out of 
> school, alive and unscathed, with Voldemort dead. She would also see 
> herself closely entwined with... another person (you can guess who)."
> 
<SNIP>
 The way I read the above quote is that the trio do return to 
> Hogwarts for their final year...  What do you think?
> 
> Beatrice
>


Lolita:

Hello :) Well, IIRC, Rowling has always said that there will be seven 
HP books, "one for each of his years at Hogwarts." 
I don't know when she said this, but I do know that she has stated it 
in more than one interview. Last year, I wrote a paper on HP for my 
Children's literature course, and I read through each and every one of 
the interviews in QQQ, in order to find information about the writing 
itself as seen from the PoV of the author, and I paid attention to her 
stated plans with the series - that is why I distinctly remember her 
saying this. Of course, she may have changed her plans in the meantime.

Still, I do think that the children will indeed return to school, with 
Rowling introducing some sort of a reason for it early in the seventh 
book - for example, that they might find some information about the 
Horcruxes at Hogwarts, or that they might wish to speak with DD's 
portrait, or something of that sort - and then have them stay there 
for some reason or other. 

The quote you mention can certainly lead to the conclusion you've 
drawn, especially with the sintagm 'penultimate school year' which 
might imply that there will, indeed, be an ultimate year, as well. I 
do, I repeat, agree with you that there will be a seventh year, but 
not necessarily because of the aforementioned quote, but because of 
Rowling's earlier statements and the structure of the series itself - 
all the books have a basic pattern of events, upon which variations 
are added (at the Dursleys', Harry having a small independent 
adventure before the school year starts, Harry meets his friends, 
school year, the big adventure, talks and/or explanations, end of 
school year). Seeing as the school year takes up the major portion of 
time and space in the books, I don't know what Rowling could introduce 
in the final book that could satisfactorily replace the school year 
events. Not simply in the sense of having events to write about, (she 
does have a lot of loose ends to tie, and the final book will be 
filled with that), but rather in the sense of having a tying element 
in the book, the role which Hogwarts had in the previous books. 
Hogwarts is an excellent setting, background, and a microcosm of 
sorts, even a character in its own right (I hesitate to say that it 
reminds me of Dublin in Joyce's work), and I would hate to see it gone 
from the picture completely.  

As far as the quote from the NYC reading is concerned, I think that 
the trio being out of school has more to do with Hermione being the 
one looking at the Mirror than with Rowling's plans for her heroes' 
final year at Hogwarts. If, for instance, Ron were to look in the 
Mirror, he might as well see all the things Hermione would see, sans 
the 'out of school' thing - to graduate is - as I see it - definitely 
of of Hermione's greatest wishes, not necessarily Ron's or Harry's.

Cheers,
Lolita








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 18:30:05 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 18:30:05 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <easvre+lnih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatfbd+6sie@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156441

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bridge13219" 
<bridge13219 at ...> wrote:
>
> bridge13219:
> Does anyone else think that Harry's Patronus will have changed 
form 
> when next we see it? (a Phoenix is my guess).  I was thinking that 
JKR 
> introduced the idea of a Patronus changing form due to a great 
shock 
> (w/ Tonks) so we won't be surprised when it happens to Harry in 
Book 
> 7.  Any takers?
>

Tonks:
Yes, I have thought that Harry's Patronus will change to a Phoenix, 
but somehow connected to what happens as he himself is transformed.

And back to Snape. It is always back to Snape, isn't it. ;-)  While 
I think that Snape's anamagus is a fox as I stated before, it 
occured to me that it could be...  what if the reason she can't tell 
us...  what if Snape's anamagus is a snake?

Tonks_op







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Aug  3 19:31:04 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:31:04 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco
In-Reply-To: <eat8lc+i46c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatito+gv7e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156442

Magpie:
> Harry's problem, it seems to me, is not that he's unfairly 
> generalizing about Slytherin and so missing all the nice people.  If 
> the nice people are there, they are so unimportant they are not in 
> the story--and I don't really think they are there.  Even JKR's 
> defense of Slytherin is kind of weak: they're not all like Draco, 
> they're not all DEs, there are DE kids in other houses.  That's a 
> different kind of lesson for Harry to learn: they're not all like 
> that, look here's a nice Slytherin who's cool so you don't have to 
> hate everyone in the house on principle now.  I don't think that's 
> where JKR is going--and good thing too, because that just means 
> Harry doesn't have to deal with people he doesn't like. 

Pippin:
Harry is forgetting that there were some Slytherins who defied
Draco and stood for him at the leaving feast in GoF. They may
be as fond of  ruthless ways and bigotted ideology as
Draco is. But the war is not about whether ruthless
bigots will rule the wizarding world (Umbridge is proof of that)
but whether Voldemort will.

On that issue they stood for Harry and against Voldemort, knowing
probably better than any other children in the Great Hall except
Harry himself what price they and their families might pay. Those
are allies whose bravery Harry cannot afford to ignore, IMO,
whatever wrongheaded ideas they might have.

What Harry has to learn is tolerance, IMO. He can go on believing
that the Slytherin philosophy is dead wrong, as long as he'll
concede that he could be wrong about Gryffindor. Not that he
has any doubts, just that he could be wrong without having them.

Pippin







From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 19:48:10 2006
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:48:10 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eas45o+rsku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatjtq+o9c8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156443

"laurawkids" wrote:
>
> I have finally put together a theory that hits close to home (I 
hope I am not just redoing someone else's idea)...
> 
> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having 
> *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, 
and identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really 
> seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of 
> magic ; )  !  She would not know about it, though, and could 
> discover it as follows: 
> 
> With JKR's remarks tonight about wand use, it got me to thinking.  
> If a Half-Blood-Elf-Petunia were to try to wield Harry's wand in an 
> emergency, she would be sent an owl informing her that she had 
> broken the ban on wand use by non-wizards.  We might be treated to 
a page of the description of Mr. Dursley's face.
> 
> I suppose she would have to be Lily's half-sister for this to work.

(snip non-related text)

hpfan_mom now:

More ammunition for the part-elf idea . . . we NEVER see her out of 
the house (IIRC) except with Uncle Vernon, the master of the house.  
We've seen Vernon at work, and Dudley wandering the streets (and 
presumably attending Smeltings), but never Petunia shopping or buying 
cleaning supplies or whatever.

But I am a little concerned about how JKR responded to the rumor that 
Petunia "will start exhibiting magical tendencies:"

"No, she won't.  Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she 
ever be able to do so."

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37

I'm at work and don't have my books with me but maybe there's an out 
for JKR in that explanation we get about a house-elf's brand of magic 
and how they can disapparate within Hogwarts to perform their work.  
However, stating categorically that Petunia will never perform magic, 
then making her part-elf and gleefully crying, "I meant wizard magic, 
not house-elf magic!" seems a bit tricky, even for her.

hpfan_mom, trying SO hard not to picture the union that would result 
in a half-blood elf . . .







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Aug  3 19:18:08 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:18:08 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <easvre+lnih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eati5g+8hvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156444


bridge13219 wrote:
> Does anyone else think that Harry's Patronus will have changed form 
> when next we see it? (a Phoenix is my guess). 

Abergoat suggests:
I think there is a chance that Harry's patronus will have changed when
we next see it but I think if it is going to be a phoenix that will
not come until the end of book 7. Harry thought Dumbledore was a
foolish old man (for believing in Snape) towards the end of HBP. The
best example is when Harry's thoughts are 'was this more of
Dumbledore's insane desire to see the best in everyone?' (paraphrased).

Harry's loyalty to Dumbledore has hit a low point. I think it will
rebound.

Abergoat









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Aug  3 19:28:10 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 19:28:10 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eas45o+rsku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatioa+qdnj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156445


laurawkids wrote:
> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having 
> *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, and 
> identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really 
> seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of 
> magic ; )  !  

abergoat offers:
I cannot say I'm sold on the idea but I give you excellent scores for
thinking out side the box!!! (lol). Petunia is another one of my
favorite lines of speculation.

I do think the 'clean freak' mentality you mentioned will come into
play. Should we investigate this line  of thought and see where it
takes us?

What we know that might be useful for book seven: Dumbledore gave
Petunia the secret of Grimmauld Place - twice; Petunia seems to be
personally scared of Voldemort and seemed unpleasantly surprised that
the protection on the house would end a year earlier than expected;
Grimmauld Place is filthy, with a rude portrait - the perfect foil for
Dursley related humor; and finally, JKR tells us we will see more of
the Dursleys in book 7.

So it is an excellent bet that the Dursleys will go to Grimmauld
Place. I hope this takes you somewhere!

Abergoat









From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Aug  3 20:14:37 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 20:14:37 -0000
Subject: Harry and "shipping"
Message-ID: <eatlfd+bucp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156446

I suspect I may call down the wrath of a number of "shippers" and 
collect a pack of Howlers but I normally try to avoid shipping threads. 
However, from odd comments I read, I get a trifle irritated that there 
seems to be a theory that everybody in sight has got to be linked 
romantically with someone else.

Let me pose a question. Why does Harry have to be linked in that way 
with anyone at the present time?

I have often commented that I relate so much to Harry because I can 
see myself in him at that age.

Not being critical, I see Harry as being rather clueless when it comes 
to the opposite sex. Perhaps it was because I went to a single-sex 
school (which were in the majority at the time), I was also pretty clueless 
and I can recall an equally disastrous attempt to take someone to a
college ball when I was a fair bit older than Harry. During my early 
twenties, I was very wrapped up in developing career skills and finally 
got married when I was 31. 

My eldest son was again heavily involved in work and church activities 
and got married when he was 26 and took a fairly steady approach to 
becoming an item.

So, why shouldn't Harry be concentrating on matters other than those 
of the heart; as in my case, he may be late in becoming an item but is 
there anything wrong in that? A more mature approach may avoid the 
old problem of "fools rushing in where angels fear to tread".

Having placed the cat firmly among the pigeons, I shall sit down and 
wait on events.
:-)







From BrwNeil at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 20:21:14 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:21:14 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spoiler Alert:  JRK comments at charity reading
Message-ID: <56e.3524345.3203b4ba@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156447

 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2006 9:36:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
beatrice23 at yahoo.com writes:

"At  the moment, having just completed their penultimate year at 
Hogwarts,  Hermione would likely see herself, Ron and Harry out of 
school, alive and  unscathed, with Voldemort dead. She would also see 
herself closely  entwined with... another person (you can guess who)."

Did you catch  that? While many readers indicate that JKR can be a can 
be a bit cagey  about her plots, I think that she occasionally either 
purposefully or  accidently lets slip some important info. Earlier in 
the interview she  indicated that she was "well into writing book 
seven." The way I read the  above quote is that the trio do return to 
Hogwarts for their final year...  What do you think?

Beatrice

I think it is a normal Rowling politician answer.  It means  nothing.  First 
thing I had to do was look up penultimate and find out that  it meant next to 
last.
 
So that means that after all that happened during year six, looking in  the 
mirror, JKR is saving that Hermione's strongest desire would be to see  the 
three of them out of school, alive and Voldemort dead. 
 
I don't see how Hermione's possible desires give any more hint as to  what 
will actually happen in book seven than what Ron and Harry saw in the  mirror in 
year one.  We seldom get all we desire.
 
    

Neil



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




From BrwNeil at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 20:54:50 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 16:54:50 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
Message-ID: <388.8ede2c4.3203bc9a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156448

 
 
In a message dated 8/3/2006 10:10:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
random832 at gmail.com writes:

>The question of H/G" is not the issue. The idea, as held by many  H/G
>or R/H shippers (including JKR) that H/H is ridiculous or that  anyone
>elieving anything but H/G and R/H is stupid, is the  problem.

>he idea doesn't have any merit, just because it's not the  same as how
>ne person wants it to be? That would be seen as  _incredibly_ arrogant
>oming from anyone else, and I'm not convinced JKR  shouldn't be held
>o the same standard


All the anvils in the world indicating that something will happen doesn't  
necessarily make it right or mean that everyone will agree with it.
 
I think an author fails if a large segment of her readers disagree with her  
relationships.  Rowling only had to do two things to make me accept H/G and  
R/H and she did neither.
 
Number one she had to show me what took place that changed Ginny from being  
a Harry groupie into being truly the right girl for him.  In book one she  was 
star struck and wanted to get a look at the famous Harry Potter.  In  book 
two she was in love with him before ever having even met him.  When  did she 
stop being one of the girls that we all hated because they just wanted  him 
because he was the famous Harry Potter?  I still think of her as one of  those 
girls.
 
Number two, just show me some positive interaction between Ron and  Hermione. 
 I accept that JKR is going to bring them together.  Would  someone just 
explain why they want to be together?  The have nothing other  than Harry in 
common. They disagree on everything.  They treat each  other awful and Ron 
especially has, in the course of the six books, done some  truly hurtful things.  Ms 
Rowling, please just explain why Ron wants  Hermione and why she wants him and 
maybe I can accept it.  Thus far you  have only indicated that it would 
happen, but you have certainly not shown any  reason why it should happen.

 
Neil



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




From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 21:14:47 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:14:47 -0400
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156449

 I'm starting to believe we can argue to the point of silliness about *anything* ;-)
 
If JKR is ridiculing the *concept* of a H/H ship, then she is wrong, because
it is true that anything could potentially happen (Ron dies, etc) and some of
those things might well lead to an H/H ship. But what I really think she is 
"ridiculing" is a H/H ship in *canon*, which she has already said more than once
is NOT going to happen. Though I don't know that I'd call it ridiculing. From her
perspective she may be wondering why she has to keep addressing a subject
she unequivocally answered more than once now. Maybe she's frustrated ;-)
 
As for whether most high school relationships last the test of time, no they 
don't. But that fact is totally IRRELEVANT, because we're only talking about
this one--R/H--and it IS going to last. 
 
And while JKR has changed some things during the course of writing the books,
including changing who will die and who won't, she seems to be saying she is
*not* going to change R/H. So I'd hesitate to accuse her of being certain of 
something she can't know for sure, when she most certainly CAN know for sure!
She's writing it, after all.
 
Julie
 
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 21:54:01 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 21:54:01 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <easmqh+eoad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatr9p+kndm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156450

Tinktonks wrote:
> 
> I think that it has been a well covered theory that Eileen Prince &
> Neville's gran were enemies, has anyone considered that they were
> friends? I'm not necessarily supporting the following theory
> exactly, I just want to put forward a theory that there are a number
> of possibilities why they were friends and what this could mean.
> 
> Longbottom & Prince where both members of the Gobstones club and
> became friends. They retained friendship & as Longbottom had no pure
> blood mania she went to the wedding to Snape. Longbottom gave Mrs.
> Snape refuge when she left her bully husband and took in her and a
> young Severus. The reason Snape changed his mind is because of what
> happened to Frank whom he shared much of his childhood with. The
> reason he is so harsh on Neville is because he (like his
> Grandmother) feels that he is letting his father down and not
> upkeeping the family honour of the family who helped his mother who
> he loved dearly. <snip>
>
>
Carol responds:
I don't really have an opinion on your theory, though it's interesting
to think how many characters (not counting future DEs) were actually
attending school at roughly the same time as Tom Riddle: Rubeus Hagrid
(briefly), Minerva McGonagall, Neville's gran, Aigista somebody (not
yet Longbottom), and possibly Neville's Great Uncle Algie (Algernon?),
whose name wouldn't be Longbottom, either, if he's Augusta's brother.
(Maybe they're related to the Princes or the Blacks or the Potters or
the Weasleys or all of them? After all, the pureblood families are all
interrelated.)

At any rate, I'm pretty sure that Augusta (Neville's gran) was a
Gryffindor in Mcgonagall's year because McGonagall knows that she
failed her charms OWL. That doesn't rule out her being a friend of
Eileen Prince's, especially if we accept the suggestion that the
fifty-year-old Potions text, originally supposed to be found in the
same year as the diary, is from the same year as the diary and JKR
just didn't change the date. That's an awful sentence, but my point
is, Eileen could be in the same year as Tom Riddle or maybe the year
before him (her sixth year being his fifth year), which would make her
roughly the same age as McGonagall and Augusta. I happen to think that
Eileen was a Slytherin, simply because it's so hard to explain
Severus's knowledge of so many hexes and his early interest in the
Dark Arts if she wasn't.

Just a suggestion regarding your theory--it might be clearer if you
referred to the characters by their first names as we do with James
and Li"Tobias" rather than "Snape" to keep us from confusing him with
his son and "Augusta" rather than "Longbottom," especially since she
wasn't yet married when she was a Hogwarts student (I hope).

At any rate, I wouldn't be surprised if there's some connection
between Eileen and Gran, but I think that Severus must have learned
magic from the Princes rather than the Longbottoms. And whether or not
Tobias was the man in Snape's memory, I think he was out of Severus's
life before the boy was eleven. Otherwise, it's extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to account for the early development of his magical
abilities. Just on a hunch that I can't prove, he was probably
precocious in both Potions and DADA, and I expect that he had more
than a bit of encouragement from his mother. (I think she's the one
who loved him. If she's alive and in her right mind, maybe she loves
him still.)

Carol, who used to think that the dog-faced woman (Agnes) was Snape's
mother and that her wicked husband cursed her, but JKR has thrown
Vanishing Potion on that speculation by making Tobias a Muggle and
giving the two women different first names









From phil at pcsgames.net  Thu Aug  3 22:19:01 2006
From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:19:01 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
References: <eatjtq+o9c8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00e901c6b74a$ddfa5030$6600a8c0@phil>

No: HPFGUIDX 156451

"laurawkids" wrote:
>
> I have finally put together a theory that hits close to home (I 
hope I am not just redoing someone else's idea)...
> 
> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having 
> *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, 
and identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really 
> seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of 
> magic ;
(snipped)

hpfan_mom now:

More ammunition for the part-elf idea . . . we NEVER see her out of 
the house (IIRC) except with Uncle Vernon, the master of the house.  
We've seen Vernon at work, and Dudley wandering the streets (and 
presumably attending Smeltings), but never Petunia shopping or buying 
cleaning supplies or whatever.

But I am a little concerned about how JKR responded to the rumor that 
Petunia "will start exhibiting magical tendencies:"

"No, she won't.  Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she 
ever be able to do so."

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37

I'm at work and don't have my books with me but maybe there's an out 
for JKR in that explanation we get about a house-elf's brand of magic 
and how they can disapparate within Hogwarts to perform their work.  
However, stating categorically that Petunia will never perform magic, 
then making her part-elf and gleefully crying, "I meant wizard magic, 
not house-elf magic!" seems a bit tricky, even for her.

hpfan_mom, trying SO hard not to picture the union that would result 
in a half-blood elf . . .

Now Phil:
I have a theory that Petunia made an agreement with Albus Dumbledore that in order for her to take baby Harry in, she would be able to control a house elf of her own as long as no one knows about it.
   Of course now that Dumbledore  is dead the contract is broken and Harry will discover a House Elf doing all of Petunia's work.

Phil, who hopes Jo reads this idea and decides to change book seven.
  

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




From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 22:46:45 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:46:45 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com>
References: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com>
	 <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608031546q6f3eb0bbk9419f0e0914e8e82@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156452

Julie:
> If JKR is ridiculing the *concept* of a H/H ship, then she is wrong, because
> it is true that anything could potentially happen (Ron dies, etc) and some of
> those things might well lead to an H/H ship. But what I really think she is
> "ridiculing" is a H/H ship in *canon*, which she has already said more than once
> is NOT going to happen. Though I don't know that I'd call it ridiculing. From her
> perspective she may be wondering why she has to keep addressing a subject
> she unequivocally answered more than once now. Maybe she's frustrated ;-)

She's not done with it, though. Long stories (and with almost 900
thousand words to date, it's nothing if not long) with in-depth
characterizations have a habit of writing themselves. And, to me, JKR
declaring for a particular 'ship means that she's going to *force* it
if it doesn't otherwise happen - which is annoying enough in
fanfiction.

Julie:
> As for whether most high school relationships last the test of time, no they
> don't. But that fact is totally IRRELEVANT, because we're only talking about
> this one--R/H--and it IS going to last.

I thought we were talking about H/G - I don't really have a problem
with R/H. (The problem with talking about H/H in the negative is that
it's not clear which of the two "canon ships" you're supporting).

But how can one say it's "going to last"? They (R/H) don't even _have_
a relationship yet, all they have is the kind of irrational jealousy
that's symptomatic of having not _quite_ admitted to themselves that
they are attracted to the other. (though, i'm not through rereading
HBP and I only skimmed it the first time, so I'm not 100% sure of
this)

Julie:
> And while JKR has changed some things during the course of writing the books,
> including changing who will die and who won't, she seems to be saying she is
> *not* going to change R/H. So I'd hesitate to accuse her of being certain of
> something she can't know for sure, when she most certainly CAN know for sure!
> She's writing it, after all.

And she hasn't finished writing it. For one thing, there's no reason
at this point to think that it's certain that either or both of them
might not _die_.

-- 
Random832



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug  3 22:47:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:47:15 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eatr9p+kndm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatudj+2de6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156453


> Carol responds:
> 
> At any rate, I'm pretty sure that Augusta (Neville's gran) was a
> Gryffindor in Mcgonagall's year because McGonagall knows that she
> failed her charms OWL. 

Potioncat:
I think so too. It would be so helpful to know what Minerva's and 
Augusta's maiden names were. Given the little speech Augusta made 
about the Weasleys, I don't think she was a Weasley and possibly not 
a Prewett. Of course, we don't know if Minerva is a Mrs. or a Miss---
darn unfortunate, all that Professor business.

I suspect a Gran-Snape connection as well, with the Boggart scene 
something of a foreshaddowing. Except I don't think Neville knows of 
any relationship.



Carol:
 I happen to think that
> Eileen was a Slytherin, simply because it's so hard to explain
> Severus's knowledge of so many hexes and his early interest in the
> Dark Arts if she wasn't.

Potioncat:
Why oh why do I insist upon defending the House of Slytherin? I only 
like two of them anyway...no three. Given all the hexes James seem to 
have known as a 5th year, and the ones Hermione excells at in her 5th 
year, I'd like to point out Slytherin does not have a exclusive right 
to hexes.

I'd say it's expected that Eileen was in Slytherin, but I don't think 
it's a given. I wonder who was more surprised at the result of 
Severus's sorting---the boy or the mother?



Carol:
 And whether or not
> Tobias was the man in Snape's memory, I think he was out of 
Severus's
> life before the boy was eleven. 

Potioncat:
Accidentally "evanescoed" by a young boy seeing his mother being 
harmed? Oops, sorry, wrong list. I think you're right, whether by 
choice or not, I suspect Tobias wasn't around.

Carol:
>snip<and I expect that he had more
> than a bit of encouragement from his mother. (I think she's the one
> who loved him. If she's alive and in her right mind, maybe she loves
> him still.)

Potioncat:
I think so too. Although (just for the record) I don't think she's at 
Hogwarts.

> 
> Carol, who used to think that the dog-faced woman (Agnes) was 
Snape's
> mother and that her wicked husband cursed her, but JKR has thrown
> Vanishing Potion on that speculation by making Tobias a Muggle and
> giving the two women different first names

Potioncat:
Me too. We can call ourselves the order of St. Agnes----or did Kneasy 
have some sort of Agnes theory unrelated to this situation?

Now for my own little way out there theory. I suspect Eileen Prince 
was related to either the Lestranges, or the Rosiers or the Averys 
and Severus was part of his cousin's circle of friends which included 
those above and Bellatrix. Because I don't think there is an error in 
Sirius's comment---at least not one made by JKR. He could have been a 
younger cousin who had to be endured and who picked up curses and 
hexes from the teens. 

I know my youngest has picked up a few curses from his teenaged 
siblings.








From AllieS426 at aol.com  Thu Aug  3 22:56:21 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:56:21 -0000
Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.
In-Reply-To: <eaja3l+573p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatuul+5sdc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156454

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...> wrote:
>
> James' first curse was made in a surprise
> attack while his wand was out and Snape's wand was not out.  His next
> curse was on a wandless Snape.  His next curse was on a bound,
> wandless Snape.  His next curse (following Snape's Sectumsempra) was
> on a person partly coming out of the Impedimenta jinx.  Then Sirius
> curses Snape immediately after James releases him from up in the air.
>  Then James releases Sirius' curse, but continues to hold Snape under
> wand point, from which he makes his final hex/jinx on someone he
> already had at his mercy.

Allie:

Which begs the question, why didn't Snape use nonverbal magic?  He 
must have known that it COULD be done, having invented levicorpus 
himself.  Why didn't he try something else, ANYTHING else, to get 
James off him?  Even if he wasn't sure it would work without his wand, 
I think he would have tried, like Harry did on the train after Draco 
broke his nose.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 23:00:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:00:30 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco)
In-Reply-To: <eatito+gv7e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eatv6e+6b8h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156455

Pippin wrote:
> Harry is forgetting that there were some Slytherins who defied
> Draco and stood for him at the leaving feast in GoF. They may
> be as fond of  ruthless ways and bigotted ideology as
> Draco is. But the war is not about whether ruthless
> bigots will rule the wizarding world (Umbridge is proof of that)
> but whether Voldemort will.
> 
> On that issue they stood for Harry and against Voldemort, knowing
> probably better than any other children in the Great Hall except
> Harry himself what price they and their families might pay. Those
> are allies whose bravery Harry cannot afford to ignore, IMO,
> whatever wrongheaded ideas they might have.
> 
> What Harry has to learn is tolerance, IMO. He can go on believing
> that the Slytherin philosophy is dead wrong, as long as he'll
> concede that he could be wrong about Gryffindor. Not that he
> has any doubts, just that he could be wrong without having them.

Carol responds:
At any rate, *one* of the lessons Harry needs to learn is tolerance!
Another (IMO) is that the pursuit of vengeance is evil in itself.

That aside, I agree with your post, except that I'm not quite sure
that I understand the last two sentences. Wrong about Gryffindor in
what respect? And I don't understand what you mean about being wrong
without having doubts.

BTW, not only did some of the Slytherins stand for Harry, and
presumably raise their goblets to him, everyone in the room, which
includes everyone in Slytherin and their HOH, Snape, stood up to honor
Cedric Diggory and raised their goblets to his memory. So even the
Death Eaters' children have performed one honorable and compassionate
act in Harry's sight. 

Regarding the real Slytherin, the one that JKR says we don't see
because we see Slytherin from the vantage point of the DE's children
(not to mention Harry's pov, which JKR doesn't mention), I'm wondering
if the Slytherin traits that Dumbledore attributes to Harry in CoS can
be taken to mean that Slytherin isn't all bad and Harry really would
have done well in Slytherin (if Draco and Hagrid together hadn't
prejudiced him against it from Day One): "resourcefulness,
determination, and a cetain disregard for rules" (CoS Am. ed. 333).
According to DD, Salazar Slytherin valued those traits in his students
(though, oddly, the Sorting Hat doesn't mention the first two--I can
see why DD wouldn't want it to mention the third).

It seems to me that, in HBP particularly, but even by giving Harry his
father's Invisibility Cloak in the first place, DD has been trying all
along to encourage those particular Slytherin traits in Harry, along
with cunning, a trait attributed to the House by the Sorting Hat. Why
else have Harry trick Slughorn into giving him the unaltered memory?

Carol, who agrees with Magpie that what we've seen of Slytherin so far
is unfavorable in most respects but wondering if this scene, like the
glimpses of Slytherin humanity we saw in HBP in Draco, Snape,
Narcissa, and even Bellatrix, was intended to prepare the reader for
another side of the Slytherins, one that would enable at least some of
them to work with Harry even if they can never like him or he them.
(And, no, I don't include Bellatrix in the list of possible helpers
despite her rather surprising affection for her sister.)

Carol, wondering how Dumbledore could be so objective about Slytherin
in that scene yet still imply Harry's choice of Gryffindor *in itself*
indicates that he's better than the young Tom Riddle










From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 23:15:38 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 19:15:38 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
References: <eatioa+qdnj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009301c6b752$bbe07ad0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 156456

> laurawkids wrote:
<snip>
>> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having
>> *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, and
>> identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really
>> seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of
>> magic ; )  !
>
> abergoat offers:
<snip>
> What we know that might be useful for book seven: Dumbledore gave
> Petunia the secret of Grimmauld Place - twice; Petunia seems to be
> personally scared of Voldemort and seemed unpleasantly surprised that
> the protection on the house would end a year earlier than expected;
> Grimmauld Place is filthy, with a rude portrait - the perfect foil for
> Dursley related humor; and finally, JKR tells us we will see more of
> the Dursleys in book 7.

Rebecca now:

Tantalizing and intriguing, I'm not totally sold. However, I *do* take note 
of the fact twice JKR's response about Petunia has been consistent:  there's 
more to Petunia "than meets the eye."  So, if you recall, Harry's POV more 
than once is that Petunia looks nothing like Lily.  What if this is by 
design, specifically that Petunia's looks have been magically altered in 
some way by Dumbledore so she doesn't resemble Lily, at least to wizards? 
The protection afforded the Durselys takes on a double meaning by Harry's 
return there every year reinforcing Petunia's visage if she is indeed being 
disguised.

Rebecca, who recalls in this thread earlier that someone mentioned Petunia 
never goes out - recalling that she did once in PS/SS because Harry and 
Petunia run into Diggle while shopping. 






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 23:45:38 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:45:38 -0000
Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.
In-Reply-To: <eatuul+5sdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eau1r2+fgsj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156457

Allie wrote:
> 
> Which begs the question, why didn't Snape use nonverbal magic?  He 
> must have known that it COULD be done, having invented levicorpus 
> himself.  Why didn't he try something else, ANYTHING else, to get 
> James off him?  Even if he wasn't sure it would work without his
wand, I think he would have tried, like Harry did on the train after
Draco broke his nose.
>
Carol responds:

I think you may be confusing nonverbal magic with wandless magic. The
one spell Severus cast (the one that cut James's cheek), was
nonverbal, which is why posters are arguing over whether it was
Sectumsempra or not. Also, of course, he invented the nonverbal hex
that James is using against him (Levicorpus), so he *can* use
nonverbal magic when he has a wand in his hand. But just as Harry
couldn't make his wand come to him by calling "Accio wand!" Severus
can't deliberately do wandless magic, as indicated by the fact that
his wand just lies there when he's yelling curses (obscenities?) and
hexes at James as he's lying on the ground. 

Although the adult Snape can snap his fingers and cause the ropes he's
just conjured to fly into his hand (PoA), I don't think the teenage
Severus can. Also, I can think of at least one instance in which Snape
*may* have performed the sort of accidental magic that results from
anger (not counting sparks coming from his wand because he's angry,
which I think also happens in PoA). In OoP, after Harry's unauthorized
visit to the Pensieve, a jar of cockroaches explodes over Harry's
head. Even though Harry thinks that Snape threw it, it may have
exploded because Snape was so angry (cf. Harry "blowing up" Aunt
Marge). It seems to have exploded in midair, before it hit the wall.

So while I think that Severus would have been more than a match for
James in a one-on-one fair fight, I don't think either of them could
do deliberate wandless magic at that point, and Severus's ability to
cast nonverbal spells was of no use to him when his wand was ten feet
away.

Carol, wondering why anyone would think that Snape *wanted* Harry to
see this humiliating memory






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Aug  4 00:26:48 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 00:26:48 -0000
Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.
In-Reply-To: <eatuul+5sdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eau488+scst@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156458

Allie:
> 
> Which begs the question, why didn't Snape use nonverbal magic?  He 
> must have known that it COULD be done, having invented levicorpus 
> himself.  Why didn't he try something else, ANYTHING else, to get 
> James off him?  Even if he wasn't sure it would work without his 
wand, 
> I think he would have tried, like Harry did on the train after Draco 
> broke his nose.

Ceridwen:
Maybe he did try.  Since not succeeding is a negative, and since a 
nonverbal wandless charm would show no motion and give no sound, we 
would have witnessed it and not know.  I don't recall that Harry felt 
himself doing anything other than falling over while he was under the 
petrification, even though he was trying, really trying, to get out of 
it.  Maybe failing to succeed with a nvbl wandless spell was the most 
embarrassing thing?  *g*

Ceridwen.






From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 14:29:43 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:29:43 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030702l1c1390cau330bc40c305da583@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eat18n+6l4u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156459

Random:
> "The question of H/G" is not the issue. The idea, as held by many H/G
> or R/H shippers (including JKR) that H/H is ridiculous or that anyone
> believing anything but H/G and R/H is stupid, is the problem.
>
> The idea doesn't have any merit, just because it's not the same as
how
> one person wants it to be? That would be seen as _incredibly_
arrogant
> coming from anyone else, and I'm not convinced JKR shouldn't be held
> to the same standard

bridge13219:
I've never gotten the idea that JKR thinks H/H shippers are ridiculous
or stupid (and of course we are free to believe what we like until we
have Book 7 in our hot little hands), but as this is her creation, she
is entitled to a little incredulity when she has stated specifically
and unambiguously that the ship is R/H.  I don't feel it's arrogance
on her part to "want" a situation to be a certain way.  Like I said,
it's her creation, it's her call.










From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 22:11:10 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 15:11:10 -0700
Subject: SHIP /Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
In-Reply-To: <388.8ede2c4.3203bc9a@aol.com>
References: <388.8ede2c4.3203bc9a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608031511w129b9781m71283e70f2e6fb3f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156460

Neil:

Number one she had to show me what took place that changed Ginny from being
a Harry groupie into being truly the right girl for him. In book one she was

star struck and wanted to get a look at the famous Harry Potter. In book
two she was in love with him before ever having even met him. When did she
stop being one of the girls that we all hated because they just wanted him
because he was the famous Harry Potter? I still think of her as one of those

girls.

Number two, just show me some positive interaction between Ron and Hermione.

I accept that JKR is going to bring them together. Would someone just
explain why they want to be together? The have nothing other than Harry in
common. They disagree on everything. They treat each other awful and Ron
especially has, in the course of the six books, done some truly hurtful
things. Ms
Rowling, please just explain why Ron wants Hermione and why she wants him
and
maybe I can accept it.

Lynda:

Taking them in order:

Number one--Ginny matured!  Firstly my reaction is she was not in love with
Harry from before even meeting him, she was star struck!  The boy that she
had grown up hearing about was going to Hogwarts.  Of course she wanted to
meet him.  That's far different from spending vacations with him and her
family, living in the same house at school with him and basically doing a
lot of growing up in the five years she's been at school.

Number two--Maybe Hermione doing the vast majority of Ron's homework for him
or at least correcting them doesn't count.  After all, she does the same for
Harry, but she refuses to do Harry's when she's on the outs with Ron because
he'll let Ron copy it which points to something.  A lot like some real
couples I know.  I think a lot of Hermione's "problem" is that she knows Ron
likes her, and she can't understand why he doesn't say/do something, while
Ron is absolutely clueless and out of touch with his feelings for her.
Maybe everything will come around right by the end of the series.

Lynda


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







From imontero at iname.com  Thu Aug  3 23:57:58 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 23:57:58 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eat54i+mj8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eau2i6+th3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156461

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> 
skip
> The third thing ("The *three* most fearsome weapons of the
> Spanish...") is that she is still killing off people she did not plan
> to kill. At some level then even *she* does not know if H/R is a
> certainty and perhaps she should have a little more humility about
> that, eh?
> 
> Ken who isn't a shipper but who will defend their intelligence

Luna here:
Nice one Ken!
Only that we are forgetting about another answer she gave when asked 
what Hermione would see if she looked herself in the mirror of Erised.
She answered: ..."at the moment, she would see the three of them, 
still alive and unscathed with Voldemort defeated. She also added that 
Hermione would see herself "closely entwined with another person." 
That means that, at the moment, all three of them are alive, which 
also means that, as she already wrote the deaths, they are not the 
ones who died. Good news! Ron and Hermione are still alive and sailing!
Also, there was another question regarding who she would invite to 
dinner, she said the trio and that she was inviting the survivors, 
which also means that the trio is still well and alive!
All in all, at the moment, R/H is still sailing strong! 

Luna, happy for reading Mugglenet before coming to the HPFGU!









From kjones at telus.net  Fri Aug  4 00:58:22 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 17:58:22 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: NATURE OF PATRONUSES
In-Reply-To: <easvre+lnih@eGroups.com>
References: <easvre+lnih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44D29BAE.3030108@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156462

bridge13219 wrote:
> bridge13219:
> Does anyone else think that Harry's Patronus will have changed form 
> when next we see it? (a Phoenix is my guess).  I was thinking that JKR 
> introduced the idea of a Patronus changing form due to a great shock 
> (w/ Tonks) so we won't be surprised when it happens to Harry in Book 
> 7.  Any takers?

  KJ writes:

    I can't see Harry's patronus changing because it is linked to his 
father. I think that it will remain a stag.  I can see Snape's patronus 
changing because of the shock of killing DD, who he has worked with for 
15 years, and who he must have had some regard for. As far as plot is 
concerned, a Phoenix patronus would allow him to continue to contact the 
order, where his own would not. To change Harry's patronus does nothing 
to further the plot. IMHO.

KJ




From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Thu Aug  3 21:49:00 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 14:49:00 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and "shipping"
In-Reply-To: <eatlfd+bucp@eGroups.com>
References: <eatlfd+bucp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608031449w6d1f073fr99d0dd2b8f9f6c00@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156463

Geoff:

Not being critical, I see Harry as being rather clueless when it comes
to the opposite sex. Perhaps it was because I went to a single-sex
school (which were in the majority at the time), I was also pretty clueless
and I can recall an equally disastrous attempt to take someone to a
college ball when I was a fair bit older than Harry. During my early
twenties, I was very wrapped up in developing career skills and finally
got married when I was 31.

My eldest son was again heavily involved in work and church activities
and got married when he was 26 and took a fairly steady approach to
becoming an item.

So, why shouldn't Harry be concentrating on matters other than those
of the heart; as in my case, he may be late in becoming an item but is
there anything wrong in that? A more mature approach may avoid the
old problem of "fools rushing in where angels fear to tread".

Lynda:

You sound much like me when our fictional favorite hero was younger.  I
would hear people coupling off Harry with others and my reaction was "He's
eleven! or twelve! or..." and the truth be told there is no need to couple
the kids off in this manner.  JKR has chosen to send them on dates, though
and set them up in relationships, lasting or nonlasting.  Maybe she's
choosing to reflect reality.  I see kids as young as middle-school with boy
and girlfriends, some of them changing them out every other week it seems.

Lynda


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






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Aug  4 01:31:21 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 01:31:21 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
In-Reply-To: <388.8ede2c4.3203bc9a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eau819+botg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156464

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, BrwNeil at ... wrote:

> Number two, just show me some positive interaction between Ron and  Hermione. 
>  I accept that JKR is going to bring them together.  Would  someone just 
> explain why they want to be together?  The have nothing other  than Harry in 
> common. They disagree on everything.  They treat each  other awful and Ron 
> especially has, in the course of the six books, done some  truly hurtful things. 

Pippin:
What makes you think they don't *like* being disagreeable? It seems to me
Harry gets the kid glove treatment, not just in OOP but all the time. 'Normal'
Ron and Hermione are a bit rough on people. Just ask Luna.

IMO, they're more themselves when they're arguing with each other and 
don't need to be so careful. Of course they sometimes hurt one another's 
feelings more than they intended to, but that's what happens in a real 
relationship. 

The  alternative is to hold back for fear of saying something hurtful, which
often leads to not communicating at all. How many times has Harry
decided not to tell Ron or Hermione what's on his mind? They've gotten very
good at guessing, but that's an awful lot of work.

Harry's usually too intimidated to joust with Hermione's superior intellect
 -- when he thinks he's headed for an argument with her he either clams 
up or shouts her into submission. Ron does her the courtesy of taking her 
on point for point. I'm sure she appreciates that. I would. 


Pippin






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 02:00:36 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:00:36 -0000
Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.
In-Reply-To: <eatuul+5sdc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eau9o4+mqcc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156465


> Allie:
> 
> Which begs the question, why didn't Snape use nonverbal magic?  He 
> must have known that it COULD be done, having invented levicorpus 
> himself.  Why didn't he try something else, ANYTHING else, to get 
> James off him?  Even if he wasn't sure it would work without his 
wand, 
> I think he would have tried, like Harry did on the train after Draco 
> broke his nose.

zgirnius:
He is described as uttering a string of threats and spells, which 
didn;t workl without the wand. If he could not do a curse verbally 
without the wand, surely he would have even less change to do one 
nonverbally?








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 02:15:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:15:13 -0000
Subject: Harry and "shipping"
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608031449w6d1f073fr99d0dd2b8f9f6c00@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eauajh+rv6u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156467

Lynda wrote:
>
> You sound much like me when our fictional favorite hero was younger. I
> would hear people coupling off Harry with others and my reaction was
"He's
> eleven! or twelve! or..." and the truth be told there is no need to
couple
> the kids off in this manner. JKR has chosen to send them on dates,
though
> and set them up in relationships, lasting or nonlasting. Maybe she's
> choosing to reflect reality. I see kids as young as middle-school
with boy
> and girlfriends, some of them changing them out every other week it
seems.

Carol responds:
I don't want to get entangled in a shipping thread since I'm perfectly
happy with Ron and Hermione as a couple, and I saw Ginny/Harry coming
from the moment Mrs. Weasley showed up with a little girl who was too
young to go to Hogwarts, but I want to make one quick point.

For about ten months of every year, Hogwarts is essentially a closed
world. The only young people the students see during their entire
school career are fellow students. (The Durmstrang and Beauxbatons
students were a special case.) The students they know best are those
in their own year and their own House. We shouldn't be surprised if
two kids from the same House marry right out of Hogwarts. It happened
with the Potters; it happened with the Weasleys. The Malfoys were in
the same House if not in the same year; same with the Lestranges. I'm
guessing that it's the norm, especially for purebloods, some of whom
would marry a Muggleborn or a Half-blood but probably wouldn't marry a
Muggle even if they met one. (Maybe George will marry the girl he
showed his card tricks to, but I doubt it.)

There's no college to attend in the WW. Kids (unless they're so rich
they don't need to work) get a job (or train for one) right out of
Hogwarts. The WW considers them adults at seventeen.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to have Ron and Hermione marry as soon
as they finish school (though they may be delayed a year because of
Voldemort and the Horcruxes and have to wait till they're nineteen
instead of eighteen).

Setting aside Ron and Hermione, who else is Harry likely to meet that
he'll like better than Ginny? He's paid attention to exactly two
girls, and the first was an adolescent crush based solely on looks
(and a common interest in Quidditch). Ginny also plays Quidditch,
she's spent a lot of time with Harry for someone not in his year
(including the MoM battle), he considers her funny and attractive, and
she never cries (unlike "the human hosepipe"). Sure, Ginny could die
in Book 7, but I don't think she's going to. And I can't see him
marrying anyone else if they both survive. Luna? Lavender Brown?
Parvati Patil? There's no foreshadowing of any of those relationships.
And Harry himself is concerned about being the outsider in Ron's and
Hermione's relationship. He never feels jealous of Ron, only afraid
that the three-way friendship will fall apart.

The difference between Ron's experience and Harry's, IMO, is that a
deep and abiding affection for Hermione, mixed with a physical
attraction to her that Harry doesn't share, crept up on him unawares.
Hermione knew it long before he did, but when she finally spoke out
after the Yule Ball, he still didn't recognize his own feelings. It
took being attacked by her birds and nearly being poisoned for him to
finally figure it out. But it also took a shallow, purely physical
relationship with Lavender for him to understand that there's more to
love, even if you're sixteen or seventeen, than "snogging." I think
they'll marry at the first opportunity, as soon as they finish their
seventh year and the battle against Voldemort. I'm 100 percent sure
that's what JKR had in mind with her Erised answer last night, and I'm
99 percent sure it will happen.

Harry, in contrast, recognizes jealousy when he feels it and avoids
lashing out at Dean and Ginny much as he wants to. Once it dawns on
him that he likes her (I'm not saying that he loves her), he examines
his feelings and realizes that if it comes to a choice between her and
Ron, he'll choose Ron, but he'd rather have both. and once DD dies and
Harry goes into "marked man" mode, he's wise enough to put the
relationship aside so that Voldemort (ostensibly) can't use her
against him and he won't be distracted from the terrible things he now
has to do. Once Voldemort is defeated, he'll have the luxury of being
JustHarry, with plenty of time for the relationship to develop at its
own pace. Ginny is not my favorite character by any means, but it's
clear that that's where JKR is going, assuming that they both live.

As for JKR being "arrogant" about the shippers, I think the blame lies
mostly with the person who asked the question (yes, I know who it
was). That particular answer should have been treated as part of a
private conversation, IMO. JKR has the right to think whatever she
likes about her fans, some of whom can be rather scary, but both
she and the person asking the question should perhaps have been a bit
more discreet knowing that Harry/Hermione Shippers would be reading
the interview. I *do* think she dropped anvil-sized hints (and the
films picked up on them with her approval). Ask any twelve- or
thirteen-year-old fan whether it's Ron or Harry who likes Hermione as
more than a friend. I'd be very surprised if the kid got it wrong
(meaning "wrong" according to what JKR has revealed).

Carol, surprised that she had so much to say on this topic since it's
one of the few that seems beyond debate










From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 02:25:39 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:25:39 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco)
In-Reply-To: <eatv6e+6b8h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaub73+ake1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156468

Carol wrote: 
> Regarding the real Slytherin, the one that JKR says we don't see
> because we see Slytherin from the vantage point of the DE's children
> (not to mention Harry's pov, which JKR doesn't mention), I'm 
wondering
> if the Slytherin traits that Dumbledore attributes to Harry in CoS 
can
> be taken to mean that Slytherin isn't all bad and Harry really would
> have done well in Slytherin (if Draco and Hagrid together hadn't
> prejudiced him against it from Day One): "resourcefulness,
> determination, and a cetain disregard for rules" (CoS Am. ed. 333).
> According to DD, Salazar Slytherin valued those traits in his 
students
> (though, oddly, the Sorting Hat doesn't mention the first two--I can
> see why DD wouldn't want it to mention the third).

zgirnius:
I think that resourcefulness and determination are qualities 
synonymous with those described by the Sorting Hat in its song in 
PS/SS:

"Or perhaps in Slytherin 
You'll make your real friends, 
Those cunning folks use any means 
To achieve their ends. "

This is often interpreted as meaning Slytherins are all self-serving 
and unprincipled. However, the verse does not actually assert that 
the 'ends' towards which Slytherins strive must be self-serving. 
Supposing a Slytherin had some positive goal he wanted to achieve, 
this verse certainly suggests he would pursue it with resourcefulness 
and determination. (And probably also a certain desregard for the 
rules. <G>)







From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Aug  4 02:37:08 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 02:37:08 -0000
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
In-Reply-To: <388.8ede2c4.3203bc9a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eaubsk+q0od@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156469

Neil:

> Would  someone just explain why they want to be together?

houyhnhnm:

Uh ... Muggleborn Hermione wants to feel that she 
really belongs in and is accepted by the WW. Who 
could be better to attach herself to than the 
pureblooded, but Muggle-friendly Weasleys? Ron 
sees someone who's bossy enough to stand up to his family?






From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug  3 14:03:27 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (Ryan Ace)
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 07:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: SHIP/Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030624w4db4b6ces9604c94afd53b2b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060803140327.95162.qmail@web37902.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156470


Jordan Abel <random832 at gmail.com> wrote:
I think the point was that the belief that, after HBP, H/G is "the one
true way" (as JKR apparently does) is based on an inherently flawed
assumption that "high school romances always become life long
relationships".

Ryan:
I think Jo's comments have much more to do with Ron/Hermione than with Harry/Ginny being the "one true way."
   
  Ryan
         







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug  4 03:23:17 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 03:23:17 -0000
Subject: Harry and "shipping"
In-Reply-To: <eatlfd+bucp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eauej5+bsvu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156471

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Let me pose a question. Why does Harry have to be linked in that way 
> with anyone at the present time?
> 

No reason at all really. Like you I was married at age 31. For all he knows 
his true soul mate is attending the Salem Witches Institute even as we
speak and he won't meet her until the 2012 World Cup which as we know
will be held in a bowl magically hollowed out of the middle of Lake 
Michiagan. I don't think his creator will let him marry an American though.

Ken






From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 04:30:09 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:30:09 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eatioa+qdnj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eauigh+9hk4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156472

 
> laurawkids wrote:
> > Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having 
> > *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously clean home, 
and  identifies her self worth too closely with it.  She also really 
> > seems to obey the master of the house.  She has her own kind of 
> > magic ; )  !  
> 
I'm not completely sold on the idea either...

HOWEVER, given Dobby's admiration of Harry... I wouldn't be surprised 
if there was some "elfblood" on his maternal family's side....

I still think that Petunia is neither witch nor squib.... but  one who 
has chosen to live as a muggle..(wizard arrogance is so great that 
they haven't a word for these types(although mrs. weasley may call 
them "nutters")....but in a way, poor soul....she convinced herself 
that she turned her back on her "witchiness" out of 1. jealousy of her 
sister....2. out of getting a "catch" like Vernon! (shudder).  Perhaps 
Harry never had a god mother because Lily always wanted her sister to 
be a god mother..(what would have convinced Petunia as we know her 
NOW...to accept Harry into her home years ago?!?)

I think Lily and Petunia are closer than we may have previously 
thought..I also think it will be petunia showing latent magical 
abilities. (see...if she had it all along she is not a witch..and if 
she had elf blood she is not a squib....and even if she is....well...a 
squib is someone born of a wizarding family...This would explain 
the "Lily's eyes clue"....Is Harry related to Dobby?(I don't think so) 
But JKR told us someone would be doing magic rather late in 
life....which leads me to believe that it will be either Petunia or 
Dudley!

Wouldn't this be the most fitting end for the Dursleys???---that their 
son could do magic??? LOL

However that leave too many loose ends...which turns me back to 
dudley...

This leads to some interesting questions/dilemmas...

If Harry has houself blood in his veins he could apparate in and out 
of hogwarts.(I'd like this to be one of DD's blunders seeing as there 
would be no climax to HBP..especially since apparently voldy couldn't 
get there so he had snape do it.....) I do love how DD makes Snape pay 
for the liberties he took...(there has to be a reason why Snape wanted 
the DADA teaching position...)Why would snape want this? Is there 
something in the DADA office?

Anyhoo getting off topic.....IMHO it comes down to either Petunia or 
Dudders who are going to do magic "later in life".  Is this why 
Petunia caters to 'Dudders" so much?

Doddie









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 04:54:36 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:54:36 -0000
Subject: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <20060803133811.53302.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eaujuc+sfi1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156473

Reading some of the reactions to the comments by JKR regarding 
the `shippings',  I am rather amazed at what seems to be happening 
here.  It is as if we have forgotten that these folks are not real.  
JKR has written the characters and the WW in such a way that fans argue 
that she can't possible know what Ron or Hermione or Harry or Ginny 
will feel after they leave Hogwarts.  lol!!  Yes, she can!  She is 
writing the book.  She is their creator, of course she is the final 
authority on what will happen and who will be with who.   

I understand that sometimes a book might `write itself', but Rowling 
has a reason for her main shippings, IMO. And no matter what, that is 
the way it will come out in the end.  

Tonks-op








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 05:19:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:19:50 -0000
Subject: Snape and DADA (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eauigh+9hk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eauldm+d2cs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156474

Doddiemoemoe wrote:


<snip>(there has to be a reason why Snape wanted 
> the DADA teaching position...)Why would snape want this? Is there 
> something in the DADA office? <snip>

Carol responds:
Sorry to snip your Petunia post, but I think Petunia is a Muggle like
Vernon, as we've been told in every book. The narrator can't be *that*
unreliable! Also, how could Lily be a Muggleborn if one parent was a
House-elf? (I can't even imagine such a marriage, actually, or where a
Muggle would meet one.)

But regarding Snape: I think you're forgetting an important detail. He
uses his old office in the dungeons, not the DADA office that Umbridge
and the other DADA teachers used. So whatever his reasons for wanting
DADA, that isn't one of them.

However, we have conflicting accounts. Hagrid says in CoS that
Lockhart was the only one who applied for the post, and in OoP we have
a similar story about Umbridge, IIRC. And yet Snape tells Umbridge
that he's applied every year for the post. Does he really do that or
does he only want people to think that he does? Is it just a
formality, something he and DD agreed on when DD gave Snape the
Potions position and kept doing later in case Voldemort came back and
asked questions?

Snape *must* know that the position is jinxed/cursed, considering the
fates of the previous DADA teachers (including quite a few before
Harry enters Hogwarts). So if he's really applying and really wants
the job, it must be because he's an expert in the subject and thinks
he can do a better job than the people who are actually hired. He must
also think that he can somehow defeat the jinx on the position. (IF
he's ESE!, of course, he just wants to get out of Hogwarts and go back
to being a DE, and a jinxed class would serve that purpose--if it
didn't kill him instead.)

Seriously, I think Snape had mixed feelings about the class. He knew
he'd be good at it, but he also knew it was jinxed. I think that he
and DD had an arrangement: He would teach Potions until the time came
when DD really needed Snape and only Snape to teach DADA. DD could
have hired Snape and prevented Umbridge from invading Hogwarts, but he
felt that the time hadn't come.

But after the battle at the MoM, with Voldie back in his body and no
longer sidetracked by the Prophecy, DD knew it was time that the
students had the best available DADA teacher--not the real Mad-Eye or
a Ministry teacher, but someone who knew both DADA and the Dark Arts
inside out, and was familiar with Voldemort as well. And note that
Snape *does* teach them what they need to know, both on a practical
and a theoretical level, without demonstrating any Unforgiveable Curses. 

There were other considerations as well, some of them comparatively
minor but still important. DD wanted Slughorn at Hogwarts for that
memory and to protect him, and Slughorn was a Potions teacher not a
DADA teacher. He also happened to be the former HoH of Slytherin when
Snape inevitably lost his job at the end of the year. And DD wanted
Harry to take NEWT Potions without having to antagonize Snape by
ordering him to let Harry into the class. And Snape could perform the
DADA teacher's other duties, such as removing curses from cursed
objects and treating cursed students, better than Madam Pomfrey or
anyone else on the staff. But I think the clincher was that Voldemort
had ordered Draco to kill Dumbledore. I think Snape put all these
arguments together (except the Harry/Potions one) and made his case to
Dumbledore. "Hurry up, please. It's time." Now or never, Dumbledore.
And Dumbledore agreed with him.

Carol, who thinks that Dumbledore gave Snape the DADA class in what he
knew would be his own last year at Hogwarts as a sign of trust and
because he really needed him in that position







From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Fri Aug  4 07:40:02 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 07:40:02 -0000
Subject: More to Petunia than what we see
Message-ID: <eautki+gh5f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156475

I've been considering this bit from JKR's Radio City show.
She's stated before that neither Petunia nor Dudley will do magic, on 
her website.
Petunia obviously knows more about the wizarding world than she lets on.
'That awful boy..' statement, which we've argued for James or Severus, 
staying over one holiday.
What if the answer is that one of the times James and Lily defied Lord 
Voldemort was on an attack on Lily's family? Their parents didn't 
survive, but Petunia and Lily did, so Petunia has first-hand knowledge 
of what LV and Death Eaters are?
'That awful boy' may very well be Snape, but in an ambiguous role, 
where he is faced with what being a DE means, and _this_ is where he 
changes sides?
If his change of heart comes about after LV acts on The Prophecy, it's 
too late. We then get into the - did he hear all the prophecy and only 
tell the first part or did he only hear the first part, and all the 
problems that involves.
But if he's already DD's man by the time of telling The Prophecy, we 
don't have all this difficulty. All the Hog's Head business is eyewash.
Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria 






From random832 at gmail.com  Fri Aug  4 10:51:39 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 06:51:39 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eaujuc+sfi1@eGroups.com>
References: <20060803133811.53302.qmail@web61323.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <eaujuc+sfi1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608040351s69e1b213l7be691b8033c1950@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156476

Tonks-op:
> lol!!  Yes, she can!  She is writing the book.  She is their creator of course
> she is the final authority on what will happen and who will be with who.

The problem is if she decides something like that in advance, that
means that she's likely to try to "force" it even if the story tries
to go somewhere else. That's called bad writing - What you've
basically claimed is "she's the creator, so she has the right to write
badly". And, sure, she does, but that doesn't mean we have to accept
that it's the way it "should" be.

-- 
Random832



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Fri Aug  4 11:44:48 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:44:48 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eauigh+9hk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156477

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

<SNIP>
>> I think Lily and Petunia are closer than we may have previously 
> thought..I also think it will be petunia showing latent magical 
> abilities. (see...if she had it all along she is not a witch..and 
if 
> she had elf blood she is not a squib....and even if she 
is....well...a 
> squib is someone born of a wizarding family...This would explain 
> the "Lily's eyes clue"....Is Harry related to Dobby?(I don't think 
so) 
> But JKR told us someone would be doing magic rather late in 
> life....which leads me to believe that it will be either Petunia or 
> Dudley!
> 

The following Q&A appears on JKR's site;

'Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies.'
'No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she 
ever be able to do so.'

I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the 
possibility that it might be Dudley as well. The obvious candidate 
appears to be Filch. We even have evidence that he has taken a course 
to help bring out his magical qualities. I can imagine a situation 
where Voldemort & co enter Hogwarts (I'm still convinced the final 
confrontation will take place there) and Filch uses some magic to 
thwart them in some way - maybe even to get Harry out of a sticky 
situation.

It is also possible that it could be Mrs. Figg. Maybe Voldemort will 
descend on the Dursley's as Harry turns 17 (and the magical 
protection is lost) and 'Figgy' will help out.

I'd still bet my money on Filch though!

Brothergib








From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug  4 13:15:29 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:15:29 -0000
Subject: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608040351s69e1b213l7be691b8033c1950@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eavh9h+f3o3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156478

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Tonks-op:
> > lol!!  Yes, she can!  She is writing the book.  She is their 
creator of course
> > she is the final authority on what will happen and who will be with 
who.
> 
>Random832 wrote:
> The problem is if she decides something like that in advance, that
> means that she's likely to try to "force" it even if the story tries
> to go somewhere else. That's called bad writing - What you've
> basically claimed is "she's the creator, so she has the right to write
> badly". And, sure, she does, but that doesn't mean we have to accept
> that it's the way it "should" be.
> 
> 

colebiancardi now:

well, does that mean "we" don't have to accept whatever she writes in 
book 7?  for example, if she makes Snape ESE, do I still have the right 
not to accept that that's the way it "should" be?

come on - it is her creation and I guess I don't understand the 
shippers who state this was forced on them(H/G or R/H).  I loathe 
the "Snape loves Lily" theory, but if that is what JKR writes as 
the "reason" for Snape's loyality, then I will accept it.

colebiancardi











From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug  4 13:52:56 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:52:56 -0000
Subject: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <eaujuc+sfi1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavjfo+kipn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156479

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> Reading some of the reactions to the comments by JKR regarding 
> the `shippings',  I am rather amazed at what seems to be happening 
> here.  It is as if we have forgotten that these folks are not real.  
> JKR has written the characters and the WW in such a way that fans argue 
> that she can't possible know what Ron or Hermione or Harry or Ginny 
> will feel after they leave Hogwarts.  lol!!  Yes, she can!  She is 
> writing the book.  She is their creator, of course she is the final 
> authority on what will happen and who will be with who.   
> 
> I understand that sometimes a book might `write itself', but Rowling 
> has a reason for her main shippings, IMO. And no matter what, that is 
> the way it will come out in the end.  
> 
> Tonks-op
>

Ken:

I can't speak for others and I am not a shipper anyway but that is not
what I was saying. Of course JKR knows where she intends to take the
story and she has the right to finish the work she created according
to her artistic vision. The thing I am reacting to is her, some would
prefer the word incredulity and I will go along with that, with those
who persist in shipping H/H. Her comments about this indicate that she
feels these people are ignoring the plain clues, anvils some would
say, in the books as well as her own statements in interviews.

My response to this is simply that not everyone who falls into a
chance to pose her a question on these matters face to face, and not
everyone who discusses these matters on groups like this, is familiar
with her statements in previous interviews. Furthermore while it
should be plain in the books where things are *headed* anyone with any
experience in life or with reading works of fiction knows that setting
a chain of events in motion is not the same as achieving the expected
result. Fate will frequently intervene to deflect the course of our
lives. No where is this more common than in romance.

So those who persist in shipping H/H are not *necessarily* poor
readers or dim bulbs. They may be unware of the comments JKR has made
outside the books and they may be all too aware that an author who so
likes to trick readers could have some surprises in store related to
who ends up with who. Besides, can we be certain that an author who
delights in playing the unreliable narrator on the page does not do so
in person too? Can we be certain that if she is still making changes
as basic as who lives and who dies that she will not also change the
final pairings? How *can* she be sure herself? The answer is that she
cannot be sure herself until she has approved the manuscript for
publication. Once the presses have started rolling even she is
unlikely to have enough clout to stop them. Up until then even she
cannot say with 100% certainty how this story ends.

I don't really care about shipping or anything else in the final book
in the sense that I have plot expectations that I feel JKR must meet
to satisfy me. I think it is fun to speculate on and to try to second
guess her intentions. She can take the story anywhere she feels it
needs to go and as long as she can sell it to me in a convincing
fashion I will be satisfied with the ending. And with some major
exceptions she has been able to do that well enough so far that I
genuinely enjoy the previous books and so I have reason to hope that
the conclusion will satisfy too.

Ken







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Aug  4 14:49:09 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:49:09 -0000
Subject: Slytherins (was Re: /Hurt/comfort/Elkins post about Draco)
In-Reply-To: <eatv6e+6b8h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavmp5+df87@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156480

 
> Carol responds:
> At any rate, *one* of the lessons Harry needs to learn is tolerance!
> Another (IMO) is that the pursuit of vengeance is evil in itself.
> 
> That aside, I agree with your post, except that I'm not quite sure
> that I understand the last two sentences. Wrong about Gryffindor in
> what respect? And I don't understand what you mean about being wrong
> without having doubts.
<snip>
> 
> Carol, wondering how Dumbledore could be so objective about Slytherin
> in that scene yet still imply Harry's choice of Gryffindor *in itself*
> indicates that he's better than the young Tom Riddle
>
Pippin:
Maybe Harry's reasons for rejecting Slytherin don't matter as much
to Dumbledore as the fact that Harry wanted his choice considered
at all. 

Riddle/Voldemort talks a lot about his destiny, which  shows us
he doesn't want to have choices. He wants to think there's something 
making his choices for him. He easily accepts that he's a wizard, and 
easily lets the Hat choose his House "almost the moment the Sorting 
Hat touched his head." Harry did not "choose Gryffindor", but he
was not entirely willing to have the Hat choose for him, and that in
itself shows that he was a different sort of person than Riddle. 

We may suppose that Harry rejected Slytherin for the same reason
that he rejected the Nimbus 2001: he didn't want anything Draco
thought was good. He is going to have to modify that attitude if
he is ever to accept the Slytherins  as  rightful members of the
Hogwarts community instead of a necessary evil. OTOH, I don't
think JKR is a multi-culturist where ethics are concerned. She
really does believe that some ethical systems are better than others,
and specifically that Gryffindor chivalry is better than Slytherin
opportunism. 

But I think Harry will see that there is a paradox: the path towards
unity is in accepting difference rather than trying to force it out of 
existence. 

Harry needs to find a way of thought that will allow 
him to believe that his house ethic  is superior and yet treat 
the others, including Slytherin, as his equals. We don't know of 
course how he would do this, but there is a clue, it seems to me, 
in what Dumbledore is constantly saying in HBP -- that although he 
feels very sure of what he is telling Harry, he could be wrong. 

This is not doubt  in the sense that Dumbledore is questioning
his beliefs. He simply accepts that they might be questioned.
It seems to me that is the secret of Dumbledore's tolerance. He
has the humility to accept that his choices may be wrong, and so
where others have a choice, his moral duty is to let them 
choose freely,  even when he is sure his choices would be better. 

Pippin







From scarrie5 at verizon.net  Thu Aug  3 04:30:43 2006
From: scarrie5 at verizon.net (Carrie)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2006 04:30:43 -0000
Subject: Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <006001c6b69f$0aee6a10$0b86400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <earu5j+uonu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156481

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> Magpie:
> You know, after 6 books I think this wears a little thin.  I
> know JKR said all Slytherins aren't Draco, but we've actually
> seen more Slytherins than we've seen most houses and they're
> all usually doing something negative.  I don't feel like I'm
> seeing a tiny sliver of Slytherin in the books, even if I don't
> know all of them.  <snip>

Maybe we've only seen the Slytherins that are doing something not to
Harry's liking.  Maybe the other Slytherins are just nondescript and
don't do anything that attracts Harry's attention (because we usually
see Harry's POV).

> <snip> Seems to me it's set up that healing the rift is a lot
> harder than just meeting a nice person in a green tie seventh
> year.  I'd rather see the Slytherins we know and the Gryffindors
> we know have to work together.  Harry can still have gotten things
> wrong about them.

I agree. Because JKR has stressed a few times through the sorting
hat that the 4 houses need to unite, I believe that the Slytherins
in book 7 will somehow come around to the other 3 houses opinion of
LV.  I'm not sure how this will happen whether personal family
members getting killed by LV and/or DE's or because the 7th
year 'leader' Draco is not around to influence their opinions.
Crabbe and Goyle, IMO, will be very lost without Draco.  If Draco
does die because he didn't kill DD, then I don't think Pansy will be
very happy about LV and might want some sort of revenge.
Just my opinion.

Carrie










From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug  4 04:53:13 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 04:53:13 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eatjtq+o9c8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaujrp+9pea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156482

Wow!  I guess I now know what Yahoomort does...he kills your post if
you try to preview and then edit it...I saw a flash of green light...

> Laurawkids wrote:
> > I have finally put together a theory that hits close to home
> > (I hope I am not just redoing someone else's idea)...
> >
> > Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for
> > having *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously
> > clean home, and identifies her self worth too closely with it.
> > She also really seems to obey the master of the house.  She has
> > her own kind of magic ; )  !
> > She would not know about it though

New comment by Laurawkids:   I am proposing that she had a great
grandma or pa elf, but has no ability to use elfin magic.  She does
have a deep, driving need to keep a clean house, and make the men
(sans Harry) very good or at least copious food.  This drive is what
is left of the effects of the elf blood.  She happens to be on the
thin side, despite all the food that must be made to keep the
Dudders and old Vern so well rounded.  Maybe it's hereditary.

> Laurawkids:
> > and could discover it as follows:
> >
> > With JKR's remarks tonight about wand use, it got me to
> > thinking. If a Half-Blood-Elf-Petunia were to try to wield
> > Harry's wand in an emergency, she would be sent an owl
> > informing her that she had broken the ban on wand use by
> > non-wizards.  <snip>
>
> hpfan_mom now:
> <snip>
> But I am a little concerned about how JKR responded to the rumor
> that Petunia "will start exhibiting magical tendencies:"
>
> "No, she won't.  Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will
> she ever be able to do so."
>
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37

Laurawkids:  Right, Petunia will only be holding Harry's wand, which
will do some sort of magic, and cause some sort of "nasty accident".
Now we would know it was Harry's wand doing the magic, but if he
were out of range for some reason, the Winky-inspired-elf-doing-
magic-with-a-wand-detector would dispatch an owl.  The letter would
be clearly labeled for Petunia, and accuse her.  Harry being caught
for Dobby's magic can parallel Petunia being caught for Harry's
wand's magic.
Here are what I'm taking this from:

"She also said that people had wondered what would happen if a
Muggle got his/her hands on a wand. I think she said that there
would probably be an accident, but I don't seem to have gotten that
down in my notes." Fan report of NY reading event from Miriam for
Mugglenet

"JKR did say that a Muggle would probably have a nasty accident if
he came into contact with a wand. She explained this being due to
the fact that she views a wand as an extension of its wizard owner,
or a focus of the wizard's powers (or something along those lines)."
by Josh, on Mugglenet at bottom of Miriam's report

> hpfan_mom:
> I'm at work and don't have my books with me but maybe there's an
> out for JKR in that explanation we get about a house-elf's brand
> of magic and how they can disapparate within Hogwarts to perform
> their work.  However, stating categorically that Petunia will
> never perform magic, then making her part-elf and gleefully
> crying, "I meant wizard magic, not house-elf magic!" seems a bit
> tricky, even for her.

Laurawkids:
Right, she should not get to let Petunia do magic of her own after
saying these things.

> hpfan_mom, trying SO hard not to picture the union that would
> result in a half-blood elf . . .

You already have canon to help you picture a little: Hagrid's Dad
and his really really big boned Wife.  ; )  I mean c'mon...what's
the point?!!

Laura










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 17:10:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:10:59 -0000
Subject: Who will perform magic "late in life"? (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavv33+dhre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156483

Brothergib wrote: 
> The following Q&A appears on JKR's site;
> 
> 'Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies.'
> 'No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she 
> ever be able to do so.'
> 
> I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the 
> possibility that it might be Dudley as well. The obvious candidate 
> appears to be Filch. We even have evidence that he has taken a
course to help bring out his magical qualities. I can imagine a
situation where Voldemort & co enter Hogwarts (I'm still convinced the
final confrontation will take place there) and Filch uses some magic
to thwart them in some way - maybe even to get Harry out of a sticky 
> situation.
> 
> It is also possible that it could be Mrs. Figg. Maybe Voldemort will 
> descend on the Dursley's as Harry turns 17 (and the magical 
> protection is lost) and 'Figgy' will help out.
> 
> I'd still bet my money on Filch though!

Carol responds:
I agree with you that it's not Petunia or Dudley (who hardly qualifies
for the "quite late in life" part of the prediction, anyway), but I'll
take you up on your bet if you'll settle for a stale ginger newt
rather than money--not a single bronze knut to my name and I wouldn't
bet real money for fear that I might be wrong! My candidate is and
always has been Mrs. Figg.

While we have Filch's mail-order magic course as evidence that he's
tried and failed to do magic, we also have Mrs. Figg's repeated
assertions to Harry, "Haven't I told you I can't do magic?" and "I
can't so much as Transfigure a tea bag" to indicate that she, too, has
attempted magic and failed. Both of them know how a wand is used and
probably know some spells, but Mrs. Figg also has courage and
determination (shown throughout the aftermath of the Dementor attack)
and will be in "desperate circumstances" indeed if she's at 4 Privet
Drive when the DEs attack (as I predict they will) at midnight on July
30/31, the point when the protective magic expires. Much as I would
love to see Mrs. Figg battering Bellatrix Lestrange or Antonin Dolohov
with a sackful of catfood cans, I don't believe she'd survive the
encounter. But if she grabbed a dropped wand and screamed a simple
spell--"Stupefy!" or "Petrificus Totalus!" she might just get
results--rather like a woman lifting a car out of a ditch as the
result of an adrenaline rush in RL--I really did that when I was
twenty and alone in a pine forest, where I didn't want to starve or
freeze to death, thank you.

Both Filch and Mrs. Figg seem to have a magical connection to cats
that sets them apart from Muggles (along with a knowledge of the WW
that no Muggle can have, even one whose sister was a witch), so I
agree that the person who performs magic late in life will be one of
them. The respective ages also fit the prediction better than they fit
Petunia, who is probably somewhere near forty. (They could even be
sister and brother since they have the same initials--compare Amycus
and Alecto--and Mrs. Figg's tartan slippers match the tartan scarf or
whatever it was that Filch wore when he had a headcold. I'm not
betting on that connection, though, as the "evidence" is so trivial
and has nothing to do with the prediction.) The chief difference is
that Filch is ashamed of being a Squib and tries to hide it whereas
Mrs. Figg states it openly and almost flaunts it: "Haven't I told you
I'm a Squib, boy?" And of course, Mrs. Figg is an Order member and
unequivocally a "good guy," whereas Filch is perhaps pitiable but has
yet to show any admirable qualities other than affection for his cat.
(He supported Umbridge and seems to have no opinion one way or the
other on Voldemort.)

IMO, Mrs. Figg doth protest too much. Her words strike me in the same
way that the narrator's "He [Harry] would never forgive Snape. Never!"
does--i.e., an overly strong assertion likely to be disproven in later
books. Also, I think that most young readers would get more
satisfaction from seeing magic performed by the batty old cat lady who
was snubbed at Harry's hearing than seeing it performed by the mean
old caretaker who wanted to flog the Twins and kept chains in his
office in hopes that the old punishments would be restored.

Carol, wondering whether Apollyon Pringle, the caretaker before Filch,
was also a Squib and that's what made him so cruel (Arthur Weasley
still has the scars from the whipping Pringle gave him)







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug  4 05:36:44 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 05:36:44 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eauigh+9hk4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eaumdc+2fii@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156484

Doddie:
> <snip>
> I still think that Petunia is neither witch nor squib.... but one
> who has chosen to live as a muggle...<snip>
>
> I also think it will be Petunia showing latent magical abilities.
> (See...if she had it all along she is not a witch..and if she had
> elf blood she is not a squib....and even if she is....well...a
> squib is someone born of a wizarding family...This would explain
> the "Lily's eyes clue"....Is Harry related to Dobby? (I don't
> think so.)

Laurawkids:  No I don't think so either.  I'm proposing Petunia is
a half-sister to Lily, and the elf blood comes from the parent they
do not share.

> Doddie:
> But JKR told us someone would be doing magic rather late in
> life....which leads me to believe that it will be either Petunia
> or Dudley!

Laurawkids:
It can't be Petunia actually doing the magic:
JKR says, "Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she ever
be able to do so."

from http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/rumours_view.cfm?id=37

> Doddie:
> Wouldn't this be the most fitting end for the Dursleys???---that
> their son could do magic??? LOL

Laurawkids: an early interview has this question and Jo's response:

"I want to know what Dudley does with his life.

That is a question I would love to answer, but it will ruin some
surprises. I will only say that Dudley's privileged existence starts
to change for the worse in Book 4."
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0399-...

It might point to him as the one who does magic late in life.  That
would certainly make them change positions on how they feel about
magic.

OOOHHHH, if it happened in the summertime, Dudders could go to
Hogwarts and be an Ickle Firstie when Harry is in his 7th.  He could
meet all of Harry's friends and favorite animals!  hahaha  He could
get locked in a Chamber under the School just as Harry was locked in
a Closet under the Stairs.

Laurawkids - who does like to be mean to storybook characters









From mros at xs4all.nl  Fri Aug  4 07:48:42 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 09:48:42 +0200
Subject: Ron & Hermione / Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
References: <eaubsk+q0od@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001501c6b79a$689241e0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156485

Neil:

> Would someone just explain why they want to be together? <

houyhnhnm:

> Uh ... Muggleborn Hermione wants to feel that she 
really belongs in and is accepted by the WW. Who 
could be better to attach herself to than the 
pureblooded, but Muggle-friendly Weasleys? Ron 
sees someone who's bossy enough to stand up to his family?<


Marion:

More likely Ron sees someone who reminds him of his mother.  :-)









From chrissilein at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 08:48:54 2006
From: chrissilein at yahoo.com (chrissilein)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 08:48:54 -0000
Subject: This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?
Message-ID: <eav1lm+q5ou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156486

 This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.

Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
(Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. Now
(unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. Harry
then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to see,
everything follows from this. (Cheering)

Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going to
have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.

Here to find:
http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=370#

Chrissi







From whtwitch91 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 11:00:09 2006
From: whtwitch91 at yahoo.com (whtwitch91)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 11:00:09 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONSUSES
Message-ID: <eav9bp+bt9d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156487

JustCarol wrote:
>Can you quote the canon that you nterprt as indicating that a 
>Patronus form and the animagus form are identical?<

Nowhere in the books is there a statment that the patronus and 
animagus forms are the same, but in PoA, PB Ammerican edition, pp427-
428, DD is talking to Harry about how much Harry resembles his 
father. "Your father is alive in you....How else could you produce 
that particular Patronus?" And a few sentences later DD says"Last 
night Sirius tole me all about how they because Animagi ...And then 
I remember the most unusual form your patronus took when it charged 
Mr. Malfoy..."  

DD was comparing Harry's patronus to James' Animagus form. Had he 
seen James' Patronus form? Not that we know of, but to say "You did 
seen you father last night ... Youd found him inside yourself" 
implies to me that the root source that produces both forms is one 
and the same and would produce the same form.  DD expects them to be 
the same.

Would they both change? Yes, they would have to, but it would take
a massive change in the nature of the character.

After hearing Jo's statement that DD was truly dead I realize that a 
lot of the inferences I have made about these characters and their 
possible actions in Book Seven are based on a very fagile set of 
inferences. A set a inferences led me to conclude that DD was still 
alive, and that was obviously an error. I wonder what else I got 
wrong. Maybe I'm wrong about this, too.

Sue, still reeling from the fact that DD is truly dead

















From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug  4 12:33:14 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:33:14 -0000
Subject: Owls
Message-ID: <eaveqa+bnja@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156488

Hi everyone, I dont know if this has been spotted before but I just
thought I'd throw this out there.

I have decided to completely re-read the entire series so that I can
keep up with all your marvelous theories. I am in my lunch break at
work and am determined to take in every word as you lot keep
catching me out!

I have got to the second page of the first book and noticed
something that didn't even register before. The morning we first
meet the Dursleys an owl 'flutter(S) past the window' and then we
follow Vernon off to work leaving Petunia home with Dudley. Was this
a letter for her? Did she receive some correspondance from a wizard
that day? Surely it wasn't Dumbledore as he felt he needed to leave
a letter explaining everything that had happened later that day.

Any ideas on who Petunia would be corresponding with in the WW
while her husband was at work???

Tinktonks









From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug  4 12:18:48 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 12:18:48 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavdv8+mh0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156489

Brothergib says:

>> The following Q&A appears on JKR's site;

'Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies.'
'No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she
ever be able to do so.'

I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the
possibility that it might be Dudley as well. The obvious candidate
appears to be Filch. We even have evidence that he has taken a
course to help bring out his magical qualities. <snip>

It is also possible that it could be Mrs. Figg. <snip> <<


Tinktonks says:

I recall reading somewhere that JK Rowling has told us that the
Kwikspell course was unsuccessful for Filch.

Is there any point in the books where Madam Pince the librarian uses
magic? I dont recall any? In line with JKR's magnificient ability of
nmentioning people in a way in which makes us think they are
unimportant and overlooking them I'd bet a fake Weasley wand on it
being her.

She is mentioned on several occasion throughout the series but never
with any real consequence. Is this JKR using that fabulous literary
device mentioned in other posts? (Chechov's gun is it?)

Any takers?

Tinktonks









From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug  4 17:30:43 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:30:43 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eav1lm+q5ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156490

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrissilein" <chrissilein at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.
> 
> Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. 
Now
> (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
Harry
> then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to 
see,
> everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> 
> Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going 
to
> have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
> 
> Here to find:
> http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=370#
> 


oh SO KEWL!!!   I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but the 
opinion(theory) is Snape is good.  And she verifies it.  She discards 
the DD is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit and 
spell it out(that was his proposal, not opinion)

colebiancardi
(DDM!Snape!! :) )







From divaleder at tds.net  Fri Aug  4 13:08:00 2006
From: divaleder at tds.net (divaleder)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:08:00 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <009301c6b752$bbe07ad0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <eavgrg+109ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156491

> > laurawkids wrote:
> <snip> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify
> > for having *more* to her (humanness).  She keeps a suspiciously
> > clean home, and identifies her self worth too closely with
> > it.  She also really seems to obey the master of the house.
> > She has her own kind of magic ; )  !
> >
> > abergoat offers:
> <snip> Petunia seems to be personally scared of Voldemort and
> seemed unpleasantly surprised that the protection on the house
> would end a year earlier than expected; <snip> and finally, JKR
> tells us we will see more of the Dursleys in book 7.
>
> Rebecca now:
> <snip> I *do* take note of the fact twice JKR's response about
> Petunia has been consistent: there's more to Petunia "than meets
> the eye."  So, if you recall, Harry's POV more than once is that
> Petunia looks nothing like Lily.  What if this is by design,
> specifically that Petunia's looks have been magically altered in
> some way by Dumbledore so she doesn't resemble Lily, at least to
> wizards? The protection afforded the Durselys takes on a double
> meaning by Harry's return there every year reinforcing Petunia's
> visage if she is indeed being disguised.

divaleder:
This is my first time in the group!!  I'm new in your magical posting!!

My thoughts on this entire line of reasoning:
1. Aunt Petunia does not have house elf blood in her.  That would be
absurd.  She is a muggle, just like her husband and son, but she knows
something either that she overheard from her sister or she knows
something Lily told her, or Lily has made her a secret keeper or she
somehow has other information the magical community had the Potters
give her.  She may not even know she has any information she is
carrying around her.

2.  Snape did not take the DADA job because he thought he could break
the jinx.  DD gave Snape the job knowing that because of the jinx it
would be the perfect cover to have Snape finish him off and then leave
to infiltrate Voldemort's death eaters.  Snape has a job yet to
perform for DD.  All of this; DD death, Snape running off to
supposedly join the death eaters, etc. was planned by DD.  Remember
that DD knew he was dying anyway after he got the ring horcrux.

3.  If there is a connection between Snape and Aunt Petunia, it will
be that Snape will have to try to get the information Petunia has
either with the blessings of the OOTP or without it.  Because the OOTP
right now thinks Snape has betrayed them, my guess would be that he
will have to try getting it without them knowing at the beginning of
book 7, but in the end we will find out he is good and Petunia knows
more than she may even be aware of.

4.  Lastly, you can not apparate in or on the grounds of Hogwarts, so
Dobby did not apparate or disapparate there.  It says so in
"Hogwarts, a History."  That was put into the movie only.

divaleder








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 14:16:29 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:16:29 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eatr9p+kndm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavkrt+6ah2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156492


Carol wrote:
> Carol, who used to think that the dog-faced woman (Agnes) was Snape's
> mother and that her wicked husband cursed her, but JKR has thrown
> Vanishing Potion on that speculation by making Tobias a Muggle and
> giving the two women different first names

Abergoat asks:
But why give up on the idea that dog-faced woman is Snape's mother? I
think Voldemort transforming her has excellent possibilities. Why is
it that Dumbledore couldn't give any information Ravenclaw Horcrux
(ignoring the idea that it could have been a Gryffindor item) but
could on everything else? And JKR has told us that Harry knows more
than he thinks he does. And JKR very clearly showed that Voldemort
doesn't always kill horcrux victims (Morfin Gaunt). Eileen as the
holder of the Ravenclaw relic tidies up many things.

Abergoat









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 14:32:47 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:32:47 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavlqf+qamh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156493

Rebecca wrote:
> However, I *do* take note of the fact twice JKR's 
> response about Petunia has been consistent: there's
> more to Petunia "than meets the eye." 

Abergoat adds:
Given that 1) Dumbledore has sent Petunia at least one more letter
than we know about, 2) she seems personally frightened of Voldemort
and 3) her comment on that intriguing 'awful boy', Petunia
speculations are great fun. I'm sure there is a lot there. Dumbledore
doesn't seem the type to write letters for no reason. I think it is a
given that Dumbledore wrote to inform Petunia she was in danger from
Voldemort for some reason. It is the only way I can think of that
Petunia could be forced to house a nephew she so clearly resents.

Rebecca wrote:
> Rebecca, who recalls in this thread earlier that 
> someone mentioned Petunia never goes out - recalling 
> that she did once in PS/SS because Harry and Petunia 
> run into Diggle while shopping.

Abergoat asks:
Do you have the reference for that? Sounds interesting and I don't
remember anything about it.


AmanitaMuscaria wrote:
> What if the answer is that one of the times James and Lily defied 
> Voldemort was on an attack on Lily's family? Their parents didn't
> survive, but Petunia and Lily did, so Petunia has first-hand
> knowledge of what LV and Death Eaters are?

Abergoat says:
Interesting idea! I recall that JKR says that James's parent just
'died' but has she said anything about Lily's parents?

Brothergib wrote:
> The obvious candidate appears to be Filch. We even have 
> evidence that he has taken a course to help bring out his 
> magical qualities.

Abergoat agrees:
I agree completely with Filch as the one to do magic late in life but
I think he does it to hope someone he loves (Irma or Severus) not to
help Harry. Although it may well help Harry as an unplanned benefit.

Abergoat








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 15:13:19 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:13:19 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
Message-ID: <eavo6f+n02g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156494

I'm sure this idea isn't new, but I'll try it anyway.

While posting thoughts about Eileen Prince and her possible connection
to the Ravenclaw relic it hit me: the Hufflepuff Cup must still be
with the Smiths. Hepizbah clearly says her family cannot wait to get
their hands on it, so if the cup wasn't in the house after she died
they would have thrown a collective fit. Precisely the situation that
Tom Riddle wanted to avoid. 

But the Smith family didn't know Hepizbah HAD the locket. Only Burkes
(or was it Borgin?) knew that because he sold it to her. Hepizbah
clearly states this distinction between the two artifacts. I suspect
we will find that Mr B met an untimely demise very quickly after
Hepizbah's death. Which gives a nice reason why Tom Riddle gave up his
post at Borgin and Burkes shortly thereafter. 

So my point is Dumbledore COULD NOT handle the cup without tipping his
hand - the Smith family would be involved. And I think we can safely
say that the cup is not hidden or even dangerous to handle, although
destroying the horcrux it contains is a different story I'm sure.

So the cup should be relatively easy, either ask the Smith family for
it or have a true Hufflepuff pull it out of the hat. But it probably
needs to be done last because Voldemort is likely to find out about
the 'problem' from the howls of the Smith family.

Abergoat









From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug  4 14:58:55 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:58:55 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavnbf+eudp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156495

To begin, I am so frustrated with my posts disappearing!  I have
lost 3 now!  I have also been dumb and did not do anything to save
them on my side, so when they are lost, they are gone.  Blehhhhh  )
>(

Maybe without every comment included I can explain further?

I acknowledge that JKR said Petunia is not going to exhibit magic
ever.

I am going on the new comment that when a Muggle gets her hands on a
wand, something violent occurs.  From the transcript on QQQ of the
first reading:

"She also stated that if a muggle were to get their hands on a wand
then she would expect something 'accidental and violent' to be the
result of that, in a similar way as when a wizard uses someone
else's wand. She also went on to tease us slightly in saying that
there would be more in book 7 about the wizard's personal connection
to his/her wand."  JKR in NYC

I am proposing that there is a grand ma or pa elf.  Also that
Petunia and Lily are half-sisters, and that the elf is on the side
of the unshared parent.  Harry would not have the elf in him.

So someone, DE or any funny looking person, comes around when Harry
is out.  His wand is there, maybe because it dropped out of his
robes, or Dudders nicked it.  Petunia, remembering a spell she heard
Lily utter, tries to use the wand.  Something "accidental and
violent" happens.

There is not supposed to be magic in this home, Harry is too far
away to register as having been the culprit, and so then (thanks to
quick lawmaking) the new Winky-inspired-elf-using-wand-detector goes
off and sends an owl.  The letter accuses Petunia, next to the
settee, grand-daughter of Swiffy the elf, of doing magic with a
wizard's wand.  Vernon is NOT happy.

It detected magic of some sort ? Harry's residual power in the wand ?
 and put the wrong face to the action, just as Harry was accused of
Dobby's magic.

>abergoat offers:
>So it is an excellent bet that the Dursleys will go to Grimmauld
>Place. I hope this takes you somewhere!

Laurawkids:
Oh, yes!  Maybe Kreacher scavenged things from elsewhere when he
left the house, thus upping the ante.  Petunia is bound to be very
intent on cleaning the place up ? if only her friends could see her
there!  How ashamed she'd be!  She could not *possibly* allow Vernon
and Dudders to live in it uncleaned, even if it is keeping them
safe!  I imagine a huge pile of magical goodies emerging.  Maybe
there is an unexpected free-be Horcrux hidden in some cleaned-up
place!

>Doddie:
>HOWEVER, given Dobby's admiration of Harry... I wouldn't be
>surprised if there was some "elfblood" on his maternal family's
>side....

Laurawkids:  No, I was not suggesting that.  Already mentioned above.

>Doddie:
>But JKR told us someone would be doing magic rather late in
>life....which leads me to believe that it will be either Petunia or
>Dudley!
>Wouldn't this be the most fitting end for the Dursleys???---that
>their son could do magic??? LOL

Laurawkids: Petunia is out, and I'm not betting on Dudley, BUT


Would it not be too fun if Diddleydumpkins were to get to go to
Hogwarts and be an Ickle Firsty when Harry is in his 7th year?!
Somehow he could be locked in the *C*hamber  under the *S*chool just
as Harry was locked in the *C*loset under the *S*tairs.  All the
students and Grawp and Hagrid could jump up and down on the Castle
and make yukky globs of old Basilisk slime fall on him.  I do live
with 2 boys!

This was asked of JKR in 1999:

"I want to know what Dudley does with his life.
That is a question I would love to answer, but it will ruin some
surprises. I will only say that Dudley's privileged existence starts
to change for the worse in Book 4. "
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0399-
barnesandnoble.html
I don't think becoming as wide as he is tall is a surprise, nor
getting in to boxing.  There has to be something more to qualify as
a surprise she'd like to protect.  She has also said there is
nothing to him, but that could be more about his past than his
future.  Who knows?

>Brothergib:
>I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the
>possibility that it might be Dudley as well.

Laurawkids:  I guess I feel she has been cagey on Dudders and it is
50/50 chances that he will get some magic.

>Rebecca:
>So, if you recall, Harry's POV more
>than once is that Petunia looks nothing like Lily.

Laurawkids:  That is why I think she is a half-sister.

>Rebecca, who recalls in this thread earlier that someone
>mentioned Petunia never goes out - recalling that she did
>once in PS/SS because Harry and Petunia run into Diggle
>while shopping.

Laurawkids:  We could get around that if Vernon told her to take him
and go shopping.

>hpfan_mom, trying SO hard not to picture the union that would
>result in a half-blood elf . . .

Laurawkids, noting that we already have Hagrid's parents to picture ?
 tiny little man, big big big boned woman.  I mean c'mon.  What is
even the point?


















From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 16:59:28 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 16:59:28 -0000
Subject: Sorting Hat / Re: Slytherins
In-Reply-To: <earu5j+uonu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eavudg+d0b8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156496

Carrie <scarrie5 at ...> wrote:
> I agree. Because JKR has stressed a few times through the sorting
> hat that the 4 houses need to unite, I believe that the Slytherins
> in book 7 will somehow come around to the other 3 houses opinion of
> LV.  <snip>


Ryan:

I think The Sorting Hat's doing more than just stressing that the 4
houses need to unite.  Remember from his last song:

"I sort you into Houses
Because that is what I'm for,
But this year I'll go further,
Listen closely to my song:
Though condemned I am to split you
Still I worry that it's wrong,
Though I must fulfill my duty
And must quarter every year
Still I wonder whether sorting
May not bring the end I fear."

It seems more like The Sorting Hat's saying that the sorting itself
is (and has been?) a mistake.

Ryan










From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 17:10:12 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <009301c6b752$bbe07ad0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <20060804171012.40607.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156497



Rebecca now:

Tantalizing and intriguing, I'm not totally sold. However, I *do* take note 
of the fact twice JKR's response about Petunia has been consistent: there's 
more to Petunia "than meets the eye." So, if you recall, Harry's POV more 
than once is that Petunia looks nothing like Lily. What if this is by 
design, specifically that Petunia's looks have been magically altered in 
some way by Dumbledore so she doesn't resemble Lily, at least to wizards? 
The protection afforded the Durselys takes on a double meaning by Harry's 
return there every year reinforcing Petunia's visage if she is indeed being 
disguised.

Rebecca, who recalls in this thread earlier that someone mentioned Petunia 
never goes out - recalling that she did once in PS/SS because Harry and 
Petunia run into Diggle while shopping. 

Pam:
Now this is a wild theory, so please don't flame me; I realize it's wild. We have been told nothing whatsoever about the Evanses, or what happened to them, and they would have the answer.  Suppose that both Lily and Petunia were born magical.  Suppose both Lily and Petunia went to Hogwarts (and this is how Dumbledore already knew Petunia.)  Suppose, now, that there were a spell that could be used to take away magical abilities for those who don't want them (or need to be banished forever from the wizarding community)--for example, if one were about to marry an avowed wizard-bigot. JKR said that Petunia will never display magical abilities, but I don't believe she ever said (please correct me if I'm wrong) that she never has.  
What do you think of the possibility that Vernon met the Evanses, who we know were proud of Lily's "witchiness", suppose Vernon had a wizard candy joke played on him or something when meeting the family (who would put that past James?) and Vernon had a purpleface fit and said he'd never marry a witch and Petunia took the opt-out spell?
That would explain Vernon's irrational fear of magical people even before Harry arrived, that would explain Petunia's knowledge of the magical world, Vernon's acceptance (such as it was) of Baby Harry (when else have we EVER seen Petunia stand up to Vernon?) and it would explain why, if it should happen, Dudley would acquire magical abilities as a late teenager.  Wild, but what do you think?

 

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







From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Aug  4 17:51:27 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:51:27 -0000
Subject: Ron & Hermione / Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
In-Reply-To: <001501c6b79a$689241e0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <eb01ev+jd2c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156498

Marion:
 
> More likely Ron sees someone who reminds him 
> of his mother.  :-)

houyhnhnm:

Oh! Of course.  And that's definitely the case with 
Harry's attraction to Ginny--right down to the red hair.








From imontero at iname.com  Fri Aug  4 17:45:14 2006
From: imontero at iname.com (lunamk03)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:45:14 -0000
Subject: SHIPS/ Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608040351s69e1b213l7be691b8033c1950@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb013a+kv1g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156499

> Tonks-op:
> > lol!!  Yes, she can!  She is writing the book.  She is their
> > creator of course, she is the final authority on what will
> > happen and who will be with who.
>
> Random832:
> The problem is if she decides something like that in advance,
> that means that she's likely to try to "force" it even if the
> story tries to go somewhere else. That's called bad writing -
> What you've basically claimed is "she's the creator, so she has
> the right to write badly". And, sure, she does, but that doesn't
> mean we have to accept that it's the way it "should" be.


Well... This is such a touchy subject, it is sooo subjective. I see
what you mean with the "story writing itself," and Jo did have some
issues in book 4 and it seems that she had to undo and redo lots of
stuff, which proves your point.

But in the shipping side, I think she isn't forcing anything. It is
the most fairly simple and straight forward of all subplots: Ron and
Hermione, the bickering couple and H/G the classical guy falling for
best friend's sister. As you can see, she wanted to create something
original, but in terms of main plot and general story. The romantic
aspect in the books is accessory; it gives tridimensionality to the
characters but, so far, doesn't really have a big impact in the main
plot.

Ron and Hermione as a future couple, for instance, have been growing
almost organically from book 1. Harry and Ginny, although sudden, it
wasn't unexpected after OOP.

I can see why so many people dislike some ships. The concepts of
romance and love are very individual. If your (general "you") values
in this respect collide with Jo's values, then it is only normal to
feel cheated. But to claim that what she did is bad writing based on
personal emotional response and not in factual book examples is
unfair. Just my humble opinion.

Luna, Jo's woman through and through.











From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 17:50:25 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?
In-Reply-To: <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060804175025.96121.qmail@web61312.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156500


colebiancardi <muellem at bc.edu> wrote:

>> oh SO KEWL!!! I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but the
opinion (theory) is Snape is good. And she verifies it. She discards
the DD is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit and
spell it out (that was his proposal, not opinion) <<

Joe:

  I still think the only way we are going to know is when the book comes out.

  When I read what you posted it seemed to me at least that she was confirming Dumbledore being dead despite his not liking it. It didn't read to me like she was confirming anything about Snape.

  Lets be honest here, what reason would JKR have to reveal anything about Snape being good or bad? It is one of the most compelling and mysterious plotlines in the books.

  I just don't buy she would give it away right before the end.

  Joe






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Fri Aug  4 18:06:30 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:06:30 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavgrg+109ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1G944R-0000kX-LB@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156501

divaleder:
This is my first time in the group!!  I'm new in your magical posting!!  


Sherry now:

Welcome to our lovely group!  We always enjoy having new people with new
discussion to bring.


divaleder:
My thoughts on this entire line of reasoning:
snip 1-3.
4.  Lastly, you can not apparate in or on the grounds of Hogwarts, so Dobby
did not apparate or disapparate there.  It says so in "Hogwarts, a History."
That was put into the movie only.
 

Sherry:

Actually, JKR has addressed this, I think on her web site somewhere, saying
that house elves, with their own special kind of magic can apparate inside
Hogwarts.  Dobby does it several times in the books, starting with
apparating into and out of the hospital wing in COS, after Harry is hit by
the rogue bludger.

Sherry




From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 17:57:45 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:57:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Ron & Hermione / Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within...
In-Reply-To: <001501c6b79a$689241e0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <20060804175745.98652.qmail@web61312.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156502


Marion Ros <mros at xs4all.nl> wrote:

Marion:

More likely Ron sees someone who reminds him of his mother. :-)
   
  Joe: 
   
  Or they could just be one of those couple that nobody really ges but them.
   
  Can you really even explain or justify love? Should you have to? Honestly doesn't it just happen?
   
  Almost like magic.
   
  Joe






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Fri Aug  4 18:15:26 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 11:15:26 -0700
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_=5BHPforGrownups=5D_Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?=B4s_words_=28Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F=29!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1G94D6-0002p9-Ei@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156503


colebiancardi
oh SO KEWL!!!   I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but the 
opinion(theory) is Snape is good.  And she verifies it.  She discards the DD
is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit and spell it
out(that was his proposal, not opinion)


Sherry now:
I read that completely differently.  I think the comments about Rushti being
correct could refer to several different things, including that Harry will
have unknown friends to help him in the quest.  In fact, I'd bet on there
being a few unexpected helpers along the way with some great surprises
involved for all.  But since Rushti's Snape opinion was based on the idea
that Dumbledore is not dead, and Jo assured everyone that he is indeed dead,
then I don't read her remarks as saying, yes, I'm just gonna let you all
know now and end the debate, Snape is definitely good.  She could have
meant, yes, your opinion that if DD is still alive, it is a great hoax
cooked up to deceive Voldemort, but with her insistence that DD is
unequivocally dead, that kinda wipes out that theory.

But mostly, I just can't see her letting the biggest question of all, for
most readers, Snape good or bad, I can't see her just blurting that out.
There are a lot of things that interest me much more than Snape, but there's
no doubt the question of his loyalties has occupied more cyber space than
anything else since HBP.  I expect the debate will rage till book seven, and
even perhaps beyond.

sherry





Wondering what to do this summer?  Go to Patronus 2006
(http://www.patronus.dk/2006) or, if you're already registered for Lumos
(http://www.hp2006.org), meet up with other HPfGU members there!

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



 





From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 18:15:46 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:15:46 -0000
Subject: Snape, House Elves apparating; was Re: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavgrg+109ks@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb02si+10noq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156504

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

> 2.  Snape did not take the DADA job because he thought he could
> break the jinx.  DD gave Snape the job knowing that because of
> the jinx it would be the perfect cover to have Snape finish him
> off and then leave to infiltrate Voldemort's death eaters.  Snape
> has a job yet to perform for DD.  All of this; DD death, Snape
> running off to supposedly join the death eaters, etc. was planned
> by DD.  Remember that DD knew he was dying anyway after he got the
> ring horcrux.

Ryan:

I actually wonder if Snape will go back to Voldemort at all.  Seems
to me that, having failed to kill Dumbledore, Draco's life would be
forfeit if they went to Voldemort.  Since part of Snape's Unbreakable
Vow it Narcissa was to keep Draco safe.  My bet is that Snape and
Draco go into hiding.

> 4.  Lastly, you can not apparate in or on the grounds of Hogwarts,
> so Dobby did not apparate or disapparate there.  It says so in
> "Hogwarts, a History."  That was put into the movie only.


Ryan:

"House-elves are different from wizards; they have their own brand of
magic, and the ability to appear and disappear within the castle is
necessary to them if they are to go about their work unseen, as house-
elves traditionally do."
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=73

Ryan










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 18:31:36 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:31:36 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eavo6f+n02g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb03q8+8gad@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156505

Abergoat wrote:
<snip>
> While posting thoughts about Eileen Prince and her possible
connection to the Ravenclaw relic it hit me: the Hufflepuff Cup must
still be with the Smiths. Hepizbah clearly says her family cannot wait
to get their hands on it, so if the cup wasn't in the house after she
died they would have thrown a collective fit. Precisely the situation
that Tom Riddle wanted to avoid. 
> 
> But the Smith family didn't know Hepizbah HAD the locket. Only
Burkes (or was it Borgin?) knew that because he sold it to her.
Hepizbah clearly states this distinction between the two artifacts. I
suspect we will find that Mr B met an untimely demise very quickly
after Hepizbah's death. Which gives a nice reason why Tom Riddle gave
up his post at Borgin and Burkes shortly thereafter. 
> 
> So my point is Dumbledore COULD NOT handle the cup without tipping
his hand - the Smith family would be involved. And I think we can
safely say that the cup is not hidden or even dangerous to handle,
although destroying the horcrux it contains is a different story I'm sure.
> 
> So the cup should be relatively easy, either ask the Smith family
for it or have a true Hufflepuff pull it out of the hat. But it
probably needs to be done last because Voldemort is likely to find out
about the 'problem' from the howls of the Smith family.

Carol responds:
I don't see how the Smith family could still have the cup since
Voldemort stole both it and the locket to turn them into Horcruxes
after he murdered Hepzibah (and framed poor Hokey). He would have
hidden it just as he hid the locket and the ring, probably with
elaborate magical protections including curses to harm or kill anyone
clever and powerful enough to find it.

I do think that the Smith family will play a part in finding the
Hufflepuff Horcrux, unless the Hepzibah Smith/Zacharias Smith
similarity is a Mark Evans. (I think not; why mention Zacharias's
"haughty father" unless it's to suggest that he's a member of an old
pureblood family with links to Helga Hufflepuff? And the long biblical
[Hebrew] first names of both Hepzibah and Zacharias suggest a family
tradition similar to that of the Blacks naming their children for
stars or constellations.)

BTW, I think the Ravenclaw Horcrux is the tiara that Harry used to
mark the spot where he hid the HBP's Potions book and that he'll catch
a glimpse of himself in the Mirror of Erised holding the tiara when he
goes to retrieve the book--Snape or no Snape, I think he'll realize
that it's useful and will want it back. (And maybe Luna will play a
part in understanding the secret of the Ravenclaw Horcrux. She seems
to have a bit of Seer in her, and her eyes are like the powerfully
magical Ollivander's.)

As for Agnes the dog-faced woman being Snape's mother, I certainly
thought that when I first read OoP--the Healer mentioning that Agnes's
son would be visiting her for Christmas just screamed "Snape" to me
(what fun it would have been if Harry had encountered Snape visiting
her!)--but I don't see how such a scene can happen now even if Harry
has a reason to revisit St. Mungo's closed ward--Snape is in hiding as
Sirius Black was in GoF, the new most wanted man in the WW (next to LV). 

JKR has enough plot complications to sort out, and even if the
dog-faced woman does turn out to be Snape's mother despite the name, I
think it will have to do with his motivation for hating Voldemort, not
with a Horcrux, Ravenclaw or otherwise.

BTW, it was Caractacus Burke who paid poor Merope ten galleons for the
locket. Borgin is the surviving partner, whom we've seen twice in
connection with the Malfoys.

Carol, who thinks that the locket and the tiara will be relatively
easy to find, if not to destroy, but that the cup will be more of a
challenge










From doliesl at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 19:04:42 2006
From: doliesl at yahoo.com (doliesl at yahoo.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?
In-Reply-To: <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060804190442.49663.qmail@web82209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156506



--- colebiancardi <muellem at bc.edu> wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrissilein" <chrissilein at ...> 
> wrote:
> >
> >  This shall be Salman Rushdies words.
> > 
> > Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> > unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> > (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. 
> Now
> > (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> > cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> > theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> > Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> > up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
> Harry
> > then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> > face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to 
> see,
> > everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> > 
> > Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going 
> to
> > have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
> > 
> > Here to find:
> > http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=370#
> > 
> 
> 
> oh SO KEWL!!!   I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but the 
> opinion(theory) is Snape is good.  And she verifies it.  She discards 
> the DD is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit and 
> spell it out(that was his proposal, not opinion)

It's hilarious to see all those ESE!Snape people so quick to naysay~ XD 
The 'theory" Salman Rushdie proposing is the SAME one that most DDM!Snape theorists been
repeating over and over and over... and Salman Rushdie use the word 'we' because it's
obvious what JKR has planned there.

The keypoint of this CORRECT (JKR said so) theory is this:
"Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. 
*Something* is cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
Harry then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do face." 

So yes DD ordered Snape to really kill him.

Whether DD is REAL death or FAKE death is not the key issues.

Most DDM!Snape theory did believe that DD's death was real, so it's not contradictory at
all. That's why Snape's decision is the truly a horrible, difficult but ultimately RIGHT
thing to do, not an half-ass 'fake death' scenario. It's like Neville's decision to stop
trio in 1st book, turn against your friends to do what you believed was right. It is that
courage. What Snape had to went through was 100 times more horrible. Snape had to kill DD
for real for a right cause. Both Snape and DD are willing to pay the ultimate price to
'sacrifice.' DD sacrificed his life, Snape sacrificed his soul. That's the tragic beauty
of that entire scenario and I'd looking forward to see how JKR conclude this in bk 7 (and
see naysayer still deep in denial despite wall falling apart).

D.






From erikog at one.net  Fri Aug  4 19:12:48 2006
From: erikog at one.net (krista7)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:12:48 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <E1G94D6-0002p9-Ei@elasmtp-banded.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eb067g+st5q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156508

> colebiancardi
> oh SO KEWL!!!   I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but the 
> opinion(theory) is Snape is good.  And she verifies it.  She discards the DD
> is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit and spell it
> out(that was his proposal, not opinion)
> 
> 
> Sherry now:
> I read that completely differently.  I think the comments about Rushti being
> correct could refer to several different things

Much as I want JKR to come out and state definitively that Snape is innocent,
I do not see her saying so at all in these comments. What happens is she says
 this: " Your opinion, I would say, is right." So what *opinion* did Salman 
Rushdie offer, and if he offered multiple ones, what is the most logical reference
 in this case?

He offers: a comment/summary of the past books (It has always been plain...
we cannot, or don't, want to believe this). He offers: a theory. (Our theory....
We propose...) He offers: a question (so is Snape good or bad?) And then he 
offers what is an opinion ("It's plain to see, everything follows from this," 
that is, this question of Snape's goodness or badness is key to the
resolution of the story.) This is the most logical point of reference for
 JKR's "your opinion"--"It's plain to see" is placed at the end of his speech,
 a very bold assertion left dangling, making it the most natural jumping-off 
point for JKR's answer, since it was the last thing said. And JKR, 
being classic JKR, sticks to this implied question (is Snape the key? Yes) 
rather than the  question Rushie asked directly (is Snape bad?). She throws
 out the bone that Dumbledore is really dead, but otherwise, she doesn't 
give *anything* away in this answer.

Krista






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 18:48:11 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:48:11 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb03q8+8gad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb04pb+9m36@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156509

Carol wrote:
> I don't see how the Smith family could still have the cup since
> Voldemort stole both it and the locket to turn them into Horcruxes
> after he murdered Hepzibah (and framed poor Hokey).

Abergoat responds:
But that is the question isn't it? Hepzibah clearly says her family
would be furious if they knew she was showing it to Tom and she
explicitly states that they cannot wait to get their hands on it. This
seems it imply either Tom ran around modifying Smith family members'
memories so they wouldn't remember it at all (seems dangerous...what
if one of them proves resistant? And how does Voldemort figure out who
they are?) or Tom went the simpler route and left the cup in the
family's possession.

I could be wrong, but it is a serious plot hole otherwise.

Abergoat








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 19:27:22 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:27:22 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavnbf+eudp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb072q+luij@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156510

laurawkids wrote:
>
> To begin, I am so frustrated with my posts disappearing! I have
> lost 3 now! I have also been dumb and did not do anything to save
> them on my side, so when they are lost, they are gone. Blehhhhh )
> >( <snip>

Carol responds:
Hi, Laura. Your posts *are* posting. Yahoo is just taking its time to
post them.

Laura:
> I acknowledge that JKR said Petunia is not going to exhibit magic
> ever.
>
> I am going on the new comment that when a Muggle gets her hands on a
> wand, something violent occurs. From the transcript on QQQ of the
> first reading:
>
> "She also stated that if a muggle were to get their hands on a wand
> then she would expect something 'accidental and violent' to be the
> result of that, in a similar way as when a wizard uses someone
> else's wand. She also went on to tease us slightly in saying that
> there would be more in book 7 about the wizard's personal connection
> to his/her wand." JKR in NYC
<snip Petunia/house-elf theory, which I'm afraid has been thoroughly
nixed by JKR's repeated assertions both in the books and in interviews
that Petunia is a Muggle>

Carol responds:
IMO, what we learn about Petunia's knowledge of the magical world,
which clearly is more extensive than she lets on to Vernon even in
Book 1, will relate to Lily and Harry (and the "awful boy"). I do
think that DD sent her a message by owl before she found Harry on her
doorstep, possibly informing her that her sister was in grave danger
(or dead) but that she must say nothing to Vernon. (Maybe she'll show
Harry the letter or letters that DD sent her and even beg for his
protection from LV?) But whatever we learn about her has to be more
important to the Harry/Voldemort conflict than an explanation of
Petunia's "magical" cleaning abilities. Technology and OCD might be
closer to the truth. (Any "Monk" fans out there?)

Laura:
<snip>
> This was asked of JKR in 1999:
>
> "I want to know what Dudley does with his life.
> That is a question I would love to answer, but it will ruin some
> surprises. I will only say that Dudley's privileged existence starts
> to change for the worse in Book 4. "
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/1999/0399-
> barnesandnoble.html
> I don't think becoming as wide as he is tall is a surprise, nor
> getting in to boxing. There has to be something more to qualify as
> a surprise she'd like to protect. She has also said there is
> nothing to him, but that could be more about his past than his
> future. Who knows? <snip>

Carol responds:
Spoiled Dudley had his tongue swollen and nearly choked on it in GoF.
He was nearly soul-sucked by a Dementor in OoP and, IMO, relived the
toffee memory, surely his most terrible moment, as the Dementor came
near him. In HBP, he was merely knocked on the head by a glass of mead
and possibly terrified by the sight of a filthy house-elf, but his
"privileged existence" may be threatened again in Book 7. Nothing to
do with his having magical abilities. The point JKR has been making in
these scenes is that he *doesn't* have them and, bully or not, is
powerless against magic.

As for a Muggle picking up a wand and the wand doing unexpected
things, I think that Dudley will pick up Harry's wand and
try to use it against Harry as revenge for everything from the pig's
tail to the ton-tongue toffee and will shout some pseudomagical
nonsense phrase like "hocus pocus" (or, heaven forfend, "abracadabra")
only to have the wand go off like a firecracker in his hand and
scare the pants off him. It wouldn't, of course, hurt Harry, since
it's his wand and has an affinity to him (suggested by JKR's comments
in her answer to the question about Muggles and wands). I don't think
Dudley will die--that would be a bit too much even for JKR--but he'll
certainly learn his lesson about not touching magic wands!

Carol, imagining Harry's reaction to Dudley's little object lesson








From siskiou at vcem.com  Fri Aug  4 19:29:37 2006
From: siskiou at vcem.com (Susanne)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 12:29:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608031546q6f3eb0bbk9419f0e0914e8e82@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com>
 <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com>
 <7b9f25e50608031546q6f3eb0bbk9419f0e0914e8e82@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <105417194.20060804122937@vcem.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156511



Hi,

Thursday, August 3, 2006, 3:46:45 PM, Jordan wrote:

> And, to me, JKR
> declaring for a particular 'ship means that she's going to *force* it
> if it doesn't otherwise happen - which is annoying enough in
> fanfiction.

I'm not sure what you mean by "if it doesn't otherwise
happen".

It almost sounds like you feel R/Hr (or is it H/G) don't
have much convincing support in canon, and another ship is
writing itself instead.

The problem is that both ships do have a great deal of canon
support and many, many readers have been able to see them develop
throughout the series without any input from interviews.

With any story, there will usually be groups of readers who
prefer or dislike one character or another and this
influences their shipping preferences quite a bit.
Any friendly (or unfriendly in the case of D/Hr for example)
interaction will be interpreted to fit these preferences,
and other evidence might be ignored completely in favor of
the preferred ship.
There is nothing the author can do about this, and I almost
felt that JKR was going a bit overboard trying to clear up the
shipping in HBP.
Didn't work, anyhow.
Stating things in interviews without actually giving away
what she clearly doesn't want to give away before the last
book comes out, doesn't work either.

Shipping seems to be an especially hot topic, and as long as
there are several males and/or females in a story that could
theoretically become a couple, there will be people
supporting it, even if the author and canon clearly state it's not
happening.

There will be people claiming the relationships are just
wrong for the characters, will not last, and the preferred
couple will eventually come to be (through death, divorce or
whatever else needs to happen to get the "other" out of the way of
the true couple).

We'll just have to wait and see what the story brings in the
last book, but I already know that there will be angry
shippers, no matter which ship does or doesn't happen.

-- 
Best regards,
 Susanne                           mailto:siskiou at vcem.com







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Fri Aug  4 19:42:08 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:42:08 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <20060804190442.49663.qmail@web82209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eb07ug+1aot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156512


> 
> --- colebiancardi <muellem at ...> wrote:

> > >  This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.
> > > 
> > > Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> > > unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> > > (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. 
> > Now
> > > (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> > > cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> > > theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> > > Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> > > up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
> > Harry
> > > then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> > > face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to 
> > see,
> > > everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> > > 
> > > Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going 
> > to
> > > have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
> > > 
> > > Here to find:
> > > http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=370#
> > > 

wynnleaf
First, I am a strong supporter of DDM Snape and that he and Dumbledore
planned a great deal of their actions on the evening DD died.  

But I think we can't be too swift to assume what JKR meant by her
answer to Rushdie's question.  

First, according to observers Rushdie gave his comments/question right
after JKR had been disconcerted by the young child asking about
Dumbledore's death.  Then she was further surprised by this famous
author coming up to ask a question.  Following was Rushdie's comments
and question.  In print, it's clear what he was saying, but many
observers, in posting about his comments prior to transcription, said
that they weren't clear on what his theory was or exactly what he
meant.  If a lot of observers weren't clear, we don't know for sure
that JKR understood all of his comments either, particularly as they
came in the wake of her facing a difficult question/answer with the
child, and now facing a famous author who was basically saying "I
think Snape's good and DD's alive.  Yes or no?"  

It's hard to tell exactly what JKR meant to answer.  Some observers
felt that she was answering Rushdie's entire comment when she said
that his opinion was correct, and only adding the part about DD's
really being dead in order to give more explicit info in that area. 
Others think she was answering the general notion that "if Snape is
evil, DD must be dead," which is so obvious hardly anyone on any side
of the debate has really ever questioned that.  And others think she
was just answering the part about DD being dead, although that would
make the "your opinion is correct" part irrational since Rushdie
thought DD was alive.  

I find it hard to believe that after protecting the mystery of Snape's
loyalties for so many years, JKR would just come out and admit it so
directly.  Of course, I realize she could have been flustered by
having Salman Rushdie, of all people, without warning standing before
her in front of a crowd of people telling her his theory and asking if
it was correct.  So she *could* have accidently spilled the truth. 
But the thing is -- we can't know for sure.  

It is just as possible that JKR was referring to Rushdie's comment
that everything follows from whether or not Snape is loyal or not. 
She could easily have meant, "that's correct, everything hinges on
whether or not Snape is loyal," which basically tells us little.

wynnleaf   






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 19:47:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:47:16 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb04pb+9m36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0884+40oc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156513

Carol wrote:
> > I don't see how the Smith family could still have the cup since
Voldemort stole both it and the locket to turn them into Horcruxes
after he murdered Hepzibah (and framed poor Hokey).
> 
> Abergoat responds:
> But that is the question isn't it? Hepzibah clearly says her family
would be furious if they knew she was showing it to Tom and she
explicitly states that they cannot wait to get their hands on it. This
seems it imply either Tom ran around modifying Smith family members'
memories so they wouldn't remember it at all (seems dangerous...what
if one of them proves resistant? And how does Voldemort figure out who
they are?) or Tom went the simpler route and left the cup in the
family's possession.
> 
> I could be wrong, but it is a serious plot hole otherwise.
> 
> Abergoat
>

Carol responds:
I don't see that at all. Tom would simply take the cup, turn it into a
Horcrux somewhere far from Hepzibah's house where he wouldn't be
caught, and hide it, as he apparently did with the locket at roughly
the same time and the ring somewhat earlier. Having murdered to obtain
the cup, do you really think he'd return it to the family it
rightfully belonged to or turn it into a Horcrux and leave it there
for them to find? We know that he quit his job and left on his travels
right after the Smith murder. I very much doubt that he want around
looking for Smith family members to give it to or modifying their
memories. I think he his the Horcruxes to make sure that no one, Smith
family member or not, would find them. 

BTW, he may have re-hidden the Horcruxes around the time he heard the
Prophecy to make them still more secure, as he thought--otherwise, I
don't see how Regulus Black could have found out about the locket
(which I think he entrusted to Bellatrix). Also, he gave the diary to
Lucius at about that time. It would be hard to re-hide the cup if it
were in the hands of the Smith family. I think it's surrounded by
magical protections similar to those that protected the ring, if not
quite as elaborate as those that protected the Slytherin locket.

Carol, who doesn't see a plot hole if LV steals and hides the cup as
he does the locket but sees a serious inconsistency in
characterization if LV leaves his precious Hufflepuff Horcrux in the
hands of the greedy Smith family







From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug  4 19:52:19 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:52:19 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <20060804190442.49663.qmail@web82209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eb08hj+re88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156514

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "doliesl at ..." <doliesl at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > chrissilein 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >  This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.
> > > 
> > > Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> > > unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> > > (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for 
him. 
> > Now
> > > (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> > > cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and 
laughter). Our
> > > theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose 
that
> > > Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, 
cooked
> > > up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
> > Harry
> > > then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort 
do
> > > face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain 
to 
> > see,
> > > everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> > > 
> > > Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am 
going 
> > to
> > > have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
> > > 
> > > Here to find:
> > > http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=30932&st=370#
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > colebiancardi wrote:
> > oh SO KEWL!!!   I think JKR was doing her "normal" twisting, but 
the 
> > opinion(theory) is Snape is good.  And she verifies it.  She 
discards 
> > the DD is not dead, but stating that she has to be more explicit 
and 
> > spell it out(that was his proposal, not opinion)
> 

>dolies wrote:
> It's hilarious to see all those ESE!Snape people so quick to 
naysay~ XD 
> The 'theory" Salman Rushdie proposing is the SAME one that most DDM!
Snape theorists been
> repeating over and over and over... and Salman Rushdie use the 
word 'we' because it's
> obvious what JKR has planned there.
> 
> The keypoint of this CORRECT (JKR said so) theory is this:
> "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. 
> *Something* is cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put 
Voldemort off his guard. 
> Harry then will have more friends than he knows when he and 
Voldemort do face." 
> 
> So yes DD ordered Snape to really kill him.
> 
> Whether DD is REAL death or FAKE death is not the key issues.
> 

colebiancardi back again:
big snip because I agree with you....

I find it also amusing as well that people state we still can't be 
sure based on this comment.  Now I could be wrong, but as you broke 
it down, it seems to me that JKR is stating that yes, Snape is good
(which was Rushdie's BIG QUESTION & opinion) and yes, Snape did kill 
Dumbledore - DD is dead.

look at Rushdie's words:

"Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy."

Rushdie is stating Snape is a good guy - that is his opinion and 
theory.

"We propose that DD can't really be dead"

Rushdie is "proposing" the statement that Dumbledore is still alive.

"That this in fact is a ruse, cooked up between DD & Snape to put LV 
off his guard"

Well, true enough - it put EVERYONE off guard, including Harry

"Harry then will have more friends than he known when he & LV do face"

Rushdie is stating that Snape will be helping him when Harry battles 
LV.

"So, is Snape good or bad?"

The Question Which JKR Will Not Answer With A Simple Statement

"It's plain to see, everything follows from this."

Rushdie's belief that Snape is good, not evil, based on his opinion & 
theories.


"Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right."
I read this as Yes, Snape is good

"Jo: However, I see I am going to  have to be more explicit and say 
Dumbledore is definitely dead."

And I read this as but DD is dead, but the rest of your theory is 
correct.

colebiancardi
(who in a long winded way was agreeing with dolies statement :) )








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 19:25:45 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:25:45 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <20060804190442.49663.qmail@web82209.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eb06vp+t1u8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156515

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

> 
> The keypoint of this CORRECT (JKR said so) theory is this:
> "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. 
> *Something* is cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put 
Voldemort off his guard. 
> Harry then will have more friends than he knows when he and 
Voldemort do face." 
> 

Well, she didn't say Rushdie's THEORY (and he called it a theory) 
was correct.  She said his OPINION was correct.

Now, what opinion could she be referring to?  Any of a number of 
things, I suppose.  But I tend to think that the opinion she was 
referring to was the very last statement Rushdie made -- i.e. "Is 
Snape good or bad?  Everything depends on this."

In other words, she was saying, "Your opinion is correct.  
Everything does hinge on whether Snape is good or bad.  But to make 
the record perfectly clear, Dumbledore really is most definitely and 
irrevocably and completely and absolutely and certifiably and I-Have-
Said-It DEAD."

That would be the most consistent with the types of statements she 
has made before, and the most consistent with her own self-interest 
and the fact that no one thinks she's a total fool (which she would 
have to be if she revealed the answer to that particular question a 
year before the book is due out).


Lupinlore, who thinks Snape as ESE is unbelievable, as DDM is 
incredibly cheesey, as OFH the best writing but unlikely to be the 
way JKR goes, and who really doesn't care all that much as long as 
JKR deals appropriately with his abuse of Harry and Neville  -- oh, 
and who thinks that DD pretty much comes out as incompetent under 
ESE, DDM, and OFH scenarios, but for different reasons in each case.








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 19:30:38 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:30:38 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eavdv8+mh0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb078u+qp9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156516

Abergoat welcomes you to the forum, divaleder!

Tinktonks wrote:
> Is there any point in the books where Madam Pince the librarian uses
> magic? I dont recall any? In line with JKR's magnificient ability of
> nmentioning people in a way in which makes us think they are
> unimportant and overlooking them I'd bet a fake Weasley wand on it
> being her.

Abergoat says:
Interesting line of thought as to whether Irma is magical or not. I
guess her featherduster does make one question it. Some people believe
that she has bespelled the books in the restricted section to scream
if touched but we don't know that. So our only hint is when she gets
Lockhart's note from Hermione and the books let Hermione touch them.
That's a lot of ifs.

Ah, I just remembered. Isn't there something about Irma in the charity
books that makes it clear she is magical? But perhaps it just mentions
her aversion to writing in books and the giving of books about magic
to muggles.

I agree with you that Irma will be important in book seven. I assume
that JKR asked that she be included in the earlier films even though
she did little more than sit in the dining hall.

Abergoat









From jelly92784 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 20:04:19 2006
From: jelly92784 at yahoo.com (jelly92784)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:04:19 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb0884+40oc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0983+qddk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156517

Carol: who doesn't see a plot hole if LV steals and hides the cup as 
he does the locket but sees a serious inconsistency in 
characterization if LV leaves his precious Hufflepuff Horcrux in the 
hands of the greedy Smith family


Janelle: This is an interesting debate and I could see it going 
either way.  On the side of Voldemort taking the cup, turning it 
into a horcrux and then returning it to the Smith family, people 
have been saying that this doesn't fit in with the strict protection 
that surrounds the other horcruxes we've come in contact with.  In 
reality, however, the only one that we know for sure was protected 
that extremely is the locket.  The diary was placed with Lucius 
without him even knowing what it was and as a result, was given away 
and it ends up being destroyed (I remember discussing this before 
but did we end up deciding that Voldemort does know that the diary 
was destroyed or not?)  The point here is that the diary wasn't all 
that well protected.  Also, Dumbledore never gets around to telling 
the story about the protection surrounding the ring although we can 
assume that it was pretty intense given what happened to his hand as 
a result of destroying it.  The rest of the horcruxes we haven't 
really seen and don't even know for sure what they are.  

I think it is possible that Voldemort turned the cup into a horcrux 
with the death of Hebzibah Smith (sorry, not entirely sure I got 
that name right) and then left the cup, knowing that it was the 
family's most prized possession and that they would be sure to take 
care of it, in which case he could easily find it if need be.

On the other side, someone upthread argued that if Voldemort had in 
fact taken the cup and hid it somewhere, the Smith family would have 
been outraged that the cup was gone and so we'd be left with a plot-
hole.  The thing is, we haven't had any contact with the Smith 
family (with the possible exception of Zacharias, and even that had 
nothing to do with the cup), so how do we know that they weren't 
outraged when they discovered that the cup was missing?  I don't 
think that that particular situation is necessarily something that 
would be common knowledge in the wizarding world, or at least 
something that Harry, and us by extension, would have heard about.

I kind of like the idea of Voldemort leaving the cup with the 
Smiths, knowing that they would take care of it, although, as I 
mentioned above, I can see how the story could work either way.






From BrwNeil at aol.com  Fri Aug  4 20:18:40 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 16:18:40 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
Message-ID: <514.4ee0f46.320505a0@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156518

 
 
In a message dated 8/4/2006 4:08:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
jelly92784 at yahoo.com writes:

I  think it is possible that Voldemort turned the cup into a horcrux 
with the  death of Hebzibah Smith (sorry, not entirely sure I got 
that name right)  and then left the cup, knowing that it was the 
family's most prized  possession and that they would be sure to take 
care of it, in which case  he could easily find it if need be.


Page 439 American
 
"By the time Hokey was convicted, Hepzibah's family had realized that  two of 
her greatest treasures were missing ............ But  before they were sure 
beyond doubt that the cup and the locket were both gone,  the assistant who had 
worked at Borgin and Burkes, the young man who had visited  Hepzibah so 
regularly and charmed her so well, had resigned his post and  vanished.
 
Neil
 


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




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 20:42:37 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:42:37 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb078u+qp9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0bft+55bv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" wrote:
> > 
> > Tinktonks wrote:
> > Is there any point in the books where Madam Pince the librarian 
> > uses magic? I dont recall any?
 
<snip> 
> Abergoat says:
<snip> 
> 
> I agree with you that Irma will be important in book seven. I 
> assume that JKR asked that she be included in the earlier films 
> even though she did little more than sit in the dining hall.
> 
Mike here:

Yes, she's a witch. In OotP she chases Ginny and Harry out of the 
Library, for eating their chocolate Easter Eggs,
 
"And whipping out her wand, she caused Harry's books, bag and ink 
bottle to chase him and Ginny from the library; whacking them 
repeatedly over the head as they ran." (p.656, OotP, US)

But I honestly can't see what important part she could play in book 
7. She doesn't seem to be possessed of anything beyond a stern and 
sour disposition. <g> And she values her books over anything or 
anyone (unless she *is* secretly in love with Filch).

As far as those celluloid abominations, look at all of the 
charactors left out of the earlier films that we *know* were 
important in later books. Did anyone see Sirius in GoF flick? Moving 
coals don't count, that's not how the Floo works. How about Dobby 
and Winky? Bill and Charlie? I'm stopping before I get depressed.







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 21:01:36 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:01:36 -0000
Subject: Judging Characters  (was:Scene with likeable James...)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608030531r657c74ack6b469c428f585ef5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb0cjg+ft2f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156520

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > To understand James we *must* accept this scene as indicitive of 
> > an aspect of his character.
> > <snip>

> >>Random832:
> I think the statement that "JKR chose to show us this scene for a
> reason" contradicts the apparent attitude that she can _not_ have
> chosen the scene for a reason _other_ than to indicate what James'
> character is like.

Betsy Hp:
Is that being said?  Certainly JKR packs *tons* of stuff into the 
pensieve scene (something she's majorly good at doing, IMO) 
including the pecking order of the Marauders, some insight into the 
friendship between Sirius and James, insight into the enmity between 
Snape and the Marauders, a hint or two about how Lily figures into 
everything, and, yes, insight into James's character (and Snape's 
character, and Lupin's character, and Sirius's character, and 
Peter's character, and Lily's character).

Honestly, I think it'd be a mistake to try and figure out *any* of 
the characters in this scene while also dismissing the scene as 
inaccurate or exaggerated or (most improbably, IMO) out of character.

> >>Random832:
> Even if you don't personally accept the idea that Snape chose this 
> memory specifically so Harry would see (face it - if he _really_   
> didn't want him to see it, surely he doesn't think Harry is a     
> better Legilimens than Voldemort. And even if the penseive was
> necessary, why was it just out? Nevermind his motivations, the
> _mechanics_ don't support the idea that Snape was really trying to
> hide these memories from Harry, at least not without requiring him 
> to be stupid), "insight into James' character for the readers" is 
> _not_ the only option.

Betsy Hp:
I really, really don't agree that Snape meant for Harry to see the 
memory.  For one, Montague showing up and requiring immediate help 
was so random that Snape *couldn't* have planned for it.  So there 
was no reason for Snape to think Harry and the pensieve would ever 
be alone.  For another, Snape's anger seemed far too genuine, IMO.  
Also if Snape was playing some deeper game, JKR would have needed to 
write in a "tell" if she didn't want to be accused of conning the 
reader.  A gleam of triumph that Harry misinterperts, for example.  

I do agree that insight into James's character is not the *only* 
reason the pensieve scene was given to us.  But insight into his 
character is *definitely* one of the reasons.  

Betsy Hp






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Fri Aug  4 21:11:31 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:11:31 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb0983+qddk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0d63+4sns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156521

 
> 
> 
> Janelle:  
> 
> I think it is possible that Voldemort turned the cup into a horcrux 
> with the death of Hebzibah Smith (sorry, not entirely sure I got 
> that name right) and then left the cup, knowing that it was the 
> family's most prized possession and that they would be sure to take 
> care of it, in which case he could easily find it if need be.

Hickengruendler:

I'm sorry, I haven't got the book at hands and can't look for a quote, 
but I'm sure that, after he and Harry return from the Pensieve scene 
involving Mrs Smith, Dumbledore mentions, that after Hebzibah's death 
the family finds out, that the cup and the locket have disappeared, 
meaning Tom has stolen and/or hidden them. 
 







From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 20:10:51 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:10:51 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb0884+40oc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb09kb+90o5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156522

 > Carol responds:
> I don't see that at all. Tom would simply take the cup, turn it into 
a
> Horcrux somewhere far from Hepzibah's house where he wouldn't be
> caught, and hide it, as he apparently did with the locket at roughly
> the same time and the ring somewhat earlier. Having murdered to 
obtain
> the cup, do you really think he'd return it to the family it
> rightfully belonged to or turn it into a Horcrux and leave it there
> for them to find? <snip>

bridge13219:
Maybe Tom turned the cup into a horcrux with Hepzibah's murder, and 
had Hokey hide it somewhere else.  Hide it in plain site (sort of).  
If it was such a valuable and special family heirloom, they're not 
likely to treat it carelessly, so the horcrux would be safe.








From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 20:15:01 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:15:01 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb078u+qp9a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb09s5+3hl4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156523

 > Abergoat says:
<snip> 
> Ah, I just remembered. Isn't there something about Irma in the 
charity
> books that makes it clear she is magical? But perhaps it just 
mentions
> her aversion to writing in books and the giving of books about magic
> to muggles.
<snip>

bridge13219:
>From Quidditch Through the Ages, Foreword by Albus Dumbledore:
"Madam Pince has been known to add unusual jinxes to the books in her 
care"









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug  4 21:38:56 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 21:38:56 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <514.4ee0f46.320505a0@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eb0epg+emke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156524

Neil wrote:
> Page 439 American
>  
> "By the time Hokey was convicted, Hepzibah's family had realized that  
> two of her greatest treasures were missing ............ But  before 
> they were sure beyond doubt that the cup and the locket were both 
> gone,  the assistant who had worked at Borgin and Burkes, the young 
> man who had visited  Hepzibah so regularly and charmed her so well, 
> had resigned his post and  vanished.

Abergoat says:
Oops, thanks for the correction. So JKR left the door open. From what
Hepizbah says the family would have insisted on on investigation so
the problem does still stand that Voldemort left people wondering what
happened. Not very tidy. I'll have to dig up the first quote and post
it because I could have sworn Hepizbah indicated the family didn't
know about the locket.

Abergoat









From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug  4 22:28:52 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 22:28:52 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eav1lm+q5ou@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0hn4+fe10@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156525

> Chrissi:
>  This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.
> 
> Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. 
Now
> (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. 
Harry
> then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to 
see,
> everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> 
> Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going 
to
> have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
>


Neri:
I read it like this: Rushdie's opinion is that if Snape is good, then 
what happened on the tower was a ruse and Dumbledore can't really be 
dead. JKR says his opinion is right (that is, that Snape being good 
would imply that Dumbledore is alive) but unfortunately, Dumbledore 
is definitely dead. 

JKR obviously isn't saying that Rushdie's *theory* is right. 
Rushdie's theory the way he presented it includes Dumbledore being 
alive, and JKR nixed that most explicitly.

So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also imply that if 
Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be bad? I'd say the way he 
presented it certainly suggests so, but he didn't state it 
explicitly, and therefore the DDM!Snapers are still left, as always, 
with some vague shade of hope. 

BTW, several months ago Faith dictated to me a list of predictions 
that was saved on my computer for posting before Book 7 is out. I now 
regret that I didn't post it already. Faith's first prediction in 
this list was "Dumbledore is definitely dead".

Neri








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Aug  4 23:16:55 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 23:16:55 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0hn4+fe10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0kh7+gcpo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156526

> 
> Neri:
> I read it like this: Rushdie's opinion is that if Snape is good, then 
> what happened on the tower was a ruse and Dumbledore can't really be 
> dead. JKR says his opinion is right (that is, that Snape being good 
> would imply that Dumbledore is alive) but unfortunately, Dumbledore 
> is definitely dead. 
> <snip>
> So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also imply that if 
> Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be bad? I'd say the way he 
> presented it certainly suggests so, but he didn't state it 
> explicitly, and therefore the DDM!Snapers are still left, as always, 
> with some vague shade of hope. 

Pippin:
But there's another implication, which is that planning an elaborate
ruse in order to save Dumbledore and plant Snape in deep cover is 
indeed something that Dumbledore and Snape would do, just as we
DDM!Snapers have contended all along. The ruse, if one existed,
evidently failed to save Dumbledore -- but it *may* have kept
Snape from becoming a murderer while enabling him to secure
his position with Voldemort, who will hardly be expecting him 
to help Harry or his friends.

Pippin
wondering if the Faith-ist position shouldn't be that Snape is
good, since he has turned out to be on Harry's side in every other
book in the series







From kellymolinari at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 00:44:58 2006
From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:44:58 -0000
Subject: Theory od Dudley and Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eavdv8+mh0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0pma+ec9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156527

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com,

> Brothergib says:
>
> >> The following Q&A appears on JKR's site;
>
> 'Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies.'h
> 'No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will she
> ever be able to do so.'


Kelly now:
      I think this squashes the "Petunia as part house elf" theory,
because if she was, whether she knew it or not, she would have or have
had some magical tendencies at some point.


"Brothergib again:
> I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the
> possibility that it might be Dudley as well. The obvious candidate
> appears to be Filch. We even have evidence that he has taken a
> course to help bring out his magical qualities. <snip>
>
> It is also possible that it could be Mrs. Figg. <snip> <<



Kelly responds:
   Why do you think this eliminates Dudley as a candidate to do magic
later in life? That question is from a Barnes and Noble interview from
1999. The entire interview can be found on the Quick Quotes Quill site,
but here is the exerpt:




'Will there be, or have there been, any "late blooming" students in the
school who come into their magic potential as adults, rather than as
children? By the way, I loved meeting you, and hearing you speak, when
you came to Anderson's in Naperville. I can hardly wait until you tour
again.

Ahhh! I loved the event at Anderson's. It was one of my favorites. That
is completely true. No, is the answer. In my books, magic almost always
shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a character
who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite late in
life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about.'




     I interpret this as: whether or not any students come into their
magic potential as adults and then go on to attend Hogwarts. JKR answers
"no". This means that there are no adult students in the school.
      I also think it is fair to say since JKR states that magical
ability almost always shows itself by age 11 that someone who realizes
their magical ability at 17 or 18 years old would be considered to
blossom quite late in life.
      IMO the only thing we are sure of is it will not be Petunia. Dudley
is just as likely as Filch, Ms Figg or any other non-magical character
we have seen. I only hope that it will not be a fringe character with no
real ties to the major plot. In any case we won't know for sure until
Book 7.


     I have an interesting theory on Dudley regarding his magical
ability. Suppose he was magical from birth and Lily was the first to
recognize it. Suppose Lily used this as a way to mend fences with her
sister. Petunia, knowing full well how Vernon would take this news,
decided to prevent Dudley from becoming a wizard. JKR has already shown
us that Merope's powers were weakened by abuse and her father thought
her a squib. The same holds true for Neville, who was considered a squib
until he "bounced" when he fell from a window. Hermione, a fairly decent
witch, had no clue as to her abilities until she got her letter from
Hogwarts. We know Harry and young Tom Riddle had uncontrolled outbursts
of magic before they found out they were wizards, but these are two of
the most powerful wizards in the world.  So maybe it is possible to
prevent some wizards from learning of their abilities.

Petunia then either:
           1) Severed all ties with Lily, James and Harry, hoping to
prevent Dudley from experiencing any "wizarding stimuli". This would
explain her hatred of him when she is forced to take him in.

       OR
           2) Asked Lily for help. Lily told Petunia it was possible to 
prevent Dudley from becoming a wizard. Maybe she cast a charm on him to
do this. Maybe not. In this case Lily was Petunia's safety net. Lily was
the link to keeping Petunia's family together.

      I personally am going with option 2. Petunia could have kept up a
secret relationship with Lily, hoping to keep Dudley a "muggle". I've
always found her remarks in SS/chaper 1, pg 7 odd. Vernon asks if she
has heard from her sister lately. Petunia, shocked and angry, replies
"No, ... why?"  not, "... you know I don't speak to my sister ..." It's
almost as if she were afraid that he had found out she was communicating
with Lily. If they were in touch it would explain how Petunia knew about
so much about the wizarding world, including Voldemort.
      It's just a theory.



      Then on another subject abergoat offers:

> <snip> Petunia seems to be personally scared of Voldemort and
> seemed unpleasantly surprised that the protection on the house
> would end a year earlier than expected; <snip> and finally, JKR
> tells us we will see more of the Dursleys in book 7.




Kelly responds:
      Petunia is scared of Voldemort alright. Voldemort was gaining power
for 10 years before he killed James and Lily. These were the years they
were at Hogwarts. I am sure Lily came home with many stories about this
great dark wizard Voldemort, as well as stories about the only one he
ever feared. Even if she had no relationship with Lily she could have
easily overheard the stories. Then Lily and James are killed, baby Harry
is plopped on their doorstep. Dumbledore, is sending her owls, telling
her Voldemort did it, and that she must care for Harry to keep him
alive. Not only that but a few years later  she finds out that she has
one less year of protection than she originally thought. That's pretty
heavy stuff for someone in denial about the wizarding world.




  Rebecca now:
> <snip> I *do* take note of the fact twice JKR's response about
> Petunia has been consistent: there's more to Petunia "than meets
> the eye." So, if you recall, Harry's POV more than once is that
> Petunia looks nothing like Lily. What if this is by design,
> specifically that Petunia's looks have been magically altered in
> some way by Dumbledore so she doesn't resemble Lily, at least to
> wizards? The protection afforded the Durselys takes on a double
> meaning by Harry's return there every year reinforcing Petunia's
> visage if she is indeed being disguised.

Kelly now:
      Possible but unlikely. Voldemort knows where Harry has been staying
and of the protections there. He says this in GOF, during his rebirthing
speech. There would be no need to alter Petunia's appearance, Voldemort
already knows where Harry is.
      As far as Petunia looking nothing like Lily that could just be
coincidence. There are many siblings that look nothing like each other.
We also have to remember that this is Harry's opinion and he has only
seen pictures of his very young mother, usually in happy times. I
believe Aunt Petunia is older than Lily, and has definitely had more to
worry about in the last 10-15 years, possibly causing that pale, drawn
appearance. She has also never dealt with Harry in a "happy or positive"
way. Maybe if she smiled every once in a while he'd see more of a
resemblance.



Kelly, whose air conditioner is broken and has had enough of the heat
wave in NYC, hopes that the heat has not affected her judgement in this
post.



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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 01:04:26 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:04:26 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0kh7+gcpo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0qqq+9rtq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156528

> Pippin:
> But there's another implication, which is that planning an elaborate
> ruse in order to save Dumbledore and plant Snape in deep cover is 
> indeed something that Dumbledore and Snape would do, just as we
> DDM!Snapers have contended all along. The ruse, if one existed,
> evidently failed to save Dumbledore -- but it *may* have kept
> Snape from becoming a murderer while enabling him to secure
> his position with Voldemort, who will hardly be expecting him 
> to help Harry or his friends.
> 

Neri:
It's a possible implication, but it doesn't sound at all like
something that Rushdie meant, so I doubt JKR meant it when she said
"your opinion is right".


> Pippin
> wondering if the Faith-ist position shouldn't be that Snape is
> good, since he has turned out to be on Harry's side in every other
> book in the series
>

Neri:
Hmmm. Faith believes what canon places before her, but she isn't Na?ve
or Gullible (she's only their first cousin). Since Snape saved Harry's
life (or tried to, anyway) several times, Faith certainly believes
that Snape is likely to do so in Book 7 too. However, to conclude from
this that Snape must be good, that would be gullible. After all, Faith
also has to believe that Snape tormented orphans placed under his
authority, tried to turn in two innocent men to be soul sucked, and
killed Dumbledore on the tower with an Unforgivable curse. The most
straightforward interpretation of this is that Snape is bad. So Faith
would ask: can Snape be a bad man *and* try to save Harry's life?
Turns out it's not only possible, but is strongly implied in canon.
Yep, Faith would go with that.

Neri








From kjones at telus.net  Sat Aug  5 01:07:48 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 18:07:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb04pb+9m36@eGroups.com>
References: <eb04pb+9m36@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44D3EF64.2090000@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156529

abergoat wrote:
> Carol wrote:
>> I don't see how the Smith family could still have the cup since
>> Voldemort stole both it and the locket to turn them into Horcruxes
>> after he murdered Hepzibah (and framed poor Hokey).
> 
> Abergoat responds:
> But that is the question isn't it? Hepzibah clearly says her family
> would be furious if they knew she was showing it to Tom and she
> explicitly states that they cannot wait to get their hands on it. This
> seems it imply either Tom ran around modifying Smith family members'
> memories so they wouldn't remember it at all (seems dangerous...what
> if one of them proves resistant? And how does Voldemort figure out who
> they are?) or Tom went the simpler route and left the cup in the
> family's possession.
> I could be wrong, but it is a serious plot hole otherwise.
> 
> Abergoat


   KJ writes:

     Wouldn't it just be easier to transfigure a tea cup to look like 
Hufflepuff's cup???  I have to go with Carol here. It would make no 
sense to leave it.

   KJ




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 01:19:28 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:19:28 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0hn4+fe10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0rn0+6dsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156531


> Chrissi:
> This shall be Salman Rushdie?s words.
>
> Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him.
Now
> (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We
> cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard.
Harry
> then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to
see,
> everything follows from this. (Cheering)
>
> Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going
to
> have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
>

Neri:
I read it like this: Rushdie's opinion is that if Snape is good, then
what happened on the tower was a ruse and Dumbledore can't really be
dead. JKR says his opinion is right (that is, that Snape being good
would imply that Dumbledore is alive) but unfortunately, Dumbledore
is definitely dead.

JKR obviously isn't saying that Rushdie's *theory* is right.
Rushdie's theory the way he presented it includes Dumbledore being
alive, and JKR nixed that most explicitly.

So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also imply that if
Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be bad? I'd say the way he
presented it certainly suggests so, but he didn't state it
explicitly 

wynnleaf
I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common fallacy.  One of
Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] Snape is a villian, [then]
Dumbledore's killed."  That's a very obvious conclusion and
practically no one has ever argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he
definitely killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse
true.  In other words, the above being true does not in any way imply
that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape must be evil.  To consider
that to be true is to fall for a very common fallacy, the Latin name
of which I can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction is:
  If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.

Rushdie's comments don't even come close to saying that if Dumbledore
is dead, Snape must be evil.  Therefore JKR's comment doesn't even
approach validating that notion.

Neri
and therefore the DDM!Snapers are still left, as always,
with some vague shade of hope.

wynnleaf
Hm, I believe the DDM Snapers have got a huge boost from JKR's
comment.  It seems to take a logical fallacy to believe otherwise.









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 01:22:58 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:22:58 -0000
Subject: Theory od Dudley and Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb0pma+ec9r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0rti+75pn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156532

Kelly wrote:
> Why do you think this eliminates Dudley as a candidate to do
magic later in life? That question is from a Barnes and Noble
interview from 1999. The entire interview can be found on the Quick
Quotes Quill site, but here is the exerpt:
>
JKR: <snipped> In my books, magic almost always
> shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a
character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite
late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about.'
>
(Kelly resumes:)
> I interpret this as: whether or not any students come into
their magic potential as adults and then go on to attend Hogwarts. JKR
answers "no". This means that there are no adult students in the
school. I also think it is fair to say since JKR states that magical
ability almost always shows itself by age 11 that someone who realizes
their magical ability at 17 or 18 years old would be considered to
blossom quite late in life.
> IMO the only thing we are sure of is it will not be Petunia.
Dudley is just as likely as Filch, Ms Figg or any other non-magical
character we have seen. <snip>

Carol responds:
I don't think seventeen or eighteen qualifies as "quite late in life
by any standard, especially giving the wizarding lifespan. However, if
that quote doesn't convince you, maybe this one will:

[Question:] Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye?

[JKR:] 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].

The excerpt is from the 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival:

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

Carol, not wanting to step on any toes but pretty darn sure that
Dudley isn't going to show any magical tendencies (and still betting
on Mrs. Figg--doesn't anyone besides me love the way she swings those
catfood cans at Mundungus for letting the Dementors get near Harry?)







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug  5 01:58:16 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 01:58:16 -0000
Subject: NATURE OF PATRONSUSES
In-Reply-To: <eav9bp+bt9d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0tvo+ahjb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156533

 "whtwitch91" <whtwitch91 at ...> wrote: 
>snipping quoted material 
> 
> DD was comparing Harry's patronus to James' Animagus form. Had he 
> seen James' Patronus form? Not that we know of, but to say "You did 
> seen you father last night ... Youd found him inside yourself" 
> implies to me that the root source that produces both forms is one 
> and the same and would produce the same form.  DD expects them to 
be 
> the same.

Potioncat:
I read that very differently. Had DD seen James's Patronus? Yes, he 
had, because he taught the Order members  how to communicate with 
Patronuses. We don't know what James's Patronus is. (Not a giant bat, 
I'd guess.) Nor did Harry know what James's Animagus was. and if no 
one told him, he would be none the wiser.

I think DD is saying that Harry's Patronus reflects/symbolises 
Harry's father--it doesn't reflect Harry's inner being. Harry's 
Patronus resembles James's Animagus. If Uncle Vernon had been a 
better foster-father, Harry's Patronus might have been a walrus. 

I wonder, for example if it's clear to anyone in the WW what Cho's 
Patronus symbolises? I'd bet if someone had Ginny as their 
inner "guardian" the Patronus would be a cat---even though Ginny is 
not a cat animagus.

Many of us have thought of what sort of Patronus might reflect 
Dumbledore. It could be a Phoenix, or a bumblebee. What if Snape was 
your inner guardian? Would your Patronus be a spider, a bat, a dragon?



 
> Sue, still reeling from the fact that DD is truly dead

Potioncat:
Well, I got that right part right, but I don't like it. :-(
>







From AllieS426 at aol.com  Sat Aug  5 02:37:19 2006
From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:37:19 -0000
Subject: Snape should have kicked James/Sirius' behinds!!.
In-Reply-To: <eau1r2+fgsj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb108v+bsun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156534

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
>
> Carol responds:
> 
> I think you may be confusing nonverbal magic with wandless magic. 
The
> one spell Severus cast (the one that cut James's cheek), was
> nonverbal, which is why posters are arguing over whether it was
> Sectumsempra or not. Also, of course, he invented the nonverbal hex
> that James is using against him (Levicorpus), so he *can* use
> nonverbal magic when he has a wand in his hand. But just as Harry
> couldn't make his wand come to him by calling "Accio wand!" Severus
> can't deliberately do wandless magic, as indicated by the fact that
> his wand just lies there when he's yelling curses (obscenities?) 
and
> hexes at James as he's lying on the ground. 
> 

Allie:

Either one would have helped him.  He did manage to pull one 
nonverbal on James (sectumsempra/sectumvisage/not sectum at all).  I 
don't think he tried to do anything without his wand, even though he 
might have been successful.  Harry was able to pull off a 
wandless "lumos" when cornered by dementors, although his wand was 
very close to his hand when it happened and that was life and death. 

Allie
(not confused for once)








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug  5 03:36:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:36:15 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eavkrt+6ah2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb13nf+ut17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156535

 
> Abergoat asks:
> But why give up on the idea that dog-faced woman is Snape's mother? I
> think Voldemort transforming her has excellent possibilities. Why is
> it that Dumbledore couldn't give any information Ravenclaw Horcrux
> (ignoring the idea that it could have been a Gryffindor item) but
> could on everything else? And JKR has told us that Harry knows more
> than he thinks he does. And JKR very clearly showed that Voldemort
> doesn't always kill horcrux victims (Morfin Gaunt). Eileen as the
> holder of the Ravenclaw relic tidies up many things.


Potioncat:
Because Agnes is not the same name as Eileen. Agnes's son comes to 
visit. (whoever he is) It is not Eileen. Now, if we'd never been given 
her name, it would be different. Now, maybe Agnes is Lupin's mother???

It's very fun to speculate. One of my speculations is that Muggle born 
Lily and Son of a Muggle Severus may have met off campus, or may have 
met at Diagon Alley. But that is speculation, no canon for it. Your 
Eileen as holder of a Ravenclaw relic is also speculation. It's 
interesting, but it's hard to have a real opinion, because there just 
isn't any canon to tie it to.








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 03:39:08 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 03:39:08 -0000
Subject: Wild Predictions for book 7 ending
Message-ID: <eb13ss+krot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156536


Sibyll slipping into an alcohol induced trance makes the following  
predictions.  (I suspect that they have their basis in some obscure 
and difficult to understand alchemical text. So her predictions may 
be wrong
  or not. Only time will tell.)

1. "Fire (Gryffindor) and Water (Slytherin) will come together."  
(No really new idea here, since we know Snape will help Harry in the 
end.)

2. "The Draught of Living Death will be taken" (by Harry, by Ginny, 
or by both. I suspect it will only be by Harry. It is an Egyptian 
thing.)

3. "The woman will wear a crown" (The terra will play a part. And 
Ginny's red hair, I think, is important. She may meet Lily, I am not 
sure. White and red come together somehow.) 

4. "Saturn will be killed
  The opposites will unite" (After the 
Horcruxes are destroyed, LV's remaining soul bit will go into Harry 
and somehow be transformed by the Love that resides within him.)

5. Then
  "Harry and Ginny must go
 to that place
 beyond
" (Here 
they will meet Sirius and DD and Fawkes.)

6. "They will return
 anew
" 

7. Fawkes will return with them.

Tonks_op
who will just pass right out if any of this is even near correct!









From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Aug  5 04:11:17 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 00:11:17 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: NATURE OF PATRONSUSES
References: <eb0tvo+ahjb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <006301c6b845$33962550$3c86400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156537


> Potioncat:

> I wonder, for example if it's clear to anyone in the WW what Cho's
> Patronus symbolises? I'd bet if someone had Ginny as their
> inner "guardian" the Patronus would be a cat---even though Ginny is
> not a cat animagus.

Magpie:
I don't know if this is what JKR had in mind, but Swans have often been 
associated with love and soul.  I connected the swan to her time with 
Cedric, myself. Not that it necessarily was Cedric but that it was that 
love.  There's a lot of stories about loved ones being turned into swans 
(the swans of Lir are Lir's children whose stepmother Aoifa turned them into 
swans.  They could sing as humans to their father but not come home.  900 
years later when they finally shed their swan skins they were turned into 
aged humans and crumbled away.  It's also associated a lot with beauty and 
the feminine.  The theme of a maiden turning into a swan is often seen as an 
allegory of death.  In my Animal oracle cards, drawing the swan reversed 
means you need to come to terms with separation and learn there is no 
separation from the ones we love.

So in general I thought the swan was a nice Patronus for Cho that suggested 
a lot more depth than a lot of people give her.  It wasn't just "ooh, 
pretty!"

-m 





From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Aug  5 04:33:45 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:33:45 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0rn0+6dsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb1739+rq7r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156538

wynnleaf:

> I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common 
> fallacy.  One of Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] 
> Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed."  That's 
> a very obvious conclusion and practically no one has ever 
> argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he definitely 
> killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse 
> true.  In other words, the above being true does not in 
> any way imply that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape 
> must be evil.  To consider that to be true is to fall 
> for a very common fallacy, the Latin name of which I 
> can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction 
> is: If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.

houyhnhnm:

I don't know the Latin name either. "Converting a conditional" 
is what it is called in English.

wynnleaf:

> Hm, I believe the DDM Snapers have got a huge boost 
> from JKR's comment.  It seems to take a logical fallacy 
> to believe otherwise.

houyhnhnm:

All that pussy footing around about "the character who died 
at the end of book six" because she didn't want to be 
"indiscrete" is what has me still convinced that there 
was more to what happened on the Tower than met the eye.







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 04:40:28 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 04:40:28 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0rn0+6dsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb17fs+t02l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156539

> wynnleaf
> I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common fallacy.  One of
> Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] Snape is a villian, [then]
> Dumbledore's killed." That's a very obvious conclusion and
> practically no one has ever argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he
> definitely killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse
> true.  In other words, the above being true does not in any way imply
> that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape must be evil.  To consider
> that to be true is to fall for a very common fallacy, the Latin name
> of which I can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction is:
>   If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.
> 
> Rushdie's comments don't even come close to saying that if Dumbledore
> is dead, Snape must be evil.  Therefore JKR's comment doesn't even
> approach validating that notion.
> 


Neri:
Well, I wasn't present in the reading so actually I wasn't presuming
to fill in the blanks, and so I never referred to the sentence "[if]
Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed". I was referring to
Rushdie's words "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy.
We propose that Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is
a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off
his guard". From these words I think it is fair to sum up Rushdie's
argument as "if our theory is correct and Snape is good, then
Dumbledore can't really be dead".

To this JKR's answer was: " Your opinion, I would say, is right.
However, I see I am going to have to be more explicit and say
Dumbledore is definitely dead". My interpretation to JKR's words is
"Rushdie's argument is valid, but unfortunately Dumbledore *is* dead.

The logical question whether this inevitably implies that Snape is
evil depends on the precise formulation of Rushdie's argument, the way
JKR understood it. Unfortunately he didn't formulate it very
precisely, and even if he would have we wouldn't have a proof that JKR
understood it that way. However, *if* JKR understood Rushdie's
argument as "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead" then the
fact that Dumbledore *is* dead would logically imply that Snape at the
very least isn't good.


(If you really really insist on the logical proof, then:

A = Snape is good

B = Dumbledore is dead

The four logical options are: 

1. A and B
2. (Not A) and B
3. A and (Not B)
4. (Not A) and (Not B)

Rushdie's argument: If A then Not B

Since JKR acknowledges Rushdie's argument as true, this means option 1
is false. 

However, JKR adds that B must exist and therefore options 3 and 4 are
false too. This leaves as valid only option 2: Snape isn't good and
Dumbledore is dead.

Q.E.D.)


Of course, one might object here that "not good" does not necessarily
implies "evil". That is, it could be some form of Gray!Snape. And of
course, if JKR didn't understand Rushdie's argument as precisely "if
Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead", or if her logic wasn't
operating very well, then this leaves Good!Snape some wriggle room,
but not much more than that. I certainly wouldn't describe it as "a
huge boost".


Neri 







From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug  5 05:31:48 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 05:31:48 -0000
Subject: Romania Jan 2006
Message-ID: <eb1ag4+2vmg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156540

JKR went to Romania at the start of this year ...

Sure she does book promotions and charity work, but could she be doing
a bit of background work for Book 7?

We could finally see Charlie's work place, the Dragon Reserve. 







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug  5 08:23:24 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 08:23:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb1739+rq7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb1khs+nuc0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156541

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>
> wynnleaf:

> >To consider that to be true is to fall 
> > for a very common fallacy, the Latin name of which I 
> > can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction 
> > is: If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.
 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I don't know the Latin name either. "Converting a conditional" 
> is what it is called in English.

Geoff:
I think you are referring  to a non-sequitur? (= "it does not follow")







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Aug  5 13:48:31 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:48:31 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0qqq+9rtq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb27jf+6s63@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156542

> > Pippin
> > wondering if the Faith-ist position shouldn't be that Snape is
> > good, since he has turned out to be on Harry's side in every other
> > book in the series
> >
> 
> Neri:
> Hmmm. Faith believes what canon places before her, but she isn't Na?ve
> or Gullible (she's only their first cousin). Since Snape saved Harry's
> life (or tried to, anyway) several times, Faith certainly believes
> that Snape is likely to do so in Book 7 too. However, to conclude from
> this that Snape must be good, that would be gullible. After all, Faith
> also has to believe that Snape tormented orphans placed under his
> authority, tried to turn in two innocent men to be soul sucked, and
> killed Dumbledore on the tower with an Unforgivable curse. The most
> straightforward interpretation of this is that Snape is bad. So Faith
> would ask: can Snape be a bad man *and* try to save Harry's life?
> Turns out it's not only possible, but is strongly implied in canon.
> Yep, Faith would go with that.

Pippin:
If Faith believes all that, I'm afraid she's been subverted and no
longer adequately represents her position <g>

The straightforward interpretation of canon is that we don't have
enough information to determine whether Snape is good or bad, since
all of Book Seven is needed to establish this. If everything hinges
on what happened on the Tower, Faith ought to be agnostic since
there is contradictory evidence. It certainly looked to Harry as if 
Snape had killed Dumbledore with an unforgivable curse.
OTOH, a trickle of blood is straightforward evidence that Dumbledore
had been dead for far less than half an hour when Harry found him.

The straightforward interpretation of canon is that  Snape thought 
that Sirius and Lupin were guilty when he threatened them. 

It is equally straightforward that  Dumbledore knows how Snape 
behaves towards Harry and Neville and has some epitome of
goodness reason for allowing it, though naturally Faith would
not presume to speculate about what it is.<g>

Pippin







From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 14:13:35 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 10:13:35 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
References: <eavlqf+qamh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c6b899$578c08e0$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 156543


<Snip>
> Rebecca wrote:
>> Rebecca, who recalls in this thread earlier that
>> someone mentioned Petunia never goes out - recalling
>> that she did once in PS/SS because Harry and Petunia
>> run into Diggle while shopping.
>
> Abergoat asks:
> Do you have the reference for that? Sounds interesting and I don't
> remember anything about it.
>
Rebecca:

Simply ask, and you shall receive. :)  From PS/SS:

"Yet sometimes he thought (or maybe hoped) that strangers in the street 
seemed to know him. Very strange strangers they were, too. A tiny man in a 
violet top hat had bowed to him once while out shopping with Aunt Petunia 
and Dudley. After asking Harry furiously if he knew the man, Aunt Petunia 
had rushed them out of the shop without buying anything."  Furthermore, 
after Harry finds out from Hagrid he is a wizard and they're in the Leaky 
Cauldron, Harry remembers Diggle when he intriduces himself and says that he 
bowed to him in a shop one day. Diggle is delighted Harry remembers him.

Question is, what shop was she in?

Rebecca







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 14:39:39 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 14:39:39 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb17fs+t02l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2ajb+65c0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156544


> 
> Neri:
> Well, I wasn't present in the reading so actually I wasn't presuming
> to fill in the blanks, and so I never referred to the sentence "[if]
> Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed". I was referring to
> Rushdie's words "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy.
> We propose that Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is
> a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off
> his guard". From these words I think it is fair to sum up Rushdie's
> argument as "if our theory is correct and Snape is good, then
> Dumbledore can't really be dead".

wynnleaf
You are taking Rushdie's argument, which were basically "Snape is good
*and* DD isn't dead" and claiming a different argument from him,
namely "*If* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore isn't dead."  Rushdie
did *not* present an if/then argument.  

Basically Rushdie's argument was (not quite in this order)
1.  Snape is good
2.  DD is alive (through a plan between DD and Snape)
3.  If Snape is evil, DD is dead  

But you have made it

1.  Snape is good
2. *Therefore* (or "then") DD is alive
3.  If DD is dead, Snape must be evil.  

#2 was not Rushdie's theory, and even if it were, #3 doesn't logically
follow from it.

Neri 
> To this JKR's answer was: " Your opinion, I would say, is right.
> However, I see I am going to have to be more explicit and say
> Dumbledore is definitely dead". My interpretation to JKR's words is
> "Rushdie's argument is valid, but unfortunately Dumbledore *is* dead.

wynnleaf
Yes, I'll agree that JKR was saying DD is dead.  But if she heard and
understood Rushdie's comments, she was not validating a theory that
Snape's goodness depends on DD's being alive.

Neri
> The logical question whether this inevitably implies that Snape is
> evil depends on the precise formulation of Rushdie's argument, the way
> JKR understood it.

wynnleaf
I agree.  If she didn't understand the question, then there's no way
we can possibly know, or even guess, what she meant by her answer, and
therefore her answer would give no greater weight to any side of the
debate over Snape's loyalty.

Neri
 Unfortunately he didn't formulate it very
> precisely, and even if he would have we wouldn't have a proof that JKR
> understood it that way. 

wynnleaf
Actually, his argument seems pretty clear *in print.*  The only real
question is whether or not someone just listening to him would have
understood it.  A number of observers there didn't quite understand
what he was trying to say.  JKR may not have understood either.  But
in print, his argument is rather easy to understand.  It is only by 
*adding* "if's" and "then's" to his comments that you changed what he
said.  Certainly when you add in words, you can change his theory and
then attempt to say that it's unclear.  But it is not unclear if you
don't try to add words to it.  JKR may have misunderstood his
argument, but I don't think we can assume, or even suppose, that she
was also hearing words he never even said.

Neri
However, *if* JKR understood Rushdie's
> argument as "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore can't be dead" then the
> fact that Dumbledore *is* dead would logically imply that Snape at the
> very least isn't good.

wynnleaf
Ah, we're back to you adding in words and supposing that JKR heard
them.  The fact is Rushdie *didn't * say "if" or "then."  You added
that.  And then proceeded to consider what JKR *might* have meant *if*
she heard Rushdie saying something that he never said.  

Neri
> (If you really really insist on the logical proof, then:
> 
> A = Snape is good
> 
> B = Dumbledore is dead
> 
> The four logical options are: 
> 
> 1. A and B
> 2. (Not A) and B
> 3. A and (Not B)
> 4. (Not A) and (Not B)
> 
> Rushdie's argument: If A then Not B

wynnleaf
No, this is *not* his argument.  You are *adding* the "if" and "then."
 Rushdie's argument is Snape is good and Dumbledore is alive.  *Not*
"*if* Snape is good *then* Dumbledore is alive."

Neri
> Since JKR acknowledges Rushdie's argument as true, this means option 1
> is false. 

wynnleaf,
Wrong.  Your argument only works because you're changing Rushdie's
theory into an if/then proposition.

It should actually be like this:

1.  Snape is good and Dumbledore is dead

2.  Snape is not good and Dumbledore is dead  (Rushdie said that if
Snape is not good, Dumbledore must be dead. Obviously true.  This is
the only if/then argument that Rushdie produced and he didn't actually
even use the if/then words.)

3.  Snape is good and Dumbledore is not dead    (Rushdie's argument
and he did not make proof of Snape's goodness dependent on Dumbledore
being alive.)

4.  Snape is not good and Dumbledore is not dead  (Obviously untrue) 

Neri 
> However, JKR adds that B must exist and therefore options 3 and 4 are
> false too.

wynnleaf
Wrong.  JKR adds that Dumbledore is dead, and it does *not* follow
that Snape must be evil.  That only follows if you pretend that
Rushdie made an if/then argument and theorized that *if* Snape was
good Dumbledore *had* to be alive.  That was not Rushdie's theory.  He
proposed an "A and B" theory, not an "if A then B" theory.  

Neri
 This leaves as valid only option 2: Snape isn't good and
> Dumbledore is dead.

wynnleaf
According to the argument Rushdie actually made (not the one you say
he made), option 1 becomes just as valid -- Snape is good, but
Dumbledore is dead.

Frankly, your argument is completely built on the idea of JKR not only
misunderstanding Rushdie, but actually heard words come out of his
mouth that he didn't actually say.  You've included "ifs" and "thens"
which Rushdie didn't use, and then supposed that JKR interpreted
Rushdie based on your new version of his comments.

If you want to consider how JKR could have misunderstood Rushdie,
please stick to Rushdie's actual words and let's not start theorizing
about JKR hearing words he never even used.  After all, I got no
impression JKR would have had a hard time *hearing* Rushdie.  

wynnleaf






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Sat Aug  5 15:29:43 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 15:29:43 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb1739+rq7r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2dh7+5itr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156545

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>
> wynnleaf:
> 
> > I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common 
> > fallacy.  One of Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] 
> > Snape is a villian, [then] Dumbledore's killed."  That's 
> > a very obvious conclusion and practically no one has ever 
> > argued against that.  If Snape is evil, he definitely 
> > killed DD.  But that being true, does not make the converse 
> > true.  In other words, the above being true does not in 
> > any way imply that if Dumbledore is really dead, Snape 
> > must be evil.  To consider that to be true is to fall 
> > for a very common fallacy, the Latin name of which I 
> > can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction 
> > is: If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I don't know the Latin name either. "Converting a conditional" 
> is what it is called in English.
> 

I don't know about Latin either. I do know that in the branch of
mathematics called logic the following definitions are used:

statement:         if A then B
inverse:              if not A then not B
converse:           if B then A
contrapositive:   if not B then not A

In logic IF you can establish the truth of a statement its 
contrapositive will also ALWAYS be true. Likewise IF a statement
AND its inverse OR its converse can be shown to be true then
all four varients are true and A and B are in fact identical. 

The trouble with trying to apply logic to Rushdie's statement is
that the statement itself is false in general so no logical conclusions 
can be drawn from it. An evil Snape might have gone along with 
a DD plan to fake his death for some reason to be revealed in
book 7. The proposition that if Snape is a villian then DD is dead
is simply not true. Rowling has confirmed that DD is dead so 
thus endeth many fine theories but by itself this tells us nothing
about Snape's loyalties.

Rowling did say that Rushdie's opinion was correct. We can't know 
which part of Rushdie's rambling opinion she might have been 
referring to when she said this. She confirmed *something* that 
he said, but which something? I don't think that you can make too
much of the difference between an opinion and a theory because
it is too likely that in the heat of a real time discussion that Rowling
was not choosing her words that carefully. You might consider a 
theory to be just an informed opinion anyway.

Two things at the end of HBP seemed like possible tricks on the reader:
DD's "death" and Snape's "betrayal". If either one was a trick it seems
unlikely she would give them away at this point. Maybe she tripped up
but she is by now an experienced trickster and not easily tripped. By
telling us that the straightforward interpretation of DD's "death" is 
correct she is not giving away one of her tricks, she is telling us that 
we only imagined a trick where there was none. If she meant to say that
Snape is good and the straightforward interpretation of the ending of 
HBP is wrong then she *is* giving away one of her tricks and one that
she has played very close to her chest for 6 books. This seems very
unlikely, so I'm guessing that she was confirming the opinion that 
everything hinges on whether Snape is good or evil and  *not* the 
opinion that Snape is good.

Now that I've said that, just watch: She'll come out in the papers today
and say how flustered and embarrassed she is at having stumbled when
she revealed Snape's true character at the book reading!

Ken







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 16:14:38 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:14:38 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb2dh7+5itr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2g5e+jqs7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156546

Ken 
> I don't know about Latin either. I do know that in the branch of
> mathematics called logic the following definitions are used:
> 
> statement:         if A then B
> inverse:              if not A then not B
> converse:           if B then A
> contrapositive:   if not B then not A
> 
> In logic IF you can establish the truth of a statement its 
> contrapositive will also ALWAYS be true. Likewise IF a statement
> AND its inverse OR its converse can be shown to be true then
> all four varients are true and A and B are in fact identical. 
> 
> The trouble with trying to apply logic to Rushdie's statement is
> that the statement itself is false in general so no logical conclusions 
> can be drawn from it. An evil Snape might have gone along with 
> a DD plan to fake his death for some reason to be revealed in
> book 7. The proposition that if Snape is a villian then DD is dead
> is simply not true. Rowling has confirmed that DD is dead so 
> thus endeth many fine theories but by itself this tells us nothing
> about Snape's loyalties.
> 
> Rowling did say that Rushdie's opinion was correct. We can't know 
> which part of Rushdie's rambling opinion she might have been 
> referring to when she said this. She confirmed *something* that 
> he said, but which something? I don't think that you can make too
> much of the difference between an opinion and a theory because
> it is too likely that in the heat of a real time discussion that Rowling
> was not choosing her words that carefully. You might consider a 
> theory to be just an informed opinion anyway.
> 
> Two things at the end of HBP seemed like possible tricks on the reader:
> DD's "death" and Snape's "betrayal". If either one was a trick it seems
> unlikely she would give them away at this point. Maybe she tripped up
> but she is by now an experienced trickster and not easily tripped. By
> telling us that the straightforward interpretation of DD's "death" is 
> correct she is not giving away one of her tricks, she is telling us
that 
> we only imagined a trick where there was none. If she meant to say that
> Snape is good and the straightforward interpretation of the ending of 
> HBP is wrong then she *is* giving away one of her tricks and one that
> she has played very close to her chest for 6 books. This seems very
> unlikely, so I'm guessing that she was confirming the opinion that 
> everything hinges on whether Snape is good or evil and  *not* the 
> opinion that Snape is good.
> 
> Now that I've said that, just watch: She'll come out in the papers today
> and say how flustered and embarrassed she is at having stumbled when
> she revealed Snape's true character at the book reading!

wynnleaf
Despite the fact that I said in my last post the if Snape was evil
Dumbledore must be dead, you are correct that such a statement is not
necessarily true.  It is conceivable (barely) that Snape could be evil
and DD fake his death -- although we know now that didn't happen.

Basically, I agree with you that it is highly unlikely that JKR would
have given away this mystery the other night.  However, we *did* see
her almost certainly inadvertently give away information about Harry
Ron and Hermione living through Book 7.  So it is possible that she
was particularly flustered that night and gave Snape away, too.  But I
don't think she meant to say "your opinion is correct," to Rushdie's
opinion that Snape is good.  I just don't think she'd be that
flustered, even with the surprise of a famous author asking her such a
detailed question.  My guess is that she was commenting on Rushdie's
last opinion, that the true meaning of the events on the tower hinge
on Snape's loyalty or lack of loyalty.  But I think that she was also
trying to move away from commenting directly on Snape and that was one
reason why she focused her more direct comments on the death of
Dumbledore.

wynnleaf
>







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 16:46:11 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 16:46:11 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
Message-ID: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156547

Salman Rushdie a man I very much respect told JKR that he thought
Snape was good and JKR responded:
 
"Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going to
have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead."

Or did she? www.harrypotterspage.com also has a transcript of JKR's
response and they heard it like this:

"(After much uncomfortable body language and hemming and hawing)

(unable to hear much of her first statements) but let me say this
finally Dumbledore is definitely dead."

But if she really did say "Your opinion, I would say, is right" does
that prove Snape is good? Well, maybe not 100% proof, but for me to
continue to insist the man is evil I'd have to do what I've accused
others of doing and engage in mental back flips and contortions. The
fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a good
Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position.

If JKR can figure out a way to make a good Snape and a good book 7
then she's an even better writer than I think she is. But how on Earth
can she do it? I'll tell you one thing, the reason for killing
Dumbledore would have to be HUGE, tiny little reasons like helping him
in his undercover work just won't do the trick.

I'm just thinking out loud here but what if not Harry but Dumbledore
had inadvertently become a Horcrux, perhaps when he got that withered
arm? That would mean Voldemort could never die as long as Dumbledore
lived. I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that suicide (self murder)
would only strengthen a Horcrux, he must be killed by someone in a
completely selfless act. Snape had nothing to gain personally by
killing Dumbledore, he did it because Dumbledore asked him to and
because he knew it was the right thing to do. Snape knew that killing
Dumbledore would eventually bring about his own death and he didn't
even have posthumous glory to look forward to. Snape did a good and
heroic thing, but NOBODY would ever know about it, not even Harry; a
thousand years from now people would still use the word "snape" as a
synonym for "traitor". Snape understood all this, he knew the price he
must pay for doing the right thing but he did it anyway.  

I won't pretend this theory has no holes in it; for one thing it's not
very compatible with the hatred etched into the harsh lines of Snape's
face when he killed Dumbledore. And for another it's very hard to
understand why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry what was going on, if not
before the killing then immediately after in a letter or something. As
it is Harry's titanic hatred of Snape is going to distract him from
his primary duty of killing Voldemort, and poor Snape will have enough
problems without Harry swearing a lifetime vendetta against him. Oh
well, I said I was just thinking out loud.

Eggplant  








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug  5 17:15:44 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:15:44 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2jo0+9psa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156548


Eggplant wrote: 
> But if she really did say "Your opinion, I would say, is right" does
> that prove Snape is good? Well, maybe not 100% proof, but for me to
> continue to insist the man is evil I'd have to do what I've accused
> others of doing and engage in mental back flips and contortions. The
> fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a 
good
> Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position.

Snipping Eggplant's theories as to how the Tower scene might make 
sense with a Good!Snape.

And after I came to I (potioncat) wrote:

Uh....rabid Snape supporter that I am. Constant Snape-apologist that 
I am. Long time Snape-aholic that I have been..........

I don't for one minute think JKR said, or intended to say, "Snape is 
good." We are nit-pickers and some of us are better than others---but 
the vaguest of us plays close attention to details. 

The problem is--as I understand it---is that we are 
dissecting "impressions" of the book reading and that none of us has 
a reliable version of the actual question-answer session.

We have two members of HPfGU who attended and there are reports on 
other sites about the event. And I am very grateful for all the 
reports of the events. But does anyone really know what was said and 
what was intended?

Oh, and what is the story about a child upsetting JKR with a question?


Potioncat, who thinks the world is upside down when Eggplant says 
Snape is good and I argue against it. Quick, I need firewhiskey.








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 17:42:54 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:42:54 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb27jf+6s63@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2lau+gnos@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156549

> Pippin:
> If Faith believes all that, I'm afraid she's been subverted and no
> longer adequately represents her position <g>
> 

Neri:
Ah, yes. People sometimes try to subvert Faith. But since her very
essence is anti-subversion, their attempts are usually short lived.

> Pippin:
> The straightforward interpretation of canon is that we don't have
> enough information to determine whether Snape is good or bad, since
> all of Book Seven is needed to establish this.

Neri:
Faith asks where in canon do you find the sentence "we don't have
enough information to determine whether Snape is good or bad" or
something similar. 

> Pippin:
> If everything hinges
> on what happened on the Tower, Faith ought to be agnostic since
> there is contradictory evidence.

Neri:
Hmm. I notice some change in your position. First you wrote that Faith
has to believe that Snape is good, and now you write that she only has
to be agnostic.

Of course, Faith is very good at being agnostic. She was actually
being agnostic about Snape for nearly six books, a feat that not many
other readers had managed to achieve. However, Faith is also rather
simple minded. Not actually to the point of being Na?ve or Gullible,
but she *is* their first cousin. So when Faith sees someone points his
wand at an old defenseless man, shouts "Aveda Kedavra", a green jet of
light comes out of the tip of his wand and hits the defenseless old
man, and that man ends up dead, well then, Faith tends to believe that
this someone isn't a good man. Not very sophisticated, I know. 


> Pippin:
It certainly looked to Harry as if 
> Snape had killed Dumbledore with an unforgivable curse.
> OTOH, a trickle of blood is straightforward evidence that Dumbledore
> had been dead for far less than half an hour when Harry found him.
> 

Neri:
No. It took even the great Pippin, the queen of subversive theorists,
several months to notice the trickle of blood and conclude that it
proves Dumbledore wasn't dead for half an hour. That's not
straightforward, that's at best a very sneaky clue (and what's more,
in order to build any watertight theory it requires a multitude of
additional assumptions and sneaky clues). Faith isn't nearly as
inquisitive a reader as that. She believes what canon *places in front
of her*, not what it hides in the tiny details. You need a different
personification for that.

BTW, the trickle of blood by itself would also support a theory that
Dumbledore is still alive. So if Faith was swayed by such sneaky clues
 she should have also been agnostic about Dumbledore being dead. But
Faith believed what canon placed before her, so she was always sure
about Dumbledore being dead and, as usual, proved correct.


> Pippin:
> The straightforward interpretation of canon is that  Snape thought 
> that Sirius and Lupin were guilty when he threatened them. 
> 

Neri:
That's why Faith was agnostic at the time. However, it was also
straightforward that Snape refused to listen to any proof that they
weren't guilty, and was rather enjoying himself threatening them with
sucking their souls. That's something a good man wouldn't do even if
he believes they are guilty. 

Saying all that, Faith would still be agnostic about Snape even after
the tower if she couldn't see a way to reconcile the good things he
did with the bad things he did. But such a way exists, and what's more
it is highly supported in canon. Not sneaky clues canon, but things
that Dumbledore says in his remember-that-my-son end-of-the-year
lectures. Faith must at least acknowledge that this looks like the
most reasonable solution at the moment. And besides, she always longed
for a badge of her own <g>.


> Pippin:
> It is equally straightforward that  Dumbledore knows how Snape 
> behaves towards Harry and Neville

Neri:
Canon, please.

> Pippin:
and has some epitome of
> goodness reason for allowing it, though naturally Faith would
> not presume to speculate about what it is.<g>
> 

Neri:
She wouldn't. Not if it requires some subversive theory about Snape
acting and it's all a part of some Dumbledore's master plan. You need
a different personification to do that.


Neri







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 17:45:55 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:45:55 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb2ajb+65c0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2lgj+7re6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156550

 
> wynnleaf
> You are taking Rushdie's argument, which were basically "Snape is good
> *and* DD isn't dead" and claiming a different argument from him,
> namely "*If* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore isn't dead."  Rushdie
> did *not* present an if/then argument.  
> 

Neri:
Your logic problem is as follows: JKR said that Rushdie's argument is
true. So if she understood the Rushdie's argument as "Snape is good
*and* Dumbledore isn't dead", she said it's true, and then she said
Dumbledore *is* dead. Contradiction!!!

I'm not sure what Rushdie meant exactly, but I'm pretty sure JKR
understood it as "*if* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore can't be
dead". Otherwise she's contradicting herself.
 

> wynnleaf
> Yes, I'll agree that JKR was saying DD is dead.  But if she heard and
> understood Rushdie's comments, she was not validating a theory that
> Snape's goodness depends on DD's being alive.
> 

Neri:
Then what was she validating?

Neri







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 18:41:35 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:41:35 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2oov+f3pk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156551

Eggplant:
> Salman Rushdie a man I very much respect told JKR that he thought
Snape was good...
*(snip)*
But if she really did say "Your opinion, I would say, is right" does
that prove Snape is good? Well, maybe not 100% proof, but for me to
continue to insist the man is evil I'd have to do what I've accused
others of doing and engage in mental back flips and contortions. The
fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a good 
Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position.

Ceridwen:
I often disagree with your position concerning Snape, as you may or 
may not have noticed.  I am very impressed at what you wrote above!  
I don't know if I would be able to come on list and say anything so 
forthright.  For me it might sound more like: "I think that 
Snooooeee....  Snuuuuuuup...  Duh-hee..." as my tongue wound firmly 
around my teeth.

If it's any consolation, the other thread about Rushdie's comments 
might offer hope in the debate about what was said, what was 
understood, and what was meant.  Upon first reading, I took it the 
way you did as well.  But I also agree with the arguments that 
Snape's ambiguity is important to the story line and it would be a 
very unsettling thing to force an outright admission out of JKR.

Eggplant:
> I'm just thinking out loud here but what if not Harry but Dumbledore
had inadvertently become a Horcrux, perhaps when he got that withered
arm? 

Ceridwen:
I wondered about that, too.  The dead arm portion, at least, if not 
the entire body.  We do know that Voldemort's core soul possessing 
animals during his exile after GH tended to kill them.  Snape's 
intervention before HBP begins could have been merely to contain the 
soul piece and the death which was occurring to the part already 
damaged.  That the arm didn't heal all year was surprising in a world 
where bones are re-grown overnight and major injuries are dispelled 
with the wave of a wand or the sip of a potion.

Part of my reasoning was that a soul piece would try to go into a 
nearby warm, living body if it was released from its container.  This 
would be how LV would reclaim it if necessary, I reasoned.  This 
would also be an argument for a Horcrux!Harry or a Horcrux!Ginny, 
since Harry destroyed the Horcrux!Diary and they were the only two 
warm bodies there (though Ginny was nearly drained of life force at 
this point).

I really wish we had gotten the entire story!

Another possibility that I kicked around, but which would necessitate 
legilimency between Snape and Dumbledore on the tower, was that the 
potion in the cave was part of an Inferus-making potion which was 
activated by the water from the lake.  Problem:  Harry splashed water 
on Dumbledore's face, but we don't know if any of it went into his 
mouth.  Possible support:  Harry had to use a rousing spell twice to 
bring Dumbledore around.  Ambiguity again.

Eggplant:
*(snip)*
> I won't pretend this theory has no holes in it; for one thing it's 
not very compatible with the hatred etched into the harsh lines of 
Snape's face when he killed Dumbledore. And for another it's very 
hard to understand why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry what was going 
on, if not before the killing then immediately after in a letter or 
something. As it is Harry's titanic hatred of Snape is going to 
distract him from his primary duty of killing Voldemort, and poor 
Snape will have enough problems without Harry swearing a lifetime 
vendetta against him. Oh well, I said I was just thinking out loud.

Ceridwen:
If Snape was forced to do something as eternally horrible as you 
outlined, which would replace the name of Judas with the name of 
Snape, that could explain his expression of hatred and disgust.  It 
wouldn't be hatred toward DD, but toward circumstances which forced 
him into that position.  Any hatred he felt, though, for whatever 
reason, would certainly be channelled into the AK.

As for a message from DD, one could still be forthcoming, to be 
released when it was necessary for the storyline in book 7.  Sirius's 
will wasn't found until after the schoolyear was over with, I presume 
everything was tied up until after he was legally declared dead.  In 
real life, wills and bequests aren't always given out until after the 
funeral.  We might get some startling news in book 7.  That, however, 
is currently speculation based on Sirius's will not being revealed 
until the book after the one in which he died.

The whole thing is, we just don't know at this point.  We don't know 
how Horcruxes are created and how they behave after that; we don't 
know the spell to create Inferi or if they could also be created by a 
potion; we don't know if Snape was in on where DD took Harry that 
night and what might happen in the cave, or even if Snape was in on 
the Horcruxes at all (though if DD didn't officially tell him, he may 
have had an idea after saving DD's hand).  JKR has written all of 
this well enough that we believe in Horcruxes and Inferi as part of 
the Potterverse while we don't know enough about them to really 
discuss them without speculation.  She's also done a superb job in 
hiding Snape's true allegiance.  That a man like Salman Rushdie 
believes in DDM!Snape is a testimony to this effective ambiguity, I 
think.

Ceridwen.






From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Sat Aug  5 19:09:27 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 21:09:27 +0200
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_=28Sp?=
	=?iso-8859-1?Q?oiler=3F=3F=3F=3F=29!=3F?=
References: <eb17fs+t02l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009d01c6b8c2$ac8f8190$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 156552

Neri wrote:
> (If you really really insist on the logical proof, then:
>
> A = Snape is good
>
> B = Dumbledore is dead
>
> The four logical options are:
>
> 1. A and B
> 2. (Not A) and B
> 3. A and (Not B)
> 4. (Not A) and (Not B)
>
> Rushdie's argument: If A then Not B
>
> Since JKR acknowledges Rushdie's argument as true, this means option 1
> is false.
>
> However, JKR adds that B must exist and therefore options 3 and 4 are
> false too. This leaves as valid only option 2: Snape isn't good and
> Dumbledore is dead.
>
> Q.E.D.)

Miles:
Your prove is based on the assumption of a logical connection of both.
But we don't know there is. Both options can simply coexist, without any
logical connection we can be sure of.
Just to take the example most of us make of Rushdie's statement: "Snape is
good, because he helped Dumbledore to fake his own death" is very likely,
but far from being 100% sure. ESE!Snape could have helped Dumbledore to gain
his ultimate faith, still being on LV's side.

Coexisting factors that *seem* to be logically connected are the base of my
favourite statistics joke:
In German speaking countries, storks are said to bring all newborn children
(I'm not sure this "legend" is inter-cultural).
Statistical analysis of  scientific research tells us, that areas with more
storks have more newborn children p.a.
Q.e.d. ;)

So, the only thing we can sure about is, that Dumbledore is dead and will
remain dead. Everything else is still possible. And since this "else" is one
of the most important secrets of book 7, Rowling would never ever spill the
beans about this.

Miles, giggling and hoping that all listies understand the joke above, not
so much hoping that they think it is funny ;)




From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Aug  5 19:11:45 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 19:11:45 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb1khs+nuc0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2qhh+h3ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156553

wynnleaf:
 
> > >To consider that to be true is to fall 
> > > for a very common fallacy, the Latin name of which I 
> > > can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction 
> > > is: If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.
 
> > houyhnhnm:

> > I don't know the Latin name either. "Converting a conditional" 
> > is what it is called in English.
 
> Geoff:
> I think you are referring  to a non-sequitur? (= "it does not 
follow")

houyhnhnm:

"If Dumbledore and Snape were working together, then Dumbledore can't 
really be dead"  is the non-sequitur. Turning it around to say "If 
Dumbledore is dead, then he and Snape weren't working together" would 
be converting the conditional. But if the report by the fan on Harry 
Potter's Page is correct, that's not what Rushdie said anyway.

As a Snapist, much as I'd like to believe Rowling confirmed that Snape 
is on the good side, I don't think she gave anything away about Snape.

Dumbledore is definitely dead (I'd considered the possibility that DD 
was still alive; I hadn't pinned all my hopes on it.)  She was pretty 
cagey about the when and how, though.  All that circumlocution about 
the character that dies at the end of the book. And then this:

Q: Recently in an interview, you stated that 2 major characters would 
die. Are you including Dumbledore in that or are these 2 characters in 
addition to Dumbledore? (paraphrased)

JK: When faced with questions like this I remember a quote from the 
author Germaine Greer: `Every writer has to have a chip of ice in 
their heart
.' I think you may have just ruined my career. I really 
can't answer that question as it would give away too much plot. But 
let me just say that you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf.
http://tinyurl.co.uk/0x5o

I still think something about DD's death scene on the Tower will turn 
out as a big surprise.  And I still think Snape is on the good side, 
but not because of anything Rowling said at Radio City Music Hall.






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug  5 00:33:58 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:33:58 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb0bft+55bv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0p1m+v0tr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156554

Abergoat says:
Thanks to both Mike and bridge13219 for the quotes that prove Irma is
magical.

Mike wrote:
> As far as those celluloid abominations, look at all of the
> charactors left out of the earlier films that we *know* were
> important in later books. 

But that is the point, why did they put her IN the films? She has had
zero importance (thus far). Very odd.

Mike wrote:
> And she values her books over anything or
> anyone (unless she *is* secretly in love with Filch).

Abergoat says:
I think that both Irma and Filch are related to Snape and that is
their importance. People on the Eileen Prince thread roll their eyes
when I say it but I strongly suspect that Snape lost his parents early
because Eileen had the Ravenclaw relic and I believe Irma and Filch
'filched' the relic back, now a horcrux. And they are hiding it as a
family heirloom, completely oblivious to its significance to the
defeat of Voldemort. If so they will both become very significant in
book seven.

There is no reason to believe someone can tell something is a horcrux
by just looking at it or even touching it. Since most fans believe
Harry has touched the locket horcrux in OoP that lends some support
that you cannot tell. Of course the locket could have been 'handled'
already. But Dumbledore didn't seem to be concerned about picking up
the locket once they had gotten past the defenses...but there again he
wasn't in top form at the time.

Abergoat









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug  5 21:14:53 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:14:53 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
Message-ID: <eb31od+s8hd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156555

My son and I have been listening to PoA this summer. Something Lupin 
said jumped out at me as a big contradiction to something from HBP. 
Then a couple of other contradictions came to mind. Nothing connects 
and it's random bits----just like the sort of things that come to 
mind in DD's Pensieve. 

One of the issues I'm bringing up here was discussed not long after 
HBP came out. When did DD become Headmaster? I'd like to reinstate 
that discussion. I never realized what a contradiction there was. I 
didn't remember how clearly Lupin had stated the events. But first, 
here are the bits, in the order we first learned of them. 

>>>CoS chapter 13. Harry and Riddle are in the diary seeing events of 
50 years ago when Riddle is about 16:
a tall wizard with long, 
sweeping auburn hair and a beard called to Riddle
snip He was none 
other than a fifty-year younger DD.<<<

>>>PoA, chapter 18 Lupin is speaking:
It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts. Other 
parents weren't likely to want their children exposed to me. But then 
DD became headmaster, and he was sympathetic."<<<


>>>HBP chapter 20:

Harry has come to DD's office. DD inquires about Slughorn's memory. 
Headmaster Dippet is snoring behind the desk. DD tells Harry that 
Riddle was well liked at Hogwarts, Dippet was fond of him, and 
thought him honest. Riddle asked for a job at Hogwarts but Dippet 
turned him down---too young. 

DD shows Harry 2 memories. The first is Hokey's memory and IIRC it 
happens shortly after Riddle graduated. Then DD shows Harry one of 
his memories and says it happens 10 years after the first one. DD and 
Harry go into the Pensieve. Harry sees that they are in the same 
office that they were just standing in. Fawkes is there and so is 
DD "who looked very similar to the DD who was standing beside Harry 
(snip) his face a little less lined." DD greets Tom and offers him a 
chair, Tom Riddle says, "I heard you had become headmaster."

>>>HBP chapter 29, Harry follows McGonagall into the Head's office. 
DD's portrait is sleeping behind the desk.<<<


So first: When did DD become headmaster?

It seems very clear. Right there in book 3 Lupin says DD became 
headmaster just before the Marauders went to Hogwarts. That must have 
been early 70s?

It seems very clear. Right there in book 6. DD became headmaster 
about 10 years after Riddle graduated. That must be mid 50s?

You know, this seems as strange, in the same way, as Molly recalling 
Pringle and Ogg from her days at school, when we're all sure it 
should have been Hagrid and Filch. 

Second, Aging gracefully:

Harry and a 16-year-old Riddle come in contact with an auburn haired 
DD. Was he 100 years old then? Eleven or 12 years later (40 years 
ago?) DD looks much like he does now.  That's a lot of aging in 12 
years, with not much more in the next 40.


The first two sets of contradictions make me wonder if we're going to 
see another Time Turner--or an earlier use of one---in book 7. And/or 
if we'll learn something about how DD ages and why not all wizards 
seem to live so long.

Third: What's up with portraits? DD talks about Dippet and Riddle. 
The portrait never comments. Does anyone know if Dippet's portrait 
has ever spoken in any of the books? I know portraits sleep. I know 
portraits pretend to sleep. I wonder about Dippet. His portrait is 
behind DD's desk until DD's portrait takes that spot. Could it be 
possible that a portrait would sleep until the next Headmaster joined 
the ranks?


Dippet doesn't have much to do with my first set. It just sort of 
fell into place. But it may mean DD's portrait won't be any help.







From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com  Sat Aug  5 00:01:46 2006
From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:01:46 -0000
Subject: This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?
In-Reply-To: <eb0hn4+fe10@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0n5a+di6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156556


> Neri:
> I read it like this: Rushdie's opinion is that if Snape is good,
> then what happened on the tower was a ruse and Dumbledore can't
> really be dead. JKR says his opinion is right (that is, that
> Snape being good would imply that Dumbledore is alive) but
> unfortunately, Dumbledore is definitely dead.
>
> JKR obviously isn't saying that Rushdie's *theory* is right.
> Rushdie's theory the way he presented it includes Dumbledore
> being alive, and JKR nixed that most explicitly.
>
> So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also imply that
> if Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be bad? I'd say the
> way he presented it certainly suggests so, but he didn't state
> it explicitly, and therefore the DDM!Snapers are still left, as
> always, with some vague shade of hope.


Lilygale here:  I basically agree with Neri's analysis. The key
question is "Does Rushdie's opinion also imply that if DD isn't
alive, then Snape must be bad."  As Neri points out, there may be
a loophole whereby Dumbledore is indeed dead while Snape is DDM.

I believe the loophole is the Dumbledore was dying even before he
reached the tower.  He was dying from the combined effects of the
Green Potion and the Horcrux injury to his hand.  He and Snape had
agreed that it was likely that Dumbledore would not last out the
year.  This all goes back to the brilliant stoppered-death theory,
which briefly says that Snape delayed Dumbledore's death for
entirety of Harry's sixth year, but could not prevent that death
entirely.

So, on the tower, Dumbledore asks or (more likely) reminds Snape
through Legilimency to maintain his cover.  As had been discussed
many times here and in other forums, Snape could have appeared to,
but did not truly, cast the AK.  Dumbledore dies from other causes
but is truly dead by the time he hits the ground.

Lilygale









From talamariam at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 00:02:33 2006
From: talamariam at yahoo.com (talamariam)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:02:33 -0000
Subject: This shall be Salman Rushdies words (Spoiler????)!?
In-Reply-To: <eb0kh7+gcpo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0n6p+i55p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156557

> > Neri:
> > <snip> So the only question is, does Rushdie's opinion also
> > imply that if Dumbledore *isn't* alive, then Snape must be
> > bad? <snip>
>
> Pippin:
> But there's another implication, which is that planning an elaborate
> ruse in order to save Dumbledore and plant Snape in deep cover is
> indeed something that Dumbledore and Snape would do, just as we
> DDM!Snapers have contended all along. <snip>


I am really glad to read these question from Rushdie (Wow! Salman as a
potterhead! Not just Irving and King! How's that?).

The question, and JKR's assertion of DD's death is really a bomb!
I tend to agree to the opinion that these pair of remarks do not
necessarily mean that Snape is bad.

But it means DD is definitely dead! Wow! How 'clarifying'!

tal!





From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug  5 00:49:14 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:49:14 -0000
Subject: Who will perform magic "late in life"? (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eavv33+dhre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0pua+dh5t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156558

Carol wrote about Filch and Figg:
>(They could even be
> sister and brother since they have the same initials--compare Amycus
> and Alecto--and Mrs. Figg's tartan slippers match the tartan scarf 
> or whatever it was that Filch wore when he had a headcold. I'm not
> betting on that connection, though, as the "evidence" is so trivial
> and has nothing to do with the prediction.) 

Trivial it may be but that was a good catch about the tartan...and it
is a really fun idea. We have reason to believe that Neville couldn't
do magic because of the way his grandmother berated him (or just
trauma from the death of his parents) not giving him the necessary
confidence so there is good reason to believe there might be a whole
family of squibs, made so by their horrible parents giving them no
confidence in themselves...

But it is a stretch ;) And stretching is SOOOO healthy.

Carol wrote:
> IMO, Mrs. Figg doth protest too much. Her words strike me in the 
> same way that the narrator's "He [Harry] would never forgive Snape. 
> Never!" does--i.e., an overly strong assertion likely to be 
> disproven in later books. 

Abergoat writes:
That is a really convincing argument. I'm almost sold!

Carol wrote:
> Also, I think that most young readers 
> would get more satisfaction from seeing magic performed by the 
> batty old cat lady who was snubbed at Harry's hearing than seeing 
> it performed by the mean old caretaker who wanted to flog the Twins
> and kept chains in his office in hopes that the old punishments 
> would be restored.

Abergoat writes:
But that may be what makes Filch more likely. I suspect JKR wants to
help young readers understand that nasty people don't always lose in
the end. Unfortunately that is life. Voldemort will get his and is
just what he appears to be. But Snape and Filch may not be, horrible
though they are.

Abergoat












From katbofaye at aol.com  Sat Aug  5 00:04:27 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 00:04:27 -0000
Subject: Smith has horcrux cup
Message-ID: <eb0nab+hn1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156559

In HBP Dumbledore tells Harry that the cup was missing from Hepzibah's 
estate.  The family actively searched and did not find it.  Voldemort 
did not leave it behind.  JKR has left too much information unsaid to 
add having to correct what she has all ready told us.  So I do not 
think she has misled us here.  The Smiths do not have it.  I would say 
it is maybe the only place that can be crossed off the list as having 
very little meaning for Voldemort.

katssirius








From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sat Aug  5 01:06:28 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 18:06:28 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who will perform magic "late in life"? (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eavv33+dhre@eGroups.com>
References: <eavbvg+hgnf@eGroups.com> <eavv33+dhre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608041806u17e85597ie46554b2560591be@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156560

Brothergib:
> 'Aunt Petunia will start exhibiting magical tendencies.'
> 'No, she won't. Aunt Petunia has never performed magic, nor will 
> she ever be able to do so.'
>
> I have to be honest, I think this rather puts an end to the
> possibility that it might be Dudley as well. The obvious candidate
> appears to be Filch. <snip> It is also possible that it could be 
> Mrs. Figg. 

Lynda:
My candidate, just because everyone else is so "obvious" (Filch and 
Mrs. Figg are squibs--Petunia's sister was a witch and her nephew is 
a wizard--known magic users in their families) is Aunt Marge.

Lynda









From asjanzen at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 02:20:49 2006
From: asjanzen at yahoo.com (Andrea)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 02:20:49 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb03q8+8gad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb0va1+a6eo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156561

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
 
> Carol, who thinks that the locket and the tiara will be relatively
> easy to find, if not to destroy, but that the cup will be more of a
> challenge

I think the locket has already been destroyed.  I cannot get past the
RAB signature in the fake locket DD and Harry found.  I think Sirius'
brother took it and destroyed it--dying in the process. Sirius told
Harry his brother had tried to leave LV's service and was killed, most
likely by deatheaters.  It's just a feeling, back by a few passages in
OfP and HBP.

Andrea








From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug  5 09:24:55 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:24:55 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <44D3EF64.2090000@telus.net>
Message-ID: <eb1o57+dh76@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156562

Carol:
I don't see how the Smith family could still have the cup since
Voldemort stole both it and the locket to turn them into Horcruxes
after he murdered Hepzibah (and framed poor Hokey).

Abergoat responds:
But that is the question isn't it? Hepzibah clearly says her family
would be furious if they knew she was showing it to Tom and she
explicitly states that they cannot wait to get their hands on it. This
seems it imply either Tom ran around modifying Smith family members'
memories <snip> or Tom went the simpler route and left the cup in the
family's possession. <snip>


Tinktonks:

I agree with Abergoat, if the Smiths would jealously guard this
possession (being frigtened to even show it to anyone) then surely it
would be a wonderful hiding place and security for a valuable piece
of your soul?

LV has a history of using people's fundamental characters against
them, Harry's 'saving people thing' etc.; why would he not use this
to his advantage too?

Tinktonks









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug  5 17:44:21 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:44:21 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eb13nf+ut17@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb2ldl+50i3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156563

Potioncat wrote:
> Because Agnes is not the same name as Eileen. 

Abergoat replies:
I thought I was responding to someone that said they had the idea
themselves but dropped it when they found out Tobias was a muggle and
couldn't have transformed her. I guess I responded to the wrong
poster. The woman seems to only bark, I doubt she was able to give her
name. It is a reasonable speculation to suppose that Agnes may not be
her real name.

Potioncat wrote:
> Your Eileen as holder of a Ravenclaw relic is also speculation. It's 
> interesting, but it's hard to have a real opinion, because there
> just isn't any canon to tie it to.

Abergoat writes:
I cannot argue that it stands on much, but if you stand it on a large
number of very little things (a reason for Snape to be interested in
the healing arts when he isn't a humanitarian, a reason for Dumbledore
to trust Snape that doesn't involve corrosive 'obsessive love', a
reason for Harry to have been to St. Mungo's closed ward, something
that Harry 'knows' that he doesn't realize he knows, a reason for
Snape to be on the 'good side' without really being 'good' himself,
and a nice explanation for Petunia) then does that make it true? Of
course not, but it gives it a bit more of a possibility than idle
speculation.

I even think it explains why Lily was so certain that Voldemort
wouldn't harm her son - the reason she hadn't even picked up her son
let alone run like her husband told her.  Even Voldemort says James
fought valiently - and the destruction of the house supports that.
James should have given Lily adequate time to at least PICK UP Harry.
But JKR explicitly states Harry was still in his cot. But if Lily
helped Snape learn Occlumency and Snape had gotten the memory of a
Voldemort attack on his family from his dog mother then Lily would
have seen a baby Snape being left alone  - over, and over, and over.
She might think Harry is at more risk in her arms if she believes
Voldemort is only after her. Snape says occulmency is hard to learn
and Harry didn't do too bad on the first try. And JKR says that there
is some magic that is done with the eyes that ties to the significance
of Harry having Lily's eyes. 

I think the eye significance is resistance to the imperius curse and
the ability to perform legilimens. Both of which Harry has shown he is
capable of and both that involve the eyes. Is it speculation that Lily
was also resistant to imperius and that she could do legilimency? Of
course, but I think it has a good chance because there is some (small)
support for it. If we don't try to tie the small things together we
have no chance of solving the mystery before book seven comes out.

Abergoat










From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug  5 17:20:38 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 17:20:38 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <44D3EF64.2090000@telus.net>
Message-ID: <eb2k16+nq13@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156564


KJ wrote:
>      Wouldn't it just be easier to transfigure a tea cup to look like 
> Hufflepuff's cup???  I have to go with Carol here. It would make no 
> sense to leave it.

Abergoat responds:
And you are clearly right - I reread the chapter and it makes it very
clear that the family did not ever find the two treasures. And it also
makes clear that Burkes wasn't killed before Tom left. 

I could see no one paying any attention Morfin's mutterings about his
missing ring, but I confess I'm surprised that the Smiths - apparently
a wealthy family - didn't manage to get an investigation going. And it
seems Tom was visiting Hepizbah on his own, not at the suggestion of
Burkes and Borgin as I originally thought. Otherwise it should have
been guessed that Tom was at least involved in the disappearance of
the items.

But then, I believe Dumbledore tells us that few people know that Lord
Voldemort was that young handsome Tom Riddle so perhaps they did put
two and two together but it didn't matter.

So back to thinking the cup will be pulled out of the hat.

Abergoat










From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Sat Aug  5 18:06:01 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 18:06:01 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <20060804171012.40607.qmail@web30805.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eb2mm9+ue6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156565

> Pam:
> Now this is a wild theory, so please don't flame me; I realize 
it's wild. We have been told nothing whatsoever about the Evanses, 
or what happened to them, and they would have the answer.  Suppose 
that both Lily and Petunia were born magical.  Suppose both Lily and 
Petunia went to Hogwarts (and this is how Dumbledore already knew 
Petunia.)  

Laurawkids:
I think the fact that Petunia didn't know Harry wasn't supposed to 
do magic at home tells us that she didn't go to Hogwarts.   But, 
also, why did she not know about that rule from Lily's school days 
unless the rule had changed.?  

> What do you think of the possibility that Vernon met the Evanses, 
who we know were proud of Lily's "witchiness", suppose Vernon had a 
wizard candy joke played on him or something when meeting the family 
(who would put that past James?) and Vernon had a purpleface fit and 
said he'd never marry a witch and Petunia took the opt-out spell?
> That would explain Vernon's irrational fear of magical people even 
before Harry arrived, that would explain Petunia's knowledge of the 
magical world, Vernon's acceptance (such as it was) of Baby Harry 
(when else have we EVER seen Petunia stand up to Vernon?) and it 
would explain why, if it should happen, Dudley would acquire magical 
abilities as a late teenager.  Wild, but what do you think?


Laurawkids:
Do we know that *both* of L & P's parents were Muggles?  If one were 
magical, there would have been way more opportunity to prank 
Vernon.  What if Petunia were expected to be magical because one of 
the parents were?  That would make Lily being magical even more 
annoying to Petunia, AND Lily would have been able to do magic at 
home. 

I'd love to hear some of the accidental magical happenings that 
happened to Petunia when she was growing up!  
 
But, your theory about *P being magical/going to Hogwarts/opting 
out*  holds only if Hogwarts had no "NO underage magic in a non-
magical house during breaks" rule.  Otherwise, Petunia not knowing 
of the restriction hints at her not going to Hogwarts.

I like wild theories, can you tell?

Laurawkids














From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 21:45:12 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:45:12 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb2jo0+9psa@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb33h8+fm8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156566

Eggplant wrote: 
> > But if she really did say "Your opinion, I would say, is right"
does that prove Snape is good? Well, maybe not 100% proof, but for me
to continue to insist the man is evil I'd have to do what I've accused
others of doing and engage in mental back flips and contortions. The
fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a good
Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position. <snip>
> 
Potioncat responded:
> 
> Uh....rabid Snape supporter that I am. Constant Snape-apologist that 
> I am. Long time Snape-aholic that I have been..........
> 
> I don't for one minute think JKR said, or intended to say, "Snape is
good." We are nit-pickers and some of us are better than others---but
the vaguest of us plays close attention to details. 
> 
> The problem is--as I understand it---is that we are dissecting
"impressions" of the book reading and that none of us has 
> a reliable version of the actual question-answer session.
><snip>
> 
> Potioncat, who thinks the world is upside down when Eggplant says 
> Snape is good and I argue against it. Quick, I need firewhiskey.
>

Carol responds:
But you're not arguing against Snape being good, only that you're not
sure that's what JKR meant. Rushdie certainly thought that, however,
and that view, I think, was the basis for Eggplant's change of
opinion. (Bully for you, Eggplant. It takes courage to openly concede
the possibility of being wrong, and I hope your new opinion is
validated, if not necessarily in all its details. But, yes, it is
possible for Snape to be on the side of good and yet to have killed
Dumbledore, and I do think that Snape's courage is something like what
you're describing--knowing that he's facing infamy and imprisonment or
death and yet doing what he must do--what's right rather than what's
easy. But of course, we'll find out in Book 7, won't we?)

To return to Potioncat's response, what I got out of the JKR's answer
to Rushdie was exactly this:

1) Dumbledore is indeed dead.

2) Rushdie is right that events on the tower can only be correctly be
interpreted if we know where Snape's loyalties lie.

Extrapolating a bit, I think if Snape were evil and events were what
they seem in a superficial, Harrycentric reading of HBP, she would
have said so straight out. That she's still attempting to keep Snape's
exact motives and methods mysterious does suggest that Snape is DDM.
If it were all as simple as killing Dumbledore out of loyalty to
Voldermort (as Harry thinks) or to save his own skin, as OFH!Snapers
think, surely she would have just said so. There would be no mystery
to sustain.

Carol, taking away Potioncat's firewhiskey and substituting an Arnold
Palmer (iced tea mixed with lemonade, for those who aren't familiar
with it)









From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sat Aug  5 18:13:38 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 11:13:38 -0700
Subject: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
In-Reply-To: <105417194.20060804122937@vcem.com>
References: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com>
	 <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com>
	 <7b9f25e50608031546q6f3eb0bbk9419f0e0914e8e82@mail.gmail.com>
	 <105417194.20060804122937@vcem.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608051113m1d4a853ek774efb065c794b09@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156567

Julie:
> <snip> But what I really think she is "ridiculing" is a H/H
> ship in *canon*, which she has already said more than once is 
> NOT going to happen. <snip>

Jordan:
> She's not done with it, though. Long stories (and with almost 900
> thousand words to date, it's nothing if not long) with in-depth
> characterizations have a habit of writing themselves. And, to me, 
> JKR declaring for a particular 'ship means that she's going to 
> *force* it if it doesn't otherwise happen - which is annoying 
> enough in fanfiction.

Lynda:

Granted, (and no one knows this better than I) characters sometimes 
"write themselves" and if an author tries to change that writing, 
the result can be forced and stilted.  However, an author's 
characters still reside within the mind of that author who knows 
their characteristics and tendencies better than anyone else.  So 
far JKR has not disappointed (I'm considering the anvil sized hints 
here concerning relationships) and if anything changes or if things 
continue to develop as it seems from the previous six books they
will, I'm certain she can handle it without forcing relationships.  
Of course, as always JMHO.

Lynda








From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Aug  5 21:57:22 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 17:57:22 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Reading by JK Rowling at Radio City - Spoilers Within (SHIP)
References: <1154636145.1537.91991.m26@yahoogroups.com> <8C88558FBAC8485-2DC-157C@mblk-d48.sysops.aol.com> <7b9f25e50608031546q6f3eb0bbk9419f0e0914e8e82@mail.gmail.com> <105417194.20060804122937@vcem.com> <2795713f0608051113m1d4a853ek774efb065c794b09@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00a601c6b8da$23269430$7178400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156568

> Lynda:
>
> Granted, (and no one knows this better than I) characters sometimes
> "write themselves" and if an author tries to change that writing,
> the result can be forced and stilted.  However, an author's
> characters still reside within the mind of that author who knows
> their characteristics and tendencies better than anyone else.  So
> far JKR has not disappointed (I'm considering the anvil sized hints
> here concerning relationships) and if anything changes or if things
> continue to develop as it seems from the previous six books they
> will, I'm certain she can handle it without forcing relationships.
> Of course, as always JMHO.

Magpie:
Also, remember that a lot of things that fandom sees as not having happened 
yet are already happening as far as the author's concerned.  It's not just 
that there are anvils, R/Hr is actually happening in GoF--at a time when a 
lot of fandom didn't see it.  H/G is more of just, imo, literary techniques 
tipping you off that it's going that way, but still for R/Hr at least times 
when people claim that it could go either way I'm sure the author sees it 
already going the one way.  She knows why characters do what they do even 
when we don't, so she knows how they feel about each other and writes it in, 
albeit invisibly.  The story has, in many ways, happened in her head 
already.  She just hasn't written it down.

To compare it to a non-shipping thing, imagine if people said Snape had to 
be Pureblood and Sirius had to be Half-blood pre-OotP.  If Rowling said, 
"No, Snape's Half-blood and Sirius is Pureblood" they might have said well, 
she could still change her mind so it's not canon yet.  They'd be write to 
an extent--if it's not written in she could change it.  But from her pov she 
might have already been writing the two characters as influenced by their 
backgrounds.  She would have known way back in PS that Sirius was Narcissa's 
cousin, had a brother who was a DE, etc.

The trouble sometimes is that people don't always just say what they think 
should happen, which characters should be together etc., they claim these 
things are going to happen and then get angry when they don't, sometimes 
even claiming they were misled.  I think it would be much better if JKR 
didn't tack on an ending that locked everyone into their future lives--a 
coming of age story, imo, should be open-ended, not telling you that Harry 
married Ginny and had a dozen kids.  The kid just grew up, don't rush him 
into middle age.  (Besides, I personally hate epilogues like that, though I 
know Rowling's planned something of that kind.)  That kind of thing I think 
is unnecessary.  But for what's in the middle of happening within the 
timeline of the story I can see why she'd maybe eventually get frustrated. I 
admit I'm amazed at the way she can say something flat out and then have it 
twisted to fit whatever theory someone wants it to fit--not primarily 
because I don't think people should have fun with theories, but because it 
intentionally changes what she said.

-m 





From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug  5 21:59:21 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 21:59:21 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eb2ldl+50i3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb34bp+o453@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156569

 
> Abergoat replies:
> I thought I was responding to someone that said they had the idea
> themselves but dropped it when they found out Tobias was a muggle 
and
> couldn't have transformed her. I guess I responded to the wrong
> poster. 

Potioncat:
No, you probably didn't, it's just that as we each respond to which 
ever post strikes our fancy, the conversation takes different 
directions.

Abergoat:
The woman seems to only bark, I doubt she was able to give her
> name. It is a reasonable speculation to suppose that Agnes may not 
be
> her real name.

Potioncat:
But if her son is visiting her, the hospital would know who she is. A 
long time ago there was a very busy thread about who could be her son 
and whether that was important. (Snape and Filch were each 
candidates.) It's very likely that she's just part of the scenery and 
we won't see any more of her.

Back to the speculation---I hope I wasn't sounding snobbish. My point 
is that sometimes we come up with ideas that hard for others to 
debate just because there isn't enough canon. I'm determined (for 
example) that Snape is a great grandson of Phineas Nigellus. No 
canon. It just seems right. Instead of offering it here, I made it a 
fanfic. Worked for me.

Another speculation on my part is that Snape is a cockroach. While 
quite a few list members would agree with that---it wouldn't be for 
quite the same reason. I have canon---but very few takers to discuss 
it.

Speculation or canon based---you're generating new threads and that's 
always welcomed.






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug  5 22:18:19 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:18:19 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb2lgj+7re6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb35fb+ql4n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156570


> 
> Neri:
> Your logic problem is as follows: JKR said that Rushdie's argument is
> true. So if she understood the Rushdie's argument as "Snape is good
> *and* Dumbledore isn't dead", she said it's true, and then she said
> Dumbledore *is* dead. Contradiction!!!
> 
> I'm not sure what Rushdie meant exactly, but I'm pretty sure JKR
> understood it as "*if* Snape is good, *then* Dumbledore can't be
> dead". Otherwise she's contradicting herself.
>  
> 
> > wynnleaf
> > Yes, I'll agree that JKR was saying DD is dead.  But if she heard and
> > understood Rushdie's comments, she was not validating a theory that
> > Snape's goodness depends on DD's being alive.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Then what was she validating?
> 
wynnleaf
As I read it, Rushdie was setting up a series of statements akin -- as
far as construction goes -- to the following:

It is winter, and there is snow on the ground.

The two are certainly related, but clearly either can be true without
the other being true.  If on the other hand I interpret this statement
to be "If it is winter, then there is snow on the ground," I have set
up an if/then statement in which there *must* always be snow in
winter.  But even then we are not bound to consider it winter, just
because snow is on the ground.  That is, we can't say, "If snow is on
the ground, it is winter."  But with the first statement, "It is
winter, and there is snow on the ground," I could easily affirm the
first part and deny the second, or affirm the second and deny the
first.  "It is winter, but snow is not on the ground," or vice versa.

Similarly, Rushdie can basically say, "Snape is good, and DD is
alive." Even thought the two are related, they are not dependent on
each other. JKR can affirm the opinion that Snape is good -- even that
he and DD worked together on a plan -- yet deny that DD is alive.  

However, I personally don't think she was affirming anything about
Snape's loyalties.  I can't believe she'd give so much away.  I prefer
to think her comment about Rushdie's opinion being correct was related
to Rushdie's last comment that the tower events hinge on Snape's loyalty.

wynnleaf







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sat Aug  5 22:23:03 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 15:23:03 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who will perform magic "late in life"? (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608041806u17e85597ie46554b2560591be@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1G9UYC-0002j0-PP@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156571

Lynda:
My candidate, just because everyone else is so "obvious" (Filch and Mrs.
Figg are squibs--Petunia's sister was a witch and her nephew is a
wizard--known magic users in their families) is Aunt Marge.




Sherry now:
That would be deliciously fun, but Marge is Vernon's sister, not related by
blood to Petunia or Lily.  My personal vote of the one to do magic is for
Figgy.  she deserves it.  Yes, carol, I loved her beating Fletcher with the
bag of cat food cans!  It was a vivid picture and I giggled for a long time
after, every time I thought of it!  I could totally imagine Mrs. Figg if 4
Privet drive was attacked, desperately trying to help and performing some
kind of magic.  Go, Figgy.

Sherry




From random832 at gmail.com  Sat Aug  5 22:31:54 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:31:54 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Judging Characters (was:Scene with likeable James...)
In-Reply-To: <eb0cjg+ft2f@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608030531r657c74ack6b469c428f585ef5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <eb0cjg+ft2f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608051531s5664bf9aj4c57c8424bbf62d9@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156572

Betsy Hp:
[of the pensieve scene, specifically Snape's Worst Memory]
> Honestly, I think it'd be a mistake to try and figure out *any* of
> the characters in this scene while also dismissing the scene as
> inaccurate or exaggerated or (most improbably, IMO) out of character.

Out of _character_, no. It's an entirely different kind of OOC - out
of context. Pensieve memories are devoid of meaningful context, and
there could be any number of things behind it.

Betsy Hp:
> I really, really don't agree that Snape meant for Harry to see the
> memory.  For one, Montague showing up and requiring immediate help
> was so random that Snape *couldn't* have planned for it.

He could have been leaving out the same memories for Harry to see
every time, knowing he would eventually bite.



From random832 at gmail.com  Sat Aug  5 22:44:08 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 18:44:08 -0400
Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[HPforGrownups]_Re:_This_shall_be_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>
References: <eav1lm+q5ou@eGroups.com> <eb0083+omb6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608051544s35ce143ct33c602f80838e70e@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156574

> > Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
> > unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
> > (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him.
> > Now (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. We

What do you want to bet the (unintelligible) was "Severus", as heard
by a stenographer not familiar with HP?

> > cannot, or don't, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our
> > theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that
> > Dumbledore can't really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked
> > up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard.
> > Harry then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do
> > face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It's plain to
> > see, everything follows from this. (Cheering)
> >
> > Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going
> > to have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.

> colebiancardi
> (DDM!Snape!! :) )

Actually, while this seems to debunk ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape is still a
possibility.

Personally, I think confused!snape is the best theory - he's become so
accustomed to plotting with everyone against everyone, that he doesn't
know what side he's on anymore, so he's just sort of trying to muddle
through.

-- 
Random832



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 22:51:03 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:51:03 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb2mm9+ue6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb37cn+d59j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156575

Laurawkids wrote:
> I think the fact that Petunia didn't know Harry wasn't supposed to
> do magic at home tells us that she didn't go to Hogwarts. But,
> also, why did she not know about that rule from Lily's school days
> unless the rule had changed.?

Carol responds:
Although JKR isn't always consistent, as Potioncat reminded us with
her post on when DD became headmaster, you may be right about the
rules changing. We have Severus coming to school knowing all those
hexes, which would certainly qualify as underage magic, and Lily
coming home, according to Petunia, with her pockets full of frog spawn
and turning teacups into rats (SS Am. ed. 53). BTW, the same passage
talks about Lily receiving her Hogwarts letter and disappearing off to
"that school"--hardly an indication that Petunia ever went there, for
those who still don't believe JKR's repeated assertions that Petunia
is (and always was) a Muggle.

Laurawkids:
> Do we know that *both* of L & P's parents were Muggles? If one were
> magical, there would have been way more opportunity to prank
> Vernon. What if Petunia were expected to be magical because one of
> the parents were? That would make Lily being magical even more
> annoying to Petunia, AND Lily would have been able to do magic at
> home. <snip>

Carol responds:
Every reference to Lily's background refers to her as a Muggleborn.
Teen!Severus, a Half-Blood himself, would hardly have called her a
"Mudblood" if she weren't Muggleborn. And Slughorn comments on how
surprised he was that a Muggleborn (Lily) could be so magically gifted.

There's no question that both their parents were Muggles. I believe
that JKR also says something about it on her website.

Carol, thinking that Petunia's importance has to do with what she
*knows* and can tell Harry, if only he can persuade her to do so








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 22:58:24 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 22:58:24 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608051544s35ce143ct33c602f80838e70e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb37qg+dk70@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156576

Jordan Abel wrote:

Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an
unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys.
(Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. Now
(unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore's killed. <snip>
> 
> What do you want to bet the (unintelligible) was "Severus", as heard
> by a stenographer not familiar with HP? <snip>

Carol responds:
Or the unintelligible word could be "apparently," which makes perfect
sense both in the context of the book and of Rushdie's theory. He
certainly didn't believe that Snape was a villain when he posed the
question, whatever he believes after her answer. Probably he's as
confused as we are.

Carol, thinking that we'd be unwise to base any hypotheses or even
speculations on unintelligible words







From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 23:16:20 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (parisfan_ca)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:16:20 -0000
Subject: my take on the "Theory on Petunia"
In-Reply-To: <eb37cn+d59j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb38s4+vuqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156577

it seems to be generally acknowledge that dear Aunt Petunia knows more
than she is letting on.

And I quite realize that JK has said that Petunia Dursley is *NOT*
magical but what has me intrested is *WHAT* she knows and *WHOM* told
her that info.

I am guessing that DD is the one who has given a fair ammount of info.
To me it makes the most sense. i am assuming that Petunia was told
after Harry's arrival.

you'd think if she hated her sister so much that some of it would have
been put upon Harry, and that it'd take some forceful persuasion to
keep him.

So I am speculating that DD has told her an AWFUL lot so ske'd keep him

just my 2 cents

laurie








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug  5 23:50:39 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:50:39 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <eb31od+s8hd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3asf+jd93@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156578

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote:
>
<snip>
> 
> PoA, chapter 18 Lupin is speaking:
> It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts.  
> Other parents weren't likely to want their children exposed to me. 
> But then DD became headmaster, and he was sympathetic."
<snip>
> 
> DD shows Harry 2 memories. The first is Hokey's memory and IIRC it 
> happens shortly after Riddle graduated. Then DD shows Harry one of 
> his memories and says it happens 10 years after the first one.
<snip>
> Tom Riddle says, "I heard you had become headmaster."
<snip>
>
> So first: When did DD become headmaster?
> 
> It seems very clear. Right there in book 3 Lupin says DD became 
> headmaster just before the Marauders went to Hogwarts. That must  
> have been early 70s?
> 
> It seems very clear. Right there in book 6. DD became headmaster 
> about 10 years after Riddle graduated. That must be mid 50s?

Mike here:

I don't know how many folks on this list have read Red_Hen but she 
does a pretty good analysis of time lines and the charactors that 
relate them to us. It was her conclusion that DD becomes headmaster 
in December '56 or January '57, which was the same time that 
McGonnagal becomes the new Transfiguration teacher. That would be 
about 11-1/2 years after Tom Riddle graduated. I could give you the 
timeline, but trust me she worked it out correctly.

She also analyzes Lupin and Sirius' timeline statements. Neither of 
which are any too reliable. But then again, DD says in ch. 1 of 
PS/SS that the WW has little to celebrate for 11 years. That would 
put Voldwar I starting around 1970, 13 years after LV's return to 
Britain and the aforementioned meeting in the New Headmaster's 
office.

Personally, I think timelines fall under JKR's self-professed 
being_terrible with numbers. There are a lot of contradictions in 
her timelines. Take a look at the Black Family Tapestry and compare 
it to canon about Regulus' death. For that matter, the Tapestry has 
two males becoming fathers at age 13, in the twentieth century.
>
<snip> 
> Potioncat again:
> 
> Second, Aging gracefully:
> 
> Harry and a 16-year-old Riddle come in contact with an auburn  
> haired DD. Was he 100 years old then? Eleven or 12 years later   
> (40 years ago?) DD looks much like he does now. That's a lot of 
> aging in 12 years, with not much more in the next 40.
> 
Mike again:

Yeah, DD has auburn hair when he goes to the orphanage in 1938, to 
deliver Tom's Hogwart letter. Kind of makes you wonder if DD is 
really 150 years old, doesn't it? DD's hair stays auburn until until 
he's 100, then goes gray (okay silver) by the time he's 110. As a 
fellow redhead, I can tell you that we tend to go gray prematurely 
and it usually happens very fast compared to non-readhead's 
transition.

JKR never supports that 150 year-old figure in canon, iirc. If you 
take about 40 years off that figure DD's aging makes much more 
sense. Furthermore, her interview statement that wizards and witches 
live much longer than muggles isn't supported by her dates on the 
Tapestry. So far, we only know of 3 centenarians+, Albus, Griselda 
Marchbanks, and Aberforth (unless he was 50 years younger than his 
brother)

<snip> 
> Last Potionncat:
>
> Third: What's up with portraits? DD talks about Dippet and Riddle. 
> The portrait never comments. Does anyone know if Dippet's portrait 
> has ever spoken in any of the books? <snip the rest>

Last Mike:

The only time I recall Dippet speaking was as one of the Phineas 
chastisers in OotP after Harry sees Aurthurs attack, p.473 US.

I guess this goes along with JKR's statement that the paintings 
aren't really a lot of help to the living when it comes to advice. I 
guess DD's painting isn't going to be of much help to Harry in book 
7 either. He's really gone, dangit!







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Aug  6 00:11:42 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 20:11:42 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Judging Characters (was:Scene with likeable James...)
References: <7b9f25e50608030531r657c74ack6b469c428f585ef5@mail.gmail.com> <eb0cjg+ft2f@eGroups.com> <7b9f25e50608051531s5664bf9aj4c57c8424bbf62d9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d701c6b8ec$e623b410$7178400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156579

> Betsy Hp:
>> I really, really don't agree that Snape meant for Harry to see the
>> memory.  For one, Montague showing up and requiring immediate help
>> was so random that Snape *couldn't* have planned for it.
>
> He could have been leaving out the same memories for Harry to see
> every time, knowing he would eventually bite.

Magpie:
It has nothing to do with Harry "biting," it has to do with Snape leaving 
him alone with them.  Snape never left him alone, except when he was called 
away by something he couldn't have predicted.

Plus everything in canon seems to indicate he didn't want Harry to see it. 
I don't really understand what Snape's point would be in Harry seeing him 
humiliated.  That he'd see that his dad was a bully?  Knowing Snape I'd 
think he'd assume Snape would expect Harry to find Snape coming off worse of 
the two.  I'm sure if he just wanted Harry to see Snape being a bully or 
whatever he could pluck another one where he didn't look pathetic.  Harry's 
made his peace with the memory anyway and has become more sympathetic to 
James.  I just honestly can't see Snape ever wanting anyone to see that 
memory ever--nor do I see any hint in canon that the more obvious reading 
isn't the correct one, that a number of unpredictable things came together 
on that day that led to Harry seeing the memory.

-m 





From kellymolinari at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 00:15:43 2006
From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:15:43 -0000
Subject: Theory on Dudley and Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb0rti+75pn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3cbf+o371@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156580

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

> Kelly wrote:
> JKR: <snipped> In my books, magic almost always
> > shows itself in a person before age 11; however, there is a
> character who does manage in desperate circumstances to do magic quite
> late in life, but that is very rare in the world I am writing about.'
> >
>SNIP>I also think it is fair to say since JKR states that magical
> ability almost always shows itself by age 11 that someone who
realizes their magical ability at 17 or 18 years old would be
considered to blossom quite late in life.

> 
> Carol responds:
> I don't think seventeen or eighteen qualifies as "quite late in life
> by any standard,especially giving the wizarding lifespan. <Snip>


Kelly responds:
I don't mean to be argumentative but I think all things are relative.
It's as if a baby cuts his first tooth at three years old. It would
qualify as quite late in life, independent of the childs lifespan.



Carol continued: 
>  However, if that quote doesn't convince you, maybe this one will:
> 
> [Question:] Is there more to Dudley than meets the eye?
> 
> [JKR:] 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].
> 
> The excerpt is from the 2004 Edinburgh Book Festival:
> 
> http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm



Kelly responds:
     Mea culpa! Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am
certain that I have read this interview at least once (probably more
than once!), but this didn't stick in my mind. I am not a Dudley fan,
but I found him to be the most ironic candidate considering his mum
and dad. I was really looking foward to rubbing it in Petunia and
Vernon's faces. This puts and end to that though. 

Kelly, whose toes were not harmed in the enlightenment.







From katbofaye at aol.com  Sat Aug  5 23:08:55 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 23:08:55 -0000
Subject: Good reasons for DD to die ( was Could I be wrong about Snape being evil) long
Message-ID: <eb38e7+mma8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156581

I reluctantly came to the conclusion that no matter where Snape's
loyalties lie, Dumbledore had to die.  In the first weeks after HBP
was released I spent a lot of time thinking about this as a way of
managing my grief over his death. As I see it there are three
possible scenarios:

?	Dumbledore knew nothing about the unbreakable vow or the
plan to attack Hogwarts.

?	Dumbledore knew about Draco's plan to murder him but not
about the unbreakable vow.

?	Finally Dumbledore knew everything from Severus Snape.

If the first were true then we can assume Snape is loyal to
Voldemort in just the way he explains to Bellatrix and Narcissa.
His actions in the tower make sense in every way.  Draco was going
to fail.  Snape stepped up and finished the job, leaving his post as
Voldemort's spy at the last possible moment.  Snape takes out the
biggest obstacle to Voldemort's return to power.  Sure there is
something about Harry but really Dumbledore is the big threat to
Voldemort.  JKR has shocked us with the murder, confused us with
Dumbledore's loyalty to Snape, but not surprised us that a man who
has consistently been portrayed as a villain is, in fact, a
villain.  How could we be so blind?

If the second is true then Severus shared with Dumbledore Draco's
mission to kill the headmaster but did not share his own duplicity.
Snape is keeping himself safe by playing both sides.  Should things
go badly he will try to find some way to protect Draco, salvage his
own secure position in everyone's good graces, and manage to beat
the unbreakable vow on a technicality.   Severus is a man whose
loyalties are second to taking care of himself.  His anxiety over
Draco's refusal to share his plans is understandable for a man who
needs to keep two sides happy while saving his own skin.  Hagrid
overhears Snape's attempt to stall Dumbledore without actually
refusing to help him.

So Snape is surprised to learn that Malfoy has managed to get Death
Eaters into Hogwarts.  He does not kill Flitwick or Hermione and
Luna because he may still be able to salvage the situation.  He is
safe from Voldemort in Hogwarts and safe from Dumbledore as an Order
of the Phoenix spy.  Snape runs to the tower and evaluates the
situation.  He sees Malfoy failing, he sees enough Death Eaters to
kill Dumbledore and Snape and still one of them might make it back
to tell the tale to Voldemort.  His fate as a traitor to Voldemort
is sealed if he chooses to help Dumbledore.  The headmaster may
believe in second chances but Voldemort does not.  Defusing the
situation was never a possibility once the additional Death Eaters
entered to Tower.  Severus takes out a weakened Dumbledore.
Dumbledore can no longer protect him and the safest place to be is
with the strongest wizard alive.  Severus' loyalty is proven beyond
a doubt to everyone, since Snape will have dispatched the only
wizard that Voldemort ever feared.  He leaves Harry probably on
Voldemort's orders but more likely to make his and Draco's escape
that much cleaner.  The Order of the Phoenix without Dumbledore is
not as safe a refuge.  Snape is forced to show his hand and had the
circumstances been in Dumbledore's favor would have made different
decisions for the same reasons.  Severus Snape protects himself
first, second, and last.  This character sounds a little too much
like a Pettigrew rerun to me.

The third possibility is I admit the one I believe.  Dumbledore knew
everything and Severus was completely open with him.  Severus no
longer wanted to be a double agent and this was the overheard
conversation.  This thankless and dangerous role was becoming too
much for him.  At the same time we know that Dumbledore is willing
to die to destroy even a piece of Voldemort. Although not foolhardy
he is clearly risking his life to destroy the horcruxes.  Dumbledore
errs by expecting only the best from those he loves and respects
which is not the same as being blind to a double cross.
Dumbledore's other error is he does not tell anyone anything.  Just
as Sirius tells the twins in OOTP there are some things worth dying
for.  Dumbledore would believe that the Order of the Phoenix would
recognize the value of Snape's position with Voldemort.  Dumbledore
would think that the order could survive without him but not without
a spy as well placed as Snape.  Albus was close to death when they
returned and chose to negotiate for Draco's soul and the Malfoys'
safety rather than save himself.  No matter how weak he appears to
Harry this was the only man Voldemort ever feared.  Protecting
himself from Draco and a few DE losers was possible even if Harry
and JKR do not tell us how he could have done it.  Remember Harry is
never the best witness to motivations.

Severus Snape is surprised by the Death Eaters' presence in the
castle.  He could not warn anyone.  He was held by an unbreakable
vow with Narcissa and for all we know he may have had another one
with Dumbledore.   JKR describes Severus as being in horrible pain
as he leaves the scene of the murder.  Why?  She purposely allows a
meaningful but silent exchange between the two wizards.  Why?
Severus does not take Harry with him even though Harry is no match
for Snape.  Why?  JKR does not write main characters that are one
dimensional.  Severus is the only main character whose motivations
are unknown.  Snape is second only to the trio for appearances in
the books and therefore must have the dimensions of an excellent
main character including feelings that the reader understands.
Snape appears to be bad tempered and cruel without reason.  This
alone should alert us.  We may be leaping to conclusions.  JKR loves
to trap her readers into judging a character's actions on too little
information.  She caught me with Sirius however I am not falling for
that one again.

Dumbledore had to die in that tower no matter whose side Snape was
on.  Its necessity has been pointed out in traditional story telling
as necessary for the hero to rely on his own resources.  Severus did
not have a win/win choice.  Dumbledore could not have been saved and
the Order would not have been served by any sacrifices on Snape's or
Harry's part.  Harry is willing to sacrifice himself at the close of
OOTP while in the MoM and again in HBP while dueling with Snape as
an exit from a painful event.  He is an adolescent guided by passion
and anger.  Dumbledore and Snape view sacrifice like a game of
chess. You give up a valuable player to turn the game in your favor,
not as a grand gesture.  Serving up the most powerful piece on the
board, the Queen, is an excellent way of luring an opponent out into
the open an exposing their weaknesses.

Thanks for your patience on this one.
katssirus










From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 00:06:03 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:06:03 -0000
Subject: my take on the "Theory on Petunia"
In-Reply-To: <eb38s4+vuqd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3bpb+iqrk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156582

laurie wrote:
> So I am speculating that DD has told her an AWFUL lot so ske'd keep
> him

abergoat adds:
I do think this is the root of the Petunia mystery. HOW did DD get
Petunia to take Harry? As  refresher, this is how unwilling Petunia
was in DD's own words:

Albus Dumbledore, OoP Ch 37
"But she took you," Dumbledore cut across him. "She may have taken you
grudgingly, furiously, unwillingly, bitterly, yet still she took you,
and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's
sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you."

Abergoat continues:
Not for one moment has Petunia ever seemed to give Harry one thing
more than she absolutely had to without the British-equivalent of
child services being called in. She has always been shown in an very
selfish light, so I'm sure there was something in the Privet Drive
protection for her - which seems to be supported by Dumbledore giving
her the secret of Grimmauld Place, twice.

Per Harry's challenge in the GoF maze when his world was turned upside
down I think we will see Harry's housing situation turned upside down
- where he is giving a home and protection to the Dursleys.









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 00:27:26 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:27:26 -0000
Subject: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eb34bp+o453@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3d1e+l4g2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156583

Potioncat wrote:
> But if her son is visiting her, the hospital would know who she is. 
> A long time ago there was a very busy thread about who could be her
> son and whether that was important. (Snape and Filch were each 
> candidates.) It's very likely that she's just part of the scenery 
> and we won't see any more of her.

Abergoat replies:
I certainly acknowledge your points and this thread should NOT
exclusively talk about Agnes, but I hope that we don't have to
relagate the idea to fanfic. I don't know anything about your Snape is
the great grandson of Phineas but if it answers as many questions as
'Eileen was attacked by Voldemort' then I hope you were allowed to
discuss it on the forums with other interested parties. (But I grant
you I don't think I've interested many people in the idea of dog lady!
lol)

While Agnes may indeed turn out to be a deadend, JKR has clearly told
us that the title 'Half-Blood Prince' tied (loosely) to the Chamber of
Secrets storyline and that she loves the title. To me that means the
title is very significant. So when we add that to the extensive (and
expensive) collection of books at Spinner's End, the fact that the
potions book date puts the original owner (possibly Eileen) at
Hogwarts within a year of Hagrid, toss in Hagrid's insistance on Snape
being good to the point of calling Harry 'stupid' in HBP and I think
there is a fair amount of canon that suggests Eileen is important and
is connected to Hagrid. And I think it is possible that she is still
alive and we have seen her. Even if she isn't Agnes.

As for the name of dog lady being Agnes, it is conceivable that
Eileen's full name is Eileen Agnes Prince and she preferred to go by
Agnes. A tournament, wedding announcement and birth announcement would
use the given name, not a preferred middle name. Am I reaching?
Definitely. I still prefer the idea that Eileen was a mystery ward
patient for a decade and when her son 'discovered' her the nurses
couldn't change habits - they do seem to be overworked. And besides,
after a decade of being called Agnes poor dog lady might not respond
to anything else. We don't know how much of her original intelligence
remains, whether she is Eileen or not.

Abergoat











From mros at xs4all.nl  Sat Aug  5 23:51:28 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 01:51:28 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Petunia
References: <eb37cn+d59j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000901c6b8ea$11ba2df0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156584

>>>Carol, thinking that Petunia's importance has to do with what she
*knows* and can tell Harry, if only he can persuade her to do so<<<


Marion:
If only Harry is interested in anything his Aunt has to say. He usually dismisses the Dursleys (not without reason, I grant you) and he's also been 'trained' by them not to ask questions. Strangely enough, he does ask questions about his father throughout the books, when meeting friends and aquaintances of his father, but he's in the classroom of a teacher who's always talking about his mother for an entire *year* and he never. asks. a. single. thing. about. his. mother.
I mean, this is scary.
The Dursley conditioning 'don't ask questions' can only go so far.




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







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 01:43:09 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:43:09 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb0p1m+v0tr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3hfd+dr6g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156585

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" wrote:
> > 
> > Mike wrote:
> > And she values her books over anything or
> > anyone (unless she *is* secretly in love with Filch).
> 
> Abergoat says:
> I think that both Irma and Filch are related to Snape and that is
> their importance. People on the Eileen Prince thread roll their 
> eyes when I say it but I strongly suspect that Snape lost his     
> parents early <snip>

Mike here:

Interesting, very interesting! When you say related, do you mean 
familial related (by blood), or related by story line? Do you have 
something specific in canon that is steering you in this direction, 
or is it an impression from the overall story?

I too am on board with Snape is an orphan. It fits with the overall 
motif, Tom Riddle, Hagrid, Harry. I would include in this 
postulation that Tom was the only one of these four that DD didn't 
get personally involved with their well being. This could be DD's 
biggest mistake and one he has been trying to make up for for the 
past 60 years. Too bad, you gotta get them in the nest, once they go 
feral there's no getting 'em back. <g>

<snip> 
> abregoat again:
> 
> There is no reason to believe someone can tell something is a 
> horcrux by just looking at it or even touching it. Since most fans 
> believe Harry has touched the locket horcrux in OoP that lends 
> some support that you cannot tell. 
<snip>

Mike again:

Yeah, and Harry had the Diary!Horcrux and didn't know what it was. 
But, to be fair, at neither time did Harry know about Horcruxes, so 
maybe he wouldn't know what to be looking for. I don't know how he 
is going to know, in book 7, when he's actually found a previously 
unknown Horcrux, unless it's obviously a founder's heirloom. If one 
of them is "something of Ravenclaws", who's going to tell him that 
Ravenclaw used to own it?

Mike, wondering if Hermione can go to the library and look up all of 
Ravenclaw's known surviving heirlooms. 






From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 02:10:36 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (parisfan_ca)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 02:10:36 -0000
Subject: my take on the "Theory on Petunia"
In-Reply-To: <eb3bpb+iqrk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3j2s+pk1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156586

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> laurie wrote:
> > So I am speculating that DD has told her an AWFUL lot so ske'd keep
> > him

>Abergoat continues:
> Not for one moment has Petunia ever seemed to give Harry one thing
> more than she absolutely had to without the British-equivalent of
> child services being called in. She has always been shown in an very
> selfish light, so I'm sure there was something in the Privet Drive
> protection for her - which seems to be supported by Dumbledore giving
> her the secret of Grimmauld Place, twice.

laurie responds:

that is my point--she must have been MADE to take him in. from all
that i have read lilly and as a follow, harry are NOT her most beloved
relations and for most of us to take in family we don't necessarily
like it has to be a damned good reason.

i was kinda wondering if there was like some kind of 'death threat'
aginst the Dursleys or some harm comming if Harry wasn't taken in or
something horrid like that







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Aug  6 03:10:46 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:10:46 -0000
Subject: Agnes (was Re: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eb3d1e+l4g2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3mjm+ooka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156588


> 
> Abergoat replies:
> I certainly acknowledge your points and this thread should NOT
> exclusively talk about Agnes, ...

Potioncat:
I fixed it. Now we can talk about Agnes. (see subject line.) I've 
noticed lately that fewer and fewer list members are getting my 
jokes. I suppose I'll have to start using smileys.  ;-)

Somewhere, upthread, I was trying to make a point about the 
difference between a canon-based discussion and a speculation based 
discussion. Either one is fine (I think) so long as you're discussing 
canon.

Once upon a time, any post was pretty well scrutinized for its canon 
support. Not that one couldn't post without it, but that one would 
expect hot and heavy canon shots at anything that didn't hold up. It 
was fun. (Mostly I lurked, but it was fun.) It was like a game 
football (either version works). You expected to be tackled and you 
got up and tackled back.

If it's speculation from the get-go, it's hard to take shots or make 
agreements. But that's OK too.

Abergoat:
 I don't know anything about your Snape is
> the great grandson of Phineas but if it answers as many questions as
> 'Eileen was attacked by Voldemort' then I hope you were allowed to
> discuss it on the forums with other interested parties. 

Potioncat:
I sure I would have been. Fanfic was the format I chose for that 
idea. It just worked better that way. 

>Abergoat: 
 So when we add that to the extensive (and
> expensive) collection of books at Spinner's End, the fact that the
> potions book date puts the original owner (possibly Eileen) at
> Hogwarts within a year of Hagrid, toss in Hagrid's insistance on 
Snape
> being good to the point of calling Harry 'stupid' in HBP and I think
> there is a fair amount of canon that suggests Eileen is important 
and
> is connected to Hagrid.

Potioncat:
I think we have canon for Eileen being (or having been) important. I 
think she (and possibly Tobias too) love(d) books. We can't be 
certain that the books at Spinner's End were Eileen's, but it's a 
good guess. 

I think Hagrid trusts Snape, although I don't know why, but I think 
if it concerns Eileen, there has to be more than that. I think it's 
likely Snape lost one or both parents young, but then how does it 
hold up that all those books were Eileen's? I also think his interest 
in Dark Arts had more to do with Healing than with Hexing. 


Abergoat:> 
> As for the name of dog lady being Agnes, it is conceivable that
> Eileen's full name is Eileen Agnes Prince and she preferred to go by
> Agnes. A tournament, wedding announcement and birth announcement 
would
> use the given name, not a preferred middle name. Am I reaching?

Potioncat:
Here, here's an idea and it's actually crossed my mind before. 
Remember Marc (Mark?) Evans? JKR forgot she'd given Lily the same 
last name? Maybe she forgot the Dogfaced lady was given the name 
Agnes.

Hey, it could happen. ;-)

And I would never say that something shouldn't be discussed, so if it 
seemed like I did, I'm sorry. (Oh, in the interest of honestly, I did 
once say something shouldn't be discussed, but I was over-ruled.)


Of course, if say, someone wanted to suggest that Snape must be good 
because (and this is true) Alan Rickman has very, very recently been 
quoted as saying he hasn't played a villian in years...well that 
person would do better to say it on a different forum. ;-)

Potioncat  ;-)   :-)  ;-)  ;-)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 03:14:55 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:14:55 -0000
Subject: Good reasons for DD to die ( was Could I be wrong about Snape being evil) lo
In-Reply-To: <eb38e7+mma8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3mrf+2db5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156589

katssirius wrote:

> The third possibility is I admit the one I believe. Dumbledore knew
> everything and Severus was completely open with him. <snip>
> Severus Snape is surprised by the Death Eaters' presence in the
> castle. He could not warn anyone. He was held by an unbreakable
> vow with Narcissa and for all we know he may have had another one
> with Dumbledore. <snip>

Carol responds:
I essentially agree with your position, but I want to comment on the
idea that Snape might have been bound by an Unbreakable Vow with
Dumbledore.

I think this idea is a mistake. Dumbledore believes in choices and
second chances. Neither is compatible with the idea of compulsion. I
can imagine Dumbledore extracting a *promise* from Snape to do
whatever he requires of him. In fact, if Hagrid is correct in his
report of the argument in the forest, Snape has made some sort of
promise to Dumbledore and DD reminds him of it. But that's very
different from binding someone with ropes of fire to do your will.
Even if the UV isn't dark magic, and IMO it is, it involves compulsion
and the penalty of death for breaking it. I can't imagine Dumbledore
doing that to anyone. He trusts Snape to do the right thing, not
because he has compelled him against his will to do so but because he
believes that Snape has made the right choice, to oppose Voldemort,
and will do so again and again.

I know I'm not arguing well in this post, but I can't imagine
Dumbledore entering into a contract that forced the other person to do
his will. He negotiates with Draco, who has come to kill him, trusting
that Draco will do the right thing. I think his trust of Severus
Snape, whom he knows much better and who has risked his life to spy
for him, has a firmer foundation than an Unbreakable Vow, an
understanding of Snape's fundamental character that Harry and the
reader are not yet privileged to share.

Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, an Unbreakable Vow requires a
third person as Bonder. I can't imagine either Hagrid, who can't keep
a secret to save his life, or McGonagall, who would view such
compulsion as evil, acting in that role. Clearly McGonagall didn't,
since she didn't know the reason for DD's trust in Snape, and I can't
imagine Hagrid shooting rings of fire from his pink umbrella.

There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape
than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid
reasons for that belief.

Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there are
some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable Vows
as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 03:39:15 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:39:15 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb03q8+8gad@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3o93+v39u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156590

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Carol, who thinks that the locket and the tiara will be relatively
> easy to find, if not to destroy, but that the cup will be more of a
> challenge
>

Tonks:
At Lumos John Granger gave the prediction that the Hufflepuff Cup 
was disguised as the House Cup. His reasoning was that the House cup 
brings division to Hogwarts. This is worth thinking about.

I think that the Hufflepuff cup could be in the trouphy room just 
gathering dust. Remember that the vanishing cabinets were working 
until just before book 6 when Peeves broke it. That means that Tom 
could have snuck into the school from Borgans and Burkes when he was 
still working there and left the Cup and maybe the taira. But I 
think that maybe the horcurxed tiara is the one that will be used at 
the wedding.

Tonks_op








From zanooda2 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 03:50:42 2006
From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:50:42 -0000
Subject: Contradictions/ The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
Message-ID: <eb3oui+g40b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156591

> Potioncat:

><SNIP>

>What's up with portraits? DD talks about Dippet and Riddle.
>The portrait never comments. Does anyone know if Dippet's portrait
>has ever spoken in any of the books?

>>Mike:

>>The only time I recall Dippet speaking was as one of the Phineas
>>chastisers in OotP after Harry sees Aurthurs attack, p.473 US.


zanooda:

I don't have the books with me now, but I also remember that it was
Dippet who said "Really!" when Harry started throwing DD's instruments
at the end of OotP. I cannot check if I'm right, but if I am, it
should be in "The Lost Prophecy" chapter.


> Abergoat:

>And it seems Tom was visiting Hepizbah on his own, not at the
>suggestion of Burkes and Borgin as I originally thought.


zanooda:

Just out of curiosity, how did you come to this conclusion? LV said
that he was sent to negotiate about some goblin armor, if I recall
right. Do you think he lied?












From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Sun Aug  6 04:09:24 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 04:09:24 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb072q+luij@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3q1k+g02g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156592

justcarol67  wrote:

> Spoiled Dudley had his tongue swollen and nearly choked on it in GoF.
> He was nearly soul-sucked by a Dementor in OoP and, IMO, relived the
> toffee memory, surely his most terrible moment, as the Dementor came
> near him. In HBP, he was merely knocked on the head by a glass of mead
> and possibly terrified by the sight of a filthy house-elf, but his
> "privileged existence" may be threatened again in Book 7. Nothing to
> do with his having magical abilities. The point JKR has been making in
> these scenes is that he *doesn't* have them and, bully or not, is
> powerless against magic.

Ken:

Dudley has given some testimony on what he experienced when the 
dementor attacked him. In general he describes feeling horrible, 
cold, really cold, and as if, as if , as if you'd never be happy again?, 
the last with help from Harry. A little more specifically he says it was
dark, everything was dark and then I heard *things* inside my head
(emphasis Dudley's). When prompted to describe what the things said
he is unable to. If you can pull a toffee out of that scene my hat's
off to you. I don't think the toffee was that big a deal to him and
he certainly would be able to talk about the toffee incident. Whatever
he saw was horrible, not being the butt of a practical joke. I bet it relates
to something he has done while bullying someone else. Or, maybe he 
has had the tables turned on him at that fine exclusive school he attends
and is the habitual victim of hazing by older students. He'd not want
to talk about that with his folks.

No, you are not alone in loving that scene where Mrs. Figg goes
Berserker with a bag of cat food tins. I love everything about
Mrs. Figg. I've got a Galleon that says shes the one to do magic
late in life.

Ken who should probably look up how much a Galleon is worth
before anyone takes that bet!







From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Aug  6 07:04:55 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 07:04:55 -0000
Subject: Neville's Parents
In-Reply-To: <eajm59+m0i4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb44an+uehn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156593

Laura with kids wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156208>:

<< Does anyone else want those gum wrappers that Neville's Mom gives
him to be a clue to helping them get well? Or give some other Order
members a message? I know gum wrappers are all over JKR's desk, but
the sheer volume of them in the book makes me want to think they are
important. >>

Emerson and Melissa's interview with Rowling, archived at
http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml and other places, includes:

<<MA: Our next winner question is from Delaney Monaghan, who is six
years old, via her mother, Vanessa Monaghan. They're from Canberra,
Australia. "What is the significance, if any of the gum wrappers that
Mrs. Longbottom keeps giving Neville?"

ES: Quick, go on the record [with what you think] before she answers -

MA: I think they're a sad mark of an insane woman.

JKR: That was also asked of me this morning. That idea was one of the
very few that was inspired by a real event. I was told what, to me,
was a very sad story by someone I know about their elderly mother who
had Alzheimer's, and the elderly mother was in a closed ward. She was
very severely demented and no longer recognized her son, but he went
faithfully to visit her twice a week, and he used to take her sweets.
That was their point of connection; she had a sweet tooth. She
recognized him as the sweet-giver. That was very poignant to me. So I
embroidered the story. Neville gives his mother what she wants, and
(it makes me sad to think of it) she wants to give something back to
him, but what she gives back to him is essentially worthless. But he
still takes it as worth something because she's trying to give, so it
does mean something, in emotional terms.

But, the theories on the sweet wrappers, are really out there.

ES: You can't blame them.

JKR: I mean she's not trying to pass him secret messages.

MA: She's not really sane -

JKR: No. You're right. But that's a classic example of, "Let's just
shut that one down," because it doesn't really lead anywhere very
interesting even if they're wrong.

MA: It's probably one of the most touching moments in the books.

JKR: I think it is important as a character moment.>>

You can find these things by using Quick Quotes Quill at
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/index2.html







From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Aug  6 07:11:33 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 07:11:33 -0000
Subject: Two Weeks of Posts, more topics than will fit in Subject line
Message-ID: <eb44n5+ojod@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156594

Cassy Ferris wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155921>:

<<  By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from his
loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
him. >>

I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
plot purposes.

Marion Ros wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155990>:

<< It is my opinion that any Good Guy who pretends to have morals or
virtues that he does not truly possess or practice (snip), then that
Good Guy is a hypocrite. >>

Someone famous said: "Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to
virtue." Hypocrites, compared to someone who is open and honest about
the evil he/she does, at least show that they know that doing evil is
something to be ashamed of.

Janelle wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155992>:

<< now all of a sudden she's gone and changed things, so I feel kinda
like the story wont be entirely accurate or something like that >>

We were in the same situation after GoF, when she told interviewers
that she had almost finished writing it when she discovered a huge
plot hole and had to re-write the whole middle of the book and in the
process lost a character. We are in the same situation whenever we go
to her website and read about old plot ideas that she abandoned.

Miles wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156552>:

<< In German speaking countries, storks are said to bring all newborn
children (I'm not sure this "legend" is inter-cultural). >>

This is also very widespread folklore in USA.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156003>:

<< The strong have a duty to protect the weak, or at least a moral
obligation not to use their strength against the defenseless. (snip)
Fred and George should think before they act and not use their
strength against another's weakness whatever the victim may have done
to "deserve" it >>

Harry's strength is that he still loves despite his Dursley upbringing
and Voldemort's weakness is that he cannot love (which I believe was
inborn), and Dumbledore cheers for Harry to use this strength against
that weakness. On the whole, *effectively* using any strength that the
good guys, or even the Ministry, have against any weakness that
Voldemort has in order to vanquish Voldemort is considered smart
tactics rather than unfair advantage. 

Parents are physically stronger than their young children, and have
advantages such as legal rights and greater knowledge of the world
over even their physically large and strong minor children, and most
people approve of some parents doing some form of punishment (spanking
seems to 'out' now, but time-outs are 'in') to their children who
deserve it.

(Dudley isn't Voldemort, and Fred and George aren't his parents, but I
feel interested in the general principle you stated.)

Gerry wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156019>:

<< I sincerely hope Draco's inability to kill DD had nothing to do
with cowardice, but with finally realizing killing someone is evil. >>

I think that is what JKR intended, but that'd be hard to prove (to
Draco, who is surely reviling himself for being a coward and a failure
and a useless little wimp). As DDM!Snape fans cite him forcing himself
to kill his beloved mentor DD as courage, and real!Moody killed Death
Eaters even tho' he tried to capture them alive for trial.

Julie17 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156206>:

<<  Note Dumbledore's deliberately humiliating method of awarding the
[House] House cup to Gryffindor [in PS/SS] >>

Someone pointed out on some previous occasion where that event was
discussed, that for all we know DD was following standard practise,
that maybe always the Great Hall starts out decorated in the colors of
last year's winner, last-minute points are awarded, and the Great Hall
is re-decorated if another House is this year's winner. It was a nice
piece of suspense writing for Harry and a terrible disappointment for
Draco because they, first-years, didn't know the custom.

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156262>:

<< I do wish Hermione had said clearly to us how she knew Tobias was a
Muggle. >>

So do I, but I bet it was something like 'Eileen Prince weds Tobias
Snape. The bride was educated at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and
Wizardry, and is the daughter of Ian Prince who is a security guard at
the Ministry of Magic. The groom was educated at Budleigh Babberton
Comprehensive and is a cleaner at a Ford automobile dealership.'

Potioncat wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156555>:

<< Harry and a 16-year-old Riddle come in contact with an auburn
haired DD. Was he 100 years old then? Eleven or 12 years later (40
years ago?) DD looks much like he does now. That's a lot of aging in
12 years, with not much more in the next 40. >>

I developed a theory, when Karkaroff had white hair in GoF, but black
hair in the GoF Pensieve scene, that white hair is the sign of being
Headmaster.

Nikkalmati wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156284>:

<< JKR even lays it on thicker by telling us [James] hexed other
people in the halls >>

Ginny hexes people in the halls (or at least Zacharias in the
corridors of the Hogwarts Express) just because they annoy her, and
she's supposed to be so wonderful. Her red hair *may* resemble Lily,
but her *behavior* seems more to resemble young James.

Betsy Hp wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156329>:

<< just because we've been told that James and Sirius regularly hexed
people doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The fact that they were
punished so often for doing so is telling, IMO.  >>

Is there canon that ANY of their punishment cards were for hexing
other students? I think I could argue that ALL of them were for being
out after curfew as easily as that all of them were for hexing other
students. I suspect many were pranks, like tricking a teacher into
picking up a trick fake wand for a classroom demonstration and
ensorcelling a poster so that when the teacher revealed it, it was the
centerfold from PLAYWIZARD instead of the chart of the Trojan Asteroids.

random832 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156296>:

<< there's no textual basis for there being any real difference
between squibs and muggles, any more than between muggleborn and
pureblood/halfblood/second-gen wizards. >>

If there is any real genetics to the inheritance of magic, it *must*
include at least one recessive gene, because so many magic children
(homozygous recessive) are born to Muggle parents (heterozygous). So
Squibs, non-magic children born to magic parents, must be homozygous
recessive for the magic gene -- their parents can't give them any
other version of that gene. So I figure their inability to do magic
must be some kind of birth defect, a non-genetic condition. That would
go along with a quarter of the kids at Hogwarts are Muggle-born, but
Squibs are 'quite unusual' (according to Ron in CoS).

It appears that Squibs have a magical level of communication with
their cats. The best mine manage to tell me is 'Feed me', 'Pet me', or
'Follow me' -- they can lead me to a closet that another cat is locked
inside, but they can't tell me 'Cinnamon is locked in the closet, go
let him out." They can't tell me 'Mundungus Apparated away while on
guard duty'.

I have an uncanonical theory that the number of wizards remains
constant because whenever a wizard dies, a wizard is born. The magic
from the dead wizard seeks a newborn to inhabit. The criteria for
which newborn would be 1) genes for magic, 2) prenatal exposure to
magic, 3) geographic distance from the death. So while the Death
Eaters were killing wizards by the score in their attempts to
eliminate Muggle-borns and Muggle-born allies, the high number of
deaths of wizards would lead to high numbers of births of wizards, not
enough wizard giving birth to meet those numbers, leading to increase
of Muggle-born wizards -- I like the irony of LV's efforts being so
very counter-productive. And Squibs would result when wizards give
birth at a time when no wizard is dying. If wizarding folk decided to
catch up on baby-making after LV's 1981 defeat, that could lead to a
significant increase of Squibs.








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 08:55:45 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:55:45 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb4aqi+lg5d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156595

Eggplant wrote:


> The fact that a man like Salman Rushdie does not think the idea of a
good
> Snape is ridiculous also makes me rethink my position.
<snip>
> I'm just thinking out loud here but what if not Harry but Dumbledore
> had inadvertently become a Horcrux, perhaps when he got that withered
> arm? That would mean Voldemort could never die as long as Dumbledore
> lived. I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that suicide (self murder)
> would only strengthen a Horcrux, he must be killed by someone in a
> completely selfless act. 

Sydney:

Eggplant, you are not only a bigger man than most in your ability to
change your mind, you are also a GENIUS.  Maybe coming with a fresh
eye to the DDM!Snape point of view gave you an unusual insight, but I
think the D-dore-as-Horcrux idea not only clears a lot of stuff up,
it's also supported by the text.

First, D-dore does not say that the soul-bit is destroyed; he says,
rather oddly, "the ring is no longer a Horcrux". So maybe HE now is!
Second, if I remember correctly, it's the withered hand he uses to
inspect the protective spells around the cave-- perhaps because of the
greater sensitivty to Voldemort's magic in that particular hand?

This could lead, by the way, to an interesting twist on the
Horcrux-quest, where Harry has to internalize more and more of
Voldemort until the final battle is some sort of crazy
goodKirk/badKirk psychodrama, which I confess I would find awesomely
cool. 

Anyways, in this scenario Snape and Dumbledore, at the start of the
book, would have a pretty clear Ole Yeller sort of crisis, where
eventually someone is going to have to destroy the soul-bit by killing
Dumbledore.  That makes the MOST sense of Snape's behaviour in
Spinner's End. He knows at this point that someone is going to have to
kill Dumbledore; he knows this is probably going to be him. Making the
Vow is not then either an emotional mistake or a flirtation with
suicide (sigh... bye suicidal!Snape!), but an acknowledgement of the
inevitable. Strangely, this jives with some anti-Snapeists opinion
that the obvious reason he took the Vow was because he intended on
doing it anyways!  This interpretation though has the advantage of
actually making sense, in that taking a Vow to kill a Dumbledore who
is ready to be sacrificied is not completely insane.

As the year wore on he evidently started to back out (the argument in
the forest, where Snape says he didn't want to do it anymore), which
is why D-dore had to plead with him when he arrived on the Tower.  But
the extreme set of circumstances on the tower resulted in him having
to go through with it after all to save Harry and Draco.

The only thing I don't like about this is that abandoning
suicidal!Snape sends me back to the ol' drawing board on the
why-did-Snape-want-the-DADA-job mystery...

Eggplant again:

>Snape had nothing to gain personally by
> killing Dumbledore, he did it because Dumbledore asked him to and
> because he knew it was the right thing to do. Snape knew that killing
> Dumbledore would eventually bring about his own death and he didn't
> even have posthumous glory to look forward to. Snape did a good and
> heroic thing, but NOBODY would ever know about it, not even Harry; a
> thousand years from now people would still use the word "snape" as a
> synonym for "traitor". Snape understood all this, he knew the price he
> must pay for doing the right thing but he did it anyway.  

Sydney:

*hugs Eggplant*  Oh my god, you GET it!  That's what makes the Tower
scene so gorgeous to lovers of Angst, who naturally overlap heavily
with lovers of Snape.


Eggplant:

> I won't pretend this theory has no holes in it; for one thing it's not
> very compatible with the hatred etched into the harsh lines of Snape's
> face when he killed Dumbledore. 

Sydney:

I'm sure this has been pointed out before, but the expression on
Snape's face is described as "hatred and revulsion", which is word for
word how Harry's emotions are described when he is force-feeding
Dumbledore the potion in the cave: "hating himself, repulsed by what
he was doing".  It's a deliberate echo.

Eggplant: 

>And for another it's very hard to
> understand why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry what was going on, if not
> before the killing then immediately after in a letter or something.

Sydney: 

Well, not telling people really important things seems to be
Dumbledore's fatal flaw... but in this case I don't think it's totally
mad.  Snape's cover as a spy is still extremely important if they are
to find the rest of the Horcruxes, and Harry can't know all until he
masters Occlumency, or he would risk blowing everything.


Eggplant:

> it is Harry's titanic hatred of Snape is going to distract him from
> his primary duty of killing Voldemort, and poor Snape will have enough
> problems without Harry swearing a lifetime vendetta against him. 

Sydney:

I know, isn't it COOL?  That's what makes the whole Snape/Harry
dynamic with DDM!Snape a STORY, that has movement, that has an ARC or
a change of direction.  I think this is why Rushdie sees good!Snape; 
IMO it's just the way a writer would think.  

Regarding the transcript and its various interpretations-- I think it
would be extraordinary if JKR let slip anything that would confirm
good!Snape, but actually I think that's just what she did.  I mean,
it's even more extraordinary that she accidentally revealed that all
three kids would live through the series, with her reply to who she
would have for dinner, according to the Leaky Cauldron:

"She was also asked which of her characters she would like to take to
dinner, and at first immediately named Harry, Ron and Hermione - then
when naming a fourth, paused and groaned, and said that the problem
with doing such was that she already knew who died (presumably in book
six). She went on to name Dumbledore and Hagrid, the latter seeming
like an "of course" answer that relieved her from giving something
away with the other answers"

This gives a huge boost to the theory that JKR's site's "Happy
Birthday" list is also a list of who survives, because she does seem
to like imagining everyone 'alive' now in the present day, as opposed
to a timeless fictional limbo.

Jet lag?  Personally I think she must be quite near finishing the last
book-- maybe she's already going through closure, which is taking the
edge of her secrecy.

-- Sydney








From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Aug  6 09:09:14 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:09:14 -0000
Subject: Did young Riddle meet Grindelwald?
Message-ID: <eb4bjq+154p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156596

>From memory, JKR was evasive about saying anything about Grindelwald
in the interview straight after the release of HBP. What could be there?

I am wondering if the way Grindelwald treated Riddle was similar to
the way Voldemort treated Draco (ie: Draco had to AK DD and Riddle had
to AK Riddle Snr).

Of course, Riddle may not have met Grindelwald until after Hogwarts. 

What happened?
When?
Why?

aussie






From Lamson1126 at aol.com  Sun Aug  6 05:14:31 2006
From: Lamson1126 at aol.com (seekingsophrosune)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:14:31 -0000
Subject: The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb3o93+v39u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3trn+fvfo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156597

> Tonks:
> At Lumos John Granger gave the prediction that the Hufflepuff Cup 
> was disguised as the House Cup. His reasoning was that the House > 
> cup brings division to Hogwarts. This is worth thinking about.

I posted my Hufflepuff Cup Transfigured in the Trophy Room theory on 
John Granger's HogPro forums on July 13.  At the time, I hadn't 
decided if it was the House Cup or the Medal for Magical Merit. John 
suggested I post it on other forums since HogPro is very small, and 
he's mentioning me as the source of the theory in his upcoming book. 
Before putting my theory on Live Journal, I reworked it since I've 
decided the cup Horcrux is probably the Medal for Magical Merit (not 
the Award for Special Services to the School) rather than the House 
Cup.  It's long, but I would love for you to read it and give me your 
opinion.

http://felicitys-mind.livejournal.com/1383.html


I also believe I found a breadcrumb trail of clues showing that the 
Fortescues are Ravenclaw's descendants, and I believe Florean's 
disappearance is Horcrux-related.  My best guess is that the object 
in question is the goblin-made tiara, and I have several possible 
theories on this post:

http://felicitys-mind.livejournal.com/2342.html

I would love the feedback of anyone here willing to take a look (skim 
if not read).

Thanks,

Felicity (aka Maureen)










From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Aug  6 12:50:31 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 12:50:31 -0000
Subject: Double Detention (was Re: Two Weeks of Posts,
In-Reply-To: <eb44n5+ojod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb4oin+m13e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156598

Catlady: 
> Is there canon that ANY of their punishment cards were for hexing
> other students? I think I could argue that ALL of them were for being
> out after curfew as easily as that all of them were for hexing other
> students. I suspect many were pranks, like tricking a teacher into
> picking up a trick fake wand for a classroom demonstration and
> ensorcelling a poster so that when the teacher revealed it, it was the
> centerfold from PLAYWIZARD instead of the chart of the Trojan 
Asteroids.

Potioncat:
I remember this because I thought it was so funny. (I know, it's very, 
very bad to think this is funny---supposed to be so horrible for Harry.)

HBP, chapter 24. Snape is showing Harry one of the punishment cards:
>>>He pulled out a card from one of the topmost boxes with a flourish 
and read, "James Potter and Sirius Black. Apprehended using an illegal 
hex upon Bertrum Aubrey. Aubrey's head head twice normal size. Double 
Detention." <<<

I suspect that Aubrey, like Snape, suggested that James had a swollen  
head and James and/or Sirius turned the comment around on Aubrey.  A 
head twice normal size earning double detention---had me in stitches.








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 14:01:12 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:01:12 -0000
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb44n5+ojod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb4sn8+s2eo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156599

> Cassy Ferris:
> <<  By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
> his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
> beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
> him. >>

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston): 
> I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
> plot purposes.

AD: 
Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind
him" at the end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the
end of the book.

This was, I thought, a particularly good bit of characterization on
Rowling's part, much better than the angstfest that a lot of fans
apparently expected.  Harry didn't get over it, he sucked it up,
suppressed it, as he would have learned to do almost before he 
learned to walk.

Harry's an emotional basket-case, poor kid, but Rowling is subtle--she
shows us Harry obsessed with Draco, Harry (at first) having no idea
what his reaction to Ginny means, Harry blowing up and trying to use
unforgivables on Snape, Harry dumping Ginny in a futile attempt to
protect her, Harry trying to do the same to Ron and Hermione-- rather
than Harry crying in a corner.

I seem to be fairly alone in this viewpoint, though.  Does anyone else
see it this way?

Amiable Dorsai







From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 02:07:18 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2006 19:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb2mm9+ue6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060806020718.46463.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156600

Pam:
> What do you think of the possibility that Vernon met the Evanses, 
who we know were proud of Lily's "witchiness" , suppose Vernon had a 
wizard candy joke played on him or something when meeting the family 
(who would put that past James?) and Vernon had a purpleface fit and 
said he'd never marry a witch and Petunia took the opt-out spell?
> That would explain Vernon's irrational fear of magical people even 
before Harry arrived, that would explain Petunia's knowledge of the 
magical world, Vernon's acceptance (such as it was) of Baby Harry 
(when else have we EVER seen Petunia stand up to Vernon?) and it 
would explain why, if it should happen, Dudley would acquire magical 
abilities as a late teenager. Wild, but what do you think?


Laurawkids:
Do we know that *both* of L & P's parents were Muggles? If one were 
magical, there would have been way more opportunity to prank 
Vernon. What if Petunia were expected to be magical because one of 
the parents were? That would make Lily being magical even more 
annoying to Petunia, AND Lily would have been able to do magic at 
home. 

I'd love to hear some of the accidental magical happenings that 
happened to Petunia when she was growing up! 

But, your theory about *P being magical/going to Hogwarts/opting 
out* holds only if Hogwarts had no "NO underage magic in a non-
magical house during breaks" rule. Otherwise, Petunia not knowing 
of the restriction hints at her not going to Hogwarts.


Pam:
Thank you so much for responding to my post.  I regretted sending it the moment the screen returned me to my email after I hit send, and saw several e-mails refering to JKR's quote "Petunia never has, never will..." I knew I really blew it.

So I guess my wild theory turns into a question: why would Vernon marry into a family with witches in it if he was so bigoted against the wizarding community?  Knowing there was a remote possibility his own children might be magical? And how would he be so bigoted against the wizarding community if he had never heard of them, never met the Evanses, and didn't even believe they existed?  What would have caused such hatred? It would be like earthlings hating Venusians without any knowledge that they even exist.

It seems that Vernon's hatred of all things magical, particularly Hogwarts, is completely unfounded. He doesn't recognize the wizards on the street the night Harry is brought to them. He doesn't have any idea what is going on. How does he know not to let Harry see his Hogwart's letter? Clearly he knows what it is, and yet he's never seen one. And yet, inexplicably, he accepts a magical child into his house, based on something that someone magical told him.  It doesn't make sense.  The finger is still pointing at Petunia, and what she knows, do you agree?

Pam
 







From sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net  Sun Aug  6 03:55:08 2006
From: sonjamccartCPA at verizon.net (sonjaartemisia)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 03:55:08 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words?=
In-Reply-To: <eb0rn0+6dsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb3p6s+p1vj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156601


> wynnleaf
> I'm afraid, Neri, that you've set up a very common fallacy.  One of
> Rushdie's comments was basically, "[if] Snape is a villian, [then]
> Dumbledore's killed."  (snip) But that being true, does not make the 
converse
> true.
To consider
> that to be true is to fall for a very common fallacy, the Latin name
> of which I can't recall at the moment, but the basic construction is:
>   If A then B, does NOT mean the same as If B then A.

Sonja now:
I believe that is the logical fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc."

Unfortunately, I can't conclusively argue that the "opinion" to which 
Jo was referring was that Severus Snape is essentially still a good 
guy, though I would very much like to do so!

Sonja, with Latin assistance from my dear husband, a rather sharp high 
school English teacher.









From katbofaye at aol.com  Sun Aug  6 05:36:45 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 05:36:45 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
Message-ID: <eb3v5d+rg0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156602

Carol:
"There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape
than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid
reasons for that belief.

"Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there are
some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable Vows
as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes"


I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
way.  I think you make an excellent argument both for it being dark
magic and a compulsion.  I thought of it as the ultimate gift.  I
will stake my life on this vow.  However I understand your point
that the nobility of the gift is lost once choice is lost and as you
said Dumbledore believes in choices.  I do not want to stray too far
though from a discussion of why Dumbledore had to die from a meta
standpoint as well as from the choices Snape had before him in the
Tower.  I think it is important to realize that Snape did not have a
win/win choice in HBP and I believe he and Dumbledore knew
throughout the book from the moment he takes the DADA job that Snape
was going to be faced with a choice that involved sacrifice without
the hope of a hidden time turner, Fawkes saving the day, or some
other miracle that has pulled Harry out of a crisis in each of the
books.

katssirius










From natti_shafer at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 15:49:57 2006
From: natti_shafer at yahoo.com (Nathaniel)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:49:57 -0000
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb4sn8+s2eo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5335+1l9f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156603

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" 
<amiabledorsai at ...> wrote:
>
> > Cassy Ferris:
> > <<  By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
> > his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
> > beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death 
behind
> > him. >>
> 

 
> AD: 
> Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind
> him" at the end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the
> end of the book.
<snip> 
>> I seem to be fairly alone in this viewpoint, though.  Does anyone 
else
> see it this way?
> 
> Amiable Dorsai

I'm probably closer to your viewpoint Amiable Dorsai than the 
opposing one.  First off - HBP may start two weeks after the end of 
OP, but it's been 3-4 weeks since Sirius' death.  Next, Harry doesn't 
really seem "over it" at the start of HBP.  He consciously decides 
not to pack, and he does so because he is afraid of dissapointment.  
This suggests that he is still quite depressed.  

He may not be expressing grief in the same way he was at the end of 
the school year (by desprately clinging to some hope of contacing 
Sirius via Nearly Headless Nick or the Magical Mirror), but rather 
he's moved on to quiet reserve.  Furthermore, the narrator explicitly 
states that Harry continues to blame Snape for Sirius' death.  So no, 
I don't think Harry is over it, but rather is expressing his grief in 
different stages from the ones he already expressed at the end of OP.
-Nathaniel


 







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Sun Aug  6 16:02:01 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 09:02:01 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb5335+1l9f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1G9l51-00054c-Sl@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156604

Amiable Dorsai: 
> Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind him" at the 
> end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the end of the 
> book.
<snip> 
>> I seem to be fairly alone in this viewpoint, though.  Does anyone
else
> see it this way?
> 



Sherry now:

No, AD, you are not alone.  I've always felt HBP was full of Harry's grief.
It is just that he doesn't express it in more traditional ways.  He's not
verbal about it at all.  But then, Harry doesn't discuss his hurts with
others.  I completely believed in his grief, because it is the way I grieve.
I do not discuss my feelings with anyone.  not even my siblings when our dad
died.  I pull my pain into myself and agonize in silence.  I thought JKR
showed that very well in things such as Harry's room being a mess at the
beginning of the book, his thoughts at the window waiting for Dumbledore.
His wanting to comfort Tonks but unable to talk about Sirius with her.  Even
blaming Snape, whether or not it is justified, is a classic reaction in the
grieving process.  So, yeah, for me, the subtle way Harry grieves is
actually far more effective and painful than if he did it openly for the
world and the reader to see.

Sherry
Missing her dad on his birthday.




From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net  Sun Aug  6 16:44:46 2006
From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:44:46 -0000
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <E1G9l51-00054c-Sl@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eb569u+s9ud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156605

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" <sherriola at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Amiable Dorsai: 
> > Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind him" 
at the 
> > end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the end of 
the 
> > book.
> <snip> 
> >> I seem to be fairly alone in this viewpoint, though.  Does 
anyone
> else
> > see it this way?

 
> Sherry now:
 No, AD, you are not alone.  I've always felt HBP was full of 
Harry's grief.
> It is just that he doesn't express it in more traditional ways.  
He's not
> verbal about it at all.  But then, Harry doesn't discuss his hurts 
with
> others.  I thought JKR
> showed that very well in things such as Harry's room being a mess 
at the
> beginning of the book, his thoughts at the window waiting for 
Dumbledore.
> His wanting to comfort Tonks but unable to talk about Sirius with 
her.  Even
> blaming Snape, whether or not it is justified, is a classic 
reaction in the
> grieving process.  

Marianne:

I'm with the two of you. I'd add as additional evidence Harry's 
inner discomfort whenever Sirius' name came up.  He dreaded where 
the conversation was going to go on that first morning at the 
Burrow. He resented Slughorn's mention of his (Sluggy's) regret that 
he didn't have both Black brothers in Slytherin, as if they were a 
set of bookends.  Harry goes ballistic when he realizes that Dung 
has been stealing objects from 12GP, even though he recognizes that 
these objects had no meaning or sentimenal value for Sirius.  And, 
at the end of HBP, he places Sirius along with James, Lily and 
Dumbledore as the people who most sought to protect and love him.

I think Harry's internalization of his grief was very much in 
character.  

Marianne, thankful that heat and humidity have gone on vacation.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  6 16:55:54 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:55:54 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb4aqi+lg5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb56uq+d645@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156606

Sydney:
> First, D-dore does not say that the soul-bit is destroyed; he says,
rather oddly, "the ring is no longer a Horcrux". So maybe HE now is!
Second, if I remember correctly, it's the withered hand he uses to
inspect the protective spells around the cave-- perhaps because of the
greater sensitivty to Voldemort's magic in that particular hand?

Ceridwen:
Good catch on the 'ring is no longe a Horcrux' quote!  I always put 
the dead hand on a par with the constantly dying hosts of LV's 
possession between GH and GoF.  And, I didn't think of the withered 
hand as a magic detector sensitive to LV's magic.  However, let's 
play here with the Green Goo Potion in the cave:

We are speculating that DD is now the recepticle of LV's torn soul 
piece from the ring.  Snape has stalled the progress of death from 
the possession.  Now, DD drinks the Green Goo, and something happens 
to release the soul bit from its isolation.  The crying, pleading, 
etc. is Dumbledore's reaction to the soul bit's memories as the soul 
bit spreads.  Possible support:  Harry has to 'Enervate' DD twice 
before he comes around; DD's progressive weakness and paling 
thereafter - leaning on Harry, sliding down the wall, growing whiter 
and whiter until Harry is able to use Dumbledore's whiteness to 
describe Draco's pale face as Draco also succumbs to his own private 
horror.

Snape arrives and looks at Dumbledore.  In this scenario, he 
understands that he has isolated a soul bit from LV at the beginning 
of the year, and he would know what the dying hand and arm looked 
like as the soul bit spread.  He sees the natural progression once 
again as the soul bit is now infiltrating DD's entire body.  This 
also explains Dumbledore's urgent insistence that Harry bring Snape, 
until events unfold that preclude assistence - the DEs in the castle, 
and the now-unstoppable advance of the soul bit.

Sydney:
> Anyways, in this scenario Snape and Dumbledore, at the start of the
book, would have a pretty clear Ole Yeller sort of crisis, where
eventually someone is going to have to destroy the soul-bit by killing
Dumbledore.  That makes the MOST sense of Snape's behaviour in
Spinner's End. He knows at this point that someone is going to have to
kill Dumbledore; he knows this is probably going to be him. Making the
Vow is not then either an emotional mistake or a flirtation with
suicide (sigh... bye suicidal!Snape!), but an acknowledgement of the
inevitable. Strangely, this jives with some anti-Snapeists opinion
that the obvious reason he took the Vow was because he intended on
doing it anyways!  This interpretation though has the advantage of
actually making sense, in that taking a Vow to kill a Dumbledore who
is ready to be sacrificied is not completely insane.

Ceridwen:
I and a few others have read Snape's 'Spinner's End' musing, that 'he 
expects me to do it in the end' or whatever the correct wording, as 
possibly being DD who expects him to do it in the end.

Snape to Narcissa, pg 34 US hardcover:
"Looking down into her tearstained face, he said slowly,  "He intends 
for me to do it in the end, I think.  But he is determined that Draco 
should try first...""
(This could be either LV or DD here.  He speaks slowly, showing 
thought, perhaps searching for the correct wording to convey a 
different meaning?  It also satisfies Bellatrix's doubt as to why 
Snape should know of the plan.)
..."You see, in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, I shall be 
able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, fulfilling my useful role 
as spy."
(Why spy *at Hogwarts* when DD is dead?  If Draco kills DD, then 
Snape is still in with the Order and can more easily pass on 
information about LV.)

Jump ahead to the tower, and Snape sees that the soul bit has been 
freed.  He knows that DD will either die from the possession as other 
creatures have died before, particularly in his weakened state, or 
that, being weak, he will not be able to defend himself let alone 
Draco (and possibly Harry, note two brooms) from the DEs.  It is time 
for the deed to be done.  Draco is, according to the DE witnesses 
present, unable to do it; Fenrir Greyback is more than able and 
willing, which is unacceptable.  Dumbledore pleads, but there is no 
Legilimency.  Snape knows what is happening since it is merely a 
continuation of what he saw right after the ring had been de-souled, 
and he knows what must be done.

Being Snape sucks at this moment (the name 'Snape' replacing 'Judas), 
since he is forced to do what he didn't want to do (argument in the 
forest).  His expression reflects this.

Sydney:
> The only thing I don't like about this is that abandoning suicidal!
Snape sends me back to the ol' drawing board on the why-did-Snape-
want-the-DADA-job mystery...

Ceridwen:
It could just be that Severus 'Up To His Eyebrows In Dark Magic' 
Snape is good at DADA, wants the job, and (arrogantly) thinks he's 
better equipped than any of the poor excuses (barring Lupin) for DADA 
professors that he's seen in either his own student days, or as an 
instructor, to break the curse.

Eggplant:
> >Snape had nothing to gain personally by killing Dumbledore, he did 
it because Dumbledore asked him to and because he knew it was the 
right thing to do. 

Sydney:
> *hugs Eggplant*  Oh my god, you GET it!  That's what makes the Tower
scene so gorgeous to lovers of Angst, who naturally overlap heavily
with lovers of Snape.

Ceridwen:
*cuddles Eggplant and Sydney on a rocking chair*

Sydney:
> Jet lag?  Personally I think she must be quite near finishing the 
last book-- maybe she's already going through closure, which is 
taking the edge of her secrecy.

Ceridwen:
Quite possibly.

Ceridwen.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug  5 09:41:18 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2006 09:41:18 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb0bft+55bv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb1p3u+i59u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156607

Mike here:
> <snip> But I honestly can't see what important part she could
> play in book 7. She doesn't seem to be possessed of anything
> beyond a stern and sour disposition. <g> <snip>
>
> As far as those celluloid abominations, look at all of the
> charactors left out of the earlier films that we *know* were
> important in later books. <snip>

Tinktonks:
I wasn't really delving in to the region of films (because they can't
stay true to JKR's intentions) but I do think she will be very
important!

Tinktonks









From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Aug  6 17:00:44 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 6 Aug 2006 17:00:44 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/6/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1154883644.18.1762.m32@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156608


 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday August 6, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Event Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders!
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 http://www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060806/9b12144a/attachment.html>

From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Aug  6 17:11:30 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 17:11:30 -0000
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb4sn8+s2eo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb57s2+oebf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156609

AD: 
> Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind
> him" at the end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the
> end of the book.
*(snip)*
I seem to be fairly alone in this viewpoint, though.  Does anyone else 
see it this way?

Ceridwen:
At first, I was just seperated from OotP by the length of time it took 
for HBP to be written and released.  Then, I started to wonder about it 
as people discussed it.  However, it seems to me as if Harry redirected 
his grief into anger and hatred toward Snape.

Ceridwen.






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug  6 14:11:11 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 14:11:11 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb3hfd+dr6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb4t9v+nqqt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156610

Abergoat:
There is no reason to believe someone can tell something is a horcrux
by just looking at it or even touching it. Since most fans  believe
Harry has touched the locket horcrux in OoP that lends  some support
that you cannot tell. <snip>

Mike again:
Yeah, and Harry had the Diary!Horcrux and didn't know what it was.
But, to be fair, at neither time did Harry know about Horcruxes, so
maybe he wouldn't know what to be looking for. I don't know how he
is going to know, in book 7, when he's actually found a previously
unknown Horcrux, unless it's obviously a founder's heirloom. If one
of them is "something of Ravenclaws", who's going to tell him that
Ravenclaw used to own it? <snip>


Tinktonks says:

Re: the locket Horcrux, I have 100% convinced myself that the Locket
horcrux is the "a heavy locket that none of them could open" in
Grimmauld Place in OotP and that therefore Harry has touched it. I'm
also pretty sure that Kreacher has secreted them away in his den:

"Here and there among the material were stale bread crusts and
mouldy old bits of cheese. In a far corner glinted SMALL OBJECTS
and coins that Harry guessed Kreacher had saved."

Tinktonks (Who's begining to think that Regalus has done more work
for Harry than we know yet!











From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 18:38:55 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 18:38:55 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <eb31od+s8hd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5cvv+ge0c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156611

Potioncat snipped:

So first: When did DD become headmaster?

It seems very clear. Right there in book 3 Lupin says DD became
headmaster just before the Marauders went to Hogwarts. That must have
been early 70s?

It seems very clear. Right there in book 6. DD became headmaster
about 10 years after Riddle graduated. That must be mid 50s?

>snip<

Harry and a 16-year-old Riddle come in contact with an auburn haired
DD. Was he 100 years old then? Eleven or 12 years later (40 years
ago?) DD looks much like he does now. That's a lot of aging in 12
years, with not much more in the next 40.

>snip<

The first two sets of contradictions make me wonder if we're going to
see another Time Turner--or an earlier use of one---in book 7. And/or
if we'll learn something about how DD ages and why not all wizards
seem to live so long.

Snow:

After much consideration of many possibilities I find that I like the 
time-turner as the answer to Dumbledore's longevity. I'm not crazy 
over the time turning storyline but it would answer the question. I 
recall sometime back, about a year or so, we had a discussion over 
Hermione aging with every time that she used the turner. She only 
went back one hour at a time so the effect would not be as dramatic 
as if you were to go back through years of time. You would think it 
would have an affect on your age. 

I had another wild possibility though
a Grindlewald Horcrux reaction! 
It was 1945 when Dumbledore defeated him and this also was the year 
that Riddle graduated. You know, Black Hand for a Voldemort Horcrux, 
White Beard for a Grindlewald Horcrux. :)

If you don't like that one how about an aging potion
remember Fred 
and George!

Snow







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Aug  6 20:55:56 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:55:56 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <eb5cvv+ge0c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5l0s+gudg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156612

 
> Snow:
> 
> After much consideration of many possibilities I find that I like the 
> time-turner as the answer to Dumbledore's longevity. I'm not crazy 
> over the time turning storyline but it would answer the question.

Potioncat:
It would seem, based on PoA, that when the person uses the TimeTurner, 
it affects everyone. That is, all Hermione's classmates experience her 
in the 9 AM class. Of course, that has 2 Hermiones in 2 different 
classes---good thing they don't have fire drills! 

So, I'm not sure it would work that DD somehow used a TT to "become" 
headmaster at 2 different times.That was what I was thinking. I suppose 
a more realistic explanation (I really don't think it's a flint) is 
that DD became Headmaster around 1955, resigned for a while, and 
returned in the 1970s. There's only Dippet's portrait because whomever 
served in the interim isn't dead.

However, I agree, he could be using a TT for other reasons. 






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 21:32:40 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:32:40 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb35fb+ql4n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5n5o+6klk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156613

 
> wynnleaf:
> As I read it, Rushdie was setting up a series of statements akin -- as
> far as construction goes -- to the following:
> 
> It is winter, and there is snow on the ground.
> 

Neri:
Well, it was more like "our theory is that it's winter. We propose
that there must be snow on the ground. That there was in fact a ruse,
cooked between winter and snow, to ensure that there is snow on the
ground. So is it winter or not? It's plain to see that everything
follows from this"

I'd say words like "there must be", "there was in fact a ruse" and
"follows from" clearly paint this as an if/then statement.


> wynnleaf:
> The two are certainly related, but clearly either can be true without
> the other being true.  If on the other hand I interpret this statement
> to be "If it is winter, then there is snow on the ground," I have set
> up an if/then statement in which there *must* always be snow in
> winter.  But even then we are not bound to consider it winter, just
> because snow is on the ground.  That is, we can't say, "If snow is on
> the ground, it is winter."

Neri:
You are certainly correct that the opposite of a true if/then
statement is not necessarily also true. However, this "fallacy" is
simply irrelevant to our discussion. That is, I quite agree that if
the statement "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore must be alive" is
true, this does not mean that the opposite statement: "if Dumbledore
is alive, then Snape must be good" is also true. But I have never made
such an opposite statement, so I beg to be acquitted from using this
fallacy. 


> wynnleaf:
But with the first statement, "It is
> winter, and there is snow on the ground," I could easily affirm the
> first part and deny the second, or affirm the second and deny the
> first.  "It is winter, but snow is not on the ground," or vice versa.
> 
> Similarly, Rushdie can basically say, "Snape is good, and DD is
> alive." Even thought the two are related, they are not dependent on
> each other. JKR can affirm the opinion that Snape is good -- even that
> he and DD worked together on a plan -- yet deny that DD is alive.  
> 
> However, I personally don't think she was affirming anything about
> Snape's loyalties.  I can't believe she'd give so much away.  I prefer
> to think her comment about Rushdie's opinion being correct was related
> to Rushdie's last comment that the tower events hinge on Snape's
loyalty.

Neri:
To be precise, Rushdie's last comment (according to the transcript
upthread, anyway) was: 

"So, is Snape good or bad? It's plain to see, everything follows from
this."

The words "follows from this" support the view of Rushdie's argument
as an if/then statement. I assume here that in "everything" he also
includes Dumbledore being alive or dead.

Note that Rushdie doesn't mention any other reasons for Dumbledore
being alive, and still he concludes that "Dumbledore can't really be
dead". I don't see from what he can conclude that other than from his
previous sentence "Snape is in fact still a good guy".


Neri







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 21:40:35 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:40:35 -0000
Subject: House Cup PS/SS / House Cup: Terrible Idea? (Re: Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb44n5+ojod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5nkj+kdjq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156614

> >>Julie17 wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156206>:
> Note Dumbledore's deliberately humiliating method of awarding the
> [House] House cup to Gryffindor [in PS/SS]

> >>Catlady:
> Someone pointed out on some previous occasion where that event was
> discussed, that for all we know DD was following standard practise,
> that maybe always the Great Hall starts out decorated in the      
> colors of last year's winner, last-minute points are awarded, and 
> the Great Hall is re-decorated if another House is this year's     
> winner. It was a nice piece of suspense writing for Harry and a    
> terrible disappointment for Draco because they, first-years,      
> didn't know the custom.

Betsy Hp:
I recall that speculation, but canon shoots it pretty firmly down:

"The Great Hall was normally decorated with the winning House's 
colors for the Leaving Feast." [GoF scholastic hardback p.720]

One could speculate that since it takes four books for JKR to make 
clear what the normal custom is, she had a different idea in mind 
for book 1.  But the fact of the matter is that, as per canon, 
there's nothing to suggest the final result of the House Cup 
competition isn't known to everyone by the time the Leaving Feast 
starts.

This is a bit of an aside, but I wonder if the House Cup isn't more 
of a problem than the whole Sorting thing?  I mean, I've never had a 
problem with the students being broken into smaller, and more 
managable groups.  And I especially like that those groups aren't 
segregated by age.  That the Houses are at each others' throats 
strikes me as the real problem.  (Though really, the competition 
seems at its worst between Gryffindor and Slytherin.  Maybe because 
their founders never made up as Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw did?)

Anyway, in a babbly sort of way I wonder if doing away with a big 
shiny reason for intense House rivalry wouldn't help bring Hogwarts 
together?

Betsy Hp, who rather likes the House system and would hate to see it 
go, but does see the thematical reasons it might and shudders to 
think of Gryffindor becoming "1st & 2nd year dorms" and Ravenclaw 
becoming "NEWT student dorms" etc.  Talk about icky, boring and 
generic.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 21:44:43 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:44:43 -0000
Subject: Harry's grief for Sirius, bullying, James's detentions (Was:Two Weeks of Posts )
In-Reply-To: <eb44n5+ojod@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5nsb+bijo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156615

Cassy Ferris wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155921>:
> 
> <<  By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
him. >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
plot purposes. <snip>

Carol notes:
Maybe. But I don't think he's forgotten his godfather; he just didn't
have a way of dealing with that particular problem in HBP so he put it
on hold. It seems to me that Harry is stuck in the anger stage of the
grieving process. He didn't want to deal with the guilt he felt for
falling for LV's fake message and, contrary to his stated intentions,
being the one to cause Sirius Black to leave the security of 12
Grimmauld Place, so he displaced the blame onto Snape. Also, of
course, there's no funeral, so he can't really deal with his grief as
he does for Dumbledore and accept his loss.  I think that both, or
rather all three, problems related to Black's death will be resolved
in book 7. Harry will work out his problems with Snape (too
complicated to go into here but we all know what they are) and he'll
somehow get Black's body back from the Veil so he can have a proper
funeral. The combination of these events will, I predict, allow Harry
to move from anger and displaced guilt to acceptance, at the same time
placing the blame squarely where it belongs, on Bellatrix (and
Voldemort). Which is not to say that JKR didn't delay Harry's grief
"for plot purposes," but I think it's more complex than that, and more
in character for Harry than it appears.
> 

> Carol wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156003>:
> 
> << The strong have a duty to protect the weak, or at least a moral
obligation not to use their strength against the defenseless. (snip)
Fred and George should think before they act and not use their
strength against another's weakness whatever the victim may have done
to "deserve" it >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> Harry's strength is that he still loves despite his Dursley
upbringing and Voldemort's weakness is that he cannot love (which I
believe was inborn), and Dumbledore cheers for Harry to use this
strength against that weakness. On the whole, *effectively* using any
strength that the good guys, or even the Ministry, have against any
weakness that Voldemort has in order to vanquish Voldemort is
considered smart tactics rather than unfair advantage. <snip>

Carol again:
I agree that Harry's strength is his ability to love despite his
treatment by the Dursleys. Surely that's one of the main points of the
books. But your sentence on Voldemort doesn't follow from the that
idea. The Dursleys, despite their treatment of Harry are Muggles and
therefore weak in the sense that they're defenseless against magic.
Therefore, it's wrong to use magic against them and right to protect
them, as Harry protected Dudley against the Dementors, setting aside
any personal grievances against his cousin and chivalrously rescuing
him from a fate worse than death. 

The duty of the strong to protect the weak does not apply to
Voldemort, who is a multiple murderer and terrorist who must be
defeated and who is not a defenseless Muggle but a powerful
wizard--though, like Smaug in "The Hobbit," he has a chink in his
armor, which Harry will use to bring him down. The duty to destroy
Voldemort (or to fight the evil principle) does not negate the duty of
the strong to protect the defenseless, even if the defenseless are
bullies themselves.

> Betsy Hp wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156329>:
> 
> << just because we've been told that James and Sirius regularly
hexed people doesn't mean that it's a good thing. The fact that they
were punished so often for doing so is telling, IMO.  >>
> 
Catlady responded:
> Is there canon that ANY of their punishment cards were for hexing
other students? I think I could argue that ALL of them were for being
out after curfew as easily as that all of them were for hexing other
students. <snip>

Carol provides the canon:

"James Potter and Sirius Black. Apprehended for using an illegal hex
upon Bertram Aubrey. Aubrey's head twice normal size. Double
detention" (HBP Am. ed. 532). Unless Aubrey is a teacher, which I
doubt as they'd hadve received worse than a double detention, they
certainly received at least one detention for hexing students, not to
mention Lily's reference to James's habit of hexing students who
annoyed him in the hallways. I'm guessing that the quoted card is
typical of those that Harry had to copy.

Carol, hating to mix topics but needing to answer more than one point
in catlady's post







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 21:52:42 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:52:42 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Good_and_Bad_(again)_(was:Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F)?=
In-Reply-To: <eb2lau+gnos@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5oba+d749@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156616

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> However, it was also straightforward that Snape refused to listen 
> to any proof that they weren't guilty, and was rather enjoying    
> himself threatening them with sucking their souls. That's         
> something a good man wouldn't do even if he believes they are     
> guilty. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Really?  In the Potterverse?  The same world where a good guy is 
perfectly able to throw a magical curse at a non-magical child 
because he's upset at something that child's father said?  The same 
world where the *hero* expresses a certain amount of glee over the 
fact that a hated teacher may have tripped a jinx, and even goes so 
far as to hope the jinx ends up killing him?

Honestly, I think JKR makes it pretty darn clear that the line 
between being a good man and being a bad man is not quite so clearly 
drawn.  Taking a moment to taunt someone you hate isn't enough to 
shoot you over either side of the line, IMO.  (Not that taunting is 
a *good* thing.  It's just not enough to paint someone as "not 
good".)

Betsy Hp







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 22:07:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:07:56 -0000
Subject: Did young Riddle meet Grindelwald?
In-Reply-To: <eb4bjq+154p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5p7s+vl4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156617

"Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> From memory, JKR was evasive about saying anything about Grindelwald
in the interview straight after the release of HBP. What could be there?
> 
> I am wondering if the way Grindelwald treated Riddle was similar to
> the way Voldemort treated Draco (ie: Draco had to AK DD and Riddle
had to AK Riddle Snr).
> 
> Of course, Riddle may not have met Grindelwald until after Hogwarts. 
> 
> What happened?
> When?
> Why?
> 
> aussie
>
Carol responds:
We don't have much to go on here except a date, 1945, for DD's defeat
of Grindelvald, which happens to coincide with the date Tom Riddle
left Hogwarts, and a statement by DD implying that both
Riddle/Voldemort and DD knew of one other wizard who had made a single
Horcrux. Surely that wizard was Grindelvald and DD defeated him by
destroying the Horcrux. There's no indication in canon that DD killed
him, but we know from a JKR interview that he's dead.

I very much doubt that Tom Jr. killed his father because Grindelwald
sent him to do it. In fact, his motive is pretty clear from the books.
He did it because he hated his Muggle father for deserting his witch
mother and her unborn child (himself) and because Morfin unwittingly
gave him the information he needed to commit that murder. Possibly,
though, Tom Riddle learned what he needed to know about Horcruxes from
Grindelwald and, after he learned that Grindelwald's Horcrux had been
destroyed, murdered Grindelwald himself--a significant murder to
create a Horcrux with, I should think!

Carol, who thinks that DD's defeat of Grindelvald is yet another
reason why DD is the only one Voldemort ever feared







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 20:51:12 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 20:51:12 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb4t9v+nqqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5ko0+i2of@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156618

>From Mike's post:
> Abergoat:
> There is no reason to believe someone can tell something is a horcrux
> by just looking at it or even touching it. Since most fans  believe
> Harry has touched the locket horcrux in OoP that lends  some support
> that you cannot tell. <snip>
> 
> Mike again:
> Yeah, and Harry had the Diary!Horcrux and didn't know what it was.
> But, to be fair, at neither time did Harry know about Horcruxes, so
> maybe he wouldn't know what to be looking for.

Abergoat agrees:
Yes, I'm sure Dumbledore would have known since he knew what he was
looking for. I think my comment above was involved in the idea that
JKR hinted we might be able to figure out ALL of the horcruxes (or at
least something about them) so it stands to reason that someone may
have the the Ravenclaw horcrux and not know it just like it seems the
Black family had the locket laying around without knowing it.

> Mike wrote:
> I don't know how he
> is going to know, in book 7, when he's actually found a previously
> unknown Horcrux, unless it's obviously a founder's heirloom. If one
> of them is "something of Ravenclaws", who's going to tell him that
> Ravenclaw used to own it? <snip>

Abergoat offers:
I'm rather fond of the idea it turns out all the books at Spinner's
End are a hint that Eileen Prince was a Ravenclaw. Perhaps there will
come a moment where Harry has to trust Snape enough to tell him about
the horcruxes and Snape will be able to divulge something about his
mother...or even better one of Snape's possible relatives (Filch or
Irma?) knows something about a relic. I'm suspicious that Dumbledore
focused on the non-founder horcruxes knowing they would be the most
difficult and left the founder objects to Harry thinking that the hat
could help him. But Harry isn't friends with any 'true' Slytherins so
Dumbledore may have thought help was necessary on that one too.

Tinktonks wrote:
> Re: the locket Horcrux, I have 100% convinced myself that the Locket
> horcrux is the "a heavy locket that none of them could open" in
> Grimmauld Place in OotP and that therefore Harry has touched it. I'm
> also pretty sure that Kreacher has secreted them away in his den:
> 
> "Here and there among the material were stale bread crusts and
> mouldy old bits of cheese. In a far corner glinted SMALL OBJECTS
> and coins that Harry guessed Kreacher had saved."

Abergoat agrees:
I bet clean-freak Petunia finds it when cleaning out her 'new home'
after being brought to Grimmauld Place for safety. I can just picture
a scene with Petunia screaming nasty names as Harry tries to take it
from her!

Abergoat, hoping she credited people properly...











From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 21:03:58 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:03:58 -0000
Subject: What did Dudley see with the Dementors? (WAS: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb3q1k+g02g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5lfu+9u3t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156619


Ken wrote:
> Dudley has given some testimony on what he experienced when the 
> dementor attacked him. In general he describes feeling horrible, 
> cold, really cold, and as if, as if , as if you'd never be happy 
> again?

Abergoat suggests:
What about Dudley's worst memory being the day he realized he was no
longer an 'only child'? At 15 months I think he would have been old
enough to realize the significance of another baby...but perhaps
someone with experience in childrearing can tell us more.

I understand that parents are encouraged to handle a toddler's
transition from only child to 'older sibling' carefully. Dudley
wouldn't have had that preparation - he would have woken up to sharing
the house with another toddler...and a 15 months his understanding
would be sufficiently limited that no matter what his parents said to
him the fact that he couldn't scream and get rid of the 'unwanted
competition' must have been the first time in his young life that
screaming didn't get him what he wanted. It must have been a horrible
shock...one that it seems his parents are still trying to make up for.

Just a guess, but I think it fits with all the Dursleys' personalities.

Abergoat











From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 21:16:55 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:16:55 -0000
Subject: Contradictions/ The Smiths must still have the Hufflepuff Cup
In-Reply-To: <eb3oui+g40b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5m87+1d5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156620



> > Abergoat:
>
> >And it seems Tom was visiting Hepizbah on his own, not at the
> >suggestion of Burkes and Borgin as I originally thought.
>
>
> zanooda:
>
> Just out of curiosity, how did you come to this conclusion? LV said
> that he was sent to negotiate about some goblin armor, if I recall
> right. Do you think he lied?

Now I have no idea what to think given your information about the
goblin armor. It seems this is what we know:

1) Hepizbah's family couldn't wait to get their hands on the cup
(source: Hepizbah herself)
2) The Smith family knew about the locket (source: Dumbledore's
comment about how it took them some time to determine both were gone)
3) Burkes and Borgin knew that Tom was meeting with her
4) Tom disappeared right after Hepizbah was killed and the artifacts
went missing

All of that adds up to someone with a brain should have guessed that
Tom might have been involved and the (apparently wealthy) Smith family
should have had enough influence to get someone to go looking for him.
The whole thing is baffling. But it doesn't seem like a trial of clues
so I guess I will just drop it...but I do wonder because JKR could
have solved the entire problem by making Hepizbah an eccentric with no
family.

I have a lot of respect for JKR's logic so perhaps she will be able to
explain it...although government incompetence could be used. Perhaps
the Smith family wasn't so wealthy that they could grease palms...or
perhaps Hepizbah had all the wealth so they fell to fighting over what
remained.

But it still seems untidy.

Abergoat













From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 22:35:36 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 22:35:36 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eb3v5d+rg0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5qro+togk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156621

Carol earlier:
> "There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in
Snape than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
> Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid
> reasons for that belief.
> 
> "Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there
are some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable
Vows as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes"
> 
> 
Katssiruius responded:
> I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
> way.  I think you make an excellent argument both for it being dark
> magic and a compulsion.  I thought of it as the ultimate gift.  I
> will stake my life on this vow.  However I understand your point
> that the nobility of the gift is lost once choice is lost and as you
> said Dumbledore believes in choices.  I do not want to stray too far
> though from a discussion of why Dumbledore had to die from a meta
> standpoint as well as from the choices Snape had before him in the
> Tower.  I think it is important to realize that Snape did not have a
> win/win choice in HBP and I believe he and Dumbledore knew
> throughout the book from the moment he takes the DADA job that Snape
> was going to be faced with a choice that involved sacrifice without
> the hope of a hidden time turner, Fawkes saving the day, or some
> other miracle that has pulled Harry out of a crisis in each of the
> books.

Carol again:
I absolutely agree that Snape had essentially *no* choice on the tower
except to die uselessly with DD or to kill Dumbledore and look like a
treacherous coward. I also agree that he knew from the time that he
accepted the DADA position that he would be making some sort of
sacrifice, probably either death or disgrace and a return to the Death
Eaters. And, yes, of course DD had to die from a meta standpoint, and
Snape's loyalties are central to our understanding of the tower
incident, as I think everyone agrees.

What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable Vow
could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD
would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against his
will. That isn't trust, and I don't see how it can be regarded as a
gift. Can you clarify for me why you'd "stake [your] life on this vow"?

Carol, strongly suggesting that you wager something a bit less
valuable than your life, say a bottle of Rosmerta's best mead







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 22:58:57 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 18:58:57 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <eb5l0s+gudg@eGroups.com>
References: <eb5cvv+ge0c@eGroups.com> <eb5l0s+gudg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580608061558v49b82d64we833ac26c25ebd22@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156622

>
> Potioncat:
> It would seem, based on PoA, that when the person uses the TimeTurner,
> it affects everyone. That is, all Hermione's classmates experience her
> in the 9 AM class. Of course, that has 2 Hermiones in 2 different
> classes---good thing they don't have fire drills!
>
> So, I'm not sure it would work that DD somehow used a TT to "become"
> headmaster at 2 different times.That was what I was thinking. I suppose
> a more realistic explanation (I really don't think it's a flint) is
> that DD became Headmaster around 1955, resigned for a while, and
> returned in the 1970s. There's only Dippet's portrait because whomever
> served in the interim isn't dead.
>
> However, I agree, he could be using a TT for other reasons.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Although it is a given that Riddle graduated in 1945 we don't know how
> long he worked for B&B before departing on his secret quest with the Dark
> sorts. Hepzibah stated that she told Tom a million times that they are
> working him too hard, or something to that effect, and Tom had come to her
> home many times for her to have entrusted him with the knowledge of her
> precious artifacts. It could have been many years until the Hokey incident
> and Dumbledore claimed that it took him sometime before retrieving the
> memory that she gave him. The timetable is wide open here.
>
> The memory that is ten years after this incident could have been in 1970,
> which would give quite a span if Hokey's memory was not obtained until 1960
> but 'she' could play that if she wanted. That would give a fifteen-year span
> from the time that Riddle graduated and worked at B&B til the time that
> Dumbledore actually found Hokey and released the information from her mind
> until the time Voldemort came to ask for a job. Actually that would have
> Riddle working for B&B for only five years, which isn't that unbelievable.
>



  Interesting that Voldemort was most likely in the castle, the year the
> Marauders and Snape first entered, asking for a position?Also quite a few of
> his present day followers were there also.
>
> In fact it fits 'her' storyline perfectly that Voldemort came to seek a
> position in 1970 leaving exactly eleven years until the time he attempted to
> kill Harry giving credence to Dumbledore's statement that there was precious
> little to celebrate these past eleven years (paraphrased badly).
>
> I don't have a problem with this scenario. I do have a bit of a problem
> with an auburn haired person turning entirely white in 15 years.
>
>
>
> Oh by the way, I'm sorry your feeling so blue?you didn't even chuckle at
> my joke about F&G's beards. There must be something wrong. Have a butterbeer
> or a firewhiskey on me.
>
>
>
> Snow
>
> 
>


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




From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Aug  6 23:11:25 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:11:25 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <eb5cvv+ge0c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5sut+hd31@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156623

> Potioncat snipped:
> 
> So first: When did DD become headmaster?
> 
> It seems very clear. Right there in book 3 Lupin says DD became
> headmaster just before the Marauders went to Hogwarts. That must 
> have been early 70s?
> 
> It seems very clear. Right there in book 6. DD became headmaster
> about 10 years after Riddle graduated. That must be mid 50s?
> 

aussie:
From Riddle's account, 1959. Riddle is at school 1945 (finishes 1946?)
Works for 2 years until Locket is stolen. 10 years after that is the
next pensieve meeting when DD is headmaster. But add a few months onto
the "2 years" and "10 years" and that gets closer to the 1960s.

With Lupin, he said didn't look likely he could go to Hogwarts until
DD became Head. That doesn't mean Lupin was about 11 years old. It
would look unlikely for him to be allowed to go to Hogwarts from the
moment he was bitten (6 years old?). So cut 5 or 6 years down from
Lupin's account and JKR was only 4 to 7 years off an accurate date.

> Potioncat snipped:
> 
> Harry and a 16-year-old Riddle come in contact with an auburn haired
> DD. Was he 100 years old then? Eleven or 12 years later (40 years
> ago?) DD looks much like he does now. That's a lot of aging in 12
> years, with not much more in the next 40.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> The first two sets of contradictions make me wonder if we're going to
> see another Time Turner--or an earlier use of one---in book 7. And/or
> if we'll learn something about how DD ages and why not all wizards
> seem to live so long.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> After much consideration of many possibilities I find that I like  
> the time-turner as the answer to Dumbledore's longevity. <SNIP> I 
> recall ... we had a discussion over Hermione aging with every
> time that she used the turner. She only went back one hour at
> a time so the effect would not be as dramatic as if you were to
> go back through years of time. You would think it 
> would have an affect on your age. 
> 
> I had another wild possibility though
a Grindlewald Horcrux reaction! 
> It was 1945 when Dumbledore defeated him and this also was the year 
> that Riddle graduated. You know, Black Hand for a Voldemort Horcrux, 
> White Beard for a Grindlewald Horcrux. :)
> 
aussie writes:
Time turner for going back years? No, but keep going back over the
same hour several times till you get it right, maybe. That would have
the aging effect.

Good to see someone else with a Grindelwald Horcrux as a possibility.

Aussie







From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Sun Aug  6 23:15:50 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:15:50 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580608061558v49b82d64we833ac26c25ebd22@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eb5cvv+ge0c@eGroups.com> <eb5l0s+gudg@eGroups.com> <a1ee8d580608061558v49b82d64we833ac26c25ebd22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44D67826.2050005@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156624

Ummm... Dumbledore was not Headmaster during Tom Riddle's time.. He was 
JUST a teacher then.  Nowhere does it claim he was yet headmaster during 
his early meetings with Tom Riddle.  He was a good 50+ years younger and 
a friend of Flammel, who was still making his longevity potions then and 
might be sharing it with Dumbledore, thus the auburn hair...

Jazmyn

>  
>




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 23:05:05 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:05:05 -0000
Subject: Agnes (was Re: Eileen Prince & Grandma Longbottom
In-Reply-To: <eb3mjm+ooka@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5sj1+k4ve@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156625

Abergoat writes:
Potioncat - you took me some place interesting with Agnes - I'm now
wondering if Agnes is Filch's magical mother, the woman accused of
killing Eileen Snape. I hope you'll read through this terribly long
post to the end.

Potioncat wrote:
> I fixed it. Now we can talk about Agnes. (see subject line.) I've 
> noticed lately that fewer and fewer list members are getting my 
> jokes. I suppose I'll have to start using smileys.  ;-)

Abergoat writes:
Great! Although I suspect I may have the thread to myself in short
order! (lol) That's way I liked to keep the Agnes idea tied to
Eileen's thread. Eileen is of little interest to people, and poor
Agnes is of even less. Sigh.

I do want to make clear that I'm open to other ideas - I certainly
don't think I have the 'answers', although I think it is a compelling
theory because there is nothing I haven't been able to answer with it.
Very little of what I post was an idea of my own and Agnes being
Eileen is not my idea. I once worked with a group of really great
people on another forum and we developed all of these ideas by feeding
off on other (or reading the ideas of others and building on
them)...until we caught the interest of another group that decided
censorship was called for and started the 'you have no canon' in a
truly obnoxious way (and I mean personal way) until someone would
fight back in the same style - at which point they would promptly
object to the administrators and get the thread shutdown. It was clear
baiting - which, thankfully, I have not seen here.

JKR is a mystery writer - she didn't give the answers, she gave clues.
It would be boring to talk only about 'facts'- not to mention
brainless - because the creativity is to string these facts together
with speculation into a possible solution to the mystery. And of
course these same people are certain it is 'fact' that Aberforth
Dumbledore is the current barman...and told me I couldn't discuss any
other idea. I bet I'm going to have the last laugh on that one. I'd
bet my last dollar that the barman WAS Aberforth but after Voldemort
was through trying to extract the memory of the prophecy, Aberforth
had been turned a goat for his stubbornness...and Dumbledore asked
Order member Dearborn to step in and keep the Death Eater information
network running. That pub was too valuable to lose! JKR only says she
is proud of the goat clue, and the 'canon facts' fit a heck of a lot
better with Aberforth being the original barman but currently being a
goat. But I'm off topic...sorry.

Potioncat wrote:
> I think we have canon for Eileen being (or having been) important. I 
> think she (and possibly Tobias too) love(d) books. We can't be 
> certain that the books at Spinner's End were Eileen's, but it's a 
> good guess. 

Abergoat writes:
And guessing is all we can do until book seven. Given how JKR likes to
foreshadow things, I agree that it is a good guess - even an excellent
guess. JKR's red herrings tend to be the elephant in the room...the
obvious trap - not small things. And Mark Evans was REALLY small - TOO
small - he was nothing more than a name. Eileen Prince is a lot more
than that. We actually seem to have a fair bit of information on her:
She was a leader, she married a muggle, she (may have) had a
collection of expensive books, she (may have) had a potions book that
placed her at Hogwarts with Hagrid and she has a son that is proud to
share her blood and to use her maiden name. And JKR loves the title
HBP and says the story tied to CoS...a strong suggestion that Snape
didn't get the book used. Eileen is no Mark Evans, although I'll grant
that Agnes might be. But it still comes back to the trip to St.
Mungo's seems to have been 'necessary' per JKR's words on the fact
that she doesn't know what she would have cut out of OoP to make it
shorter. Thus far nothing from that scene has had special
significance. I'm certain there is something there...even if it isn't
Agnes.

Potioncat wrote:
> I think Hagrid trusts Snape, although I don't know why, but I think 
> if it concerns Eileen, there has to be more than that. I think it's 
> likely Snape lost one or both parents young, but then how does it 
> hold up that all those books were Eileen's? I also think his
> interest in Dark Arts had more to do with Healing than with Hexing. 

Abergoat writes:
I'm in full agreement there - I think Hagrid knews Snape very well.
Because I think Hargid invited a young (effectively orphaned) Snape to
his hut for rock biscuits the way he did Harry...out of respect for
Snape's mother, the same as he invited Harry out of fondness for
Harry's parents. I still think Snape being able to search the forest
safely in OoP (reportedly looking for Harry) when Umbridge could not
is yet another clue...suggesting Snape knows the forest creatures well
- possibly through Hagrid.

Potioncat wrote:
> Here, here's an idea and it's actually crossed my mind before. 
> Remember Marc (Mark?) Evans? JKR forgot she'd given Lily the same 
> last name? Maybe she forgot the Dogfaced lady was given the name 
> Agnes.

Abergoat writes:
I confess, if Agnes is indeed Eileen I seriously doubt JKR 'forgot'
what name she gave her although you have support in that JKR seems to
have 'forgotten' that she gave Lily the last name Evans. Or more
likely gave Lily a plain, common name and didn't think twice about
reusing it. If Agnes is someone significant then JKR wrote the scene
carefully - I think the fact Mark wasn't important was the source of
the problem. I'll admit the fact that a name was used with dog lady
suggests that I'm off on the wrong track and you are right that she
has no importance. But someone's idea about Agnes gave me the idea
that Snape went into the healing arts not for altruistic reasons (what
a whopper that would be - completely out of character) but to heal his
mother. So even if Agnes is nothing, I'm still grateful to the person
that first suggested the idea!

Potioncat wrote:
> And I would never say that something shouldn't be discussed, so if it 
> seemed like I did, I'm sorry. (Oh, in the interest of honestly, I did 
> once say something shouldn't be discussed, but I was over-ruled.)

Abergoat writes:
And I apologize if I seem 'doggedly determined' to pursue Agnes =
Eileen. Perhaps Agnes is just another family member that was around
when Voldemort attacked Eileen - possibly blamed for the death of
Eileen. Perhaps Filch is the 'son' that comes to visit Agnes as the
nurse tells us, not Severus Snape. Perhaps the memory that Harry saw
in Snape's mind was actually Agnes's memory - the memory of not being
able to protect Filch from his father's wrath over his non-magical
status. See? You just helped me figure out something I like better and
I never would have come up with it without your post. So poor Agnes
may have found herself in yet another scene where she could only watch
with horror and cower - as Voldemort attacked Eileen Snape, killed her
and then pinned the blame on the old abused woman in the room. I
cannot explain the bad transformation though...I'll think on it. I do
think Snape learned legilimens in order to legilimens Agnes - which
would be how he got one of her memories. I don't imagine the memories
of a legilimens would be entirely his own.

 I'll admit that you struck a nerve with the fanfic comment: that was
a common shot across the bow by the unpleasant posters on the other
forum. Fanfic is a story, I'm not writing a story, I'm merely
attempting to connect 'facts' together to speculate on what book seven
holds. And I thought that was one of the accepted purposes of the
forums so I get a bit testy when someone seems to say I shouldn't
write about an idea because it 'has no canon support' when I think it
has a lot...but a only lot of small things. 

The ideas I post may be (and likely are) completely wrong, but they
might give someone else an idea that is actually right.

Abergoat











From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Aug  6 23:27:36 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:27:36 -0000
Subject: Did young Riddle meet Grindelwald?
In-Reply-To: <eb5p7s+vl4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5tt8+mkh4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156626

> "Hagrid" <aussie_lol@> wrote:
> >
> > From memory, JKR was evasive about saying anything about Grindelwald
> in the interview straight after the release of HBP. What could be there?
> > 
> > I am wondering if the way Grindelwald treated Riddle was similar to
> > the way Voldemort treated Draco (ie: Draco had to AK DD and Riddle
> had to AK Riddle Snr).
> >
> Carol responds:
> We don't have much to go on here except a date, 1945, for DD's defeat
> of Grindelvald, which happens to coincide with the date Tom Riddle
> left Hogwarts, and a statement by DD implying that both
> Riddle/Voldemort and DD knew of one other wizard who had made a single
> Horcrux. Surely that wizard was Grindelvald and DD defeated him by
> destroying the Horcrux. <SNIP>

> Possibly, though, Tom Riddle learned what he needed to know
> about Horcruxes from Grindelwald and, after he learned that
> Grindelwald's Horcrux had been destroyed, murdered Grindelwald 
> himself--a significant murder to create a Horcrux with, 
> I should think!
> 
> Carol, who thinks that DD's defeat of Grindelvald is yet another
> reason why DD is the only one Voldemort ever feared
>
aussie reply:
 I think DD learned of the Dark Wizard's Horcrux much earlier than
1945 when he finally defeated him. That is why, according to
Slughorn's memory, DD was so aggresively against the teaching of
Horcruxes while Tom was still at school. It had to do with something
that PRE-dated Tom's showing himself to be someone DD had to be
cautious of.
 aussie






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 23:29:25 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:29:25 -0000
Subject: What did Dudley see with the Dementors? (WAS: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb5lfu+9u3t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5u0l+112um@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156627



Abergoat:

Abergoat suggests:
What about Dudley's worst memory being the day he realized he was no
longer an 'only child'? At 15 months I think he would have been old
enough to realize the significance of another baby...but perhaps
someone with experience in childrearing can tell us more.

I understand that parents are encouraged to handle a toddler's
transition from only child to 'older sibling' carefully. Dudley
wouldn't have had that preparation - he would have woken up to sharing
the house with another toddler...and a 15 months his understanding
would be sufficiently limited that no matter what his parents said to
him the fact that he couldn't scream and get rid of the 'unwanted
competition' must have been the first time in his young life that
screaming didn't get him what he wanted. It must have been a horrible
shock...one that it seems his parents are still trying to make up for.

Just a guess, but I think it fits with all the Dursleys' 
personalities.

Snow:

Let's go one further and say that Petunia put the two children 
together to make it easier on herself. Harry was a young talented 
magical child who portrayed magical tendencies when he was angry or 
scared. (Just look at little Kevin from the Quidditch World Cup who 
enlarged a slug with his father's wand at two) Harry got his 
attention so-much-so that it scared their poor darling enough to land 
Harry a space under the stairs so he and his magical ways, that 
needed to be squashed, would not affect their precious. 

Snow








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Aug  6 23:44:21 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 23:44:21 -0000
Subject: Is Snape an Alchemist?
Message-ID: <eb5usl+71h1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156628

We know that DD was an alchemist because he worked with Flamel. We know 
that Snape is a potions genius.  We know that Snape is the person that 
DD wants when some serious potion making is called for. So here is a 
question for people to discuss. (I hope.) 

Is Snape an Alchemist and if so what does this mean for book 7? What 
has he done for LV?  What does he know that LV doesn't know that he 
knows?  How does it affect Harry?

Tonks_op






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug  6 21:52:44 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 06 Aug 2006 21:52:44 -0000
Subject: Irma Pince magical? (WAS:Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb3hfd+dr6g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb5obc+au56@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156629

Mike's post:
> > Abergoat says:
> > I think that both Irma and Filch are related to Snape and that is
> > their importance. People on the Eileen Prince thread roll their 
> > eyes when I say it but I strongly suspect that Snape lost his     
> > parents early <snip>
> 
> Mike here:
> 
> Interesting, very interesting! When you say related, do you mean 
> familial related (by blood), or related by story line? Do you have 
> something specific in canon that is steering you in this direction, 
> or is it an impression from the overall story?

Abergoat responds:
Ouch, holding my feet to the fire? ;) I'm going to burn...but I'll
try. I suspect at least one of them is related by blood.

I have very little canon beyond that Snape went to Filch to wrap his
leg in PS/SS (probably just so JKR could have Harry see Snape's leg
but there could be something else there) and the scene where Snape
avoids saying anything nasty about Filch's concern over his petrified
cat and also avoids laughing at Lockhart's haircurlers, out of
courtesy to Filch?). Yes, I'll admit that isn't much - but JKR often
only gives hints (Sirius's motorbike, Harry's glimpse of the hand of
glory, etc and Peeves' breaking of the vanishing cabinet all in
earlier books). There is some indication that Snape shows contempt for
adults as well as children (Lockhart, Sirius, Karkaroff and Lupin are
some that I can think of right off - but Karkaoff is the only one that
is older...) so the fact that he treats Hagrid and Filch with respect
could be meaningful. Or not.

As for Irma, nothing stronger there either. We only have 1) JKR's
possible anagram 'I'm a Prince' that some people suggest points to
Irma being a possible relation, 2) that she is a librarian and Snape's
real home is shown to be full of very old leather bound (expensive?)
books but the rest of the place is shabby suggesting a family
collection passed down though generations and 3) Irma's possible
attachment to Filch (from the the scene where Irma overhears them bad
mouthing Filch and reacts causing Harry to speculate she cares for
Filch and the scene with Filch and Irma standing together just before
the funeral).

The main reason for Irma and Filch to be related is to 1) leave
someone behind with whom Harry can speak with to learn more about
Snape's backstory (since I do think trusting Snape will be Harry's
challenge for the final book); 2) I'm certain that Filch 'filched'
something of importance to the story (a horcrux?) and 3) I suspect
that Filch will be the one to do magic late in life to protect Snape
or Irma.

Is any of that proof? Not at all...I merely tied it into my favorite
speculation that Snape's mother was a Voldemort victim because she had
the Ravenclaw relic and Irma and Filch 'filched' it back after it was
made into a horcrux...and have absolutely no idea what they've got.
Why do I love it? Because it nicely explains a Snape eaten by hate but
still on Dumbledore's side...in such a way that Dumbledore would never
question his loyalty.


Mike wrote:
> I too am on board with Snape is an orphan. It fits with the overall 
> motif, Tom Riddle, Hagrid, Harry. I would include in this 
> postulation that Tom was the only one of these four that DD didn't 
> get personally involved with their well being. This could be DD's 
> biggest mistake and one he has been trying to make up for for the 
> past 60 years. Too bad, you gotta get them in the nest, once they go 
> feral there's no getting 'em back. <g>

Abergoat says:
That is an excellent line of reasoning. And I love your 'gotta get
them in the nest' because I think that is Tom's problem - he suffers
from classic attachment disorder because he had no mother to attach to
in the first months of his life. Dumbledore wanted to help, but
recognized his help would never be accepted. JKR's response about
Snape being more culpable supports your theory - Hagrid was loved by
his father, Harry was loved by both parents and (I believe) Snape was
loved by (at least) his mother in the first critical months of life.
Tom's mother abandoned him at birth. Add that with immense talent,
personal charm, vast intelligence and good looks and you have someone
who can do a lot of damage to society.

Abergoat










From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 00:46:04 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 00:46:04 -0000
Subject: Did Snape want Harry to see Pensieve? /Salman Rushdie words.
In-Reply-To: <00d701c6b8ec$e623b410$7178400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <eb62gc+eru5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156630

> > Betsy Hp:
> >> I really, really don't agree that Snape meant for Harry to see 
the
> >> memory.  For one, Montague showing up and requiring immediate 
help
> >> was so random that Snape *couldn't* have planned for it.
> >
> > He could have been leaving out the same memories for Harry to see
> > every time, knowing he would eventually bite.
> 
> Magpie:
> It has nothing to do with Harry "biting," it has to do with Snape 
leaving 
> him alone with them.  Snape never left him alone, except when he 
was called 
> away by something he couldn't have predicted.
> 
> Plus everything in canon seems to indicate he didn't want Harry to 
see it. 
> I don't really understand what Snape's point would be in Harry 
seeing him 
> humiliated.  That he'd see that his dad was a bully?
<SNIP>

Alla:

I have to say that I cannot really give much support to the 
speculation that Snape wanted Harry to see the memory except one 
thing, IMO obvious thing and that would be the fact that he did 
**not** wanted to teach Harry Occlumency. I mean, one can argue that 
he was pretending of course and he was really eager to do that, but 
I do not believe that.

So, what would be the point of letting Harry see the memories? 
Exactly what happened, IMO. Namely to give Snape a **reason** to 
stop the lessons. Was it difficult for Snape to predict that Harry 
wants to see what is in the DoM? IMO not hard at all, especially 
since Snape was legilimising Harry on pretty regular basis during 
the lessons ( and as we  can guess beyond lessons too IMO)

That is why I find this speculation although not very supportable to 
be **highly** likely.

Now, of course Snape could not predict Montague situation, I agree, 
but I also think that since not wanting to teach Harry was something 
Snape wanted to get rid of, but it was something that needed to be 
done without arising DD suspicions, I think Snape decided to wait 
and he got his wish - Harry's curiosity got the best of him.

Now, again this is of course speculation, I will probably not even 
going to debate that, since as I said above - it does not have much 
canon support, except Snape not wanting to teach Harry, but that 
gives me the reason to support it.


Oh, and since I am catching up on Salman Rushdie words, hehe. Just 
wanted to state for the record that I agree with Neri. :)

To me what Rushdie said very strongly implies that he may think that 
if DD is dead, then Snape is bad. That is of course not necessarily 
true, but here is where I stand.

Bravo, Eggplant though! You know, I recently told someone off list 
that we ( including myself) barely move on major topics and that I 
don't remember anyone who changed their POV drastically ( including 
me) on list, I also find it perfectly normal, since IMO we come here 
to be entertained by each other theories not to convince people that 
they are wrong.

 You proved me wrong in the " not changing  our mind part". I just 
cannot move to that corner yet, hehe. :) I see nothing conclusive in 
Rushdie's question and not clear on what exactly JKR was confirming.

JMO,

Alla, who solemnly promises to publicly eat that tasty crow. :)



 







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  7 01:17:54 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:17:54 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F=3F=3F=3F)!=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <eb5n5o+6klk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb64c2+j3sm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156631


> > wynnleaf:
> > As I read it, Rushdie was setting up a series of statements akin -- as
> > far as construction goes -- to the following:
> > 
> > It is winter, and there is snow on the ground.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Well, it was more like "our theory is that it's winter. We propose
> that there must be snow on the ground. That there was in fact a ruse,
> cooked between winter and snow, to ensure that there is snow on the
> ground. So is it winter or not? It's plain to see that everything
> follows from this"

wynnleaf
I was trying to show you a simplified construction of his type of
comments, not reproduce Rushdie's comments into winter/snow.  
 
> Neri:
> You are certainly correct that the opposite of a true if/then
> statement is not necessarily also true. However, this "fallacy" is
> simply irrelevant to our discussion. That is, I quite agree that if
> the statement "if Snape is good, then Dumbledore must be alive" is
> true, this does not mean that the opposite statement: "if Dumbledore
> is alive, then Snape must be good" is also true. But I have never made
> such an opposite statement, so I beg to be acquitted from using this
> fallacy. 

wynnleaf
The only if/then statement that Rushdie really came close to saying
was that if Snape was evil, DD must be dead.  You *did* turn that
around and say that based on Rushdie's comments, if DD was dead, then
Snape must be evil.  So yes, you fell into the fallacy.

> Neri:
> To be precise, Rushdie's last comment (according to the transcript
> upthread, anyway) was: 
> 
> "So, is Snape good or bad? It's plain to see, everything follows from
> this."
> 
> The words "follows from this" support the view of Rushdie's argument
> as an if/then statement. I assume here that in "everything" he also
> includes Dumbledore being alive or dead.

> Note that Rushdie doesn't mention any other reasons for Dumbledore
> being alive, and still he concludes that "Dumbledore can't really be
> dead". I don't see from what he can conclude that other than from his
> previous sentence "Snape is in fact still a good guy".

wynnleaf
Rushdie's comments basically said that he thought Snape was good.  And
that Snape and DD worked together on a plan to fake DD's death.  He
said (I think, some words were possibly unintelligible) that if Snape
was evil, DD must be dead.  But he never even implied that if DD was
dead, Snape must be evil.  That was *your* assumption, and where you
took his acceptable theory (albeit conceivably untrue), and flipped it
around into a fallacy.

The "follows from this" etc. was referring most likely to his own
statements that he thought Snape was good and worked together with DD
to fake his death.  In other words, DD's being alive (if he was) was
dependant on Snape being good (apparently Rushdie's opinion, although
not necessarily correct).  

So when JKR said that his opinion was correct, even if she actually
meant to comment on his entire theory -- which I sincerely doubt, but
apparently you think she was -- she would be affirming his theory that
Snape was good, he and DD worked together on a plan, and their plan
was dependent on Snape's goodness.  However, she did not affirm DD
being alive, but specifically pointed out that aspect of Rushdie's
theory was not correct.  

Basically, you seem to be saying that JKR was really saying "your
opinion is correct" as some sort of totally convoluted way of telling
a man who had just said his theory was that Snape was good that he was
really evil.  A sort of "Your opinion is correct and you're opinion is
wrong."  If JKR really was intending to do that -- well, she's a lot
worse of a communicator than her other interviews would indicate.

Still, I continue to point out that I personally don't think she was
affirming Snape's loyalty at all, or even trying to address that.  I
think she was simply trying to find something she *could* comment on
without giving anything away, and picked his last comment.

In any case, every actual observer that I've heard or read their
comments about this thought she was affirming Snape's goodness.  I
prefer to hope that she wasn't, because I don't like the idea of her
giving that away.  But I have yet to read any report where the
observer thought she was affirming Snape's evil.

wynnleaf, who won't continue this discussion as it is rather pointless
until such time as we have a video of the interview.








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug  7 01:57:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:57:15 -0000
Subject: Contradictions
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580608061558v49b82d64we833ac26c25ebd22@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eb66lr+glm2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156633


Jazmyn Concolor <jazmyn at ...> wrote:
>
> Ummm... Dumbledore was not Headmaster during Tom Riddle's time.. He 
was 
> JUST a teacher then.  Nowhere does it claim he was yet headmaster 
during 
> his early meetings with Tom Riddle.  He was a good 50+ years 
younger and 
> a friend of Flammel, who was still making his longevity potions 
then and 
> might be sharing it with Dumbledore, thus the auburn hair...

Potioncat:
Correct, and agreed. But when Riddle comes back to apply for the DADA 
position, DD is headmaster. I make that to be mid 50's, but see below.

On a sort of side note, I wonder if DD is Deputy Headmaster during 
Riddle's time. Slughorn's comments imply that DD has a great deal of 
power within the administration.


Snow wrote:

 It could have been many years until the Hokey incident
> > and Dumbledore claimed that it took him sometime before 
retrieving the
> > memory that she gave him. The timetable is wide open here.
> >
> > The memory that is ten years after this incident could have been 
in 1970,
> > which would give quite a span if Hokey's memory was not obtained 
until 1960

snip

. Actually that would have
> > Riddle working for B&B for only five years, which isn't that 
unbelievable.
>

Potioncat:
This is an interesting idea. And I was ready to agree to it. But we 
still have McGonagall being hired for Transfiguration in Dec 55 or 
56. (I'm using  the Lexicon's dates here.) I assumed she was hired to 
fill DD's teaching position when he moved into the Headmaster job. I 
wonder if Slughorn was his Deputy?
 


Snow:

 I do have a bit of a problem
> > with an auburn haired person turning entirely white in 15 years.
> >
> >
> >
> > Oh by the way, I'm sorry your feeling so blue
you didn't even 
chuckle at
> > my joke about F&G's beards. There must be something wrong. Have a 
butterbeer
> > or a firewhiskey on me.

Potioncat:
The butterbeer has been a great pick-me-up...Thanks! 

Hmm, feeling like you look too young at 50 so you use an aging 
potion....interesting.

Actually I like the idea that someone had that white hair is a sign 
of being Headmaster....being headmaster of a school full of magically 
inclined kids would turn your hair white, wouldn't it?

Having 3 kids did the trick to mine!






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 01:58:09 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:58:09 -0000
Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Good_and_Bad_(again)_(was:Re:_This_shall_be_Salman_Rushdie=B4s_words_(Spoiler=3F)?=
In-Reply-To: <eb5oba+d749@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb66nh+a5f2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156634


> > >>Neri:
> > <snip>
> > However, it was also straightforward that Snape refused to listen 
> > to any proof that they weren't guilty, and was rather enjoying    
> > himself threatening them with sucking their souls. That's         
> > something a good man wouldn't do even if he believes they are     
> > guilty. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Really?  In the Potterverse?  The same world where a good guy is 
> perfectly able to throw a magical curse at a non-magical child 
> because he's upset at something that child's father said?

Neri:
Turning people into animals is a common practical joke in the WW. Fred
and George sell Canary Cream to school children. Had the Dursleys
apologized and asked Hagrid to return Dudley to his previous condition
I'm sure he would have done it (he would have tried to, anyway. No
guarantee about the results <g>).

It's a completely different matter when you are talking about people
walking to their death, or worse than death. Especially if the person
taunting them about it is also the person who is turning them in.
Especially if they are actually innocent and he refuses to hear them.
Especially if he speaks silkily with a mad glint in his eyes and talks
about sweet vengeance in a breathing voice. Especially if that person
already has a track record of enjoying other people's discomfort,
especially discomfort that he was personally responsible to. This
isn't the behavior of a good person. Good people might find themselves
in situations where they must kill other people, but they don't taunt
their victims and they don't act as if they enjoy it. 


> Betsy Hp:
> The same 
> world where the *hero* expresses a certain amount of glee over the 
> fact that a hated teacher may have tripped a jinx, and even goes so 
> far as to hope the jinx ends up killing him?
> 

Neri:
I agree that Harry came pretty close there and JKR was making a point.
However, Harry was only talking, and talking is cheap. Harry didn't
threaten to turn Snape in to his death personally, taunting him to his
face and enjoying himself at the time. And I'll bet you anything that
Harry won't do it, even to Snape, even after the tower. He won't even
do it to Voldemort. Because if he will, he won't be the good hero. 


> Betsy Hp:
> Honestly, I think JKR makes it pretty darn clear that the line 
> between being a good man and being a bad man is not quite so clearly 
> drawn. Taking a moment to taunt someone you hate isn't enough to 
> shoot you over either side of the line, IMO.  (Not that taunting is 
> a *good* thing.  It's just not enough to paint someone as "not 
> good".)
> 

Neri:
It may not be enough by itself, but in certain circumstances it sure
helps.


Neri







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 02:06:40 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 02:06:40 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb3q1k+g02g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb677g+qq9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156635

Carol earlier:
> > Spoiled Dudley had his tongue swollen and nearly choked on it in
GoF. He was nearly soul-sucked by a Dementor in OoP and, IMO, relived
the toffee memory, surely his most terrible moment, as the Dementor
came near him. <snip>
>
> Ken responded:
>
> Dudley has given some testimony on what he experienced when the
dementor attacked him. In general he describes feeling horrible, cold,
really cold, and as if, as if , as if you'd never be happy again?, the
last with help from Harry. A little more specifically he says it was
dark, everything was dark and then I heard *things* inside my head
(emphasis Dudley's). When prompted to describe what the things said he
is unable to. If you can pull a toffee out of that scene my hat's off
to you. I don't think the toffee was that big a deal to him and he
certainly would be able to talk about the toffee incident. Whatever he
saw was horrible, not being the butt of a practical joke. <snip>

Carol responds:
Dudley didn't really provide "testimony" regarding that memory, but I
agree that it was something horrible because we know that Dementors
force you to relive your worst memories. And the only really horrible
thing that has happened to Dudley in canon is nearly choking on his
own tongue and having it tugged on by his mother, which must have been
extremely painful. The only other possibilities I can think of are the
snake incident and being given a pig's tail by Hagrid, neither of
which seems to me as terrible as thinking that you're going to
suffocate *and* have your tongue ripped out and being absolutely
powerless to do anything about it. Of the three canonical incidents,
I'd say that fearing that you'll choke on your own tongue is the most
terrifying.

Notice that before the ton-tongue toffee incident, Dudley clasps his
hands over his bottom, obviously trying to protect it from attack. In
the Dementor incident, he clasps his hands firmly over his mouth. Yes,
Harry has told him to do so, but why would Dudley obey Harry unless he
believes him? He knows from the toffee incident that his mouth is
vulnerable to magic, his tongue having turned into "a great slimy
python" that nearly choked him, and he clamps it firmly shut.

I guess we disagree about the nature of the toffee prank, which to you
is a practical joke and to me is really horrible, involving gagging,
terror, pain, and helplessness. I'm sure it was what Dudley saw in the
Dementor-induced memory. Nothing else we know of in canon, aside from
the mere presence of the Dementors, would induce such terror. And I
can see why the idea of reliving it would make him vomit. I don't
think he was in any shape to talk about about the incident, and
stating that he felt cold and everything was dark was about all he
could manage. The part about never feeling happy again was supplied by
Harry. Dudley just agreed to Harry's words.

For the record, Dudley's words consist of "*Him*" (meaning Harry),
"*Was*," when Harry states that it wasn't him who attacked Dudley,
"pointed his wand at me," "All dark. Everything dark. And then I
h-heard *things.* Inside my head." But Dudley is incapable of saying
what he heard. Then we have "T-tripped. And then--." "Horrible. Cold.
Really cold." "Felt...felt...felt...as if...as if..." and a "Yes" in
response to Harry's "As if you'd never be happy again." (OoP Am. ed.
25-31).

Dudley is in no condition to tell his parents what memory he was
reliving, or rather rehearing. (BTW, the Dementors being blind
themselves, seem to inspire only aural memories. Harry *hears* his
mother screaming and his father shouting. I don't think the flash of
green light appears in the Dementor-induced memories, including the
Boggart!Dementor ones, but I could be wrong.) Dudley is not
particularly articulate at the best of times and incoherent here,
managing only the few words and phrases quoted above in six pages of
dialogue.

What would terrify pampered Dudley Dursley? Magic, and particularly
his most recent encounter with it, the ton-tongue toffee incident.

Carol, wondering if what Dudley heard was his mother screaming and his
father bellowing, in which case it's no wonder he couldn't describe
what he heard even if he hadn't been in shock from the Dementors







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Aug  7 01:39:05 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:39:05 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
Message-ID: <eb65jq+3gdn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156637

Abergoat speculates:
Potioncat (whether she wants to take credit or not) helped me cleanup
a few outstanding questions about first year Snape's knowledge of more
hexes than most seventh years and the weird timing of Snape 'running'
with Belletrix Lestrange even though she was born in 1951 and he
wasn't born until around 1960 - seemingly eight years or nine years
later. And I think it ties to the Filch and Prince family trees, along
with Voldemort's acquisition of the Ravenclaw relic. I believe Snape
was raised at Hogwarts by his distant relations - brother and sister:
Argus Filch and Irma (Filch) Pince because Voldemort had killed
Severus Snape's parents to acquire the Ravenclaw relic.

Many people will think this is too complicated - but I remind you JKR
has said she intends to tie the story up into a big knot. And we now
SEEM to have JKR's word that Snape is working for Dumbledore's side
and Dumbledore certainly trusted him 'completely'.  To me that
suggests a family connection that causes Snape to hate Voldemort.

So hear we go:

The Family Trees

? and ? Prince give birth to son (Eileen's father) and Agnes (dog lady
at St Mungo's)

Son Prince marries ?, the heiress of the Ravenclaw relic and they have
a daughter Eileen. Eileen's mother dies early. The relic passes to
Eileen. Agnes stands in as a mother to her young niece as much as she can.

Agnes Prince marries a Mr Filch and they give birth to son Argus and
daughter Irma. Mr Filch is an abusive man and becomes particularly
abusive when his son proves to be a squib (this is possibly the memory
Harry saw...it may have been legilimens Snape's memory OF dog lady's
memory...not Snape's own childhood)

The Relationships

Agnes (now dog lady of St Mungo's) was aunt and surrogate mother to
Eileen (Prince) Snape. She is the Great Aunt of Severus. Squib Argus
Filch of Hogwarts fame and his magical sister Irma are Eileen's
cousins and therefore distantly related to Severus.

Voldemort's Interference

I speculate that when Voldemort came for Eileen's relic (assuming she
had the Ravenclaw relic) he found Agnes Filch and her abusive husband
in residence. Eileen had called in her surrogate mother to help with
her new baby Severus. Voldemort killed Tobias and Eileen and setup Mr.
Filch to take the blame for the murders - he left the baby alone
(hence Lily's belief Voldemort wouldn't hurt Harry). I suspect that
Agnes may be one of the seven registered animagii of the last century.
 Voldemort left her halfway transformed, again with Mr Filch, Argus
Filch's father and Agnes's husband, taking the blame.  Or perhaps
better yet, the trauma of the scene is thought to have caused Agnes to
'make a mistake' leaving her in a state where she can only bark.

Final Consequences

This pretty much decimated Severus's family. The ones that aren't dead
or transformed are outcasts. No one wanted anything to do with Irma
and Argus because their father was thought to be a murderer.
Dumbledore, who knew Eileen because of her defense of Hagrid in the
first CoS opening, hires them. Perhaps Mr. Pince didn't die, but ran
off when his wife seemed to be the daughter of a murderer. But who
brings up Severus then? Does he know more hexes than most seventh
years because he was brought up at Hogwarts by Irma and Argus?

I do find it interesting that we never see Irma Pince and Severus
Snape interacting. Although we do see Filch playing the surrogate
father binding Snape's leg in PS/SS. 

So the 'son' that the nurse at St. Mungo's says is coming to visit
Agnes would be Argus Filch. And my idea that Severus Snape learned
healing to try to heal Agnes is still accurate, he wanted to heal the
mother of his surrogate parents, Argus and Irma. And Snape hates the
world for treating them the as outcasts. And perhaps Lily helped
Severus with his efforts to heal Agnes, and Lily was perceptive enough
to see that Agnes was trying to tell them something...so Snape learned
legilimens. This would have Snape learning via legilimens that
Voldemort was the one that killed his parents and ruined the lives of
his surrogate parents by pinning the blame on their father.

Wild? I don't know...it is supported by a number of canon tidbits. As
I mentioned earlier it explains how Snape 'ran' with Belletrix
Lestrange even though Bella was at least seven years older than
Severus...Severus was at Hogwarts the entire time she went to school
there. JKR is sticking our nose in the fact that Bella is
significantly older than Snape - so old that one would think they
didn't overlap. And this may be why Severus Snape chose Slytherin
rather than his mother's house - Ravenclaw. Because Bella talked him
into it.

As an added bonus it explains why James hated Severus Snape on first
sight as canon tells us - Bella liked Severus and Sirius hated Bella.
That would probably be enough for James. 

Just having fun speculating.

Abergoat








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 03:54:51 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 03:54:51 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb677g+qq9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb6dib+hjln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156638

> > Ken earlier:
> >
> > Dudley has given some testimony on what he experienced when the
> dementor attacked him. In general he describes feeling horrible, cold,
> really cold, and as if, as if , as if you'd never be happy again?, the
> last with help from Harry. A little more specifically he says it was
> dark, everything was dark and then I heard *things* inside my head
> (emphasis Dudley's). When prompted to describe what the things said he
> is unable to. If you can pull a toffee out of that scene my hat's off
> to you. I don't think the toffee was that big a deal to him and he
> certainly would be able to talk about the toffee incident. Whatever he
> saw was horrible, not being the butt of a practical joke. <snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> Dudley didn't really provide "testimony" regarding that memory, but I
> agree that it was something horrible because we know that Dementors
> force you to relive your worst memories. And the only really horrible
> thing that has happened to Dudley in canon is nearly choking on his
> own tongue and having it tugged on by his mother, which must have been
> extremely painful. The only other possibilities I can think of are the
> snake incident and being given a pig's tail by Hagrid, neither of
> which seems to me as terrible as thinking that you're going to
> suffocate *and* have your tongue ripped out and being absolutely
> powerless to do anything about it. Of the three canonical incidents,
> I'd say that fearing that you'll choke on your own tongue is the most
> terrifying.

Ken: 

If we are the court that intends to convict the twins we have to consider
Dudley's comments, however imperfect, as testimony. ;-)

Significantly Harry also wonders what Dudley heard and he witnessed
all those incidents. Apparently he doesn't think Dudley heard talking
toffees. Also significantly Petunia did try to pull Dudleys tongue out
and nearly suffocated him by sitting on him. His mother caused about
2/3rds of whatever psychic harm you insist on ascribing to this 
event. Could Petunia be Dudley's worst nightmare? If she isn't she
should be. She may be well intentioned but she and Vernon are
the source of Dudley's problems, not the wizarding world. And that 
includes his fear of the wizarding world.

> Carol:

> Notice that before the ton-tongue toffee incident, Dudley clasps his
> hands over his bottom, obviously trying to protect it from attack. In
> the Dementor incident, he clasps his hands firmly over his mouth. Yes,
> Harry has told him to do so, but why would Dudley obey Harry unless he
> believes him? He knows from the toffee incident that his mouth is
> vulnerable to magic, his tongue having turned into "a great slimy
> python" that nearly choked him, and he clamps it firmly shut.

Ken:

This illustrates wonderfully the concept that we go into every new 
battle totally prepared to fight the previous one. I'm not sure what
else it has to do with dementors. They don't care, they know what 
your worst memories are. We don't have canon on Dudley, it is not
his story. I can't really imagine that Dudders would describe his 
parents as "things" speaking inside his head. His father and mother
have certainly given him enough phobias. Maybe the "things" were
his 39 broken birthday presents. I could easily imagine that his
worst memory is going to his new school and finding out that he
is no longer the biggest bully. There are a lot of possibilities in 
the little canon we have but the only thing I like about the talking
ton tongue toffee terrors theory is the alliteration. Sometimes a 
prank is just a prank.

Ken








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Mon Aug  7 09:16:48 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:16:48 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <20060806020718.46463.qmail@web30806.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <eb70e0+i7bs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156639

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Pamela Rosen <pam_rosen at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> It seems that Vernon's hatred of all things magical, particularly 
Hogwarts, is completely unfounded. He doesn't recognize the wizards 
on the street the night Harry is brought to them. He doesn't have any 
idea what is going on. How does he know not to let Harry see his 
Hogwart's letter? Clearly he knows what it is, and yet he's never 
seen one. And yet, inexplicably, he accepts a magical child into his 
house, based on something that someone magical told him.  It doesn't 
make sense.  The finger is still pointing at Petunia, and what she 
knows, do you agree?
> 
> Pam
>

Brothergib:
It seems to me that if the DE's knew that Lily/James were dead and 
they still wanted to find Harry, they would look for 'next of kin' as 
the most obvious place to find Harry. Therefore, I imagine DD only 
told Petunia that like it or not she was Lily's sister and was 
therefore now embroiled in this matter. The DE's would come looking 
anyway and therefore Petunia and her family were in as much danger as 
anyone. If they take in Harry then DD could protect them as well as 
Harry.

This might also explain Vernon's hatred of the wizarding community 
(if he hadn't already obtained that directly from Petunia's 
prejudice). As far as Vernon is concerned, he is the innocent here. 
He has to take Harry in to protect his family from a bunch of loony 
wizards even though he has not been involved with this problem at any 
level.

I also think DD probably warned them that if they agreed to take 
Harry in and therefore seal the protection, then they would not be 
able to go back on their word. DD may even have threatened them - 
that would certainly explain 'Remember my last, Petunia'!

One last thing. DD calls her Petunia! I can't be sure, but I think 
that DD refers to Vernon as Mr. Dursley when they meet in HBP. DD is 
a very polite man and would not assume that he could call someone he 
didn't know by their first name (i'm trying to think of an 
example....Mrs. Cole at the orphanage!). Remember as well that this 
book is written by a Brit! We Brits regard 'manners' as the key to 
our society!!!!!!!! Therefore, the evidence suggests that DD 'knows' 
Petunia but has never met Vernon.  Also Petunia understands 
what 'Remember my last' refers to - Vernon hasn't got a clue. So it 
seems that DD and Petunia had met at least once!







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Mon Aug  7 09:34:01 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 09:34:01 -0000
Subject: What will Petunia tell Harry? (was Re: Theory on Petunia)
Message-ID: <eb71e9+hc33@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156640

I think the scene will play out something like this:

Vernon - 'I hope that we can expect NOT to have any more visits from 
the old fool who popped in last year'

Harry - '(several expletives). Since he's dead, I think that is 
highly unlikely!'

Petunia - 'Dead?'

Harry - 'Yes. He was murdered by one of the teachers, Professor Snape'

Petunia - 'Severus Snape?'

Harry - 'You know him? How?

Petunia - 'Your mother brought him home once. He was even worse than 
your father!'

Cue lots of soul searching from Harry as to WHY Lily would have 
brought Snape back to Privet Drive.

Brothergib - who believes that whatever the Dursleys contribute to 
book 7, it will not be as significant as people think!








From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Aug  7 11:41:51 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:41:51 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb65jq+3gdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb78tv+8lok@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156641

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> Abergoat speculates:
> <big snip here>
> 
> The Family Trees
> <another big snip>
> 
> Wild? I don't know...it is supported by a number of canon tidbits. As
> I mentioned earlier it explains how Snape 'ran' with Belletrix
> Lestrange even though Bella was at least seven years older than
> Severus...Severus was at Hogwarts the entire time she went to school
> there. JKR is sticking our nose in the fact that Bella is
> significantly older than Snape - so old that one would think they
> didn't overlap. And this may be why Severus Snape chose Slytherin
> rather than his mother's house - Ravenclaw. Because Bella talked him
> into it.
> 
> As an added bonus it explains why James hated Severus Snape on first
> sight as canon tells us - Bella liked Severus and Sirius hated Bella.
> That would probably be enough for James. 
> 
> Just having fun speculating.

colebiancardi:

canon states that Regulus Black, brother to Sirius and cousins to
Bella and Narcissa(who then married into the Malfoy family), was in
the same house as Snape.  Regulus is a year or two younger than Snape.
 I think that is the connection on how Snape met Bella and the rest of
the DE's.  and since the members in your house are like your
"family"(again, canon), it might be that Snape & Regulus were like
brothers - and that would explain why Sirius hated Snape - because he
hated the dark side of his family.   Also, since Snape knew "more
hexes and curses" than most 7th years, that would explain why James
hated Snape at first sight - because James hates anything to do with
dark magic.

colebiancardi









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug  7 13:17:54 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:17:54 -0000
Subject: Slytherin Gang (was Re: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb78tv+8lok@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7ei2+99o0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156642


> > Abergoat speculates:
> > <big snip here>
 As
> > I mentioned earlier it explains how Snape 'ran' with Belletrix
> > Lestrange even though Bella was at least seven years older than
> > Severus...Severus was at Hogwarts the entire time she went to 
school
> > there.
 
Potioncat:
I suspect, if anyone has a family at Hogwarts, the family lives in a 
section of the castle away from the students and if Severus had been 
raised there, he would have spent time in Hogsmeade rather than 
Hogwarts. Bellatrix doesn't strike me as the type to "play" with the 
carekeeper's half blood kid. (Who would have been 5? when she came to 
school.) I also think that if DD had any idea that a child was 
learning Dark Arts at Hogwarts he would put a stop to it. (Oh, who am 
I kidding, DD never puts a stop to anything.)

Although we have the first-aid scene in the teachers' lounge, I don't 
get it as any sign of closeness. It's more likely that Filch is aware 
of the three-headed dog and Snape can trust him to help.....no, there 
is no good explanation for why Snape was bandaging his leg in the 
teachers' lounge or why Filch was helping. Would anyone want Filch 
coming any where near an open wound?

Abergoat:
JKR is sticking our nose in the fact that Bella is
> > significantly older than Snape - so old that one would think they
> > didn't overlap. And this may be why Severus Snape chose Slytherin
> > rather than his mother's house - Ravenclaw. Because Bella talked 
him
> > into it.

Potioncat:
The quibble I have is that you're using one theory to explain another 
theory. I will go this far, I think there was a pre-Hogwarts 
relationship between Severus and that "gang of Slythrins." So that 
there may be a Prince-Rosier, Prince-Lestrange relationship. Using 
the Black family tree, that leads to a Black connection. I suspect 
that Sirius knew or knew of Severus before Hogwarts and that he 
identified Severus as being interested in Dark Arts. That gives both 
Sirius and James a reason to not like Severus "at first sight."

I also suspect Bellatrix may have known the younger Severus. Does 
anyone out there think Bellatrix could be girl laughing at the boy on 
the bucking broom?

As to the Sorting Hat, my current belief (and I have to go back and 
determine who came up with this) that the Hat places you according to 
the qualities you value. I suspect Severus valued ambition. I don't 
think you can just "ask" for a House.


> 
> colebiancardi:
 Regulus is a year or two younger than Snape.
>  I think that is the connection on how Snape met Bella and the rest 
of
> the DE's.  and since the members in your house are like your
> "family"(again, canon), it might be that Snape & Regulus were like
> brothers - and that would explain why Sirius hated Snape - because 
he
> hated the dark side of his family.

Potioncat:
If the relationship between Regulus and Severus was the cause of the 
Sirius-Severus animosity, then it wouldn't have started until the 
second year. (or third, but I think Regulus is only 1 year behind.) 
Or course, Sirius comes to Hogwarts and three cousins are already in 
Slytherin house. If he is already antagonistic toward his family, 
that could play into an anti-Slytherin slant. (Was Andromeda a 
Slytherin?)

Although I think Snape knew some of the "gang" before school, Snape 
could have met the gang of Slytherins his first year at Hogwarts. He 
could have become a part of that gang in the same way Harry became a 
part of the Gryffindor Quidditch team--by a particular talent. I 
think, 20 years from now, you could say Harry was part of a gang of 
Gryffindors who almost all went on to be professonal Quidditch 
players. ;-) That has the "gang" being made up of a changing 
membership, with Sirius only naming the prominent ones who did become 
DEs. It could be just that simple. 


Colebiancardi:
   Also, since Snape knew "more
> hexes and curses" than most 7th years, that would explain why James
> hated Snape at first sight - because James hates anything to do with
> dark magic.

Potioncat:
Hexes and curses aren't Dark Arts. So something identified Severus as 
Dark to James at their first meeting. (Sirius, perhaps?)






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 13:36:03 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:36:03 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb5ko0+i2of@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7fk3+et0o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156643

> Abergoat wrote:

> I bet clean-freak Petunia finds it when cleaning out her 'new home'
> after being brought to Grimmauld Place for safety. I can just picture
> a scene with Petunia screaming nasty names as Harry tries to take it
> from her!
> 

I like the thought of Petunia imprisoned at Grimmauld Place. I'm also
aware that the locket could be part of the Kreacher cache. We have to
remember that Mundungus was caught nicking and selling items from
Grimmauld Place so that locket could be very hard to find or in the
hands of someone terribly inconvenient.

Ken







From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Aug  7 13:48:20 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:48:20 -0000
Subject: Slytherin Gang (was Re: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb7ei2+99o0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7gb4+mfp7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156644

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
 > Colebiancardi:
>    Also, since Snape knew "more
> > hexes and curses" than most 7th years, that would explain why James
> > hated Snape at first sight - because James hates anything to do with
> > dark magic.
> 
> Potioncat:
> Hexes and curses aren't Dark Arts. So something identified Severus as 
> Dark to James at their first meeting. (Sirius, perhaps?)
>

colebiancardi back again:

I think Sirius stated it was that Snape was up to his ears in the Dark 
Arts and that he knew more hexes & curses than a 7th year.  So, was 
that comment incorrect?  Did Sirius *assume* that Snape was into the 
Dark Arts because of the hex & curse knowledge?  Or were those hexes & 
curses that Snape knew Dark Arts?

Also it could have been as simple as Snape being sorted into the 
Slytherin House :)  Afterall, James states that his distain for Snape 
is because "he exists".   Perhaps the bias towards Slytherin(remember 
Hagrid stating that there wasn't a dark wizard that didn't come from 
Slytherin) was already in place at that time - I would think that with 
Bella, Narcissa, Malfoy, etc already graduated or still in Slytherin, 
that is possible.  

I wish we *knew* more about the 1st year of James, Sirius & Snape, like 
we do with Harry, Ron & Draco.  Draco "hates" Harry & Ron, for no real 
reason other than they truck with non pure-bloods and his bias from his 
parents.  Ron "hates" Draco because of those biases.  Harry "hates" 
Draco because of those biases as well.

How much of James, Sirius & Snape's "hatred" towards each other comes 
from preconceived biases from parents, relatives, friends, etc?

colebiancardi
(who doesn't believe that the sins of the parents are passed down to 
the child)







From bectay at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 01:32:42 2006
From: bectay at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:32:42 -0000
Subject: Three instead of four horcruxes left.
Message-ID: <eb657q+sfqf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156645

I have never posted anything on any website, but I have been reading
the different, theories, etc. for the last few months.  Also,
forgive me if this subject has already been brought up and
explained.  I searched "horcrux" and received about 2400 posts.

When Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded back on
him, didn't one of the 6 horcruxes have to be used to keep him
alive?  On page 648 of GoF (US), Voldemort asks "And then I ask
myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again?
They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against
mortal death?".

After finishing HBP, my thoughts were that the seventh piece of soul
left in LV was destroyed by the rebounded curse and that LV had to
use one of the horcruxes to stay alive, which would leave only 5.
The diary and the ring have been destroyed.  That would leave the
locket and the cup for the next two.  The third is either Nagini or
something of Gryffindor's or something of Ravenclaw's.

I may be missing something here, since it has been a year since I re-
read the books.  If so, please let me know what that is.


Rebecca





From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sun Aug  6 23:21:37 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2006 16:21:37 -0700
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <eb57s2+oebf@eGroups.com>
References: <eb4sn8+s2eo@eGroups.com> <eb57s2+oebf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608061621q265fa000i45a521ebaed7051f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156646

> Cassy Ferris:
> << By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
> his loss. merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
> beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
> him. >>

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston):
> I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
> plot purposes.

AD:
Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind
him" at the end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the
end of the book.

Lynda:

Throughout HBP, there are references to Harry still struggling with Sirius
death.  His thoughts at times when he's talking with Slughorn, Tonks and
even Lupin are indications that he's still grieving.

Lynda








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 14:42:08 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 14:42:08 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7jg0+3rht@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156647

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" <eggplant107 at ...> 
wrote:

> 
> I'm just thinking out loud here but what if not Harry but Dumbledore
> had inadvertently become a Horcrux, perhaps when he got that withered
> arm? That would mean Voldemort could never die as long as Dumbledore
> lived. I'm guessing, and it's only a guess, that suicide (self 
murder)
> would only strengthen a Horcrux, he must be killed by someone in a
> completely selfless act. Snape had nothing to gain personally by
> killing Dumbledore, he did it because Dumbledore asked him to and
> because he knew it was the right thing to do. 

Now that IS an incredibly interesting theory.  It also dovetails very 
nicely with a lot of other things.  It does indeed explain much of 
Snape's specific action on the tower and make him very angsty -- 
although not in any way good -- and does explain why he might take the 
UV.

It also goes well with a certain psychological view of the Snape-Harry-
Dumbledore triangle.  To wit, Snape is incredibly bitter because he 
feels himself to be the unloved son in this scenario, while the father 
figure lavishes affection and concern on the younger and (in Snape's 
eyes) less worthy child.

Snape, in this scenario, repeatedly resists seeing Harry as "special" 
or in any way worthy of regard -- especially from Dumbledore, whose 
affection Snape desires.  Snape is eaten alive with perpetual envy in 
knowing that DD loves Harry more than he loves Severus.  Nothing 
Snapey-poo does seems to shake this regard.  He saves the boy, DD 
loves Harry better.  He demonstrates that the boy isn't very good at 
potions.  DD loves Harry better.  He shows that the boy can't learn 
Occlumency.  DD loves Harry better.  He spies on the DEs.  DD loves 
Harry better.  

In this scenario, one of DD's emotional mistakes is in mistaking the 
reason that Occlumency fails.  It wasn't because Snapey-poo couldn't 
get over his feelings about James, it was because he couldn't get over 
his feelings about HARRY.  Once again, the father figure has shown 
definitively that he loves Harry more than Severus.  The bitterness 
Snape shows when he tells Harry "I did not ask for the job" is 
classic.  Father has told him to help little brother out, and father 
doesn't want to hear any excuses, thank you very much -- even excuses 
about how difficult and dangerous a job it might be if Voldemort finds 
out that Snapey-poo is helping Harry resist his probes.

DD's position in all this is also classic.  He's a father with two 
sons, one of whom is very bitter toward the other.  He wants to help 
the situation but he doesn't know how and is crippled in thinking 
about it because of a very hard fact -- Severus is right.  DD really 
DOES love Harry more than he loves Severus.  If he tries to confront 
the situation directly he risks coming down to a very bitter moment, 
the moment when the older son flat asks "Do you love me as much as you 
love him?"  And then DD would either have to lie, which is something 
Snapey-poo would see through immediately and come away destroyed, or 
tell the truth, and destroy him anyway.  Best to sweep the whole thing 
under the rug and hope to God it never comes up.

And now this happens.  DD is a horcrux and has to be killed.  What 
will Snape say?  "No, I won't do it!  If he's so special, if HE has 
the destiny, let HIM do it!"  

And of course DD won't have that.  He won't tell Harry the truth 
because he knows that would force Harry to face having to kill him, 
and DD simply loves Harry too much to put that on his shoulders.  And 
so the final confrontation has come.  Severus in effect says, "Which 
of us do you love most?  Which of us are you going to shield from 
this?"

And DD's answer is uncompromising.  He in effect says, "I don't love 
you the way you want, Severus.  Harry is my darling, you are not.  So 
yes, I have to die, and no, I will not ask my darling to do it.  And 
furthermore, I won't let Draco do it, either."

And so Sevvie has in effect said, "I love you, do you love me more 
than him?"  And he has his answer.  DD has said, "No.  I love him more 
than you."

That enough angst for ya?


Lupinlore, who does think this has the potential to explain a lot of 
things while rescuing DD from the incompetent moron stage and 
returning him to the loving but deeply conflicted and mistake prone 
father-figure stage









From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Mon Aug  7 05:08:36 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:08:36 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb6dib+hjln@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb6hsk+in6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156648

> > > Ken earlier:
> > >
> > > Dudley has given some testimony on what he experienced when the
> > dementor attacked him. In general he describes feeling horrible, 
cold,
> > really cold, and as if, as if , as if you'd never be happy 
again?, the
> > last with help from Harry. A little more specifically he says it 
was
> > dark, everything was dark and then I heard *things* inside my 
head
> > (emphasis Dudley's). When prompted to describe what the things 
said he
> > is unable to.


Laurawkids:

How about

Dudley /Big D /IckleDiddykins /popkin /Dinky Diddydum




wait for it





was remembering that voice in his head when he was imperio'd as a 
tot to be an ever-living abuse-master to Harry.  They were trying to 
inhibit Harry's natural ability to perform magic.  A Merope effect.  
Would anyone or cat be monitoring Baby D's welfare when he was left 
out in the fresh air in his pram while Petunia was mopping?  


Carol:
> Could Petunia be Dudley's worst nightmare? If she isn't she
> should be.
 

Laurawkids:  Well said!!  











From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Aug  7 15:47:46 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 16:47:46 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb7jg0+3rht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060807154746.29835.qmail@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156649

Three cheers for Salman Rushdie, who managed with one
question what hordes of snapeophiles could not achieve
with gigabytes of discussions. :-)

Now can you honestly say that the (brilliant) plot
you've just described provides for  a thousand times
more interesting book 7 than ESE!Snape, or OFH!Snape?

Irene

--- lupinlore <rdoliver30 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> And so Sevvie has in effect said, "I love you, do
> you love me more 
> than him?"  And he has his answer.  DD has said,
> "No.  I love him more 
> than you."
> 
> That enough angst for ya?
> 
> 
> Lupinlore, who does think this has the potential to
> explain a lot of 
> things while rescuing DD from the incompetent moron
> stage and 
> returning him to the loving but deeply conflicted
> and mistake prone 
> father-figure stage
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html



From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Mon Aug  7 15:50:14 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 16:50:14 +0100 (BST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <20060807154746.29835.qmail@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060807155014.89252.qmail@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156650

Oops, I meant "does not provide", of course. Sorry.

Irene

--- Irene Mikhlin <irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com>
wrote:

> Three cheers for Salman Rushdie, who managed with
> one
> question what hordes of snapeophiles could not
> achieve
> with gigabytes of discussions. :-)
> 
> Now can you honestly say that the (brilliant) plot
> you've just described provides for  a thousand times
> more interesting book 7 than ESE!Snape, or
> OFH!Snape?
> 
> Irene
> 
> --- lupinlore <rdoliver30 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > And so Sevvie has in effect said, "I love you, do
> > you love me more 
> > than him?"  And he has his answer.  DD has said,
> > "No.  I love him more 
> > than you."
> > 
> > That enough angst for ya?
> > 
> > 
> > Lupinlore, who does think this has the potential
> to
> > explain a lot of 
> > things while rescuing DD from the incompetent
> moron
> > stage and 
> > returning him to the loving but deeply conflicted
> > and mistake prone 
> > father-figure stage
> > 



	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine 
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html



From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 16:19:45 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:19:45 -0000
Subject: Three instead of four horcruxes left.
In-Reply-To: <eb657q+sfqf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7p71+cg4q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156651

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca" <bectay at ...> wrote:
>
> I have never posted anything on any website, but I have been 
reading the different, theories, etc. for the last few months.  
(Snip) 
> When Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded back on
> him, didn't one of the 6 horcruxes have to be used to keep him
> alive?  On page 648 of GoF (US), Voldemort asks "And then I ask
> myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again?
> They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against
> mortal death?".
> 
> After finishing HBP, my thoughts were that the seventh piece of 
soul left in LV was destroyed by the rebounded curse and that LV had 
to use one of the horcruxes to stay alive, which would leave only 5.
> The diary and the ring have been destroyed.  That would leave the
> locket and the cup for the next two.  The third is either Nagini or
> something of Gryffindor's or something of Ravenclaw's.

Tonks:
Hi Rebecca. Welcome to the group.

I know that many have said that the DE did not know what LV did. But 
here you have canon that shows that they do know. I would think that 
LV would not trust them that much. Maybe he only told them that he 
made one.  That could be why RAB thought that he had destroyed the 
only one.  If you could at any time have a traitor among your 
followers, it is best not to let them know too much. I would guess 
that the DE knew he had a Horcrux, but were told that he made only 
one.  Only Slughorn knows that LV was toying with the idea of 7 soul 
bits, or 6 horcruxes.

As to LV only having 5 horcruxes left, I disagree.  I think the 
purpose of a horcrux is to bind your soul, all of it, to the earth. 
When LV lost his body, his soul part that was still in that body did 
not leave the earth. It did not go beyond.  So he did not lose 
anything. 

The concept of splitting the soul is similar to the psychologically 
idea of splitting off part of the self.  When one splits off part of 
the self the self that remains does not know what that other part is 
doing, it is disconnected from it.  I think that JKR is using this 
same idea when she says, through DD, that LV does not know when a 
horcrux has been destroyed.  

Now we do not know what happens to the soul bit once the horcrux has 
been destroyed.  I would guess that it might return to the original, 
but still split off.  IMO, it returns to LV, but since it is split 
off, just like the person who has split off part of themself, it 
resides in LV's body, but not connected to the rest of his soul.  He 
is a fragmented being. A person with a damaged psychic.  A person 
who is whole has integrated all of the separate parts of themselves 
into one. This is part of the process of maturation. This is also 
why I think that maybe LV is a symbol of the split off part of Harry 
know as the shadow, and Harry will absorb LV into himself. This 
theory might not be correct, since I think we are told that Harry is 
whole already. I don't mean his soul, his soul is whole since he has 
never killed. I mean his mind, in a Jungian sense.

Tonks_op









From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Aug  7 15:51:37 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 15:51:37 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb7fk3+et0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7ni9+8dk0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156652

Abergoat wrote:

I bet clean-freak Petunia finds it when cleaning out her 'new home'
after being brought to Grimmauld Place for safety. I can just picture
a scene with Petunia screaming nasty names as Harry tries to take it
from her!

Ken wrote:
I like the thought of Petunia imprisoned at Grimmauld Place. I'm also
aware that the locket could be part of the Kreacher cache. We have to
remember that Mundungus was caught nicking and selling items from
Grimmauld Place so that locket could be very hard to find or in the
hands of someone terribly inconvenient.


Tinktonks:

My boyfriend thinks that Mundungus has stolen the locket Horcrux
from Grimmauld Place but I still believe that it is in Kreachers
den. Not even Mundungus would think of trying to thieve something
from under the boiler!!!!

Tinktonks : Who is determined that Mundungus has pinched the cup
from Grimmauld place and the locket will be the penultimate Horcrux
dealt with! (Nagini being the last)










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 16:58:21 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:58:21 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb7jg0+3rht@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7rfd+5cvr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156653

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> It also goes well with a certain psychological view of the Snape-
Harry- Dumbledore triangle.  To wit, Snape is incredibly bitter 
because he  feels himself to be the unloved son in this scenario, 
while the father figure lavishes affection and concern on the 
younger and (in Snape's eyes) less worthy child.
> 

Tonks:
I can see DD in the role of father figure to Snape, not so much to 
Harry, but I will go along with it for the moment.  DD is the mentor 
to both.  Snape has become more of an equal to the father, like an 
older brother who is an adult would. 

I don't think, regardless of what Scrimgeour says, that DD loves one 
more than the other.  I think he loves Snape and Harry the same. He 
also loves Draco. And on the tower he died for them all. Now I guess 
you could make a case for Snape "feeling" that DD loves Harry more, 
which you have. But I give Snape more credit than that. I think 
Snape is a mature man, who is secure with his position with DD. I 
think that Snape hates Harry, because DD loves Harry more than his 
own live.  And Snape loves DD too much to see him give his live for 
Harry.  Snape does not want DD to give his life for Snape's soul 
either. Snape would rather die for DD, than to have DD die for him.

IMO, DD has a spot in his heart for Tom too, and it breaks his heart 
to see what Tom has become.  I think that DD is sad when someone 
makes a choice that destroys the purity of their soul, because DD 
loves everyone.

Tonks_op








From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  7 18:26:32 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:26:32 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb7rfd+5cvr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156655

  
Lupinlore 
    
<<It also goes well with a certain psychological view of the Snape-
<Harry- 
<Dumbledore triangle.  To wit, Snape is incredibly bitter because he 
<feels himself to be the unloved son in this scenario, while the 
father figure lavishes affection and concern on the younger and (in 
Snape's eyes) less worthy child. 

<Snape, in this scenario, repeatedly resists seeing Harry 
as "special" or in any way worthy of regard -- especially from 
Dumbledore, whose affection Snape desires.  Snape is eaten alive 
with perpetual envy in knowing that DD loves Harry more than he 
loves Severus.  Nothing Snapey-poo does seems to shake this regard.  
He saves the boy, DD loves Harry better.  He demonstrates that the 
boy isn't very good at potions.  DD loves Harry better.  He shows 
that the boy can't learn Occlumency.  DD loves Harry better.  He 
spies on the DEs.  DD loves Harry better. 

<In this scenario, one of DD's emotional mistakes is in mistaking 
the reason that Occlumency fails.  It wasn't because Snapey-poo 
couldn't get over his feelings about James, it was because he 
couldn't get over his feelings about HARRY.  Once again, the father 
figure has shown definitively that he loves Harry more than 
Severus.  The bitterness Snape shows when he tells Harry "I did not 
ask for the job" is classic.  Father has told him to help little 
brother out, and father doesn't want to hear any excuses, thank you 
very much -- even excuses about how difficult and dangerous a job it 
might be if Voldemort finds out that Snapey-poo is helping Harry 
resist his probes. 

<DD's position in all this is also classic.  He's a father with two 
sons, one of whom is very bitter toward the other.  He wants to help 
the situation but he doesn't know how and is crippled in thinking 
about it because of a very hard fact -- Severus is right.  DD really 
DOES love Harry more than he loves Severus.  If he tries to confront 
the situation directly he risks coming down to a very bitter moment, 
the moment when the older son flat asks "Do you love me as much as 
you love him?"  And then DD would either have to lie, which is 
something Snapey-poo would see through immediately and come away 
destroyed, or tell the truth, and destroy him anyway.  Best to sweep 
the whole thing under the rug and hope to God it never comes up. 
 

wynnleaf 
While I'm not so sure about the DD-as-horcrux idea, I have wondered 
if DD's death was necessary to complete a horcrux destruction. 

But whatever.... 

I have also been very interested in the "unloved son," or perhaps 
better "less-loved son," explanation of a DD/Harry/Snape triangle. 

It makes a lot of sense if you think that Snape may have had a poor 
relationship with Tobias Snape, a muggle.  Also, from Sirius' 
statements about the group of Slytherin's Snape supposedly ran with 
(they seemed to mostly be a good deal older than him), and his 
friendship with Lucius, also a good deal older, I think we can guess 
that Snape was looking for something even as a youngster first 
starting Hogwarts -- some sort of older sybling/mentor/parent, well 
*something* that could fill in for the kind of support he was 
lacking.  Even if Slughorn, his head of house, invited him into the 
Slug Club, I can't see Slughorn giving that sort of mentor or 
parenting support to anyone, much less Snape. 

Anyway, when Snape "returned" (DD's word) to DD, regreting his work 
as a DE, then DD would be almost certain to have taken on a role 
with Snape that would have affected him deeply.  First, DD chose to 
trust Snape, giving him the responsibility of spying on DD.  Then DD 
placed Snape in the further and greater position of responsibility 
of teaching at Hogwarts, and then as a head of house.  But as a 
newly turned spy, who taught Snape occlumency and trained him on 
what to do as a spy?  I'd think even someone with natural talent in 
occlumency still needs a teacher, and Snape must have had a master 
teacher.  Since I doubt Voldemort would want to teach a highly 
talented student the highest levels of occlumency, it wouldn't be 
surprising if Snape spent a lot of time one-on-one with DD, learning 
occlumency.  That probably took a high level of trust in order to 
learn at the level Snape uses it  -- that is, Snape would have had 
to trust DD quite a lot. 

But consider, a nineteen or twenty year old new spy.  Dumbledore 
would have to have spent a great deal of time with Snape guiding him 
through that whole spying business.  And then the young spy has no 
real father figure -- and now he's got this mentor who he has to 
trust with his life, not to mention let in his mind -- yeah, there 
almost *had* to be some very strong bonds formed.  Whether they were 
mentor, parental, or what, we don't know. 

> Tonks:
> I can see DD in the role of father figure to Snape, not so much to 
> Harry, but I will go along with it for the moment.  DD is the 
mentor 
> to both. 

wynnleaf
I agree that DD had a lot bigger likelihood of becoming a father 
figure to Snape than toward Harry.  I would think he'd have spent a 
lot more time around Snape in his late teens or early twenties, than 
DD spent around Harry.

Tonks
 > I don't think, regardless of what Scrimgeour says, that DD loves 
one 
> more than the other.  I think he loves Snape and Harry the same. 

wynnleaf
I agree, although he loves them differently.  I guess it partly 
relates to how one defines love.  But if you think in terms of what 
I think of as "acts of love," then DD has shown a great deal of 
loving actions toward Snape -- forgiveness, trust when others don't, 
raising him from dishonorable DE to the honorable post of teacher, 
hoping for the best out of Snape even when it doesn't happen (such 
as getting over his feelings in order to teach occlumency), etc.  
These, to me, are all actions of love and therefore I'd consider 
DD's love for Snape to be as great as his love for Harry -- but for 
very different reasons.  DD particularly loves Harry's capacity for 
love, and he shows his love toward Harry differently, too.

Tonks
He 
> also loves Draco. And on the tower he died for them all. 

wynnleaf
Good point.

Tonks
Now I guess 
> you could make a case for Snape "feeling" that DD loves Harry 
more, 
> which you have. But I give Snape more credit than that. I think 
> Snape is a mature man, who is secure with his position with DD. I 
> think that Snape hates Harry, because DD loves Harry more than his 
> own live.  And Snape loves DD too much to see him give his live 
for 
> Harry.  Snape does not want DD to give his life for Snape's soul 
> either. Snape would rather die for DD, than to have DD die for him.

wynnleaf
I've seen some fan fic writers do an excellent job at writing Snape 
from the perspective of sybling rivalry hatred for Harry.  It 
primarily seems to work if Snape is portrayed as especially 
emotionally immature.  This works well, until Snape has to be 
portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult 
decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in check, 
etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer seems to 
fit the character.  

So I tend to think that there's a part of Snape's hatred of Harry 
that's bound up in his feelings toward Dumbledore.  But I think it's 
only one aspect of his feelings toward Harry.  I think Snape would 
almost have to see Dumbledore in at least a partially parental way.  
But until HBP, Dumbledore was not really spending much time at all 
with Harry.  While Snape may have felt a jealousy toward the way 
Dumbledore (in Snape's opinion) might let Harry get by with all 
sorts of rule breaking, there really wasn't any *relationship* to be 
particularly jealous over.  It wasn't until HBP that DD and Harry 
visited with each other more than a few times per year.  Yet in HBP, 
we actually see less overt hatred of Snape toward Harry -- not 
including actions surrounding the very high stress scenes of 
Sectumsempra and Flight of the Prince, when Snape's anger toward 
Harry is understandable even without his hatred.

wynnleaf -- 







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Aug  7 18:44:23 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:44:23 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GAA5j-0007z2-KP@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156656

Tonks
Now I guess 
> you could make a case for Snape "feeling" that DD loves Harry 
more, 
> which you have. But I give Snape more credit than that. I think 
> Snape is a mature man, who is secure with his position with DD.  
snip

wynnleaf
I've seen some fan fic writers do an excellent job at writing Snape 
from the perspective of sybling rivalry hatred for Harry.  It 
primarily seems to work if Snape is portrayed as especially 
emotionally immature.  This works well, until Snape has to be 
portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult 
decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in check, 
etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer seems to 
fit the character.  



Sherry now:

Breaking my vow to myself never to debate Snape again, since none of us will
ever change each other's minds, ... however, the thing I would never say of
Snape is that he is emotionally mature.  To me, a man who hates a child, an
11-year-old child, on sight, from the very beginning, based solely on who
that child's father just happened to be, well, that's the complete opposite
of emotional maturity.  it's immature in the extreme, I think.  If Snape is
so emotionally mature, he should be able to realize that Harry is not James,
and that Harry has no more control over who his parents were than does
Snape.  Even in the horrid occlumency lessons, Snape got a glimpse of
Harry's childhood, but this did not seem to cause him to begin to rethink
his attitudes toward Harry.  Yet when Harry saw the pensieve memory, he did
feel compassion for the young Severus.  Who's more emotionally mature now?
Maybe, due to his spying role, for whoever is really his master, he can keep
his emotions in check.  He must or die.  But when he lets them out, he sure
lets them out and blows everything to pieces with them.  Speaking
figuratively, of course.  But that scene in the shrieking shack in POA,
followed by the hospital wing scene was one of the biggest out and out
temper tantrums I've ever read, especially coming from a supposedly mature
man.

Sherry




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 18:44:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 18:44:13 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb6dib+hjln@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb81lt+lv6o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156657

Carol earlier:
> > Dudley didn't really provide "testimony" regarding that memory,
but I agree that it was something horrible because we know that
Dementors force you to relive your worst memories. And the only really
horrible thing that has happened to Dudley in canon is nearly choking
on his own tongue and having it tugged on by his mother, which must
have been extremely painful. The only other possibilities I can think
of are the snake incident and being given a pig's tail by Hagrid,
neither of which seems to me as terrible as thinking that you're going
to suffocate *and* have your tongue ripped out and being absolutely
powerless to do anything about it. Of the three canonical incidents,
I'd say that fearing that you'll choke on your own tongue is the most
terrifying.
> 
> Ken: 
> 
> If we are the court that intends to convict the twins we have to
consider Dudley's comments, however imperfect, as testimony. ;-)
> 
> Significantly Harry also wonders what Dudley heard and he witnessed
all those incidents. Apparently he doesn't think Dudley heard talking
> toffees. Also significantly Petunia did try to pull Dudleys tongue out
> and nearly suffocated him by sitting on him. His mother caused about
> 2/3rds of whatever psychic harm you insist on ascribing to this 
> event. Could Petunia be Dudley's worst nightmare? If she isn't she
> should be. She may be well intentioned but she and Vernon are
> the source of Dudley's problems, not the wizarding world. And that 
> includes his fear of the wizarding world.
> 

Carol again:
I'm not talking about the Twins here, or about talking toffees. I'm
merely trying to figure out what Dudley's most terrifying memory could
be based on what has happened to him in canon. And as I noted in my
post, the sounds he could recall would include his own sputtering and
gagging, his mother's screams and his father's bellows--not easy to
describe in the best of circumstances and certainly not after a
Dementor attack renders you nearly speechless. It doesn't matter that
much of Dudley's pain was caused by his mother yanking on his tongue,
it's still a literally and figuratively painful memory, Dudley's worst
as far as we know. And it doesn't matter for the sake of the
Dementor-induced memory whether his parents are the ultimate source of
his problems. The fact remains that he, like them, is terrified of
magic. If you can produce a canonical memory for Dudley that's worse
than the one I've cited, please do so.

And no we do not need to consider Dudley's inarticulate comments,
which relate mainly to cold and darkness and an attempt to blame Harry
for the incident as "testimony" for or against the Twins. Dudley
doesn't say what the memory he heard was, and Harry perhaps didn't
think about the toffee incident because for him it was primarily
visual. He may also be under the impression that it was just one of
the Twins' jokes, though at the time he seemed almost as horrified as
the Weasleys. I think the fact that the Twins were the perpetrators
and that Mr. Weasley sorted things out minimizes the importance of the
memory to Harry. 

The toffee incident may be a practical joke to the Twins. For Dudley,
IMO, it's another matter entirely.

Carol, asking for a canonical alternative to the toffee memory rather
than uncanonical speculation about Petunia being Dudley's worst nightmare







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:06:18 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:06:18 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <E1GAA5j-0007z2-KP@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eb82va+gqbc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156658

> Sherry now:
> <SNIP>
If Snape is
> so emotionally mature, he should be able to realize that Harry is 
not James,
> and that Harry has no more control over who his parents were than 
does
> Snape.  Even in the horrid occlumency lessons, Snape got a glimpse 
of
> Harry's childhood, but this did not seem to cause him to begin to 
rethink
> his attitudes toward Harry.  Yet when Harry saw the pensieve 
memory, he did
> feel compassion for the young Severus.  Who's more emotionally 
mature now?
> Maybe, due to his spying role, for whoever is really his master, 
he can keep
> his emotions in check.  He must or die.  But when he lets them 
out, he sure
> lets them out and blows everything to pieces with them.  Speaking
> figuratively, of course.  But that scene in the shrieking shack in 
POA,
> followed by the hospital wing scene was one of the biggest out and 
out
> temper tantrums I've ever read, especially coming from a 
supposedly mature
> man.


Alla:

Well, I agree with every word of your post of course. **Emotionally 
mature** Snape to me is an oxymoron statement ( to make sure that I 
got the term correct I am talking about self contradictory 
statement), but I had been thinking about 
the argument that Snape must be emotionally mature since he is a 
spy, since I had seen that one several times.

Well, to me it is easily reconcillable - as in Snape may keep his 
emotions in check as long the trigger for these emotions is not 
anybody with last name **Potter**, we don't know that in the course 
of his spying career he has to deal with Potters, no?

But I am also wondering if we know about anything during the course 
of his spying career where Snape indeed has to have his emotions in 
check?

I am talking not in general about him being a spy, but about 
particular episodes where Snape has to hide his emotions.

I guess Spinner End would count, IF he was playing games there, but 
besides that? Hmmmm, unlikely as it sounds maybe Snape did not 
encounter the real trigger for his emotions run amok in his spying 
career yet? Speculating here of course.

But IMO that he cannot hold on to sanity when he hears name *Potter* 
sounds more likely.

JMO,

Alla







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Mon Aug  7 05:14:08 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 05:14:08 -0000
Subject: Neville's Parents
In-Reply-To: <eb44an+uehn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb6i70+bp6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156659

> Laura with kids wrote in
> << Does anyone else want those gum wrappers that Neville's Mom
> gives him to be a clue to helping them get well? Or give some
> other Order members a message? <snip>>>
>
> Catlady (Rita) <catlady at ...>:
> Emerson and Melissa's interview with Rowling <snip> includes:
>
> <<MA: <snip> "What is the significance, if any of the gum wrappers
> that Mrs. Longbottom keeps giving Neville?"
> <snip>
> JKR: <snip> Neville gives his mother what she wants, and (it
> makes me sad to think of it) she wants to give something back
> to him, but what she gives back to him is essentially worthless.
> But he still takes it as worth something because she's trying to
> give, so it does mean something, in emotional terms. <snip> I
> mean she's not trying to pass him secret messages. <snip>

Laurawkids:    Duh!!!  Thanks.  I now realize that I have read that,
and should be ashamed.













From chieky_93 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 11:46:40 2006
From: chieky_93 at yahoo.com (chieky_93)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 11:46:40 -0000
Subject: About R.A.B.
Message-ID: <eb7970+85f2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156660

As the letter inside the locket said "THE DARK LORD" means that the
person knew Voldemort personally as the person has given his initials
clarifies that he has known Voldemort. I guess that R.A.B. is Regulus
Black. The letter said that "I will be long dead before you read
this." Somehow shows that he was going to betray Voldemort so he will
be killed soon and it also said that "It was I who discovered your
secret" - this might be reason for his betrayal.

chieky_93






From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 14:55:41 2006
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 07:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death (Was:Two Weeks of Posts...)
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608061621q265fa000i45a521ebaed7051f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060807145541.84282.qmail@web52715.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156661

> Cassy Ferris:
> << By the way, I was really amazed how soon Harry recovered from
> his loss. Merely two weeks passed between the end of Ootp and the
> beginning of HBP and he already managed to put Sirius's death behind
> him. >>

Catlady (Rita Prince Winston):
> I think that was totally unrealistic and the author did it only for
> plot purposes.

AD:
> Do you really think that Harry "put Sirius's death behind him" at 
> the end of two weeks? I didn't think he'd managed it by the end 
> of the book.

Lynda:
> Throughout HBP, there are references to Harry still struggling 
> with Sirius' death. His thoughts at times when he's talking with 
> Slughorn, Tonks and even Lupin are indications that he's still 
> grieving.


Katie replies:
  I don't think Harry has EVER gotten over ANY of the deaths he's 
experienced. Cedric's death, Sirius's death, or his parents' deaths. 
And in HBP, I felt like his whole personality had been (appropriately)
changed by Sirius' death. Just because he wasn't sobbing or moaning 
about Sirius constantly doesn't mean he wasn't grieving. I lost my 
father when I was 17, and my grief process was very unlike an adult's 
might have been. I basically partied and spent money until I ran out 
of energy to do that, and then the actual sitting around crying set 
in. Teenagers and grief are a weird mixture. I think it's very 
obvious that Harry has been deeply affected and altered by his 
losses. 
  Katie








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:24:04 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:24:04 -0000
Subject: Distroying a Horcrux (was The Unloved Son)
In-Reply-To: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb840k+bduv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156662

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...> 
wrote:
>
> wynnleaf 
> While I'm not so sure about the DD-as-horcrux idea, I have 
wondered if DD's death was necessary to complete a horcrux 
destruction. 
> 

Tonks:
Now that is an idea I don't think I have seen explored here. We know 
that to make a horcurx one has to kill. It would make sense from an 
evil point of view that in order to distroy a horcrux someone has to 
die. We know that RAB died. I think most have assumed that he was 
killed by LV or maybe by Bella because he wanted to leave, but his 
death could have had another purpose known only to him. 

If your theory is correct, it does not look good for a number of 
folks in book 7!!

Thoughts anyone?

Tonks_op







From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com  Mon Aug  7 16:12:31 2006
From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 16:12:31 -0000
Subject: What did Dudley see with the Dementors? (WAS: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb5u0l+112um@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb7opf+8f5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156663

> Abergoat suggests:
> What about Dudley's worst memory being the day he realized he was
> no longer an 'only child'? <snip> I understand that parents are
> encouraged to handle a toddler's transition from only child to
> 'older sibling' carefully. Dudley wouldn't have had that
> preparation - he would have woken up to sharing the house with
> another toddler...and at 15 months his understanding would be
> sufficiently limited that no matter what his parents said to him
> the fact that he couldn't scream and get rid of the 'unwanted
> competition' must have been the first time in his young life that
> screaming didn't get him what he wanted. <snip>
>
> Snow:
> Let's go one further and say that Petunia put the two children
> together to make it easier on herself. Harry was a young talented
> magical child who portrayed magical tendencies when he was angry
> or scared. <snip> Harry got his attention so-much-so that it
> scared their poor darling enough to land Harry a space under the
> stairs so he and his magical ways, that needed to be squashed,
> would not affect their precious.


Lilygale here:
There are stronger candidates for Dudley's 'worst memory', IMO.
Harry's arrival probably was a bit of a shock, but I don't believe
that it was cataclysmic event that it might have been had the other
child been wanted and loved.  *If* Dudley suddenly had to share his
parents with a cousin who was loved, pitied, given positive
attention, then it is likely that Dudley would have the very normal
reaction of feeling jealous.  Jealousy of a intruding child would be
(loosely) proportional to the original child's deep fear of losing
their parents' love.  The stronger the attachment between parent and
child initially, the less likely it is for the child to become
anxious about losing parental attention.

Dudley, I assume, is strongly attached to his parents and received
plenty of attention prior to Harry's arrival.  That is based on
canon in that the Dursleys' seem to spoil Dudley from their first
mention in PS/SS, and have baby pictures around that Harry later
comments about.

Sure, Harry probably got a lot of attention, as Snow points out.
But the attention was all negative.  Dudley would see his parents
berating Harry, and probably even blaming Harry for deeds for which
Dudley was responsible.












From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:31:52 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:31:52 -0000
Subject: Are curses necessarily Dark? (Was: Slytherin Gang)
In-Reply-To: <eb7gb4+mfp7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb84f8+gpim@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156664

colebiancardi back again:
> 
> I think Sirius stated it was that Snape was up to his ears in the Dark 
> Arts and that he knew more hexes & curses than a 7th year.  So, was 
> that comment incorrect?  Did Sirius *assume* that Snape was into the 
> Dark Arts because of the hex & curse knowledge?  Or were those hexes
& curses that Snape knew Dark Arts?
> 
> Also it could have been as simple as Snape being sorted into the 
> Slytherin House :)  Afterall, James states that his distain for
Snape is because "he exists".   Perhaps the bias towards Slytherin
(remember Hagrid stating that there wasn't a dark wizard that didn't
come from  Slytherin) was already in place at that time - I would
think that with 
> Bella, Narcissa, Malfoy, etc already graduated or still in Slytherin, 
> that is possible.  
><snip>
>
Carol responds:
Yes, it was Sirius Black, speaking some twenty years later, making
both those statements, but I think he may be allowing his recently
acquired knowledge that Snape had been a DE to color his judgment of
the boy Severus.

Although he used the word "curses" rather than "hexes," the dictionary
definitions of the terms are similar and JKR uses the terms more or
less interchangeably. (In OoP, "jinx" is used instead of "hex" for
most of the curses the students use on each other, but that seems to
be an anamoly. Elsewhere "jinx" seems to apply to curses placed on
inanimate objects like brooms and parchment--or to intangibles like
the DADA position.) I don't think there's any logic to the use of
"curse" vs. "hex" otherwise--the "Leg Locker Curse," for example, is
minor and easily reversed.

The only Dark Curses we know are the Unforgiveables, which certainly
the eleven-year-old Severus wasn't using, and Sectumsempra, invented
by Severus "for enemies" at age fifteen or sixteen. The other spells
we see in his Potions book are the toenail hex and Langlock, the
tongue-locker curse, both of which Harry cheerfully uses against
Crabebe and Filch respectively, and Muffliato, a charm rather than a
hex as far as I can tell (the narrator merely calls it "a useful
little spell") that merely causes buzzing in the ears of
eavesdroppers. Nothing Dark there (other than Sectumsempra); all of
those hexes are on a par with the hexes that the Gryffindors and
Slytherins use against each other--Ginny's Bat-Bogey Hex, for example,
or Petrificus Totalus or Jelly Legs or Densuageo, the tooth-growing
spell that gets deflected onto Hermione.

Evidently, it was quite unusual for an eleven-year-old to come to
school knowing as many spells of any kind as a seventh-year, and
perhaps having some of them cast on him before he caught up with
Sevvie's precocious knowledge caused Sirius to resent the little
Slytherin oddball and associate him with the Dark Arts because his own
family, also Slytherin (with his snake emblem all over their house)
were Dark wizards.

I don't think eleven-year-old Severus was practicing the Dark Arts,
whether he did so at a later age or not. All we have from his school
days is a single Dark spell, invented under provocation, for which he
also invented (or discovered) an elaborate countercurse.

Carol, who just realized that Adult!Snape is associated with Healing
from Book 1, not only discussing Bezoars, which later save Ron's life,
but keeping the antidote for the students' potion in his pocket and
administering it as needed in the very first lesson









From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug  7 19:30:32 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:30:32 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <E1GAA5j-0007z2-KP@elasmtp-mealy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eb84co+q8i8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156665


> wynnleaf
> I've seen some fan fic writers do an excellent job at writing 
Snape 
> from the perspective of sybling rivalry hatred for Harry.  It 
> primarily seems to work if Snape is portrayed as especially 
> emotionally immature.  

> Sherry now:
> 
> Breaking my vow to myself never to debate Snape again, since none 
of us will
> ever change each other's minds, ... however, the thing I would 
never say of
> Snape is that he is emotionally mature. 

wynnleaf
I meant exactly what I said: "*especially* emotionally immature."  I 
agree that Snape probably lacks maturity in his attitude toward 
Harry (I say "probably" based on the assumption that he truly does 
hate Harry.)

Sherry
 To me, a man who hates a child, an
> 11-year-old child, on sight, from the very beginning, based solely 
on who
> that child's father just happened to be, well, that's the complete 
opposite
> of emotional maturity.  it's immature in the extreme, I think. 

wynnleaf (speaking earlier of the immaturity of sibling rivalry)
This works well, until Snape has to be 
> portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult 
> decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in check, 
> etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer seems to 
> fit the character.  

wynnleaf
And there's the problem -- just how emotionally immature can a 
person be and still carry on -- even as a 19 or 20 year old -- as a 
spy against a Voldemort who's also a master at legilimency?  Snape 
had to be able to deceive Voldemort, his old DE associates, *and* 
their children in Slytherin for many years.  During the years 
between GOF and the end of HBP, he has to carry on the extremely 
dangerous work of a spy with Voldemort, take care of Slytherin 
House, teach, attempt (sort of) to teach Harry occlumency, *and* 
work on various other duties for DD, not to mention having to dog 
Draco's footsteps trying to figure out what he's up to.  And he 
spent the last year of it under an Unbreakable Vow which was further 
endangering his life, while he watched Dumbledore who he cares about 
deeply (in our current discussion/view of Snape suffering sibling 
rivalry) living under constant threat of death.  And all that 
without cracking under the strain, without making major mistakes 
(well, there was the Vow), and without breaking his cover.  No, he's 
not *that* emotionally immature, or he'd never have pulled it off.

Sherry, 
 If Snape is
> so emotionally mature, he should be able to realize that Harry is 
not James,
> and that Harry has no more control over who his parents were than 
does
> Snape. 

wynnleaf
I agree that there's a level of immaturity there.  However, I'm 
interested to note that when DD speaks in OOTP of Snape's inability 
to get over his feelings about James, DD says that "some wounds go 
too deep for healing."  DD does *not* indicate that Snape was being 
petty in his hatred for James.  We readers often think of it as a 
school boy's grudge, but that's not really how DD characterized it 
when he spoke of the depth of the wound.

Sherry
 Even in the horrid occlumency lessons, Snape got a glimpse of
> Harry's childhood, but this did not seem to cause him to begin to 
rethink
> his attitudes toward Harry.  Yet when Harry saw the pensieve 
memory, he did
> feel compassion for the young Severus.  Who's more emotionally 
mature now?

wynnleaf
We know Harry's feelings of sympathy because we get to see inside 
his head.  He didn't actually *act* any differently toward Snape.  
We have no knowledge of what Snape really thought about what he saw 
of Harry's past, only that he didn't act any differently afterward --
 but then neither did Harry.

Sherry
> Maybe, due to his spying role, for whoever is really his master, 
he can keep
> his emotions in check.  He must or die.  But when he lets them 
out, he sure
> lets them out and blows everything to pieces with them.  Speaking
> figuratively, of course.  But that scene in the shrieking shack in 
POA,
> followed by the hospital wing scene was one of the biggest out and 
out
> temper tantrums I've ever read, especially coming from a 
supposedly mature
> man.

wynnleaf
Snape seemed to be the only one in the Shrieking Shack who was 
actively aware that there was a werewolf about to transform in the 
room.  Think about it from his perspective.  He comes into the room 
having only heard about the animagi information -- nothing about 
Pettigrew being alive.  He sees who he thinks is a mass murderer 
accompanied by Lupin who he has just heard confess to knowledge 
about Black that Lupin never, in the past 9 months, told 
Dumbledore.  So naturally his suspicions that Lupin was in league 
with Black seem affirmed.  So there's the mass murderer, his 
accomplice, Lupin, about to transform into a werewolf, a child with 
a badly broken leg, and two other students -- all of whom want to go 
back to a nice long *discussion*, of all things, utterly ignoring 
the fact that if Lupin turned into a werewolf, the only one who'd be 
safe would be Black, the animagus. (I don't include Peter, since 
Snape didn't know he was there.) 

So Snape gets furious -- he hates Sirius anyway and saw him as the 
person who attempted to get him (Snape) killed, the traitor who 
helped get the Potter's killed, and personally killed a lot of other 
people, and is now in league with a werewolf who's about to 
transform.  And everyone in the Shrieking Shack is acting like Snape 
is so immature and not getting over a school boy grudge because he 
won't stop and have a nice long revealing chat.  (I'm trying to tell 
this a bit from Snape's probably perspective).  I can understand his 
fury.

wynnleaf







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:45:51 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:45:51 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb6hsk+in6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb859f+gll2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156666

> 
> Laurawkids:
> 
> How about

Dudley /Big D /IckleDiddykins /popkin /Dinky Diddydum

> 
> wait for it

> 
> 
> 
> 
> was remembering that voice in his head when he was imperio'd as a 
> tot to be an ever-living abuse-master to Harry.  They were trying to 
> inhibit Harry's natural ability to perform magic.  A Merope effect.  
> Would anyone or cat be monitoring Baby D's welfare when he was left 
> out in the fresh air in his pram while Petunia was mopping?  
> 
> 
> Carol:
> > Could Petunia be Dudley's worst nightmare? If she isn't she
> > should be.
>  
> 
> Laurawkids:  Well said!!
>
Carol responds, wasting a post:
Well said, maybe, but not by me! That was Ken. I was arguing the
opposite view, that Dudeley was remembering the ton-tongue toffee
incident, his worst *canonical* memory. Please see upthread and watch
attributions.

Thanks.

Carol, sighing with vexation at losing a post for the day, but not
wanting to be credited with views opposite to her own







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:51:00 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:51:00 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb65jq+3gdn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb85j4+lja2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156667

Abergoat speculates:
<snip>
> Agnes Prince marries a Mr Filch and they give birth to son Argus and
> daughter Irma. Mr Filch is an abusive man and becomes particularly
> abusive when his son proves to be a squib (this is possibly the
memory Harry saw...it may have been legilimens Snape's memory OF dog
lady's memory...not Snape's own childhood) <snip>

Carol responds:
However, we don't have any indication that Filch is dark-haired like
the child in the memory. Also, the abusive man is hook-nosed,
resembling Snape more than Filch, whose nose is bulbous. I think
you're overcomplicating things here (though I do agree that the man
may not be snape's father because Harry doesn't recognize him as a
Muggle). Also, the poignancy and irony of Harry feeling sorry for the
little boy crying in the corner disappears if it isn't little Severus.

Abergoat:
As
> I mentioned earlier it explains how Snape 'ran' with Belletrix
> Lestrange even though Bella was at least seven years older than
> Severus...Severus was at Hogwarts the entire time she went to school
> there. JKR is sticking our nose in the fact that Bella is
> significantly older than Snape - so old that one would think they
> didn't overlap. And this may be why Severus Snape chose Slytherin
> rather than his mother's house - Ravenclaw. Because Bella talked him
> into it.
>
> As an added bonus it explains why James hated Severus Snape on first
> sight as canon tells us - Bella liked Severus and Sirius hated
Bella. That would probably be enough for James.

Carol responds:
I agree with you that the Black family tree as posted on the Lexicon
doesn't fit with Severus having been part of Bellatrix's gang at
school, even though canon seems to suggest that he was. I originially
speculated that he was three years younger, based on Sirius's
statement that he last saw Bellatrix (not counting Azkaban) when he
was Harry's age (between his fourth and fifth years). I thought at
that time that he was a junior member of the gang, a particular "pet"
of Lucius Malfoy, who is about five years older, and that Bella,
Lucius and all their crowd had left Hogwarts by the time of the
Pensieve memory (which would still be true if Severus became part of
the gang before he entered school).

But having him as *really* junior part of the gang when he's, say,
eight or nine years old, might explain a few things. If *Sirius* hated
him because he seemed like the ideal Slytherin child, the elder son
his parents would have liked to have instead of him (and in Sirius's
view, a bad influence on Regulus), he might have persuaded James to
hate Severus on sight. At any rate, Sirius' hatred of Severus seems to
me more virulent than James's and suggests that he's known him longer.
Also, James is unlikely to have known him before school began because
his family wouldn't run with the Blacks.

However, we don't need a complicated adoption story to explain how
Severus *might* have known the Blacks before Hogwarts. All we need is
for the Princes, his mother's family, to be a pureblood family with a
Slytherin background, possibly but not necessarily connected with Dark
magic (that may be Sirius's impression rather than fact) and perhaps
distantly related to the Blacks since all the pureblood families are
interconnected. (We see only a small portion of the tapestry on the
website and Harry sees or notices even less. The name "Prince" would
have meant nothing to him at that time. He didn't even notice that
there were Potters on the tapestry!) I agree that Tobias must have
been out of the picture by the time Sevvie learned all those hexes.
It's inexplicable with a Muggle around, especially an abusive one if
Tobias is indeed the man in the memory.

And speaking of Snape's memories (which I, for the sake of simplicity,
take to be his own), I promised Potioncat offlist that I'd bring up
his broom memory. Some people take it to mean that he isn't good at
flying, but since he has no problem as referee of the Quidditch game
in SS/PS, I think we can safely discard that interpretation. Brooms
don't try to buck off their riders unless they're hexed. Even the
school broom only shoots up into the air when it senses Neville's
fear, and little Severus seems more determined to stay on than fearful
in that snippet of a memory. Also, whatever Snape's character flaws,
cowardice is not one of them. So I think the broom was jinxed, much
like Harry's in SS/PS, but since he's nearer the ground he's in less
danger. The question is, who is the laughing girl? Who do we know who
would be young enough to be called a girl when Severus was, say, nine
or ten, and mean enough to laugh at him when he's struggling to stay
on a bucking broom? The answer, IMO, is Bellatrix. Possibly she was
his baby sitter (I've forgotten the British term for someone who
watches a child while his parents are away). At any rate, I'm guessing
that Bella not only thinks the jinx is funny, she put it on the broom
herself. Just a bit of fun speculation of my own, but pretty solidly
based on canon except for the baby sitter part.).

Carol, who thinks that the Sorting Hat chose Slytherin as the best fit
for Severus, who may have expected to be placed there in any case
because of Prince family history









From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Aug  7 19:48:35 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 12:48:35 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Three instead of four horcruxes left.
In-Reply-To: <eb7p71+cg4q@eGroups.com>
References: <eb7p71+cg4q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <254211145.20060807124835@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156668


Monday, August 7, 2006, 9:19:45 AM, Tonks wrote:

T> As to LV only having 5 horcruxes left, I disagree. I think the 
T> purpose of a horcrux is to bind your soul, all of it, to the earth. 
T> When LV lost his body, his soul part that was still in that body did 
T> not leave the earth. It did not go beyond. So he did not lose 
T> anything.

Dave:
This is my interpretation as well -- The horcruxes are like
anchors, holding the main soul bit to earth.  This was what was
happening when LV was in his "vapor" state.

Tonks:
T> Now we do not know what happens to the soul bit once the horcrux has 
T> been destroyed. I would guess that it might return to the original, 
T> but still split off. IMO, it returns to LV, but since it is split 
T> off, just like the person who has split off part of themself, it 
T> resides in LV's body, but not connected to the rest of his soul.

Dave:
Dumbledore says of Harry's destruction of the diary: "That particular
fragment of soul is no more; you saw to that." (HBP, ch. 23)  That
seems to me to imply that the soul bits get destroyed, or at least
leave earth.  Once all the "anchors" are severed, then it's possible
to send the main soul bit "beyond the veil" by destroying its last
remaining life support, i.e. LV's body.

-- 
Dave




From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Aug  7 20:01:48 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:01:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb84co+q8i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GABIf-0005Di-46@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156669

Sherry,
 If Snape is
> so emotionally mature, he should be able to realize that Harry is
not James,
> and that Harry has no more control over who his parents were than
does
> Snape. 

wynnleaf
I agree that there's a level of immaturity there.  However, I'm interested
to note that when DD speaks in OOTP of Snape's inability to get over his
feelings about James, DD says that "some wounds go too deep for healing."
DD does *not* indicate that Snape was being petty in his hatred for James.
We readers often think of it as a school boy's grudge, but that's not really
how DD characterized it when he spoke of the depth of the wound.



Sherry now:

I actually agree with this.  What I find immature is the instant hatred of
Harry based on who Harry's father was.  There are people who have destroyed
me in ways, people who have devastated my life.  The wounds may indeed be
too deep to heal.  I would never like or trust those people.  But should I
then hate and be cruel to that person's son, just because the kid is that
enemy's son?  That would be petty and ridiculous, and yes, emotionally
immature.  I believe there is more to the Snape and James issue than we've
yet seen, but going on what we've seen so far, of course Snape hated James.
But Harry shouldn't get treated the way he does because of that.  That's not
how a mature man should act.

As for his spying, some people thrive on danger, the thrill.  I actually
don't see Snape that way.  Just throwing it out in the mix.  It's certainly
possible to be able to act a particular role and still not be emotionally
balanced or mature.  Actors get paid to act a certain way, and I'd hardly
say they all act like mature individuals.  grin.  Snape, to me, has got to
be one heck of an actor, no matter where his loyalties lie, or if he has any
loyalties at all, except to himself.  

Sherry
 




From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 19:49:33 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:49:33 -0000
Subject: Destroying a Horcrux (was The Unloved Son)
In-Reply-To: <eb840k+bduv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb85gd+7hql@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156670

> Tonks:
> <snip> We know that to make a horcurx one has to kill. It would
> make sense from an evil point of view that in order to destroy a
> horcrux someone has to die. We know that RAB died. <snip> If your
> theory is correct, it does not look good for a number of folks in
> book 7!!

Ryan:

Well, Harry destroyed a horcrux in CoS, but he didn't die, so that
hypothesis doesn't seem very solid.

Ryan









From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 20:52:49 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:52:49 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eb81lt+lv6o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8971+f9t5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156671

> Carol:

> Carol, asking for a canonical alternative to the toffee memory rather
> than uncanonical speculation about Petunia being Dudley's worst
nightmare
>
 
Ken:

Maybe not in so many words but I believe that DD has also stated that
Petunia and Vernon *should* be Dudley's worst nightmare. Why do I need
canon to question whether we know what Dudley's worst memory is? Canon
reveals to us about one third of Harry's life at the time this
dementor attack takes place. Canon reveals to us perhaps 0.1% of
Dudley's life. That is very slim knowledge from which to speak with
authority about Dudley's worst fear. We know Harry, we don't know
beans about Dudley.

I would not expect any canon support for what Dudley saw or heard
unless that knowledge is critical to future events. I find that a
little unlikely and I find it extremely unlikely that a toffee will be
the key to book 7. The obvious purpose of the dementor attack is that
it sets up our introduction to Dolores Umbridge, it reveals at the end
of the book that she is far worse than even her reign of terror at
Hogwarts would indicate, and it reveals to us that Petunia knows more
than she lets on. We've gotten hints that the last *will* be important
in book 7.

You want to know what my worst nightmare is? I've had the usual array
of nasty things happen to me in life. Nothing terribly tragic but
certainly as frightening as a ton tongue toffee on several occasions.
None of those things ever bother me in a nightmare. My nightmares are
always about *giant spheres*. Yes, giant spheres, and I have no idea
why or why they are frightening when I am asleep. The reason for this
always excapes me when I wake. The odd thing is that I am not the only
one. I've read the true account of an early US attempt to build an
atomic powered rocket and one of the project scientists could not bear
to look at the rocket's goal, Jupiter, in a telescope because of a
fear of spheres! The difference between us is that he was affected in
waking life too. 

You certainly could not look at the canon of my life and predict my
worst nightmare. You'd never guess it if I had not told you. If
Dudley's fear is significant to the plot then, yes, there should be
canon support for it. Otherwise, if we are to treat him as a real
person (to the extent we ever do with fictional characters) we have to
realize that we can only determine his worst fear by asking him. When
asked he was unable to relate it just as I am unable to relate exactly
what my nightmares are about even though I can tell you that giant
spheres are involved. If a dementor attacked me I am sure that giant
spheres would go through my mind.

But, you want canon, I'll give you canon. I've already given you some
which you seem to discount. How about Harry conversing in Parseltongue
with a snake who then "attacks" Dudley at Harrys' urging? And not just
any snake but one who is known to eat wild pigs, a species to which
young Dudley is said to bear a certain resemblence. Would that not fit
the description of "*things* talking inside my head" far better than
his own parent's well known voices? If it were the latter in a memory
of the toffee incident wouldn't he just say that he heard "you and mom
screaming" or something like that? I don't think that is too hard to
say in the immediate aftermath of a dementor attack and some time has
gone by since the attack took place. Dudley, after all, had seen two
incidents where magic had been undone with no lasting harm by the time
of the toffee caper. His mother may have been confused but Dudley knew
it was his own tongue that was swelling to gigantic (for a tongue)
size. The toffee had so little affect on him that it did not even put
him off bullying others even though I am sure he remembers it.

Being set upon by a large mammal eating constrictor at the behest of
your hissing, spitting weirdo cousin, the same one you now imagine is
attacking you with a dementor, that seems a more plausible fear to
have at that moment to me. I think you are just trying to give the
toffee more traction than it deserves.

But at least we can agree that a "tongue" may have been involved.

Ken

You say ton-tongue,
I say Parsel-tongue.
You say po-tay-to,
I say po-tah-to.
Ton-tongue -- Parsel-tongue,
po-tay-to -- po-tah-to,
let's call the whole thing off.
Let's
call the whole 
thing 
off.










From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug  7 21:05:04 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:05:04 -0000
Subject: Slytherin Gang (was Re: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb7gb4+mfp7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb89u0+9a7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156672

 
> colebiancardi back again:
> 
> I think Sirius stated it was that Snape was up to his ears in the 
Dark 
> Arts and that he knew more hexes & curses than a 7th year.  So, was 
> that comment incorrect?  


Potioncat:
That's the way I remembered it too. So I went to canon for a better 
look. It gets more (or less) confusing. It is actually two different 
conversations, although Sirius is talking in both cases.

>>>In Goblet of Fire, chapter 27, Sirius says, "Ever since I found 
out Snape was teaching here, I wondered why DD hired him. Snape's 
always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at 
school. Slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid, he was."..."Snape knew more 
curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in 7th year, and 
he was part of a gang of Slytherins, who nearly all turned out to be 
Death Eaters."

OoP chapter29 Sirius says that James was good at pretty much 
everything. "And Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his 
ears in the Dark Arts and James-- whatever else he may have appeared 
to you, Harry--always hated the Dark Arts.<<<

Since Snape knew more curses than half the 7th years, and we can 
assume that those 7th years weren't firing off Dark Curses, I think 
the curses were standard spells, only unexpected in one so young. I 
think the curses are separate from the Dark Arts.

However, both times Sirius also mentions Dark Arts and both times he 
uses slurs. It sounds as if Snape was well known for his interest in 
Dark Arts. Was he as interested in DADA? Had Sirius not also casting 
the slurs, I would take his statements with less scepticism. But I 
can't deny, from what we've seen, Snape had some interest in Dark 
Arts.



Colebiancardi:
> 
> How much of James, Sirius & Snape's "hatred" towards each other 
comes 
> from preconceived biases from parents, relatives, friends, etc?

Potioncat:
Yeah, me too. It's hard to know what was really going on here. I 
think it's true that Snape had an interest in Dark Arts, but how was 
that revealed? What was he doing? Wouldn't he have gotten in trouble 
for performing Dark Arts at school?  For that matter, why didn't 
Harry get into more trouble for his little Dark Arts spell?

> colebiancardi
> (who doesn't believe that the sins of the parents are passed down 
to 
> the child)

Potioncat:
No, but sometimes the consequences are.
>







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 21:15:37 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:15:37 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb84co+q8i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8ahp+svpg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156673

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "winleaf" wrote:
> winleaf (speaking earlier of the immaturity of sibling rivalry)
> > This works well, until Snape has to be 
> > portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult 
> > decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in  
> > check, etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer 
> > seems to fit the character.  
> 
> winleaf
> And there's the problem -- just how emotionally immature can a 
> person be and still carry on -- even as a 19 or 20 year old -- as 
> a spy against a Voldemort who's also a master at legilimency?

Mike here:

The term is called 'compartmentalising', Snape has the ability to 
focus on the problem at hand and to 'put in a compartment' things 
that are not pertinent to the task at hand. When he is doing his spy 
gig, he locks away all his other problems and his emotions attached 
to them. Pilots (I used to be one) are known for this ability. And 
as much as I hate to admit it, pilots (especially fighter pilots) 
aren't really known for their maturity. Tom Cruise's Maverick isn't 
too far off the mark if you want an scale to measure maturity level. 
Being able to compartmentalise is not the same as being mature, 
although they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Speaking from 
experience, compartmentalisers often get accused of being both 
immature and unable to multi-task. To some degree, both are correct. 
<g>

Also, Draco has shown that he could perform Occlumency well enough 
to block Snape by Christmas. Although Draco grew up alot during the 
course of HBP, he can hardly be described as mature, especially 
during the time he would have been learning Occlumency from Aunt 
Bella. And he wasn't exactly acting maturely during that Xmas scene, 
was he?

I concur with Alla, Sherrie is dead-on with her analysis of Snape's 
maturity.

<big snip>
> 
> winleaf again:
> Snape seemed to be the only one in the Shrieking Shack who was 
> actively aware that there was a werewolf about to transform in the 
> room.  Think about it from his perspective.  He comes into the 
> room having only heard about the animagi information -- nothing  
> about Pettigrew being alive.  He sees who he thinks is a mass  
> murderer accompanied by Lupin who he has just heard confess to  
> knowledge about Black that Lupin never, in the past 9 months, told 
> Dumbledore.  So naturally his suspicions that Lupin was in league 
> with Black seem affirmed.  So there's the mass murderer, his 
> accomplice, Lupin, about to transform into a werewolf, a child  
> with a badly broken leg, and two other students -- all of whom  
> want to go back to a nice long *discussion*, of all things, 
> utterly ignoring the fact that if Lupin turned into a werewolf, 
> the only one who'd be safe would be Black, the animagus. 
<snip>

Mike again:

I don't want to go into my long list of problems regarding the whole 
Shrieking Shack scene. But I will ask this one question: If Snape is 
really considering all this, especially about 
Lupin_soon_to_be_werewolf, why does he only tie up Lupin and prepare 
to drag him outside like that? Surely, if he has all this on his 
mind, he knows the werewolf transformation will allow him to break 
free, endangering himself and the 3 'children' he's trying to 
protect. I don't think you can have it both ways. If he is 
supposedly concerned only for the trio's safety regarding the 
werewolf, why is the only protection he performs so obviously 
inadequate for that safety?

No, I think he 'incarcerouses' Lupin to shut him up, so he can't 
further plead his case, so Snape doesn't have to consider anything 
other than his preconceived notions. In a way he compartmentalised 
again. He already put Lupin and Sirius in the *hated_enemy box* so 
he doesn't have to hear anything they say, it's irrelevant.

Mike, who can't resist mentioning one pet peeve: What part of 
Pettigrew did Lupin tie up? Think about it <g>







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 21:26:22 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:26:22 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8b5u+qtmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156674


 
> Lupinlore 
>     
> <<Now that IS an incredibly interesting theory.....<snip> It also
goes well with a certain psychological view of the Snape-
> <Harry- 
> <Dumbledore triangle.  To wit, Snape is incredibly bitter because he 
> <feels himself to be the unloved son in this scenario, while the 
> father figure lavishes affection and concern on the younger and (in 
> Snape's eyes) less worthy child. 

Sydney:

Holy crap!  I'm pretty sure this is the first time Salman Rushdie has
INCREASED consensus... we should send him a card or something!

Yes, indeed, I think most Snape fans see, and identify with, Snape's
anxiety about being loved, or being worthy. "Insecurity" would be
Snape's middle name, along with "snarky" and "potions".  I agree with
Tonks though that Dumbledore, as standing for a Christian god or "the
epitome of goodness" as JKR calls him, DOES love Snape, and anyhow
Snape's issues with this go back much further, before Harry was on the
scene. A lot of what HP is about is how 'the boy is father to the
man', and surely there's a reason Snape's parents have been
introduced?  I think I wrote on another post that everything in Snape
goes back to shame and guilt, which this website defines as:

"Shame holds the horrifying beliefs of being unworthy and unlovable.
... When you are held prisoner by shame, the perceived deficits within
yourself are so humiliating that you will go to extreme lengths to
hide the flawed self."

(wow, Snape should have a look at this whole webpage, it would help
him a lot:  http://www.angriesout.com/grown18.htm )

Lupinlore:

> <In this scenario, one of DD's emotional mistakes is in mistaking 
> the reason that Occlumency fails.  It wasn't because Snapey-poo 
> couldn't get over his feelings about James, it was because he 
> couldn't get over his feelings about HARRY. 

Sydney:

Oh lord no!  I mean, even moments after he had killed Dumbledore,
Snape is still going on about JAMES.  Emotionally, it's all about
James, baby, and although Dumbledore is part of it, surely it's even
more about... *drags cookie on string slowly along carpet...
fooooollow the cookie... fooooollow the cookie...*... Lily?  

These books are not as simple as they seem, mind you, when it comes to
psychology.. I think there's three levels of stuff going on here.  On
the topmost narrative level I think there's the Snape/Dumbledore/Harry
thing, but I don't see it as so much a direct emotional rivalry.

Wynleaf puts it better than I do:
  
> But until HBP, Dumbledore was not really spending much time at all 
> with Harry.  While Snape may have felt a jealousy toward the way 
> Dumbledore (in Snape's opinion) might let Harry get by with all 
> sorts of rule breaking, there really wasn't any *relationship* to be 
> particularly jealous over.  It wasn't until HBP that DD and Harry 
> visited with each other more than a few times per year.  Yet in HBP, 
> we actually see less overt hatred of Snape toward Harry.

Sydney:

Snape's issues were there before Dumbledore has even MET Harry.  I
think the disagreement Snape had over Harry with Dumbledore was
actually tactical.  Dumbledore himself tells Harry that he has been
watching over him as the future defeater of Voldemort, and that the
power that he will use to do this is Love.  I think Snape took one
look at this plan and laughed his head off until he realized
Dumbledore wasn't kidding.  I think Snape has a plan of his own for
the destruction of Voldemort that features not so much love as crazy
amounts of scary destructive magic.  So half the time Snape is talking
to Dumbledore about Harry I think he's actually saying, "Hey, boss, so
this little self-absorbed lazy rule-breaking twerp is the core of your
love plan, huh?  Have you given any more thought to my Giant Nuclear
Curse plan at all by the way?"  I've seen this dynamic a million times
at work, so I know whereof I speak; if you wind up on the project that
some vice-president thinks is going to sink the studio, you will be
public enemy no. 1 no matter what you do.

That I think is what's happening on the overt narrative level.  On the
level of what the heck is going on that makes Snape so crazy, I think
that's SO about Lily.  Snape's attitude Harry just SCREAMS guilt to
me, guilt that he's displaced onto James in exactly the same way that
Harry's displaced his guilt over Sirius onto Snape.  That's called Irony.

The last level is all the psychological/symbolic/Jungian stuff which I
think is pretty essential when it comes to the deep structure of the
story.  Snape is the Shadow, and Harry is the Authentic Self, and
Dumbledore is something-or-other.  I dunno, I have to spend more time
writing up something about that.  On this level it seems SUCH a red
flag that Snape is such an expert at repression that he actually
teaches it as a subject.  Speaking of Occlumency:


Wynleaf adds:

>  As a 
> newly turned spy, who taught Snape occlumency and trained him on 
> what to do as a spy?  I'd think even someone with natural talent in 
> occlumency still needs a teacher, and Snape must have had a master 
> teacher.  Since I doubt Voldemort would want to teach a highly 
> talented student the highest levels of occlumency, it wouldn't be 
> surprising if Snape spent a lot of time one-on-one with DD, learning 
> occlumency.

Sydney:

I have to interrupt for a sec here and address the 'who taught Snape
occlumency' thing.  I think it's actually fairly clear in the text
that it WAS Voldemort, or done by a DE (Bellatrix?) with V-mort's 
say-so.  My reasoning for this is:

Did Snape know Occlumency before he joined the Death Eaters?  I think
he tells us himself that he didn't:

"Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!' said Snape
savagely. 'Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who
cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow
themselves to be provoked so easily - weak people, in other words -
they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind
with absurd ease, Potter!"

Of course you could read this as Snape NOT talking about himself, but
if you do, I think you read fiction in an entirely different way than
I can even comprehend, so there's not much point debating.  To me this
is transparently Snape telling Harry how he was recruited-- wallowing
in sad memories and rage, and Voldemort walked right into his brain. 
It's, like, symbolism or something. Now:

Did Snape know Occlumency when he was sent to spy on Dumbledore?

Well, probably.  I mean, you wouldn't send someone to spy on someone
in the Potterverse WITHOUT knowing they were an Occlumens, would you?
Voldemort, we may safetly assume, would have ensured Pettigrew could
conceal his thoughts from the Order, and that Barty Crouch could do
the same from Dumbledore, otherwise all his plans would have been
ruined.  Bellatrix "V-mort's no. 1 fan" Lestrange teaches it to Draco,
so it's not like it's some crazy taboo among the DE's or anything. 

So, yeah, I'm pretty sure V-mort (or random DE henchman) taught Snape
Occlumency.  This goes better anyways with its negative aura of
repression and blockage, as well as explaining Snape's cluelessness
about how to teach it without just battering at the subject until
somehow it works, as I suppose it's how he was taught.  I'm cool with
the idea of D-dore coaching Snape to another level or something, but I
don't think it's necessary, and anyhow Snape doesn't seem like someone
who has successfully had a lot of therapy or positive experiences in
the whole interpersonal relationship thing.  Just my 2 bits.


Tonks:

>Snape does not want DD to give his life for Snape's soul 
> > either. Snape would rather die for DD, than to have DD die for >him.

Sydney:

Well, duh.  I mean, yes, that is what so obviously is going on on the
tower. 

-- Sydney, wondering if Salman Rushdie,is like, surfing the 'net for
Snape theories...








From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Aug  7 21:44:26 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:44:26 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb84co+q8i8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8c7q+of0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156675

Sherry:

> > Even in the horrid occlumency lessons, Snape got a 
> > glimpse of Harry's childhood, but this did not seem to 
> > cause him to begin to rethink his attitudes toward 
> > Harry.  Yet when Harry saw the pensieve memory, he 
> > did feel compassion for the young Severus.  Who's 
> > more emotionally mature now?

wynnleaf:

> We know Harry's feelings of sympathy because we get to 
> see inside his head.  He didn't actually *act* any differently 
> toward Snape.  We have no knowledge of what Snape really 
> thought about what he saw of Harry's past, only that he 
> didn't act any differently afterward-but then neither did Harry.

houyhnhnm:

I think it is significant that Snape didn't act any differently 
toward Harry after seeing his memories during the Occlumency 
lessons.  Snape saw Harry's real vulnerabilities, yet he never used 
that knowledge.








From muellem at bc.edu  Mon Aug  7 21:47:44 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:47:44 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8b5u+qtmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8ce0+75pe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156676

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>
> 
>  > That I think is what's happening on the overt narrative level.  
On the
> level of what the heck is going on that makes Snape so crazy, I 
think
> that's SO about Lily.  Snape's attitude Harry just SCREAMS guilt to
> me, guilt that he's displaced onto James in exactly the same way 
that
> Harry's displaced his guilt over Sirius onto Snape.  That's called 
Irony.
> 

colebiancardi:  Why is it guilt over Lily?  I am one of those people 
that is not following that cookie <grin>.  Sure enough, Snape doesn't 
mention Lily to Harry like he does his father - maybe James ASKED 
Snape to protect Lily at one time and Snape failed?  That would mean 
that Sirius never knew that side of James & Snape's relationship.

I dunno.   I never jumped on the Snape loves Lily theory, but I could 
see James, if he was aware that Snape was a spy for DD, cashing in on 
the life debt that Snape owed him and turn it over to Lily.  Snape 
fails with Lily, the debt is still owed, which transfers to Harry.  
According to DD, Snape just wishes he could fulfill that life debt, 
so he could nurse his hatred over a glass of firewhiskey(or something 
like that - it is that quote from PS, which I don't have in front of 
me....)


colebiancardi
(guilt over not fulfulling the life debt could be it)







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 22:20:24 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:20:24 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8ce0+75pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8eb8+vaju@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156677

> >>Sydney:
> > <snip>
> > On the level of what the heck is going on that makes Snape so    
> > crazy, I think that's SO about Lily.  Snape's attitude Harry     
> > just SCREAMS guilt to me, guilt that he's displaced onto James   
> > in exactly the same way that Harry's displaced his guilt over   
> > Sirius onto Snape.  That's called Irony.

> >>colebiancardi:  
> Why is it guilt over Lily?  I am one of those people that is not   
> following that cookie <grin>.  Sure enough, Snape doesn't mention 
> Lily to Harry like he does his father - maybe James ASKED Snape to 
> protect Lily at one time and Snape failed? 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I think it's more powerful if James doesn't figure into it in 
such an "aware" fashion.  IOWs I think the story packs more of a 
punch if James is unaware that Snape loves Lily and is spying in 
part because he's trying to protect her. That James not realize 
*why* Snape is so intent on warning him that someone close to him is 
a traitor. (Gosh!  Maybe James thought it was the dry "life-debt" 
thing.  Which would be a good reason to assume Snape isn't really 
putting his heart into it.)  

James, partly because he's not fully cognizant of Snape's motives, 
poo-poos the warning (especially if Snape specifically names Sirius) 
and wham-o, both James and Lily are killed.  It leaves such a lovely 
amount of guilt ("I should have done *more*!") and rage ("Why was 
James so *stupid*!) for Snape to wallow in, IMO.  

I don't think it's necessary that Snape have loved Lily 
romantically.  (Honestly I *hope* that's not how it was as I'm not 
too fond of how JKR writes her romance stuff or how she portrays 
her "romantic lead" females).  That Snape and Lily were just good 
friends for a time is enough.  And even that their friendship meant 
more to mostly friendless Snape than ever so popular Lily would be 
nice, IMO.  (A sort of Luna to Ginny of yester-year thing.)

But there are just so many delicious little hints lying around in 
the various books that there was *something* between Snape and Lily, 
and Slughorn really seemed to ring that same bell, that I'd hate for 
the Snape-Lily theories to go the way of Vampire!Snape.  

Betsy Hp






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 22:46:10 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:46:10 -0000
Subject: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son (was  Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?))
In-Reply-To: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8fri+j10v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156678

Mike:

wynnleaf, I think I might have come off as too negative in my other 
post about yours on unloved son. So let me say that I totally, 
TOTALLY, agree with your assessment re the whole Harry-Snape-
Dumbledore triangle. If I may, I'd like to add another plot 
speculation that you've hinted at around the edges, but I don't know 
whether you would agree to.

This theory hinges on Severus being orphaned at an early age, a re-
occurring theme in the Potterverse, no? Maybe more likely, Snape's 
father abandoned him and his mother and Eileen died/was killed. 
Sound like anybody else we know? But this is where the story 
differs. DD realizes that Tom might have turned out different if 
someone (himself) had taken him under his wing and steered him in a 
more favorable direction. Could this be a *choice* of Dumbledore's, 
not Tom's, that was made incorrectly? DD realized even at the age of 
11 that Tom was heading toward the *Dark Side* and *chose* to just 
watch it happen, he didn't intervene, didn't take a more proactive 
role in Tom's life.

Now here comes an orphaned Severus, and DD isn't going to make the 
same mistake twice. DD decides to intervene and become Snape's 
surrogate, part-time father figure. I will go out on a limb and say 
that DD recruited Snape to *our side* while he was still a student. 
Naturally, Snape began to idolize DD much the same as Harry does, 
with one big difference. Snape *choses* to fight for the side 
of 'Light' and becomes a DE with the clear intention of infiltrating 
and undermining LV's organization. Harry, when all is said and done, 
got *chosen*, became the *chosen one* without making a choice 
himself. So DD has to become active in Harry's life, tinker around 
the edges to ensure Harry gets all the right training/knowledge. He 
relegates Snape to fellow LV opposer and even enlists him to take 
part in the training Harry plan. This is another reason for Snape's 
jealousy, he made an active *choice* to be on DD's side and is being 
supplanted by this brat that had celebrity handed to him.

Once again, I'd like to say, "Good Unloved Son" post, wynnleaf. 
These are the type of analysis that drew me to this group. Thanx,

Mike







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 22:53:49 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:53:49 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8ce0+75pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8g9t+nqr3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156679



Sydney:
> >  > That I think is what's happening on the overt narrative level.  
> On the
> > level of what the heck is going on that makes Snape so crazy, I 
> think
> > that's SO about Lily.

colebiancardi:  

>Why is it guilt over Lily?  I am one of those people 
> that is not following that cookie <grin>.  Sure enough, Snape doesn't 
> mention Lily to Harry like he does his father - maybe James ASKED 
> Snape to protect Lily at one time and Snape failed?  ...  I never
jumped on the Snape loves Lily theory, but I could 
> see James, if he was aware that Snape was a spy for DD, cashing in on 
> the life debt that Snape owed him and turn it over to Lily.  Snape 
> fails with Lily, the debt is still owed, which transfers to Harry.  
> According to DD, Snape just wishes he could fulfill that life debt, 
> so he could nurse his hatred over a glass of firewhiskey(or something 
> like that - it is that quote from PS, which I don't have in front of 
> me....)


I guess I'd summarize why I think it's about Lily like this:

1.  Whatever is going on with Snape and Harry, it drives him NUTS. 
The Life Debt as a simple, direct piece of magic could be annoying, or
inconvenient, or even life-threatening, or it could be a stain on his
honour.  But none of these to me vibe with the obsession Snape has
over Harry.  He's too obviously emotional about it, which for a guy
who's a professional non-feeler of emotions, is pretty odd.  The
mechanical/magical stuff and the honour stuff is too cold, IMO, to
account for how much Snape freaks out over it.  A Snape who had a
PRACTICAL problem in the Life Debt, IMO, would be reacting completely
differently.  Snape loves practical problems.  He can handle them. He
goes into them all glittery-eyed and cool and Occlumenc-y, like he
went into the UV and into spying.  This is about something he can't
handle.

2.  There has to be a point to why Lily is suddenly a crazy potions
genius.  And why, rather than staying in the background as a
featureless perfect mother she's tantalizingly brought a bit to life
but still unseen.  Something feels unresolved about Lily, and
something needs to tie her back into the center of the story in the
present day. 

3.  Harry already knows about the life-debt.  Whatever Harry doesn't
know about Snape, it has to be something shocking that will forge a
connection between them, otherwise that whole relationship doesn't
have anywhere to go.  I mean, how would it play as a scene?  "Well,
Harry, it turns out that... Snape owed a life-debt to your father!" 
"Yeah, I know.  I knew that six years ago".  "Yeah, but what you don't
know ... is that he takes it really, really seriously!".  Um.  Yeah,
great scene.  And before Neri comes in with the DeathRay!LifeDebt
theory, that isn't a good scene either, in terms of what it does to
Harry.  It would be a practical factor, not an emotional one, and the
Snape/Harry dynamic is all about emotions.

I guess I tend to visualize story as a sort of bunch of forces, that
ideally all loop into each other in a tight formation.  The
Lily/Harry/Love thing is a big dangly bit;  and the Snape/Harry
intense emotional relationship is another dangly bit, both of which
seem to hang out of the plot as important but unconcluded.  To me it's
irresistible to tie them together, it just seems the natural way that
story should fall. 

Incidentally, I also have a theory about how the life-debt could tie
into Lily.  I think the magic, as is proper for something that is
about altruism, is about connecting the two principals in subtle,
postive ways.  I think it could be something like a white-magic
version of the DADA curse, creating links and cooincidences and
bringing out something hidden.  Like the DADA curse, it can't actually
be seen in operation, or pinned down to any specific effect.  And I
think the life-debt between James and Snape manifested itself in
Snape's love for Lily, in her tying herself in with James, and then in
Snape finding himself, for the sake of Lily, devoted to trying to save
James.  Not that it acted as a Love Potion or anything like that, any
more than you could say the DADA curse 'caused' the events at the end
of PoA. You might compare it as well to the Prophecy-- something that
manifests without seeming to do so, and without compromising the free
will of its subjects.  That's my theory, anyhow!  I'm pretty curious
as to how this would work with Pettigrew-- what does he care about
that is going to wind up being entwined with Harry?  

-- Sydney, emphasising that this cookie has macadamia nuts and dark
chocolate chips... coooookie... 







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 23:01:38 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:01:38 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb7fk3+et0o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8goi+lmtp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156680

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Abergoat wrote:
> 
> > I bet clean-freak Petunia finds it when cleaning out her 'new 
home'
> > after being brought to Grimmauld Place for safety. I can just 
picture
> > a scene with Petunia screaming nasty names as Harry tries to 
take it
> > from her!
> > 
> 
> I like the thought of Petunia imprisoned at Grimmauld Place. I'm 
also
> aware that the locket could be part of the Kreacher cache. We have 
to
> remember that Mundungus was caught nicking and selling items from
> Grimmauld Place so that locket could be very hard to find or in the
> hands of someone terribly inconvenient.
> 
> Ken
>
Carodave:
I really like the idea of Petunia taking on the screaming portrait 
of Mother Black.  Who would come out on top in that fight???

I'm wondering where Mundungus can sell his stolen goods?  Although 
he's not strictly honest, he doesn't seem to be practicing the dark 
arts, or he wouldn't have been recruited by DD for the Order.  I 
think that will rule out his doing business with Borgin and Burke 
and the like.  Maybe he'll fence the locket at a muggle shop?  
Muggles wear lockets...Vernon could bring it home as a special gift 
to Petunia (it was described as heavy and gold...and the Dursleys 
like objects that will be noticed by the neighbors...) 

A heavy golden horcrux around the neck of Aunt Petunia, who hates 
all magic - the ultimate irony!

Carodave, who is living on the wild side with this crazy theory!






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 23:22:30 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:22:30 -0000
Subject: What will Petunia tell Harry? (was Re: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb71e9+hc33@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8hvm+qebl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156681

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002" <c.john at ...> wrote:
>
> I think the scene will play out something like this:
> 
> Vernon - 'I hope that we can expect NOT to have any more 
> visits from the old fool who popped in last year'
> 
> Harry - '(several expletives). Since he's dead, I think 
> that is highly unlikely!'
> 
> Petunia - 'Dead?'
> 
> Harry - 'Yes. He was murdered by one of the teachers, 
> Professor Snape'
> 
> Petunia - 'Severus Snape?'
> 
> Harry - 'You know him? How?
> 
> Petunia - 'Your mother brought him home once. He was even
> worse than your father!'
> 
> Cue lots of soul searching from Harry as to WHY Lily would
> have brought Snape back to Privet Drive.
> 
> Brothergib - who believes that whatever the Dursleys 
> contribute to book 7, it will not be as significant as
> people think!
>

bboyminn:

Well, I agree and I agree... sort of. People are constantly trying to
create a 'love interest' between Snape and Lily, a love interest that
I personally don't think needs to be their. Like many kids we
associate with in High School, they are friends withing a certain
context. That is you have the friends you hang around with, you have
the friends in your favorite classes, you have friends that are
teammates, and very likely some of the friends fall into more than one
catagory. However, you may have team friends that you don't hang
aroudn with outside of team-related activities.

Snape and Lily could have been 'context' friends. They may have shared
a love of Potions that allowed them to have friendship and association
in that context even though they didn't hang out outside that context.
Lily very well may have brought Snape home as a 'context' friend.
Snape may even have been fond of Lily, maybe even harboring a secret
schoolboy crush. But by no means does any of this, or any of the story
theories require Snape and/or Lily to harbor a deep unrequited love. 

So, I agree, the scenario you paints is a very real possibility, and I
also agree that Petunia has a bigger role to play, but we should be
careful not to let our fantasies expand that role to an unrealistic
level. This is afteral a Harry Potter story.

I'm very sure Petunia will reveal information she has been holding
back, but I can only speculate how important it will be. Perhaps Harry
will simply talk her into showing him Dumbledore's original letter
explaining 'everything'. Maybe Petunia has some old artifacts she
inherited from Lily. Perhaps Petunia's knowledge of the wizard world
goes deeper than we have been lead to believe. These are all possible,
but they will be faced and resolved quickly; there is, afteral, a lot
of story left to tell.

I personally am still favoring an attack on Privet Drive. Given the
fagments of timeline we have been given, I suspect it will be after
the visit to Godric's Hollow, and probably after the wedding at the
Burrow. I suspect just after his birthday, Harry will make his final
visit to Privet Drive to pick-up the last of his personal possessions.
Of course, I'm also an advocate of Harry now having to take the
Dursley's into his protection. Seems an annoying but just outcome.

Not sure what it all adds up to, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn







From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 21:54:34 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:54:34 -0000
Subject: About R.A.B.
In-Reply-To: <eb7970+85f2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8cqq+fsan@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156682

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chieky_93" <chieky_93 at ...>
wrote:
>
> As the letter inside the locket said "THE DARK LORD" means that the
> person knew Voldemort personally as the person has given his
initials
> clarifies that he has known Voldemort. I guess that R.A.B. is
Regulus
> Black. The letter said that "I will be long dead before you read
> this." Somehow shows that he was going to betray Voldemort so he
will
> be killed soon and it also said that "It was I who discovered your
> secret" - this might be reason for his betrayal.


Joe:
So connecting the above with info from another post:

On page 648 of GoF (US), Voldemort asks "And then I ask
myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again?
They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against
mortal death?".

Leads me to believe that RAB discovered LV's secret and the DEs
learned about it from him either directly or indirectly.  In another
post it was ventured that LV would never have told his followers
about his horcruxes, and maybe he didn't but RAB let the cat out of
the bag and that is why he says that they knew the steps he took to
guard himself against mortal death.

Joe scratching his chin.











From damselfly318 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 00:01:16 2006
From: damselfly318 at yahoo.com (damselfly318)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:01:16 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8b5u+qtmm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8k8c+mf2v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156683

Mari:
Hello all, I've been following the list for a while, since I started
re-reading all the books, but this is my first post.  I am especially
enjoying this line of debate.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> Did Snape know Occlumency before he joined the Death Eaters?  I think
> he tells us himself that he didn't:
>
> "Then you will find yourself easy prey for the Dark Lord!' said Snape
> savagely. 'Fools who wear their hearts proudly on their sleeves, who
> cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow
> themselves to be provoked so easily - weak people, in other words -
> they stand no chance against his powers! He will penetrate your mind
> with absurd ease, Potter!"
>
> Of course you could read this as Snape NOT talking about himself, but
> if you do, I think you read fiction in an entirely different way than
> I can even comprehend, so there's not much point debating.  To me this
> is transparently Snape telling Harry how he was recruited-- wallowing
> in sad memories and rage, and Voldemort walked right into his brain.
> It's, like, symbolism or something.

If you view Snape as speaking about himself there, then I think
Snape's hatred of Harry takes on a new dimension.  Perhaps Snape
consciously relates his loathing of Harry to his problems with James,
but considering what the Occlumency lessons revealed to Harry and
Snape about each other -- especially the similarity of their
apparently abusive childhoods -- what if Snape's real, possibly
subconscious reason for hating Harry is that he sees his younger self
in Harry.  I grant there are lots of differences, but the strength of
Snape's loathing makes me consider that often the things we are most
vocal about hating in others are the things we most despise in ourselves.

I'm not willing to defend the theory with my life or anything, but I
find it intriguing.

Mari














From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  8 01:16:49 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 01:16:49 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb78tv+8lok@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8om1+gskd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156684

colebiancardi wrote:
> Also, since Snape knew "more hexes and curses" than most 7th years, 
> that would explain why James hated Snape at first sight - because 
> James hates anything to do with dark magic.

Abergoat writes:
But how did James KNOW that Snape knew more hexes and curses than most
7th years when they hadn't met before? You may be right but I suspect
that James hated Snape on sight for similar reasons to Harry and
Draco. Snape probably said something snobbish about Gryffindor and
that was the house James wanted to enter. Harry disliked Draco because
of his snobbery about blood. Snape may have said something about
foolish bravery being all the average Gryffindor was good for. We have
reason to believe the first years talk about houses on the train - it
would be a topic of deep interest and some passion.


Carol wrote:
> However, we don't need a complicated adoption story to explain how
> Severus *might* have known the Blacks before Hogwarts. 

Abergoat responds:
I agree we don't need a complicated adoption story to answer how Snape
'ran' with Bella, but we probably do need something complicated to
explain why Dumbledore trusts Severus 'completely'. JKR says herself
Severus Snape is a horrible man so I doubt he is on Dumbledore's side
for the benefit of humanity. I'd be surprised if there isn't a family
tie somehow - and the scene with Filch mending Snape's leg combined
with the suggestion of a relationship between Filch and Irma doesn't
make it that implausible there is a family connection between these
three people. I suppose I could even use the anagram Irma Pince/I'm a
Prince because if dog lady in St Mungo's had Prince as a maiden name
and is Irma's mother than Irma does indeed have Prince blood.

Snape seems like a man that would be highly motivated by revenge.
We've actually seen this when he 'accidentally' let slip that Lupin
was a werewolf and I'm sure there are other small examples. Exposing
Lupin was an act of revenge. Dumbledore treated Snape somewhat
cavalierly in PoA, I think Dumbledore is very sure that Snape will not
turn to Voldemort out of a sense of injustice...probably because he
knows Voldemort has done something that Snape can never forgive and
that Dumbledore could never match. Voldemort having killed Snape's
family seems like a reasonable guess and if so we know that Voldemort
cannot realize that Snape knows it. What a nice reason for Snape to
have removed three memories during Harry's occulmency lessons. Some
memories were too embarrassing (and others too dangerous?) to risk
Harry/Voldemort seeing.

Carol wrote:
> All we need is for the Princes, his mother's family, to be a pureblood 
> family with a Slytherin background, possibly but not necessarily 
> connected with Dark magic (that may be Sirius's impression rather 
> than fact) and perhaps distantly related to the Blacks since all the 
> pureblood families are interconnected. 

Abergoat responds:
Certainly possible, although I'm not sure I'd buy that that is simpler
since the Black family tapestry has no Princes. If the Princes were
'acceptable' enough to allow Severus to play with the Black children
then I imagine they were acceptable enough to marry and given how
small the pool was the should have done so at some point in the last
three (or was it four?) generations. The Potters got hooked in there.
And we have every reason to believe Snape's house is inherited - the
fact that Bella says she has never been there does not support a
family connection. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

Carol wrote:
> Who do we know who would be young enough to be called a girl when 
> Severus was, say, nine or ten, and mean enough to laugh at him when 
> he's struggling to stay on a bucking broom? The answer, IMO, is 
> Bellatrix. Possibly she was his baby sitter

Abergoat adds:
The thought that Bella is the girl in the memory is fine with me, but
I think her age comes dangerously close to qualifying her as a girl -
certainly not a young girl. When Snape was 9 or 10 Bella would be at
least 16 years old (JKR's 1951 on the Black family tapestry could make
her as many as 9 years older than Snape) and wizards are considered
'adults' at 17. She would have been nearly an adult, if not already.

Since Sirius says Snape 'arrived' at Hogwarts knowing more spells than
most seventh years I would agree this severely weakens a theory that
Severus practically grew up at Hogwarts but the idea that dog lady is
Filch's mother still stands. And I cannot say I consider Sirius the
most reliable source of information at this point, what he says always
seems to be at the center of a debate. And Sirius's comment could be
just as factually accurate as his avoidance of mentioning that the
'Mrs Lestrange' was his cousin. Actually I imagine adults would think
Snape should ride the train like other first years - I think that
first train ride is an integral part of the sorting experience. 

Abergoat









From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug  8 01:19:11 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 21:19:11 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
References: <eb8ce0+75pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004301c6ba88$a85466a0$bc80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156685

> colebiancardi:
>
> I dunno.   I never jumped on the Snape loves Lily theory, but I could
> see James, if he was aware that Snape was a spy for DD, cashing in on
> the life debt that Snape owed him and turn it over to Lily.  Snape
> fails with Lily, the debt is still owed, which transfers to Harry.

Magpie:
Count me in with the people beginning to see Snape/Lily after HBP.  The 
silence on her is deafening--silence except for that one echoing word 
MUDBLOOD.

James asking Snape to protect Lily makes Lily a bit of a prop to me, but 
what I can see Snape thinking is how James is the worst person for Lily to 
be with, a guy who will only hurt her--he's friends with a gang of jerks, a 
murderer, he's dangerous, he won't be good for her like Snape is...

...and then OOPSIE.  Who gets Lily targeted?  Because of all those types 
things?

It's just so Snape for this to happen too, because it's so typical that he'd 
be so focused on what a jerk James was he'd never notice he had turned into 
the far worse person in Lily's life.

I'd also like to just point out given the title of the thread that this book 
is chock FULL of unloved sons (at least those who identify as such).  Barty 
Crouch, Percy Weasley, Sirius Black (imo, really Regulus Black), even 
Draco's relationship with Lucius is more about the failure than a 
connection.  Barty goes to Voldemort when he feels his own father rejects 
him. Percy goes to Crouch Sr. and the Ministry.  Sirius goes to the Potters.

Snape, spider in the center of the web in all things, thus finds himself at 
a fascinating place in HBP.  He's got the life debt and his guilt over Lily 
(if that's true), he's got Harry.  He's got Dumbledore telling him to kill 
him.  As someone said, Harry doesn't get asked to do this, and DD won't let 
Draco do it--nor should he, because Snape is now the one who has to be 
protector.

While on one hand Snape's got Harry in all his Harry-ness, with bits of 
James and Lily, who's also friend to Snape's younger self and seems led 
astray by that self doing Sectumsempra. Snape's also got Draco who's like 
young!Snape in all the other bad ways--on the path to be a DE to prove 
himself, bitter, lashing out, a natural Occlumens who's now started learning 
the tricks of the trade.  JKR doesn't seem to think much of Occlumency as a 
natural skill (a bit unfair on her part, imo, since it suggests that certain 
types of personalities are inherently better than others, but in terms of 
the story it makes sense).  She's fine with Dumbledore being able to do it, 
but it's Snape's version she doesn't think is a good thing.  That's the 
version that considers feelings foolish and a weakness, something to be 
amputated and repressed--a particularly bad idea for a Slytherin since water 
is the element that's linked to emotion, and Slytherins are operatically 
emotional, and their stories are drenched with liquid symbolism.  Draco's 
actual strength in HBP comes not from a skill for repression but his real, 
positive feelings for his family and even for people in general.  Snape 
seems to still consider his positive feelings a weakness, but to help Harry 
defeat Voldemort, and make sure Draco doesn't go down the same path he did, 
he may have to dig those emotions out again.

-m







From aceworker at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 01:30:04 2006
From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 18:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: What did Dudley see with the Dementors? (WAS: Theory on Petunia)
Message-ID: <20060808013004.5868.qmail@web30215.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156686

<snip> Lilygale said: < Sure, Harry probably got a lot of attention, as Snow points out.  
 But the attention was all negative.  Dudley would see his parents 
 berating Harry, and probably even blaming Harry for deeds for which 
 Dudley was responsible.>

Her is a weird idea. Maybe Dudley is human in JKR's eyes. Why couldn't Dudley's worst memory be precisely above. Dudley maybe be Harry's cousin, but he was raised in a way that almost make's Harry his brother. Does Dudley have any love for him at all? 

I have an ever wierder theory I posted a while back that no one responded too, it is called Lily's Blood Theory. Message 155807: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155807

 Basically I'm starting to develope the opinion that in a large way the entire wizard world and Hogwarts is a huge red herring. In the end Dudley will save the day because he loves Harry. That would be the shock of all endings, but consistent with what JKR is trying to say. 

 His boxing honed skills are the hand of the other. Why else would JKR have thrown in the accidentily punching of Hermione by one of the twins WWW pranks right after Harry reveals the prophecy to them. It is as clue as to the ultimate "other".          

DA Jones
 
 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Next-gen email? Have it all with the  all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.

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




From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug  7 21:46:53 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 21:46:53 -0000
Subject: Three instead of four horcruxes left.
In-Reply-To: <eb7p71+cg4q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8ccd+vbgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156687

Rebecca <bectay@> wrote:
> (Snip)
> > When Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded back
on
> > him, didn't one of the 6 horcruxes have to be used to keep him
> > alive?
> (Snip)

> Tonks:
> (Snip)
> As to LV only having 5 horcruxes left, I disagree.  I think the
> purpose of a horcrux is to bind your soul, all of it, to the
earth.
> When LV lost his body, his soul part that was still in that body
did
> not leave the earth. It did not go beyond.  So he did not lose
> anything.
> (Snip)
> Tonks_op
>

Joe:
There is that nagging bit of information from the end of one of the
novels (SS/PS perhaps??"don't have them with me at the mo') where DD
tells HP that LV transferred a bit of himself to Harry and that is
why he is a parselmouth (so maybe it is CoS??"Idon't know). That makes
me think again that the "bit" of LV that was passed onto HP is a bit
of his soul. I know that whether HP's scar is a horcrux has been
discussed ad nauseum, but as long as we are discussing what happed
to LV when he tried to AK HP???

Joe, who is not entirely sure about this.











From BettieTheBookWorm at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 00:29:42 2006
From: BettieTheBookWorm at hotmail.com (bettiethebookworm)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:29:42 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb4aqi+lg5d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb8ltm+1s8c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156688

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

> Dumbledore.  That makes the MOST sense of Snape's behaviour in
> Spinner's End. He knows at this point that someone is going to have to
> kill Dumbledore; he knows this is probably going to be him. Making the
> Vow is not then either an emotional mistake or a flirtation with
> suicide (sigh... bye suicidal!Snape!), but an acknowledgement of the
> inevitable. Strangely, this jives with some anti-Snapeists opinion
> that the obvious reason he took the Vow was because he intended on
> doing it anyways!  This interpretation though has the advantage of
> actually making sense, in that taking a Vow to kill a Dumbledore who
> is ready to be sacrificied is not completely insane.
> 
Hi, I'm new to the group, but thought I'd throw in my two cents here.  

Perhaps this point has been made before, but I have found no evidence
in the text that Snape new what he was promising.  Could it be that he
made the unbreakable vow as a means of finding out what Voldemort had
planned for Malfoy?  My best guess is that Snape was not in the DL's
inner circle and needed to find a way in.  Could he in a million years
have guessed that V would have asked a sixteen year old wizard to take
out Dumbledore?

If my theory were true, it could be that Dumbledore made Snape promise
to fulfil his vow, whatever it might be, rather than sacrifice his
life no matter the consequence.  Perhaps Dumbledore hoped to find a
trace of goodness in Malfoy (which he did) and didn't want him to be
pulled further into V's inner circle by fulfilling his comands.

There can be no doubt whatsoever that Snape hates Harry.  Perhaps self
hatred at having killed Dumbledore mingled with a jealousy and hatred
of Harry explain to some degree his attitude at the end.  He may even
have hated Dumbledore in that moment for having made him promise to
fulfill the vow.  He certainly would never have shared his true
feelings or motives with Harry even of a more trivial circumstance.

As for the whole Dumbledore Horcrux thing, it never occurred to me.  I
find the notion interesting and am looking forward to following that
discussion.  Undoubtedly we will learn more about Dumbledore's arm in
the next book as it is a subject that seems less than fully explored.

I'm quite excited at having found a more mature venue for discussing
the HP series.

Bettie








From minerva_523 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  7 20:51:32 2006
From: minerva_523 at yahoo.com (minerva_523)
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2006 20:51:32 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <E1GABIf-0005Di-46@elasmtp-dupuy.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eb894k+jmh2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156689

> wynnleaf said:
> I agree that there's a level of immaturity there.  However, I'm
> interested to note that when DD speaks in OOTP of Snape's inability
> to get over his feelings about James, DD says that "some wounds go
> too deep for healing." DD does *not* indicate that Snape was being
> petty in his hatred for James. We readers often think of it as a
> school boy's grudge, but that's not really how DD characterized it
> when he spoke of the depth of the wound.
>
> Sherry replied:
> I actually agree with this.  What I find immature is the instant
> hatred of Harry based on who Harry's father was.  There are people
> who have destroyed me in ways, people who have devastated my life.
> The wounds may indeed be too deep to heal.  I would never like or
> trust those people.  But should I then hate and be cruel to that
> person's son, just because the kid is that enemy's son?


Now Cacaia:
Everytime I try to find a way around this question that does not
involve some romance on Snape's part to Harry's mother, I have to
rethink my steps. If you think about it from that lens, James stole
everything from Snape: His invented spells, and...perhaps...the love
of his life? Yeah, sure, he called her a "mudblood", but maybe he was
just trying to act tough...as for acting, yes, I agree, Snape must be
one hell of an actor...I don't think the spying thing was for the
thrill of it, but more of a getaway- he is, after all, a Slytherin,
and very, very cunning- he'll try to worm his way in anywhere he can
to survive. But back to Snape's relationship to James: I definitely
think there is much much more to it than we, readers, were allowed to
know... there must be something else that drives Snape to treat Harry
the way he does......
Cacaia









From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Tue Aug  8 03:33:13 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2006 23:33:13 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Theory on Dudley and Theory on Petunia
Message-ID: <332.3476980.32095ff9@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156690

In a message dated 8/4/06 9:12:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes:


> Carol, not wanting to step on any toes but pretty darn sure that
> Dudley isn't going to show any magical tendencies (and still betting
> on Mrs. Figg--doesn't anyone besides me love the way she swings those
> catfood cans at Mundungus for letting the Dementors get near Harry?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  

Sandy now:

I loved the whole scene with Mrs. Figg including her declaration that she was 
going to kill Dung. I was glad to see her true character revealed and to find 
out that someone had been keeping an eye on Harry all those years. 

Sandy, who can relate to Mrs. Figg because she has a lot of cats, often 
brings bags of cat food home from work (I work in a grocery store), and can't do a 
bit of magic.


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




From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 04:13:16 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 04:13:16 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son. (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8ce0+75pe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb930s+e4c0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156691

"colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote:

> I never jumped on the Snape loves Lily theory 

JKR said that unlike Voldemort Snape had been loved in his life and if
not by Lily then by who? I suppose it could have been his mother but
from a novelist's point of view that just wouldn't be very
interesting. Snape needs to have had a girlfriend, at least once. I
think Snape's hatred of Harry has more to do with Lily than James,
Snape blames Harry for Lily's death; and it's true, if Harry had never
been born Lily would still be alive. 

I could be wrong but I rather doubt that Snape ever needed or wanted
Dumbledore to think of him as a son; that seems a little too warm and
fuzzy for Snape. However if that terrible night in the tower Snape
really did do a very noble and brave thing even though he knew he
would NEVER get credit it not even when he was dead which he knew
would come very soon then that might explain Snape's extreme rage when
Harry called him a coward. 

I'm still not convinced Snape is a good guy but I no longer think the
idea is absolutely crazy. 

Eggplant








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug  8 08:59:35 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:59:35 -0000
Subject: What will Petunia tell Harry? (was Re: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb8hvm+qebl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb9jpn+t0hv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156692


> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, I agree and I agree... sort of. People are constantly trying 
to
> create a 'love interest' between Snape and Lily, a love interest 
that
> I personally don't think needs to be their. 

I certainly agree with you there. No way was there a 
boyfriend/girlfriend situation between Snape and Lily. In my 
experience of school, it was very common for the 'outcast' boy to 
form a bond with a popular outgoing girl.  

> bboyminn:
> Snape may even have been fond of Lily, maybe even harboring a secret
> schoolboy crush. But by no means does any of this, or any of the 
story theories require Snape and/or Lily to harbor a deep unrequited 
love. 

Yes, I agree. Romantic feelings on his part. Her feelings were 
probably sympathy and the fact that people should maybe give Snape a 
chance.
 

> 
> I'm very sure Petunia will reveal information she has been holding
> back, but I can only speculate how important it will be. Perhaps 
Harry
> will simply talk her into showing him Dumbledore's original letter
> explaining 'everything'. Maybe Petunia has some old artifacts she
> inherited from Lily. Perhaps Petunia's knowledge of the wizard world
> goes deeper than we have been lead to believe. These are all 
possible,
> but they will be faced and resolved quickly; there is, afteral, a 
lot
> of story left to tell.

As a character, Petunia is rather like Snape i.e. I just don't see 
her ever sitting down for a nice quiet chat with Harry. As I have 
stated above, it may be as simple as Petunia providing the link 
between Snape and Lily. That would be enough to get Harry's head 
spinning.
Maybe, after an attack on Privet Drive, Petunia may divulge more info 
to Harry. The problem I have is what is there that she could possibly 
know that is important (other than what I stated above). A connection 
between DD and Petunia is interesting but not important to the plot. 
The contents of the letter may spell out the nature of Lily's 
protection - but again that is not vital info. Even the content of 
DD's 'Last' probably tells us nothing more than the fact that under 
no circumstances can Petunia throw Harry out of Privet Drive!

Brothergib






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug  8 09:25:18 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:25:18 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
Message-ID: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156693

Having just been enjoying the discussion on Petunia and thinking 
about 'Remember my last', I was reminded of a problem I had with the 
entire scene. It has probably been discussed previously, and if so 
please direct me in the right direction;

How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is about to throw Harry out of 
the house?

I am sure that if Petunia actually chose to evict Harry from her 
house then this would negate Harry's protection. This is why DD sends 
the message to Petunia - who clearly is not going to let that happen.

If we consider the Ministry owls, they arrive sometime after Harry's 
clash with the dementor's. He has managed to bump into Mrs. Figg and 
get back to Privet Drive before they arrive. Surrey is not that far 
from London, so it is perfectly reasonable that the MOM dispatched 
the owls on finding out about Harry's patronus charm, which then 
arrived at Little Whinging some minutes after that. Arthur Weasley's 
owl then arrives, following on from the MOM owl. Since he was at the 
ministry at the time, this also makes sense. It is at this point that 
we also learn that DD has just arrived at the ministry.

So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and 
then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it. We 
have DD's comment that he has watched Harry more closely than he 
knows, but we know that DD is at the ministry, so I don't think 
the 'DD in animagus form' theory would work here. 

Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?

Brothergib






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug  8 13:38:11 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:38:11 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eba443+hco5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156694

> Brothergib wrote: <SNIP>
>
> How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is about to throw Harry out of 
> the house? <SNIP>
> 
> So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and 
> then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it. We 
> have DD's comment that he has watched Harry more closely than he 
> knows, but we know that DD is at the ministry, so I don't think 
> the 'DD in animagus form' theory would work here. 
> 
> Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?
> 
> Brothergib
>

aussie writes:

good question!

Mundungus's replacement may have been keeping an eye on Harry that
night. (an OOTP member may have kept an eye on Harry over summer since
he started at Hogwarts. As long as no life threatening situations came
up, they were happy to report about bars on his window and aunts
getting blown up)

As for getting the owl/howler there so quickly ... Dobby post?  

aussie







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug  8 13:45:12 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 13:45:12 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eb8goi+lmtp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eba4h8+b8d6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156695

>
> Carodave:
> I really like the idea of Petunia taking on the screaming portrait 
> of Mother Black.  Who would come out on top in that fight???
> 
> I'm wondering where Mundungus can sell his stolen goods?  Although 
> he's not strictly honest, he doesn't seem to be practicing the dark 
> arts, or he wouldn't have been recruited by DD for the Order.  I 
> think that will rule out his doing business with Borgin and Burke 
> and the like.  Maybe he'll fence the locket at a muggle shop?  
> Muggles wear lockets...Vernon could bring it home as a special gift 
> to Petunia (it was described as heavy and gold...and the Dursleys 
> like objects that will be noticed by the neighbors...) 
> 
> A heavy golden horcrux around the neck of Aunt Petunia, who hates 
> all magic - the ultimate irony!
> 
> Carodave, who is living on the wild side with this crazy theory!
>

Good one! I'd love to see Petunia vs Portrait too!

Another possibility for the locket is that Mundungus has sold it,
Harry spends a lot of time and effort tracking it down, and in the end
discovers that R.A.B. had indeed disarmed it.

As for Petunia and the locket, well, Mundungus certainly knows the way
to Privet Drive doesn't he? Can you imagine Vernon buying it off him
though?

Ken








From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 13:42:50 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 06:42:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] What will Petunia tell Harry? (was Re: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <eb8hvm+qebl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060808134250.3393.qmail@web39502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156696



--- Steve <bboyminn at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "esmith222002"
> <c.john at ...> wrote:
> >
> > I think the scene will play out something like
> this:
> > 
> > Vernon - 'I hope that we can expect NOT to have
> any more 
> > visits from the old fool who popped in last year'
> > 
> > Harry - '(several expletives). Since he's dead, I
> think 
> > that is highly unlikely!'
> > 
> > Petunia - 'Dead?'
> > 
> > Harry - 'Yes. He was murdered by one of the
> teachers, 
> > Professor Snape'
> > 
> > Petunia - 'Severus Snape?'
> > 
> > Harry - 'You know him? How?
> > 
> > Petunia - 'Your mother brought him home once. He
> was even
> > worse than your father!'
> > 
> > Cue lots of soul searching from Harry as to WHY
> Lily would
> > have brought Snape back to Privet Drive.
> > 
> > Brothergib - who believes that whatever the
> Dursleys 
> > contribute to book 7, it will not be as
> significant as
> > people think!
> >
>

Parisfan:

I do agree that the Dursley family probably will make
a  'minor' apperance in book seven (ie: they probably
will make an appearance in the first chapeter and
warrent a sm comment in what ever epilouge that JK has
but that is it. for me if Petunia has something to say
in regarding to Lilly i'd like it to be explosive.

Ya know the kind of family secret--the kind you THINK
it may be but winds up being WAY in from left field
and hits like a nuke. now I am not JK so i claim to
know how she is writing the final book.

BUT if there is said tidbit of info that she (Petunia)
is hiding, I would like it to be along the lines of
Petunia (despite being non magic) HAS had contact and
REGULAR contact with the magical world--first thru her
sister and because of Harry and instigated by DD. And
this info was ment to presuade her to keep her nephew
and protect him

there was also a post saying a person would like to
see a dementor attact on privite drive. that'd be
cool, and  I'd like to see it revealed the one who
does magic late in life

laurie
(who is saying wouldn't it be ironic if it was VERNON
who did magic, and it'd give Petunia a heartatack)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  8 14:16:02 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:16:02 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eba6b2+8s6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156697

Brothergib wrote:

> How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is about to throw Harry out of 
> the house?


Abergoat offers this quote:

    "I thought," said Dumbledore, inclining his head slightly, "that
she might need reminding of the pact she had sealed by taking you. I
suspected the Dementor attack might have awoken her to the dangers of
having you as a surrogate son."
    "It did," said Harry quietly. "Well - my uncle more than her. He
wanted to chuck me out, but after the Howler came she - she said I had
to stay." 

Abergoat adds:

I believe the implication is that Dumbledore heard about the dementor
attack (and Dudley's involvement) and just guessed that the Dursleys'
concern for their son might make them try to throw out Harry.

Abergoat









From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug  8 14:06:10 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:06:10 -0000
Subject: Who will perform magic "late in life"? (Was: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <E1G9UYC-0002j0-PP@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <eba5oi+gfo1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156698

> Lynda:
> My candidate, just because everyone else is so "obvious" (Filch and 
> Mrs. Figg are squibs--Petunia's sister was a witch and her nephew is 
> a wizard--known magic users in their families) is Aunt Marge.
> 
aussie writes:
Petunia? Dudley? Figg? Filch? ... and now Marge?

What non-magical people haven't we included in that list?

- The Prime Minister of England
- Grawmp
- the pretty girl in the paper shop (near the Burrow) that thinks
George's card tricks are just like real magic
- Trelawney (has she ever done anything magical except open the Room
of Requirements?)

aussie (the unreliable plot suggester)







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  8 14:42:51 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 14:42:51 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eb5qro+togk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eba7tb+u618@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156699


Carol wrote:
> I absolutely agree that Snape had essentially *no* choice on the 
> tower except to die uselessly with DD or to kill Dumbledore and 
> look like a treacherous coward.

Abergoat writes:
I think the choice was a bit easier than that. My take on the tower
scene is that if Snape didn't kill Dumbledore himself the Death Eaters
would make Draco do it...provided Dumbledore didn't expire first from
the potion Harry shoved down his throat. Dumbledore seemed to be
fading fast. So if Snape didn't become a murderer than either Harry or
Draco would have...the scene in the cave made it very clear that
Dumbledore thought the potion was killing him, and Harry said 'This
one will!' (paraphased). Whether Harry went on trial for that memory
or not, Harry would have blamed himself. Not good for our hero's soul.
But now Harry gets to blame Snape until he can deal with is own actions.


Carol wrote:
> What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable Vow
> could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD
> would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against
> his will. 

Although I agree that Dumbledore wouldn't use an unbreakable vow I
think the poster is right - DD did compel Snape, by checkmating him
with the choice between creating 16 year old murderer or fulfilling
the vow Snape made with Narcissa.

I bet Snape wanted to take the easy way out and just let the vow kill
him as suggested by the conversation Hagrid overheard between Snape
and Dumbledore.  But DD didn't let Snape do that.

Abergoat








From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug  8 10:10:54 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 10:10:54 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eb9nve+9dd1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156700

*Brothergib:
Having just been enjoying the discussion on Petunia and thinking
about 'Remember my last', I was reminded of a problem I had with
the  entire scene. It has probably been discussed previously, and if
so  please direct me in the right direction;

 How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is about to throw Harry out
of  the house?

 <<snip>>

 So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and
then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it. We
have DD's comment that he has watched Harry more closely than he
knows, but we know that DD is at the ministry, so I don't think
the 'DD in animagus form' theory would work here.

 Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?

*Tinktonks:
I think we must assume that Mundungus apparated to tell DD exactly
what had happened. DD being as wise as he is was probably very well
aware what kind of effect this would have on the Dursleys and send
this reminder on that basis. I suppose it was just dramatic timing
that meant that the howler was received at the exact time Vernon was
trying to throw Harry out!

Tinktonks









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 16:54:42 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:54:42 -0000
Subject: What will Petunia tell Harry? (was Re: Theory on Petunia)
In-Reply-To: <20060808134250.3393.qmail@web39502.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebafki+2e60@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156701

> Parisfan:
> 
> I do agree that the Dursley family probably will make
> a  'minor' apperance in book seven (ie: they probably
> will make an appearance in the first chapeter and
> warrent a sm comment in what ever epilouge that JK has
> but that is it. for me if Petunia has something to say
> in regarding to Lilly i'd like it to be explosive.
> (snip)

> laurie
> (who is saying wouldn't it be ironic if it was VERNON
> who did magic, and it'd give Petunia a heartatack)
> 

Tonks:
Well if Vernon turns out to do magic to protect his family, I will 
have a heart attack right along with her!! JKR might have one too.

As to Harry and Petunia: Harry will become a man in Book 7. And 
often there are big reveals when a child comes of age.  Maybe there 
is something, a letter from Lily, that Petunia was not to give to 
Harry until he turns 17. 

Harry will get the letter, at midnight. Vernon is so anxious to see 
Harry go, and Harry is eager to go that they will not wait till 
morning.  Maybe some of his friends are coming by then to escort him 
to ?? And shortly after Harry reads the letter, LV and the DE pay a 
visit at Privet Drive. And then the battle begins.

So what would a letter from Lily say??  I think if she really did 
work in the secret room at the ministry, it might be something about 
that which will help Harry. 

Tonks_op







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 16:04:17 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:04:17 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb80ko+j0hb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebacm1+8eah@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...>
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> I've seen some fan fic writers do an excellent job at writing
Snape
> from the perspective of sybling rivalry hatred for Harry.  It
> primarily seems to work if Snape is portrayed as especially
> emotionally immature.  This works well, until Snape has to be
> portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult
> decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in check,
> etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer seems to
> fit the character.

Except, as another poster has pointed out, one measure of immaturity
is a very well-adapted ability to compartmentalize emotions to get
things done.  It isn't necessarily something confined to immature
people, by any means, but immature people often display this ability
to an astonishing degree.  I think the analogy of fighter pilots is
very well taken.  Or that of Robert Hansen, an incredibly immature
person (with intense father issues, by the way) who nevertheless
managed to function as a KGB mole within the CIA for many years.

>
> So I tend to think that there's a part of Snape's hatred of Harry
> that's bound up in his feelings toward Dumbledore.  But I think
it's
> only one aspect of his feelings toward Harry.  I think Snape would
> almost have to see Dumbledore in at least a partially parental
way.
> But until HBP, Dumbledore was not really spending much time at all
> with Harry.  While Snape may have felt a jealousy toward the way
> Dumbledore (in Snape's opinion) might let Harry get by with all
> sorts of rule breaking, there really wasn't any *relationship* to
be
> particularly jealous over.  It wasn't until HBP that DD and Harry
> visited with each other more than a few times per year.

Yet we have the statement by the portrait on DD's wall when Harry
comes into the office at the end of OOTP, to wit that "DD speaks
very highly of you, as I'm sure you know.  Oh yes, holds you in
great esteem."

Now, who is he speaking TO?  Obviously McGonagall, who is the head
of Harry's house.  But one wonders if he is not speaking to Snape as
well.  After all, DD has watched Harry "more closely than [he] can
have imagined."  If Snape is constantly being presented with the
fact that DD is very interested in Harry -- is in fact watching him
closely -- and if most such encounters end in DD expressing "great
esteem" for Harry, I doubt that Snape would react with anything
other than jealousy and irritation.  After all, why didn't DD take
such an interest in HIM when the marauders were tormenting him?  And
I doubt that the fact of how often Harry and DD actually met face to
face would enter his mind very much.  After all, that would require
him to see things from Harry's perspective, not an ability that
Snapey-poo possesses.


Lupinlore, who thinks this psychological angle might just be the
hook needed to rescue DD from utter incompetentcy -- or from having
contemptible ideas about letting Harry be mistreated in order to
train him











From BettieTheBookWorm at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 15:27:59 2006
From: BettieTheBookWorm at hotmail.com (Bettie March)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:27:59 -0600
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eba443+hco5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY21-F7F748DD1EB2A5DAE44BE9B3540@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 156703

>Brothergib wrote:

> >We have DD's comment that he has watched Harry more closely than he
> > knows, but we know that DD is at the ministry, so I don't think
> > the 'DD in animagus form' theory would work here.
> >
> > Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?
> >

Could it be that there is a photo on the wall somewhere of a wizard who 
alerts DD when Harry is in trouble?  Perhaps Petunia has been forced to 
alter her beautiful decor in some way to allow a wizard in to watch over 
Harry.

Bettiethebookworm






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 18:39:47 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:39:47 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebacm1+8eah@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebalpj+31ft@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156704

wynnleaf (me) wrote previously
> >
> > I've seen some fan fic writers do an excellent job at writing
> Snape
> > from the perspective of sybling rivalry hatred for Harry.  It
> > primarily seems to work if Snape is portrayed as especially
> > emotionally immature.  This works well, until Snape has to be
> > portrayed in his ongoing work as a spy, having to make difficult
> > decisions, having to stay very focused and keep emotions in check,
> > etc.  At that point, that degree of immaturity no longer seems to
> > fit the character.

Lupinlore
> Except, as another poster has pointed out, one measure of immaturity
> is a very well-adapted ability to compartmentalize emotions to get
> things done.  It isn't necessarily something confined to immature
> people, by any means, but immature people often display this ability
> to an astonishing degree.  I think the analogy of fighter pilots is
> very well taken.  Or that of Robert Hansen, an incredibly immature
> person (with intense father issues, by the way) who nevertheless
> managed to function as a KGB mole within the CIA for many years.

wynnleaf
In another part of the post above I tried to point out that Snape
really has *no* areas of his life that are free of the stress and
strain of having to be either a. under cover spy b. pseudo DE for his
Slytherin students with ties to LV c. teacher d. regular head of house
duties e. regular DE duties (whatever those are)  f. extra stuff for
DD including handling Dark Arts emergencies, teaching (half-heartedly)
Harry occlumency  g. keeping up with Draco's plans to murder DD  h. 
dealing with his own problems with the Vow, knowing he'd either have
to kill DD or die, etc.  Throughout all of that Snape, unlike
real-life spies, has to protect his mind from an expert legilimens. 
Sure he probably *can* compartmentalize his life.  And within those
compartments there appear to be areas where he's immature -- that is,
his dealings with Harry in particular.  But a *very* immature person
just wouldn't be able to deal with that pervasive amount of stress and
the necessity of being constantly on his guard.  Unlike the real-life
Hansenn, Snape risks death at practically a moments notice if he's
discovered.  

>Lupinlore 
> Yet we have the statement by the portrait on DD's wall when Harry
> comes into the office at the end of OOTP, to wit that "DD speaks
> very highly of you, as I'm sure you know.  Oh yes, holds you in
> great esteem."
> 
> Now, who is he speaking TO?  Obviously McGonagall, who is the head
> of Harry's house.  But one wonders if he is not speaking to Snape as
> well.  After all, DD has watched Harry "more closely than [he] can
> have imagined."  If Snape is constantly being presented with the
> fact that DD is very interested in Harry -- is in fact watching him
> closely -- and if most such encounters end in DD expressing "great
> esteem" for Harry, I doubt that Snape would react with anything
> other than jealousy and irritation.  After all, why didn't DD take
> such an interest in HIM when the marauders were tormenting him?  And
> I doubt that the fact of how often Harry and DD actually met face to
> face would enter his mind very much.  After all, that would require
> him to see things from Harry's perspective, not an ability that
> Snapey-poo possesses.

wynnleaf
I wouldn't be surprised if Snape was jealous of the degree to which DD
lets Harry get away with things.  And certainly a person with a
particularly low self image might listen to DD's praise of Harry and
hear only that, but perhaps not accept as real any compliments and
positive statements DD would make toward him (about Snape, that is). 
Certainly it's possible that Snape is very jealous of Harry in a sort
of sibling rivalry sort of way.  But since DD really spends very
little actual time with Harry, compared to what must certainly be a
good deal more time with Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of
jealousy would be at such overpowering heights as to be the primary
fuel for Snape's hatred of Harry.  
 
wynnleaf








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 19:10:05 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:10:05 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebalpj+31ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebanid+2726@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156705

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...>
wrote:
>
 But since DD really spends very
> little actual time with Harry, compared to what must certainly be a
> good deal more time with Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of
> jealousy would be at such overpowering heights as to be the primary
> fuel for Snape's hatred of Harry.
>
>

Well, by the time you get to a hatred that intense and long-
standing, I'm not so sure that "primary" and "secondary" reasons are
very important anymore.  Everything gets mixed together in one
complex of bitterness and dislike.  Certainly memories of James play
a role.  So do the stresses on Snape from whatever his mission is.
So does the psychology of what goes on in the Snape-Dumbledore-Harry
triangle.

And maybe, to expand the point I made about Occlumency, the root
cause of Dumbledore's mistake is in assuming that Snape's dislike of
Harry IS a simple thing, or more likely his mistake was in wanting
to BELIEVE that Snape's dislike is a simple thing.  And maybe if it
really was that simple, Snape really would have been able to
compartmentalize those feelings for the good of the cause.

But, given this particular line of reasoning, things aren't that
simple.  It isn't just about James.  It's about Harry.  And about
Dumbledore.  And about Voldemort.  And about any number of other
things -- perhaps even Lily, who knows?

I think maybe Dumbledore thought, "Aha!  I need Severus to do this,
but this presents a great opportunity.  Once he really sees inside
Harry's mind and realizes he isn't the second coming of James, he
will be able to deal with his feelings."

But, once again, it isn't that simple.  Harry may not be the second
coming of James, but he's a lot of other things.  He's DD's favorite
for whom Severus is forced to take on a dangerous and extremely
distasteful duty.  He's a poor student [from Snape's perspective]
that DD is probably going to praise anyway.  He's the student for
whose sake DD humiliated Slytherin House back in SS/PS.  He is a
reminder of any number of things.  And yes, James gets dragged in as
well, because it's all tied together.

DD's position, one we often see in life when two of our friends
don't like each other, is, "When you really get to know him, you'll
get over it."

Snape's position, which is the standard response, is "I do know him,
thank you very much, and I don't like him, thank you very much more."


Lupinlore, who stresses that none of this means he's moved one iota
from his position concerning Snape's eventual punishment for his
abuse of Harry and Neville










From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug  8 19:11:02 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:11:02 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <eb8om1+gskd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebank6+vq6j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156706

Abergoat adds (to herself ;):

I've been thinking, it is possible that Snape lived in the Shrieking
Shack and the tunnel to Hogwarts was originally built so Irma Pince
and Argus Filch could get to work. We are told the Whomping Willow was
planted the year that Lupin came to Hogwarts - but are we told when
the tunnel was built? The house was abandoned, but it would have been
because Severus, Irma and Argus probably spent summer's elsewhere
(Spinners End?) and knew they wouldn't need to return because Severus
was entering school next term.

Living in the shrieking shack gives Snape a chance to mingle with
students (much older than him) at Hogsmeade. And since Snape never
brought out the best in anyone as far as I've read I suspect he got
tortured to some extent so he, of course, learned to fight back.

But the biggest question I realized is WHERE DID SNAPE GET A WAND TO
LEARN MORE HEXES THAN MOST SEVENTH YEARS before his first year?

The Ravenclaw relic (now horcrux) that Filch 'filched' back perhaps?
;) Leave it to a young child to find something his parents are trying
to hide.

Abergoat











From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Aug  8 19:32:22 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:32:22 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <ebank6+vq6j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebaos7+kcdm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156708

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> Abergoat adds (to herself ;):
> 
> I've been thinking, it is possible that Snape lived in the Shrieking
> Shack and the tunnel to Hogwarts was originally built so Irma Pince
> and Argus Filch could get to work. 

Potioncat:
Sorry. Chapter 18 of PoA, Lupin says the house and tunnel were built 
for his use at Hogwarts.








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 19:49:06 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:49:06 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eba7tb+u618@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebapri+5l4f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156709

Carol earlier:
> > I absolutely agree that Snape had essentially *no* choice on the
tower except to die uselessly with DD or to kill Dumbledore and look
like a treacherous coward.
>
> Abergoat writes:
> I think the choice was a bit easier than that. My take on the tower
scene is that if Snape didn't kill Dumbledore himself the Death Eaters
would make Draco do it...provided Dumbledore didn't expire first from
the potion Harry shoved down his throat. Dumbledore seemed to be
fading fast. So if Snape didn't become a murderer than either Harry or
Draco would have...the scene in the cave made it very clear that
Dumbledore thought the potion was killing him, and Harry said 'This
> one will!' (paraphased). Whether Harry went on trial for that memory
> or not, Harry would have blamed himself. Not good for our hero's soul.
> But now Harry gets to blame Snape until he can deal with is own actions.
>
>
> Carol earlier:
> > What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable Vow
> > could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD
> > would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against
> > his will.
>
Abergoat:
> Although I agree that Dumbledore wouldn't use an unbreakable vow I
> think the poster is right - DD did compel Snape, by checkmating him
> with the choice between creating 16 year old murderer or fulfilling
> the vow Snape made with Narcissa.
>
> I bet Snape wanted to take the easy way out and just let the vow
kill him as suggested by the conversation Hagrid overheard between
Snape and Dumbledore. But DD didn't let Snape do that.


Carol again:
You're contradicting yourself a bit here. First you say that the
choice was easy and then you say that he wanted to take the easy way
out (dying) but chose not to, so in that sense dying was the "easy"
choice, or the *easier* choice, because it would have seemed more
heroic. OTOH, it would, paradoxically, have involved disloyalty to
Dumbledore, and, again paradoxically, it would have been cowardly to
die to save his good name without accomplishing the essential task
that DD had set him (save Harry and Draco and go with the DEs).

So, IMO, there was nothing easy about his choice, though I agree that
he would have preferred to die rather than kill DD. If he tried to
save DD (which I agree would be futile given that DD was apparently
dying and certainly would have been killed by the DEs if Snape didn't
do it--Draco had already made it clear that he couldn't do it
himself), he, Snape, would die, too, either killed by the UV or
murdered by the DEs. His death would accomplish nothing except to
clear his name and maybe save his soul (so in that sense, it's the
"easy" choice" as opposed to the right one, which makes him appear to
be a treacherous murderer and almost certainly splits his soul). But
Snape's death wouldn't save DD (nothing can) or Draco or Harry, (whom
I believe Snape knew was hiding there in his Invisibility Cloak. Like
Draco, he would have seen the second broom; unlike Draco, he would
have deduced what it meant.) And Snape would have deduced that the
moment DD died, Harry would rush out to fight the DEs and likely be
killed. *That*, IMO, was the crucial factor that made dying the
*wrong* choice, whether or not it was easy.

The other choice was to kill DD, which enabled him to get Draco and
the DEs off the tower before Harry could rush out at them and get the
DEs out of Hogwarts. It also enabled him to stay alive and keep his
cover with the DEs. I agree that this was what DD wanted ("Severus,
please!") and that it was the right choice. But I don't think it was
easy, as the torment on Snape's face indicates, both when he looks at
DD and realizes what DD wants him to do (whether or not there's an
exchanged message via Legilimency, Snape's expression doesn't change
until he looks at DD and he doesn't raise his wand until DD says,
"Severus, please!") and again the second time Harry calls him a coward
("Kill me like you killed him!") And, of course, Snape doesn't kill or
Crucio the wandless Harry, but Harry probably takes him at his word
that he's saving Harry for the Dark Lord.

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure where we disagree, except that I don't
think Harry would become a "murderer" because the DEs would kill DD
before that happened and Draco had already lowered his wand, forcing
Snape's hand (Provision three of the UV). I *do* think that DD had
made Snape promise to do whatever he ordered, just as he made Harry
do. Or maybe he made him promise to keep his vow even if it meant
killing DD himself. Perhaps DD knew it would come to that, but Snape
hoped it wouldn't and that he could find a loophole in the UV and
that's what they were quarreling about in the forest. At any rate, DD
would not have compelled Snape to obey him using an Unbreakable Vow,
but he certainly expected Snape to keep his word, just as he expected
Harry to do so in the cave.

When I say that Snape had virtually no choice, I mean that he had to
choose what was right over what was easy, and the easy thing would be
to die pointlessly proving to Harry that he was on the side of good
before Harry died himself. He knew what he had to do, IMO; he just
didn't want to do it. And now, having made the right choice, he has to
live with the hatred of the WW as his wretched reward.

Carol, still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping that
katssirius will clarify her position








From rkelley at blazingisp.net  Tue Aug  8 18:10:34 2006
From: rkelley at blazingisp.net (Rick & LeAnn Kelley)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 13:10:34 -0500
Subject: Powerfully Magical and other Qualities (was Sectumsempra)
Message-ID: <auto-000032379981@admin.mwci.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156710

(Sorry I'm late getting into this discussion, but I've been out of town.)

 

Potioncat said:
<SNIP>
 

I think we are meant to understand that there are 3 qualities that determine
how successful a spell or spell caster is going to be.
1. How powerfully magical the caster is.
2. How tactically sound the caster is. This ranges anywhere from what spell
to use and when to use it all the way to how sneaky the caster is (e.g.
Occulumency, non-verbal, and just plain shooting them in the back)
3. How much magic does the caster know as well as which spells s/he is
capable of  employing/operating.

 

rkelley:
I'd like to add a fourth quality to this list:  The caster's wand.  In PS/SS
Ollivander told Harry he remembered when he sold his parents their first
wands.  He said Lily's was, "Ten and a quarter inches long, swishy, made of
willow.  Nice wand for charm work."  And about James' wand, ".a mahogany
wand.  Eleven inches.  Pliable.  A little more powerful and excellent for
transfiguration.  Well, I  say your father favored it - it's really the wand
that chooses the wizard, of course."   And about Voldemort's wand, "Thirteen
and a half inches.  Yew.  Powerful wand, very powerful, and in the wrong
hands.well, if I'd known what that wand was going out into the world to do."
(Could Ollivander have snapped the wand and diminished Voldemort's powers?)

 

Lily later received praise from her teachers for her charms ability.  Was
that ability due to her own powers which were conducive with her wand's
abilities, or did her wand give her extra powers for charms?  Was James able
to transform into an animagi at such a young age due to his innate
abilities, or because he had a wand which was good for transfiguration, or
was it a combination of both?  Or did the wand choose James because it
recognized he already possessed strong transfiguration powers?    This
passage indicates that wands are very important in one's wizarding
abilities.
I think it's quite likely that the wand which chose Harry is one of the most
powerful ones ever made by Olivander, and the particular wood and core
combination of his wand may be extremely conductive of Harry's power.  How
much power is added to Voldemort and Harry by the wands which chose them can
only be speculated upon, but I think it is a quality very worthy of adding
to this list.

 

 



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







From joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 19:25:15 2006
From: joegoodwin1067 at yahoo.com (Joe Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 12:25:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebalpj+31ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060808192515.53299.qmail@web61315.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156711


wynnleaf <fairwynn at hotmail.com> wrote:
wynnleaf
I wouldn't be surprised if Snape was jealous of the degree to which DD
lets Harry get away with things. And certainly a person with a
particularly low self image might listen to DD's praise of Harry and
hear only that, but perhaps not accept as real any compliments and
positive statements DD would make toward him (about Snape, that is). 
Certainly it's possible that Snape is very jealous of Harry in a sort
of sibling rivalry sort of way. But since DD really spends very
little actual time with Harry, compared to what must certainly be a
good deal more time with Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of
jealousy would be at such overpowering heights as to be the primary
fuel for Snape's hatred of Harry. 

Joe:
  Unless beyond all the other reasons Snape is simply a jerk as well.
   
  Yes, yes I know it is more fun to try and come up with complex reasons why Snape is or isn't a good guy.
   
  Still we need to consider that Snape could just be a great big jerk who never left behind a childhood rivalry, period. He doesn't have to be guilt ridden and angst filled nor does he have to be Snidely Whiplash evil.
   
  I don't think we can break down every word written about any character and think it must all have some hidden meaning. Surely some of JKR's words are just meant to convey the upfront intent.
   
   Do we know Snape has a low self image?
   
  Do we know he is sorry about James and Lilly?
   
  Really we know almost nothing about Snape and while it is fun to guess lets all just admit there isn't really any evidence.
   
  The closest we have to evidence is that Dumbledore thinks he is sorry. He also thought Mad Eye Moody was teaching DADA in fourth year too.
   
  Discussing Snape is a bit like discussing religion. Its all based on belief.
   
  Joe











 		






From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug  8 21:04:47 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:04:47 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <20060808192515.53299.qmail@web61315.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebau9f+s7n5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156712

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Joe Goodwin 
<joegoodwin1067 at ...> wrote:
  >   Unless beyond all the other reasons Snape is simply a jerk as 
well.
>    

colebiancardi here:  pssstttt....I am a HUGE Snape fan, but I kinda 
agree with you - I think he is on the side of good, etc, but I also 
think his personality is, well, jerky :)

 >Joe:   Really we know almost nothing about Snape and while it is 
fun to guess lets all just admit there isn't really any evidence.
>    
>   The closest we have to evidence is that Dumbledore thinks he is 
sorry. He also thought Mad Eye Moody was teaching DADA in fourth year 
too.

colebiancardi:
well, DD has known and worked with Snape for like EVER.  Whereas, Mad-
Eye was someone he knew but didn't have day-to-day contact with.  Mad-
Eye FOOLED everyone, not just DD.  Sometimes those things do happen.
 

colebiancardi
(who doesn't worship at the altar of Snape, but really digs the 
character - very human, warts & all)






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 21:06:00 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:06:00 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebalpj+31ft@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebaubo+dske@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156713

wynnleaf:
*(big snip)*
> Certainly it's possible that Snape is very jealous of Harry in a 
sort of sibling rivalry sort of way.  But since DD really spends very
little actual time with Harry, compared to what must certainly be a
good deal more time with Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of
jealousy would be at such overpowering heights as to be the primary
fuel for Snape's hatred of Harry.

Ceridwen:
There are a few possibilities we may be forgetting.  First, while DD 
is spending all this time with Snape, what are they doing?  Talking 
about school?  Discussing Snape's spying missions?  Making plans and 
alternative plans for Harry's schooling and extra-curricular lessons, 
like the occlumency, which might help Harry save the WW?

In fact, during Snape's first weeks of teaching, did DD pay any 
attention at all to any problems the new teacher might be having?  He 
began at Hogwarts, according to OotP, the same year as GH.  If he 
began teaching at the beginning of term, which seems most likely at 
this point, then LV would have been a looming threat over the WW, and 
most specifically over the Order.  There are two families we know of 
who have defied LV three times and who are trying to protect 
sons 'born as the seventh month dies'.  With this crisis, does DD 
even have time to see to Snape's education as a teacher?  Or is he 
more interested in Snape's reports from the DE camp?  I think that DD 
naturally was more interested in the bigger picture, that of getting 
rid of LV and protecting the Potters and the Longbottoms.

Second, we now have several years while LV is off in a vaporized 
state, in which DD can spend all sorts of quality time with Snape.  
They may have made more plans for the day when LV would return, since 
DD at any rate seemed to know that this would happen.  They probably 
talked about school business, and it's possible that DD might even 
have paid attention to Snape's teaching style.  I think it may have 
been too late by this time, he was presumably successfully managing 
his classes and the students were learning, so the lack of tutelage 
(sp?) during those first critical weeks, including the days leading 
up to the start of term, stays in place.

It's nice to be the Only Child.  And during those ten years or so 
between LV's temporary demise and Harry's beginning at Hogwarts, 
Snape may have revelled in his solitary status.  Though, from things 
DD has said, it may not have been quite that cut and dried.  We know 
that Order members, at least Mrs Figg, watched out for Harry without 
his, and presumably Petunia's, knowledge.  Were plans being made even 
then that brought the name of Harry Potter into the discussion far 
too many times?  Were all of the Order discussions revolving around 
The Boy Who Lived?  A sibling doesn't have to be there to be doted on 
and favored.  Add that Harry lost his parents and so is an object of 
pity, and there was probably a lot of cooing and sighing over the 
poor boy.  If Snape had any feelings of regret over the Potters' 
deaths, this could not have been too pleasant.  And I can see the 
possibility that DD overlooked such a progression with Snape, or 
downplayed it, since things overall seemed to be going very well: LV 
was temporarily out of the way, Harry was taken care of though 
possibly not as well as could have been hoped for, and plans were 
being made for VWII.  And in the meantime, Dumbledore is watching 
Harry himself, more than Harry realizes.

Ten years later, Harry Potter comes to Hogwarts.  This is the kid 
they've all spent years thinking about and talking about.  And he 
*seems* to be nothing but James revisited.  He possesses an 
Invisibility Cloak which used to belong to his father: the hard thing 
about this isn't only that Dumbledore seems to turn a blind eye to 
Harry and his friends creeping around the school under it, breaking 
rules, and getting not only into mischief but into darker sorts of 
trouble; but that the cloak wasn't even given to him by his similarly 
rule-breaking (or at least rule-fudging, in this Snape's opinion) 
father, but by Dumbledore, who was sitting on the cloak for at least 
the past ten years in order to give it to precious Harry so the boy 
can break the rules.  Harry gets into trouble, but in the end, as 
Lupinlore said, Slytherin colors are replaced by Gryffindor colors, 
publicly and in a humiliating fashion.  And, things don't get any 
better in second year.

Harry Potter is stealing Snape's thunder, and his mentor, and the 
Order, out from under him.  The only thing left is the WW at large - 
no wonder he wanted an Order of Merlin!  It's the only cold comfort 
he has left.  And, in OotP, Snape is asked, or possibly cajoled, 
nudged or even ordered, to teach the arrogant little brat Occlumency 
when the boy is obviously not suited for it.  He has his temper 
tantrums, he spouts out anything he thinks.  Occlumency for him?

Right.  And, again in OotP, Harry is getting visions of Voldemort's 
doings.  He travels through Nagini along with LV, saving Arthur 
Weasley's life; he sees the last minutes of Frank Bryce and 
eavesdrops on part of LV's conversation with Wormtail and Crouch Jr.; 
he experiences Rookwood's 'little chat' with LV; he is privy to LV's 
desire to get into the MoM: in short, he is encroaching on Snape's 
territory.  If the Great Harry Potter can get into LV's mind, why 
bother with a spy?  Snape is facing redundancy.  And he flat out 
tells Harry this when Harry asks him.

So the time spent between DD and Snape is adult time, not any 
fatherly time or mentor time.  They work on school things, with Snape 
in an elevated position as Head of House, not as student or disciple; 
they discuss what to do when LV returns; they discuss what to do with 
Harry Potter and how to help him overcome LV and save the world.  If 
Snape is lacking the guidance of a father figure or mentor, he is 
still lacking this.  He has to be the Older Child, grow up faster, 
protect the younger sib, give up parental/mentoring attention and in 
some ways, raise himself.  When Snape was young enough to obviously 
need the mentoring, there was a hot war in progress; afterwards, he 
was older, and not actively spying, so all of this was set aside.

And in HBP, there is Dumbledore, taking Harry on for private lessons, 
taking him on a Horcrux hunt, giving him adult responsibilities such 
as forcing DD to drink that potion (no, Snape probably didn't know 
about that, only about the general instruction to do whatever DD told 
him to do no matter what), and retrieving a whole memory from 
Slughorn.  So, the ante is raised almost every year from the time 
Harry starts back at Hogwarts, even though there is little actual 
face time between Harry and DD.

I'm still leaning more toward Dumbledore as Horcrux (for a simple 
title) myself, but I can see certain possibilities in Lupinlore's 
suggestion of the Unloved Son.

Ceridwen.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 22:54:28 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:54:28 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
Message-ID: <ebb4n4+c7h9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156714

Maybe we're barking up the wrong tree with Spinner's End, meaning the
place rather than the chapter. (Technically, Spinner's End is a
street, but I'm using the name to refer to the house since we don't
know the exact address.)

Most people seem to assume that because Snape's father was a Muggle
and the house is in a Muggle neighborhood that it must be his
childhood home. I don't think there's a necessary connection, not to
mention that I've never considered it likely that a little wizard and
his witch mother dressed like Muggles and he somehow learned all those
in a Muggle neighborhood. More hexes than most seventh years and he
learned them in a Muggle neighborhood without detection--not to
mention the hullaballoo that would have occurred if he'd practiced
them on his Muggle neighbors. It seems likely to me that both Tobias
and his Muggle home were out of the picture when Sevvie learned those
hexes. More likely he was living with his Prince relatives, who might
have lent him a wand and even taught him some of the hexes, perhaps
encouraging their precocious grandson (unless the man in the memory is
Grandpa Prince, in which case the picture is a bit different, but it
still seems more likely that he learned the hexes (not counting any he
invented) from the Princes than that his mother taught him in a Muggle
neighborhood or he somehow invented them all in a Muggle neighborhood.

Nope. To me it seems unlikely that Spinner's End is Snape's childhood
home or that it reflects on his background at all. Instead, I think
it's a home he somehow acquired as an adult (maybe through a Squib
real estate agent?) and uses as a summer home. It's fixed up with
candelabras and magical hidden doorways, probably Snape's own doing,
and its walls are lined with books. Some of them could be inherited
from Eileen (she seems to have kept her Potions book and may have kept
others), but he could easily have acquired a sizeable collection of
his own over fifteen years of teaching. What else does he have to
spend money on? A few black robes for school, some (green?) dress
robes for special Quidditch games, and food and candles for the summer
and a stock of elf-made wine and maybe some other drinks for guests.
("The elf-made wine will do" suggests that it's not the only drink
available.) If he own the house, that would be the sum total of his
expenses--no utilities or upkeep. Just Evanesco the cobwebs once a
year. He wouldn't even need to make lesson plans as he seems to have
memorized the entire curriculum from first year through NEWT level, as
well as the instructions themselves, which he so effortlessly writes
on the board with a flick of his wand.

I think that the books are his own (what else would he have to do in
summer when he's not spying except read, and he seems to have
memorized a number of books, including those of the other teachers
("Almost word for word from 'The Standard Book of Spells, Grade Six,'"
he tells Hermione). Well, okay. He probably makes his stock of potions
for the year, at least up till the time he was appointed DADA teacher,
 experiments with potions improvements, and maybe invents a spell or
two, but I'll bet he spends the majority of his non-spying, non-Order
time reading. And Spinner's End, hidden from the view of other
wizards, would be a perfect place for a spy to hide out. Since he
doesn't seem to socialize with the Order members, except possibly
Dumbledore, and Bellatrix has no idea where he lives (either she never
visited him when they were both DEs or he lived somewhere else at that
time), I'm guessing that his chief guests were the Malfoys, and even
they didn't come often as Narcissa isn't quite sure of the way. It's
unclear how long he's lived there. Perhaps it's only since Voldemort's
return necessitated a role as double agent.

Just a few thoughts. I don't want to assume anything, but I suspect
that both the books (or most of them) and the house are his own,
acquired to meet the limited needs of a bachelor teacher who loves
both his books and his privacy. (Clearly, it's his house rather than
Wormtail's. There's no question who's in charge, even if Wormtail is
spying on him as seems likely from the listening at doorways.)

Carol, who thinks that we can't necessarily deduce a working class
background or much of anything else about Snape's childhood from the
house he lives in as of HBP






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug  8 22:55:13 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:55:13 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebanid+2726@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebb4oh+rd9a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156715

> >>Wynnleaf:
> > But since DD really spends very little actual time with Harry,   
> > compared to what must certainly be a good deal more time with    
> > Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of jealousy would be at 
> > such overpowering heights as to be the primary fuel for Snape's 
> > hatred of Harry.

> >>Lupinlore:
> Well, by the time you get to a hatred that intense and long-
> standing, I'm not so sure that "primary" and "secondary" reasons   
> are very important anymore.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And this is where I have to jump in.  How do we know Snape has such 
an "intense and long-standing" hatred of Harry?  I mean, other than 
Harry being absolutely positive that Snape hates him (just as he was 
absolutely positive that Fake!Moody was in his corner) what really 
points to Snape spending all that much emotion on Harry?

Sure, *Harry* has an intense hatred of Snape.  (I wouldn't call it 
long-standing because I think it took a while to build.)  But, other 
than the days following Harry's viewing of the Pensieve scene, I 
don't recall Snape acting in a manner that describes intense hatred 
for Harry, to me.

I get that Snape *doesn't like* Harry.  But it's a pretty big leap 
from dislike to out and out hatred (one we get to see Harry make 
with Snape, and it takes a death to do it) and frankly, I haven't 
seen evidence of that hatred.

> >>Joe:
> > Unless beyond all the other reasons Snape is simply a jerk as   
> > well.

> >>colebiancardi: 
> pssstttt....I am a HUGE Snape fan, but I kinda agree with you - I 
> think he is on the side of good, etc, but I also think his        
> personality is, well, jerky :)

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Snape is snarky.  If he sees an opportunity to deliver a 
zinger, he generally can't help himself.  And if he's confronted by 
a fool, he doesn't suffer gladly.  That makes him an intimidating or 
even scary teacher.  It makes him not very fluffy and 
understanding.  It makes him the speaker of some of the best lines 
in Potterverse.  He's prickly and unpleasant... with *everyone*, 
from what I can tell.  So I'm just not getting where we see that 
Snape absolutely, intensely, and with the heat of a thousand fiery 
suns, *hates* Harry Potter.

> >>Joe:
> Yes, yes I know it is more fun to try and come up with complex    
> reasons why Snape is or isn't a good guy.
> Still we need to consider that Snape could just be a great big    
> jerk who never left behind a childhood rivalry, period.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Snape is just fun to watch; no need to pile on the man, he brings 
enough to the yard all by himself, IMO.  The Marauders, for 
example.  Though really, I think Snape has gotten over most of the 
Marauders by this point.

At the end of PoA Snape figures out that Lupin is not only a big 
wimpering, wimp of a man, he's untrustworthy, too.  More 
importantly, so does Dumbledore.  So much for Lupin.

In OotP Snape gets to have that verbal duel with Sirius during which 
Sirius totally goes unhinged without Snape breaking a sweat.  So 
much for Sirius.

In the opening of HBP we see Peter as Snape's personal little house-
elf.  So much for Peter.  (Though...  Peter is a bit too sneaky for 
me to write off that easily; I don't know if Snape sees it or not. 
But Peter is certainly not an emotional issue for Snape anymore.  If 
he ever was...)

So we're left with James.  And yeah, I think that stuff still 
lingers.  And yeah, I think Harry gets the brunt of it.  Honestly, I 
don't know if Snape will ever be able to put his James issues to 
bed.  But even if he is, there's still the wild card that is Lily 
waiting to be delt with.

So yeah, Snape's got enough issues to be going on with.  I don't 
think we need to add "intense hatred of Harry" to the pile.

Betsy Hp






From jmrazo at hotmail.com  Tue Aug  8 23:19:52 2006
From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 23:19:52 -0000
Subject: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son (was  Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?))
In-Reply-To: <eb8fri+j10v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebb66o+7ot3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156716

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> Mike:

> Now here comes an orphaned Severus, and DD isn't going to make the 
> same mistake twice. DD decides to intervene and become Snape's 
> surrogate, part-time father figure. I will go out on a limb and say 
> that DD recruited Snape to *our side* while he was still a student. 
> Naturally, Snape began to idolize DD much the same as Harry does, 
> with one big difference. Snape *choses* to fight for the side 
> of 'Light' and becomes a DE with the clear intention of 
infiltrating 
> and undermining LV's organization. Harry, when all is said and 
done, 
> got *chosen*, became the *chosen one* without making a choice 
> himself. So DD has to become active in Harry's life, tinker around 
> the edges to ensure Harry gets all the right training/knowledge. He 
> relegates Snape to fellow LV opposer and even enlists him to take 
> part in the training Harry plan. This is another reason for Snape's 
> jealousy, he made an active *choice* to be on DD's side and is 
being 
> supplanted by this brat that had celebrity handed to him.

I hate this idea more than words can say. I have reconciled myself 
that I will probably never see Snape get the punishment I think he 
deserves (and deserved long before the lightning struck tower) just 
as I have reconciled that Ginny will be the lasting pairing for Harry 
no matter how much I hate her.  But if JKR goes out and turns Snape 
into an uber-hero who was on the right side the whole time, no 
mistakes made, then I will give away my books and never read them 
anything about Harry Potter again.  the books are entitled Harry 
Potter and the *Blank*.  For Snape to have chosen to be a hero when 
he was a teenager not only is a boring story choice, but takes away 
from Harry, the guy who is supposed to be the hero of the story.

Snape at least becomes marginally more interesting if he is a flawed 
man who made mistakes, tries to make up for them, and continues to 
make mistakes along the way based on his human falliblities.  I still 
hope to see bad things happen to him and for someone to call him on 
all his crap from the first five books but like I said, I'm not 
holding my breath.

Snape/Lily is interesting. I think it could be done well, but I don't 
have faith in JKR to do it well after what I see as the shipping 
debacle of Half Blood Prince. Maybe a Snape/Lily romantic history 
might knock Saint Lily off her pedestal.

why yes, I am a little bitter about the current state of the Harry 
Potter series :)

phoenixgod2000


 







From kjones at telus.net  Wed Aug  9 00:51:19 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:51:19 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebaubo+dske@eGroups.com>
References: <ebaubo+dske@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44D93187.9080004@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156717


> wynnleaf:
> *(big snip)*
>> Certainly it's possible that Snape is very jealous of Harry in a 
> sort of sibling rivalry sort of way.  But since DD really spends very
> little actual time with Harry, compared to what must certainly be a
> good deal more time with Snape, it seems doubtful that that kind of
> jealousy would be at such overpowering heights as to be the primary
> fuel for Snape's hatred of Harry.

   KJ writes:

     I tend to agree with this. As with others, I can't conceive of a 
person acting as spy, mature and level-headed enough to handle that 
stress, but being jealous of a youth.

     I do think that he is suffering from considerable frustration. 
Harry is an open conduit to Voldemort and yet refuses to learn or 
practice legilimency. He sneaks out of Hogwarts and makes himself a 
target of dementors, werewolves, giant spiders, and is, according to 
prophecy, the only one capable of taking Voldy down. Dumbledore refuses 
to control him, indeed, keeps placing Harry in risky situations. It must 
drive Snape crazy trying to keep Harry alive long enough to beat 
Voldemort and release Snape from the double life he is living. Now it 
has really gone to Hell in a handbasket. He might hate Harry because he 
doesn't want to hate Dumbledore. He could easily see the similarities 
between Harry and his father if Dumbledore refused to control that 
situation in the same way. Snape might have paid for it then and sees 
himself paying for it again. It would be ironic if Harry sees Snape as 
being to blame for all the bad things that happened in his life at the 
same time Snape is blaming Harry for all that went wrong in his.

KJ




From kjones at telus.net  Wed Aug  9 01:00:52 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 18:00:52 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebb4n4+c7h9@eGroups.com>
References: <ebb4n4+c7h9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44D933C4.90704@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156718

justcarol67 wrote:

> Carol, who thinks that we can't necessarily deduce a working class
> background or much of anything else about Snape's childhood from the
> house he lives in as of HBP

   KJ writes:

    One of the things that picks away at my mind is the name "Severus". 
This would be considered a wizardy sort of name I think and is much like 
Albus, Filius, Argus, Sirius, Remus, etc.  These names are quite 
distinct from Harry, Ron, Arthur, Charlie, etc.  There seems to be some 
distinction there although it is muddied as to pure-blood, half-blood 
status. The names seem about equally divided. One might think that 
Dumbledore is a pure-blood from his name, also Filch as a squib. Sirius 
was a pure-blood, and Remus is only considered a half-blood because he 
is a werewolf. We know that Arthur Weasley is a pure-blood, but he has a 
muggle fetish. Did he give his children muggle names for this reason? 
Does this indicate that Severus was named by his mother, or his mother's 
family, and if so, what happened to his father. Perhaps it was the 
murder of his father, not his mother which has caused Snape to re-think 
his position with the DE.

KJ




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  9 01:38:32 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:38:32 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <44D933C4.90704@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ebbeao+rom0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156719


> justcarol67 wrote:
> 
> > Carol, who thinks that we can't necessarily deduce a working class
> > background or much of anything else about Snape's childhood from the
> > house he lives in as of HBP
> 
>    KJ writes:
> 
>     One of the things that picks away at my mind is the name "Severus". 


wynnleaf
First I think there's the question of why JKR wanted to show us
Spinners End at all.  Up to HBP, we knew almost nothing about Snape. 
Assumptions among many fans were pureblood and aristocratic, like the
Malfoys and Blacks.  JKR has broken the myth of pureblood Snape.  Why
would JKR want to fool us into thinking Snape was from a working class
background?  I can't really see the point as we enter the "home
stretch" of the series.

We know that Snape was using "used" textbooks in school.  That implies
coming from a poorer background.  Add to that, the greying pants in
the Snape's Worst Memory scene, which sounds like a kid who didn't get
new clothing very often.  

Pettigrew said Spinners End was Snape's house.  Narcissa knew the way
there quite well.  She'd probably been there at least several times,
since it was a complicated route in, yet she had no hesitations as to
directions.  Yet Bella had not ever been there.  Assumption (no proof)
is that Narcissa had visited there regularly in the *past.*  But it's
hard to imagine wealthy, pureblood adult Narcissa going there -- why
not have social calls at the Malfoy home?  Sounds more like a place
Narcissa might have visited with Lucius years before, maybe when Snape
was a young DE.

The books.  I work at a college and have for many years.  *Every*
academic I know likes to haul all their books to where ever they're
going to live while teaching.  Sometimes it's ridiculous -- somebody
bringing their library along for a one-year appointment.  So it's hard
for me to imagine Snape keeping such a large selection of quality
(leather bound) books back at Spinner's End.  Especially with the air
of neglect that we're told exists there.

Snape doesn't spend Christmas at Spinners End.  The place looks, in
the Spinners End chapter, as though it's been neglected ("air of
neglect?").  Peter is having to clean house.  It doesn't sound like
Snape regularly stays there, or spends summers there.

How could Snape learn so many hexes, etc. growing up at Spinners End?
 Hm, well, there's the library there -- perhaps belonging to his
mother.  He could learn a lot from that.  Also, Snape created lots of
spells in 6th year.  Perhaps he was creating spells even before
Hogwarts.  If he came to school with spells he'd created, as well as a
lot learned from books, that would explain him knowing hexes and
jinxes that 7th years didn't know.

We don't know that Tobias Snape was abusive or domineering.  The
hook-nose man in the memory may not have been Tobias, and even if he
was, the memory may be "memorable" precisely because it was unusual. 
  Perhaps Tobias was angry learning that Eileen was a witch and
Severus a wizard.

If Tobias wasn't particularly domineering or abusive, he might easily
have given way to his wife's desire to name their child Severus.  

If Tobias died early in Snape's life, and Snape went to live with
relatives, that doesn't explain away what was probably a lower
economic situation (used textbooks, greying pants).  And if so, where
did the house come from?

The main objection I have to Snape not growing up with his parents, or
Spinners End not being his family home, is that after so much silence
on Snape's background, amidst such great curiosity about it, JKR
showed us what appeared to be a background almost completely at odds
with fan/reader assumptions.  I don't think she would have appeared to
have revealed his background so late in the series, only to trick us
and let us discover later that our assumptions (growing up in a dark
old wizarding family) were correct after all.  I just don't see any
point to that.  There's a lot of other things JKR is trying to keep a
mystery or surprise us about.  I don't think she's planning another
surprise like "Guess what?  Snape's really from a completely different
family background than you thought in the last book!"  

I mean, why would we *care* about such a twist?  We don't have a lot
of reader "investment" in the Spinners End, working class background.
 Why use that as a surprise twist?  There's no real impact.

wynnleaf






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  9 02:08:51 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:08:51 -0000
Subject: The Prince and Filch Family Trees
In-Reply-To: <ebaos7+kcdm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebbg3j+nfrb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156720

Potioncat wrote:
> Sorry. Chapter 18 of PoA, Lupin says the house and tunnel were built 
> for his use at Hogwarts.

Thank you, although I'm still curious as to WHO Snape practiced all
the hexes on and whose wand was used. Perhaps he simply memorized them
all and they worked right the first time...although Lily Evan's
question 'what has he ever done to you?' directed at the Marauders
suggests that Snape didn't make a practice of running around hexing
people at random. At least not after he started school.

Abergoat










From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  9 02:21:05 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:21:05 -0000
Subject: History and Myth Behind HP
In-Reply-To: <d10ko3+ohnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebbgqh+1khn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156721

Maria wrote:

> In Greek Myth there was a maiden named Arachne. This woman was so 
> good at spinning and weaving

Abergoat writes:
Interesting post, I agree that the name Spinners End is loaded.
Another interesting tidbit of mythology is the name of the closed ward
Harry visits at St Mungo's: Janus Thickey.

The part that interests me is the use of the Roman god Janus. Janus is
a god depicted as 'two faced' (Snape anyone?) similar to
Quirrel/Voldemort in PS/SS. Snape serves to very different masters
well so he has to be two faced. Also, the month of January is named
after Janus - JKR says Snape's birth month is January.

Janus is the Roman god of gates and doors/beginnings and endings. I'm
curious if these are all just coincidences or if something ties Snape
to the closed ward at St Mungo's and someone there might have been
involved in Voldemort's beginning as well as his future end.

Abergoat








From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Wed Aug  9 02:53:11 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 22:53:11 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
Message-ID: <324.9bf761f.320aa817@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156722

>Carol,
 >still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping  that
katssirius will clarify her position

Nikkalmati    I can't really speak for katssirius, but  maybe she/he meant 
that it was a gift from Severus to DD to show his  loyalty.  
Nikkalmati (who agrees that DD would never demand or accept, even as a  gift, 
a UV.)



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




From katbofaye at aol.com  Tue Aug  8 20:27:03 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:27:03 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
Message-ID: <ebas2n+90qg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156723

I am sorry this took so long.  I did get back to you earlier but it 
was 
not posted by the yahoo gods.  Your point is I believe and I quote

"Carol, still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping 
that
katssirius will clarify her position" and a quote from my response

"I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
way. I think you make an excellent argument both for it being dark
magic and a compulsion. I thought of it as the ultimate gift. I
will stake my life on this vow. However I understand your point
that the nobility of the gift is lost once choice is lost and as you
said Dumbledore believes in choices."

I can only assume I am not making myself clear because I agree with 
you.  That said I will try again.  I see a vow (deletion of 
unbreakable 
is purposeful) or pledge as a gift of allegiance, honor, and 
trust.    
A common pledge or vow of secrecy is cross my heart and hope to 
die.  
This is used flippantly nowadays but I bet it was not originally.  
Marriage vows come to mind and even contain the phrase til death do 
us 
part.  So a vow combined with the pledge of my life as the guarantee 
to 
the pledge is common in all cultures that I am familiar.  This is 
the 
ultimate gift of a cause meaning more than life itself.  Certainly 
the 
Order expects this of each other, Sirius says as much in OOTP.  So I 
think whether you meant it as funny or not vowing or pledging 
something 
with my life on it rather than with Rosmerta's mead is important, 
necessary, and a reasonable expectation.  I meant the sentence as a 
verbal statement of the Unbreakable vow not as a verbal statement of 
how I felt about the vow.  The point we agree on is that abolutely 
if 
you take the free will out of the pledge then it is no longer a 
noble 
sacrifice of a willing volunteer.  Now you have a slave to the 
moment.  
I feel between two trusting individuals it is unnecessary and wrong 
to 
use an Unbreakable Vow.  I agree this must be dark magic.  
Originally, 
I thought of it as signing a contract and did not give it the spin 
you 
did.  Once you shared your perspective I agreed completely with 
you.  
As much as you believe DD would not compel Snape you should reread 
your 
last post.  The number of times the verb "made" is used as in DD 
made 
Snape indicates that compulsion was certainly being used without any 
need for an Unbreakable Vow.  

I have become more and more convinced that DD's mistake are his 
inability to trust anyone enough to delegate or share information.  
He 
refused to tell Harry not to go to the MoM which sent Sirius to his 
death, now because he has told no one about Snape I imagine Book 7 
will 
be filled with unnecessary tragedy.  He did not search for the 
Horcruxes while Voldemort was still ectoplasm, has not revealed that 
Voldemort is really a half blood Tom Riddle which would at least 
slow 
down new recruits, and he did not seem to prepare anyone for his 
departure (except Harry) in the Order or Hogwarts even though he 
clearly knew he was dying.  I agree this last one could have been 
kept 
from us but then I think someone would know about Snape if this had 
been the case. There is a more indepth discussion about this at Red 
Hen 
http://www.redhen-publications.com/Dumbledore.html which is very 
good.

katssirius hoping she has cleared up the confusion around the 
unbreakable vow and started something new and confusing to talk 
about.









From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug  9 03:45:12 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:45:12 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <44D933C4.90704@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ebblo8+c5n0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156724

Carol:
 
> who thinks that we can't necessarily deduce a working class 
> background or much of anything else about Snape's childhood 
> from the house he lives in as of HBP

houyhnhnm:

"Snape spat bitterly on the ground." (PS, Scholastic pbk, 
p. 224) I don't know anything about regional dialects or 
class registers in the UK (some have argued Snape's working 
class background on that basis), but to me spitting on the 
ground says working class. 

KJ writes:
 
> One of the things that picks away at my mind is the 
> name "Severus".

houyhnhnm:

Let's see?  What other wizarding families go in for Roman 
emperors' names?

There's Lucius Malfoy, but then his father had the un-Roman 
name of Abraxas.  Then there are the Belbys, with a Marcus 
and a Flavius (a Damocles, too, admittedly).

I notice that there are no Princes on the Black family 
tree.  That by itself isn't necessarily significant.  
What is, I think, is that there are no other Princes 
anywhere in the WW that we've heard of.  None attending 
Hogwarts, as far as we know.

Many people were so attached to that idea that Snape 
was an aristocratic pureblood that when that notion was 
canon-shafted in HBP, they switched to believing the 
Princes were the wizarding aristocrats (Snape Manor 
became Prince Manor).  If that's so, why haven't we 
heard of them anywhere before.

This is pure speculation, I know.  There is no canon 
one way or the other, but I think the Princes were 
nobodies.  If there was any snobbery in Eileen Prince's 
family, it was over their Belby connection.

Many readers have observed that the Malfoys act like 
nouveau riche.  Now there *is* a Malfoy Manor, but could 
it have been renamed? Could it have come to Abraxas Malfoy 
through his wife?  Maybe the Malfoy claim to fame is *their* 
Belby connection.  In giving his son an astronomical name, 
as was the custom in his wife's family, was Lucius following 
the pattern in his own family (in which he was named according 
to the traditions of his mother's more socially prominent family, 
rather than his father's)?

What if Eileen's mother and Lucius' father were Belby sisters? 
That would make Lucius and Severus first cousins once removed, 
I believe. 

 

 









From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug  9 03:57:18 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:57:18 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebblo8+c5n0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebbmeu+12fc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156725

houyhnhnm:

> What if Eileen's mother and Lucius' father were Belby sisters? 
> That would make Lucius and Severus first cousins once removed, 
> I believe.

houyhnhnm:

Make that Lucius' mother. *^_^*










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 04:37:23 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 04:37:23 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <BAY21-F7F748DD1EB2A5DAE44BE9B3540@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebboq3+4cnj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156726

BettieTheBookWorm:

> Could it be that there is a photo on the wall somewhere of a wizard 
who alerts DD when Harry is in trouble?  Perhaps Petunia has been 
forced to alter her beautiful decor in some way to allow a wizard in to 
watch over Harry.
> 

Tonks:
I agree with whoever said that DD just understands human nature and 
expected that Vernon and Petunia would have those feelings of wanting 
to get rid of Harry after Dudley was attached.

But while we are on the subject. Remember once DD said he didn't care 
what they did as long as they didn't take him off the chocolate frog 
cards.  I think that is how he knows what is going on in many places 
around the school or where students are who have a collection of cards. 
Course that are many portrats around as well. But I suspect the frog 
cards are important too.

Tonks_op






From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 07:00:01 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 07:00:01 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eb3v5d+rg0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebc15h+tlut@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156727

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" <katbofaye at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol:
> "There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in Snape
> than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
> Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid 
reasons for that belief.
> 
> "Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there 
are some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable 
Vows as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes"
> 
> I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
> way.  
**snip**

Doddie here:

Now too much cannon to add...mostly opinion..

I think that DD may have had an inkling about the UV Snape made...but 
let it pass as he thought Snape made said vow to protect a student..

Although by HBP I think DD allows himself a great deal more trust than 
he had in any of the other books...

1.  He tells Harry to entrust their secrets to Ron and Hermione.

2.  Whether or not Snape told him of the UV...DD knew Malfoy was up to 
something for most of the book..

3.  DD who has always left a great deal of protection at Hogwarts left 
with Harry on "that night" which became his demise in more than one 
way and left OOP members to protect his "sacred charges".(the anoying 
sniglet that leaves me questioning where fawkes was??!???)

Anywoo...

I'm wondering if DD really did not know about the UV...Also if he did 
know about it...then snape should have sacrificed himself on the tower-
-to prove his loyalty for once and all..(If snape had sacrificed 
himself, then he would have redeemed himself and DD would still be 
alive...)

Given what we know about the prophecy...DD didn't think he need be 
there for the final battle...why should snape?

Good reasons for DD to die??

1. gives voldy a false sense of security...
2. gives Harry a whole other reason for vengance..
3. rally the ww around harry rather than dd...
4. (best reason yet) to push Snape yet further into Voldy's world yet 
give Harry great mistrust..

DD never insisted Harry should trust Snape...dd always suggested that 
Harry should give the thing Snape had not earned...which was respect..

(hence all the "Prof. Snape" comments)

I do loathe snape...IMHO I think that the only way he could possibly 
redeem himself is to leggum a serious spell that would enable Harry to 
destroy Voldy..(however in my heart I don't want him to do that...I 
always have visions of Snape and Bella giving simultanious AK's that 
zap each other out).

Doddie
(who thinks the thing voldie wants the most is followers..but is 
absolutely clueless about getting sane followers.)











From kjones at telus.net  Wed Aug  9 07:16:16 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:16:16 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebblo8+c5n0@eGroups.com>
References: <ebblo8+c5n0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44D98BC0.5000702@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156728

houyhnhnm102 wrote:

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Let's see?  What other wizarding families go in for Roman 
> emperors' names?
> 
> There's Lucius Malfoy, but then his father had the un-Roman 
> name of Abraxas.  Then there are the Belbys, with a Marcus 
> and a Flavius (a Damocles, too, admittedly).
snip
> Many people were so attached to that idea that Snape 
> was an aristocratic pureblood that when that notion was 
> canon-shafted in HBP, they switched to believing the 
> Princes were the wizarding aristocrats (Snape Manor 
> became Prince Manor).  If that's so, why haven't we 
> heard of them anywhere before.

   KJ writes:

     I think that you are right in thinking that the Princes were not 
necessarily aristocrats. That wasn't really where I was going anyway. 
The character of Snape was put together to make us believe that he was a 
pure-blood, and very similar to Malfoy. His name was chosen to also 
suggest a pure-blood heritage. Sometimes the purest blooded families are 
quite poor and low class as was demonstrated by Riddle's family. Can't 
get much lower than that. I am wondering why we have a half-blood bad 
guy with a muggle name (Tom), a half-blood good guy with a muggle name 
(Harry) and an ambiguous half-blood with a wizarding name(Severus). JKR 
had a reason to confuse this issue of heritage. The whole issue of 
seeing what appears to be an abusive muggle husband with a witch wife is 
made more confusing by naming the son, if that is what he is, after what 
is most likely the wizarding half of the family. Severus is not a muggle 
name. Was Snape taught to hate his muggle heritage as Riddle came to do? 
Harry, also hates his muggle relatives. I find the comparisons between 
these three perplexing.
KJ




From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug  9 09:39:12 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:39:12 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <ebapri+5l4f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebcag0+3nkt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156729

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
SNIP
> > Carol earlier:
> > > What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable > 
>>Vow could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD 
would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against
> > > his will.
SNIP

> 
> Carol, still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping that
> katssirius will clarify her position
>

Firstly, I believe (as many others have also posted) that DD's 
blackened hand is evidence that the curse on the ring is probably 
killing DD. Therefore, it is likely DD and Snape have already discussed 
the possibility that Snape could publicly execute DD (when DD was at 
death's door) to prove Snape's allegiance to LV.

One could then argue that the UV is irrelevant to Snape, since he has 
already agreed with DD to be his executor. The big problem with Snape 
taking the UV is that it limits his options. If he is going to kill DD 
anyway and therefore prove his allegiance, why make the UV at all? 
Bella will trust Snape soon enough!

One possibility is that Draco is the unknown quantity here! If Snape is 
to kill DD, it has to be in a very particular way. Perhaps the UV was 
supposed to prove Snape's allegiance to Draco. The hope is that Draco 
will take Snape into his confidence and therefore DD/Snape have more 
control over the situation. If this was the case, it didn't work. Snape 
spends most of HBP trying to persuade Draco to let him help.

Another (less likely) scenario is that Snape really doesn't know 
anything about Draco's task. It always seemed strange to me that LV 
would let Snape know that Draco was involved in a plan to kill DD. I 
don't think LV completely trusts Snape as yet (which is why he has 
Wormtail spying on him) so why would he risk prewarning DD. If this is 
the case, then perhaps it was just a calulated risk on Snape's part. 
The aim being that in making the UV he might then find out more about 
Draco's task.

Finally, maybe LV ordered Snape to make the UV. A loyal DE would not 
think twice about agreeing to a pact to help kill DD. In that case it 
could be seen as the 'ultimate gift' from Snape to LV ultimately 
leading to the death of DD (the only one LV ever feared).

Brothergib







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug  9 09:30:41 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 09:30:41 -0000
Subject: Chocolate frogs (Was: Re: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?)
In-Reply-To: <ebboq3+4cnj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebca01+stko@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156730

BettieTheBookWorm:

Could it be that there is a photo on the wall somewhere of a wizard 
who alerts DD when Harry is in trouble?  Perhaps Petunia has been 
forced to alter her beautiful decor in some way to allow a wizard in 
to watch over Harry.

Tonks:
I agree with whoever said that DD just understands human nature and 
expected that Vernon and Petunia would have those feelings of 
wanting to get rid of Harry after Dudley was attacked.
 
But while we are on the subject. Remember once DD said he didn't 
care what they did as long as they didn't take him off the chocolate 
frog cards.  I think that is how he knows what is going on in many 
places around the school or where students are who have a collection 
of cards. Course that are many portraits around as well. But I 
suspect the frog cards are important too.

Tinktonks:

I'm saluting that one! In fact do we have any cannon of another 
wizard that is still alive being on the chocolate frog cards? I 
think that would be a brilliant source of information but do you 
think that DD would spy on people?

I think the chocolate frogs card is such a great call because now 
you mention them this way I think of all the clues. DD's password is 
always a type of sweet, frogs get mentioned steadily throughout the 
series more than any other type of sweet. By bill in OotP in Harry's 
dream about Cho in OotP. Etc etc.

JKR answered on the FAQ's poll that she liked the idea of chocolate 
frogs as the way the Order communicated but it was wrong, we had 
already seen it (IE patronuses).

Would Mrs Figg be allowed on the Floo network as she is a squib? If 
not how would she talk to Dumbledore? It would explain why she 
couldn't talk to Dumbledore straight away after the Dementor attack-
she would have to wait for DD to check in!

Tinktonks










From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 10:31:04 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:31:04 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <20060807154746.29835.qmail@web86210.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebcdh8+dhph@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156731

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin
<irene_mikhlin at ...> wrote:
>
> Three cheers for Salman Rushdie, who managed with one
> question what hordes of snapeophiles could not achieve
> with gigabytes of discussions. :-)
>
> Now can you honestly say that the (brilliant) plot
> you've just described provides for  a thousand times
> more interesting book 7 than ESE!Snape, or OFH!Snape?
>
>

Depends on how each variety is done.  I've never been much of a
believer in ESE!Snape, as I think that's just not a good fit at all
with what's gone before.  OFH!Snape fits much better, as does Grey!
Snape (of which my example might be seen as one variety).  DDM!Snape
raises deep moral questions, particularly about about the DD part.

Actually, I'm not really so much interested in rescuing Snape, who
needs fairly severe punishment, I think, for his abuse of Harry and
Neville no matter what explanation is given, but Dumbledore.  The
unloved son scenario provides a Dumbledore who is loving and means
well but is caught in a trap many a father-figure must face, and who
mistakes classic, but understandable, mistakes in trying to deal with
it.  Other varieties of Snape often predicate fairly noxious versions
of Dumbledore, and leave the title "epitome of goodness" and "very
wise man" as nothing more than bad jokes to be invoked by late night
stand-up comedians.

So the Unloved Son depends for its importance, as far as I'm
concerned, on its corollary -- the Loving but Fallible and
Emotionally Blind Father.


Lupinlore, who finds it so much easier to dissect unreal people, as
you don't have to worry about collecting your therapy fee from them










From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug  9 10:41:33 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:41:33 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's Plan (Was RE Good Reasons for DD to die)
In-Reply-To: <ebcag0+3nkt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebce4t+m623@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156732

Carol earlier:
What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable Vow
could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD
would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against
his will.

> SNIP
Carol, still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping
that katssirius will clarify her position


 Brothergib

<<huge snip>>

It always seemed strange to me that LV  would let Snape know that
Draco was involved in a plan to kill DD. I  don't think LV
completely trusts Snape as yet (which is why he has  Wormtail spying
on him) so why would he risk prewarning DD. If this is  the case

Tinktonks:

I think that LV is being very calculating here. He doesn't care
about any of his followers in the slightest. They are pawns and they
are expendable. Dumbledore however is a real challenger.

Draco is just a boy, he has nothing of noteworthy value to LV that
he can't get elsewhere. If Draco dies so be it, if he succeeds he
proves himself valuable and LV will have a new and valuable tool.
Nothing to lose.

Snape is more tricky to LV, he must be aware Snape is a very
accomplished Occlumens to be either fooling DD, Himself or even
both! This makes him a questionable ally. LV also knows DD, when LV
enters DD's office for a job DD knows he is a murderer (Speculation
I know but I'm pretty sure of it) but he lets LV leave without
resistance or reprimand. DD  could have attempted to destroy LV
there and then (most would say it would have been a service to
mankind) yet he did not. DD is too noble to attack unprovoked, even
if LV had attempted to murder him through someone else.

Using this logic (which some may think is flawed!) if Snape is a
traitor then he dies, as does Draco but this is no loss to LV, and
there is no real risk of DD finding out about the attempt on his
life. DD is very wise and is almost certain to know that LV will
attempt to kill him, LV knows this!

If Snape is loyal to LV then he gets rid of the biggest thorn in his
side with no consequences.

Sounds like a smart plan to me!!! Win win situation for LV! No harm
in telling Snape the plan as he will either prove himself or die!

Tinktonks










From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug  9 14:03:36 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:03:36 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebcdh8+dhph@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebcpvo+8338@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156733

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Actually, I'm not really so much interested in rescuing Snape, who
> needs fairly severe punishment, I think, for his abuse of Harry and
> Neville no matter what explanation is given, but Dumbledore.  The
> unloved son scenario provides a Dumbledore who is loving and means
> well but is caught in a trap many a father-figure must face, and who
> mistakes classic, but understandable, mistakes in trying to deal 
with
> it.  Other varieties of Snape often predicate fairly noxious 
versions
> of Dumbledore, and leave the title "epitome of goodness" and "very
> wise man" as nothing more than bad jokes to be invoked by late night
> stand-up comedians.
> 
> So the Unloved Son depends for its importance, as far as I'm
> concerned, on its corollary -- the Loving but Fallible and
> Emotionally Blind Father.
> 



I think we must remember that at the end of OOTP, DD tells Harry that 
he had concocted a plan to destroy LV. That plan involved Harry, and 
because of it's importance it was imperative that DD not generate 
feelings for Harry. The plan was too important. Therefore we have 
canon evidence that DD had decided on a course of action to defeat 
Voldemort and that he would have to remain emotionally detatched for 
it to succeed. As we know, in the case of Harry, he failed in this 
goal.
However, it also seems that this plan also involved Severus Snape. It 
therefore follows that DD would also tell himself that he needed to 
remain emotionally detatched from the consequences for Snape that 
this plan entailed. I do not think it would be hard for DD to remain 
emotionally detatched when it came to Snape!!

Therefore, from his own mouth, DD has stated that he very much wanted 
to be cold, hard, detatched from the suffering of others to ensure 
his plan succeeded!

Brothergib








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 10:18:50 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:18:50 -0000
Subject: Snape and Rescuing the Epitome of Goodness (was Choices)
In-Reply-To: <ebb66o+7ot3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebccqa+7fkk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156734

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "phoenixgod2000" <jmrazo at ...> 
wrote:
>

> I hate this idea more than words can say. I have reconciled myself 
> that I will probably never see Snape get the punishment I think he 
> deserves (and deserved long before the lightning struck tower) just 
> as I have reconciled that Ginny will be the lasting pairing for 
Harry 
> no matter how much I hate her. 

Well, I don't hate Ginny -- although I'll admit she hasn't gotten the 
character development she needs.  OBHWF has always struck me as a 
believable, if trite, ending to the shipping arcs.  And I certainly 
haven't reconciled myself to Snape escaping his just punishment for 
his abuse of Harry and Neville.  That would be a wood-chipper 
moment.  (Although I guess I have reconciled myself to it in the 
sense that I fully expect that the wood chipper will be very busy in 
a year or so).  But I do agree with the main gist of the argument, 
that turning Snape into the hero of the series would be, I think, an 
enormous mistake on JKR's part -- right on par with an epitome of 
goodness who approves of the abuse of children.



 But if JKR goes out and turns Snape 
> into an uber-hero who was on the right side the whole time, no 
> mistakes made, then I will give away my books and never read them 
> anything about Harry Potter again.  the books are entitled Harry 
> Potter and the *Blank*.  For Snape to have chosen to be a hero when 
> he was a teenager not only is a boring story choice, but takes away 
> from Harry, the guy who is supposed to be the hero of the story.
> 
> Snape at least becomes marginally more interesting if he is a 
flawed 
> man who made mistakes, tries to make up for them, and continues to 
> make mistakes along the way based on his human falliblities.  I 
still 
> hope to see bad things happen to him and for someone to call him on 
> all his crap from the first five books but like I said, I'm not 
> holding my breath.
> 

Well, holding your breath that long would be quite a feat! (Not being 
sarcastic here, just making a good-natured joke).  I agree that 
someone needs to call Snape on his abuse of Harry and Neville, and 
for that matter someone needs to call the shade of Dumbledore on his, 
IMO and I think maybe yours, contemptible failure to prevent that 
abuse (and if JKR comes out with the "Harry had to learn some hard 
lessons defense" I'll say her message is contemptible to the tenth 
power).

A Snape who makes specific mistakes is a much more interesting 
character, I agree, than one who has "always" been on the good side 
and "always" been doing the right thing.  A mistake-prone Snape is 
also, I think, less morally noxious.  But there are several varieties 
of Snape out there that might fit the bill -- Gray!Snape for 
instance, or UnlovedSon!Snape, or OFHwithapositivetwist!Snape, or 
LilyStalker!Snape, or UVwithseveralpeople!Snape, or 
DeepinDebtandHatingit!Snape

Actually, I am more concerned with rescuing DD.  If he's truly the 
epitome of goodness then, to quote Desi Arnez, "Jo, you got 
some 'splainin to do!"  Otherwise, the death scene in HBP really 
isn't very meaningful -- its just a manipulative, cold-natured, 
reprehensible old man biting the dust.


> why yes, I am a little bitter about the current state of the Harry 
> Potter series :)
> 
> phoenixgod2000
>

Oh, I agree Jo certainly has been working overtime to ruin the 
series, and has been ever since the titanic betrayal that many of her 
most ardent fans experienced in OOTP.  But compared to say, lung 
cancer, it isn't all that big of a blemish on the face of the 
universe.  Too bad about all the trees that got killed to put out the 
last couple of travesties, but then again, they're likely to wind up 
in wood chipper in any case, so I guess nature is just following its 
course in a round-a-bout way.


Lupinlore, who really does wonder what on Earth JKR was thinking 
about when she came out with that horrible and poorly-written mess of 
a fifth book








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug  9 14:23:14 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:23:14 -0000
Subject: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son (was  Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?))
In-Reply-To: <ebb66o+7ot3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebcr4i+dsqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156735

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
> But if JKR goes out and turns Snape
> into an uber-hero who was on the right side the whole time, no
> mistakes made, then I will give away my books and never read them
> anything about Harry Potter again.

Abergoat writes:
But what if Snape IS just another Voldemort-type (filled with hatred
and contempt for everyone) but just happens to hate Voldemort more
than everyone else? I don't think he'll be a hero even if he has
always been on the right side - I suspect anything he does is for
revenge, not a 'hero' worthy emotion. But Dumbledore would recognize
that everyone (even Mundungus) has their uses.

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
> Snape at least becomes marginally more interesting if he is a flawed
> man who made mistakes, tries to make up for them, and continues to
> make mistakes along the way based on his human falliblities.

Abergoat writes:
I think even Dumbledore fits that statement. Just as you hate the idea
of a good Snape I've never understood why so many people want Snape to
have joined the Death Eaters for the 'wrong' reasons and then 'see the
light'. Personally, I think the essence of character is relatively
fixed long before adulthood and Snape was an adult when he joined the
Death Eaters. People don't change that much in fundementals...and
certainly not over  unrequited love. I think JKR's grasp of what
drives people is better than that. Snape is calculating, I'm sure his
entrance into the Death Eaters was also calculated. Regulus was
different, it is suggested he was allowing himself to be driven by the
expectations of  others. I cannot say I can think of an instance where
we get that from Snape.

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
> I still
> hope to see bad things happen to him and for someone to call him on
> all his crap from the first five books but like I said, I'm not
> holding my breath.

Abergoat writes:
JKR tells us Snape is a horrible man so I'm sure he will be at the end
of the book too. But that doesn't predetermine his position on the
'bad' side, I think that is the only point that JKR will make. I
imagine Snape doesn't survive the series. But he probably will accept
death provided it brings about the death of his mortal enemy - whom I
suspect is Voldemort. So will he be 'punished' for past sins? That
will probably be viewpoint dependent.

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
> Snape/Lily is interesting. I think it could be done well, but I don't
> have faith in JKR to do it well after what I see as the shipping
> debacle of Half Blood Prince. Maybe a Snape/Lily romantic history
> might knock Saint Lily off her pedestal.

Abergoat writes:
Again, viewpoint dependent. I found none of the shipping in HBP a
surprise. But I will be surprised if there is Snape/Lily romantic
history. Personally I think Snape has a soft spot for the older but
very beautiful Narcissa - whom he never had the slightest hope of
capturing. If there is a tie between Lily and Snape I bet it was a
bond of friendship from mutual respect, shared talent and a possible
goal of healing someone together.

Abergoat










From bectay at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  9 00:53:33 2006
From: bectay at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 00:53:33 -0000
Subject: Three instead of four horcruxes left.
In-Reply-To: <eb8ccd+vbgd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebbbmd+tiud@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156736

Rebecca <bectay@> wrote:
> > > When Voldemort tried to kill Harry and the curse rebounded back
> > > on him, didn't one of the 6 horcruxes have to be used to keep
> > > him alive?

Tonks:
> > As to LV only having 5 horcruxes left, I disagree.  I think the
> > purpose of a horcrux is to bind your soul, all of it, to the
> > earth. When LV lost his body, his soul part that was still in
> > that body did not leave the earth. It did not go beyond.  So he
> > did not lose anything.

Joe:
> There is that nagging bit of information from the end of one of the
> novels <snip> where DD tells HP that LV transferred a bit of
> himself to Harry and that is why he is a parselmouth.... That
> makes me think again that the "bit" of LV that was passed onto HP
> is a bit of his soul. I know that whether HP's scar is a horcrux
> has been discussed ad nauseum, but as long as we are discussing
> what happed to LV when he tried to AK HP....


Rebecca:
If a horcrux binds the soul to earth, why does LV need 6?  Wouldn't
one be sufficient?  Wouldn't the same horcrux continue to bind his
soul to earth every time he "dies"?  Or, was he worried that it
(they) would be destroyed?

As far as HP's scar being a horcrux, my initial thought was "no
way", but I'm not ruling that out.  I agree that it has already been
discussed to death, so we will just end the horcrux discussion here.









From bectay at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug  9 01:02:48 2006
From: bectay at sbcglobal.net (Rebecca)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 01:02:48 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebbc7o+orsr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156737

Brothergib wrote:
> So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and
> then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it. We
> have DD's comment that he has watched Harry more closely than he
> knows, but we know that DD is at the ministry, so I don't think
> the 'DD in animagus form' theory would work here.
>
> Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?


Perhaps a hidden wizard painting that can hear what's going on in
the house????

Rebecca












From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug  9 16:32:50 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:32:50 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <44D98BC0.5000702@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ebd2ni+79el@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156738

KJ writes:

> The whole issue of seeing what appears to be an abusive 
> muggle husband with a witch wife is made more confusing 
> by naming the son, if that is what he is, after what is 
> most likely the wizarding half of the family. Severus is 
> not a muggle name. Was Snape taught to hate his muggle 
> heritage as Riddle came to do? Harry, also hates his 
> muggle relatives. I find the comparisons between these 
> three perplexing.

houyhnhnm:

I, too, was thinking that the choice of "Severus" as a name 
was his mother's, which suggests she may have been the one-up 
partner in the marriage (contradicting the image that Harry 
saw in Snape's mind).  It could also mean that Eileen's Muggle 
husband had already abandoned her by the time the child was 
born.  Or Snape's father could have been perfectly okay, even
proud, of having a wife who was a witch.  We just don't know.  

Latin names are not unheard of in the RL Muggle world.  I 
personally have known a Lucius and several Marcuses.  
"Severus' seems like a bit more of an affectation, 
though I have known a Severino.

Except for the scene in the Pensieve when Snape called 
Lily a Mudblood (which can be explained both by the fact 
that he was humiliated and that he may have begun, at 
this time, to be seduced by Voldemort and his followers 
whom he wanted to ape) there is no evidence that Snape 
hates Muggles or Muggle-born.  In all of his sarcasm 
towards Hermione, there are never any cheap shots about 
her Muggle heritage.  Snape takes cheek off the Muggle-born 
(as far as anyone knows) Dean Thomas without so much as 
deducting a House point.

We've been thrown all of these suggestive, but insubstantial, 
little tidbits about Snape's background. I think for now, 
it is impossible to know which are revealing and which are 
merely distractions to mislead the reader.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 16:45:11 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:45:11 -0000
Subject: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son (was Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?))
Message-ID: <ebd3en+ndq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156739

> > Mike earlier:

> > Snape *choses* to fight for the side of 'Light' and becomes 
> > a DE with the clear intention of infiltrating and undermining 
> > LV's organization. Harry, when all is said and done, got *chosen*, 
> > became the *chosen one* without making a choice himself.
> > So DD <snip> relegates Snape to fellow LV opposer and even 
> > enlists him to take part in the training Harry plan. This is 
> > another reason for Snape's jealousy, he made an active *choice*
> > to be on DD's side and is being supplanted by this brat that 
> > had celebrity handed to him.

> phoenixgod2000 responded:

> I hate this idea more than words can say. I have reconciled myself
> that I will probably never see Snape get the punishment I think he
> deserves (and deserved long before the lightning struck tower
<snip>
> For Snape to have chosen to be a hero when he was a teenager not 
> only is a boring story choice, but takes away from Harry, the guy
> who is supposed to be the hero of the story.
<snip>
> I still hope to see bad things happen to him and for someone to
> call him on all his crap from the first five books but like I said,
> I'm not holding my breath.

Mike now:

I think you've got me wrong, I too love to hate Snape. I would love
to see Harry hit Snape with every curse/hex from the *Prince's*  
potion book all at once. I'd include sectumsempra, waved around at 
Snape's left knee to give him a scar resembling the London 
Underground. Then for good measure, I want Neville to use a permanent 
sticking charm to dress Snape in Augusta's clothes, including that 
vulture topped hat.<Bg>

But, I'm just reading the tea leaves here. You know and I know that 
JKR isn't going there. I see Snape as the *only* character in this 
entire series to be redeemed, much as there are hordes of others that 
need it (OK, maybe Draco will be too, but his isn't as significant).

Since DD's pronouncement about *choices* in CoS we've seen woefully 
few people being rewarded for the *right* choices and even less being 
punished for their *wrong* or easy choices. Who's left? Harry didn't 
chose to be LV's vanquisher, it was thrust upon him. I'm not saying 
Harry has made any *wrong* significant choices, and Harry is still 
obviously the *Hero*.

Isn't it obvious that Snape was acting on DD's orders when he AKed him 
on the tower? He was told to do it to save Draco from becoming a 
killer as well as from being killed by the other DE's (why else were 
they there? Witnesses? Please!). Then, by taking charge, he hustles 
the DE's out of the school to minimize the damage to everybody else.
Remember, Snape was in his office when this whole escapade started. 
Obviously, he wasn't privy to what Draco's/LV's overall plan entailed. 
An ESE!Snape, in on the plan, doesn't wait in his office just so he 
can stun an unsuspecting Flitwick and chance missing everything.

Now, you say he was saving his own neck because of the UV he made with 
Narcissa, and you are right. But, for how long and at what cost? He is 
now the second most wanted wizard in the WW and he doesn't have the 
support network LV has. He may even have pissed LV off by intervening 
in Draco's behalf. I don't think LV wanted things to go off the way 
they did, LV had a different outcome in mind.

Did Snape make a bad *choice* in making the UV with Narcissa? IMO, yes 
he painted himself into a corner. But I also think there is another 
shoe to drop regarding the whole Snape-Malfoy connection. Remember the 
scene in GoF when Snape flinches at Harry naming Lucius as a DE? IMO, 
JKR put that in there because this connection has undertones that we 
have not been told about, yet. (How about Snape_loves_Narcissa for all 
you shippers <g>, I don't even have a rowboat).

It all comes down to: Who else fits the mold of making the *right* 
choice (assuming DDM!Snape) that you could see being redeemed in the 
end? Even if you loathe Snape, and who doesn't, he has to be JKR's 
prime candidate.







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  9 17:16:59 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:16:59 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End.
In-Reply-To: <ebb4n4+c7h9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd5ab+a9mm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156740

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:

> Most people seem to assume that because 
> Snape's father was a Muggle and the
> house is in a Muggle neighborhood that 
> it must be his childhood home.

I also assume it was Snape's childhood home because it seems the exact
sort of place a young Snape would grow up in, dingy, rather poor, and
in a Muggle neighborhood as befitting his Muggle father. I doubt JKR
will find a more colorful place.

> More hexes than most seventh years and he
learned them in a Muggle neighborhood 
> without detection 

It wouldn't be the ideal place to learn magic but Tom Riddle grew up
in a even worse environment and managed to learn some pretty
impressive magic on his own. I imagine most of the spells Snape knew
when he entered school were invented by him or at least discovered
independently by him; and he may have taken a peek at some of his
mother's old school books. 

Eggplant   








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 17:19:15 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:19:15 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebbeao+rom0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd5ej+lppu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156741

wynnleaf wrote:
> First I think there's the question of why JKR wanted to show us
> Spinners End at all.  Up to HBP, we knew almost nothing about Snape. 
> Assumptions among many fans were pureblood and aristocratic, like
the Malfoys and Blacks.  JKR has broken the myth of pureblood Snape. 
Why would JKR want to fool us into thinking Snape was from a working
class background?  I can't really see the point as we enter the "home
> stretch" of the series.
> 
> We know that Snape was using "used" textbooks in school.  That
implies coming from a poorer background.  Add to that, the greying
pants in the Snape's Worst Memory scene, which sounds like a kid who
didn't get new clothing very often.  
> 
<snip> 
> How could Snape learn so many hexes, etc. growing up at Spinners
End?  Hm, well, there's the library there -- perhaps belonging to his
mother.  He could learn a lot from that.  Also, Snape created lots of
spells in 6th year.  Perhaps he was creating spells even before
> Hogwarts.  If he came to school with spells he'd created, as well as
a lot learned from books, that would explain him knowing hexes and
jinxes that 7th years didn't know.
> 
<snip> 
 
> If Tobias died early in Snape's life, and Snape went to live with
> relatives, that doesn't explain away what was probably a lower
> economic situation (used textbooks, greying pants).  And if so,
where did the house come from?
> 
> The main objection I have to Snape not growing up with his parents,
or Spinners End not being his family home, is that after so much
silence on Snape's background, amidst such great curiosity about it,
JKR showed us what appeared to be a background almost completely at
odds with fan/reader assumptions.  I don't think she would have
appeared to have revealed his background so late in the series, only
to trick us and let us discover later that our assumptions (growing up
in a dark old wizarding family) were correct after all.  I just don't
see any point to that.  There's a lot of other things JKR is trying to
keep a mystery or surprise us about.  I don't think she's planning
another surprise like "Guess what?  Snape's really from a completely
different family background than you thought in the last book!"  
> 
> I mean, why would we *care* about such a twist?  We don't have a lot
> of reader "investment" in the Spinners End, working class
background. Why use that as a surprise twist?  There's no real impact.

Carol responds:
Impact or not, I can't reconcile Severus's growing up in a Muggle
neighborhood with knowing all those hexes, invented or not. Even if
the restriction on underage magic wasn't in effect when Severus was a
child, the Statute of Secrecy certainly was, and all those hexes being
performed in a Muggle neighborhood would certainly have been detected,
particularly if he hexed a Muggle. And Severus certainly identifies
with the Prince side of his family, which suggests, though it doesn't
prove, that he grew up with them--maybe as a kind of stepchild, the
*half-blood* Prince among the pure-bloods, which would explain the air
of neglect that Harry notes in the Pensieve memory and even the
greying underpants. If the Princes were like the Blacks, maybe they
didn't care about such things. Theri money would have been better
spent (in their view) on Dark artifacts. There's no indication that
Severus wore second-hand robes or any suggestion that his family was
as poor as the Weasleys.

I can't see young Severus dressing as a Muggle and attending a Muggle
school. (It's another matter for the adult Snape, who can Apparate and 
place anti-Muggle spells on his house, to hide there.) And having one
Potions book that belonged to his mother doesn't that all of his books
were second hand. Maybe a love of books runs in the family and he
inherited his mother's books--or the Prince family library. One things
for sure--those books didn't belong to Tobias. And Muggle houses in
industrial neighborhoods don't usually have wall-to-wall bookshelves
or magically hidden doors.

The house doesn't reveal anything about his childhood background. All
we learn about his background in HBP is that his witch mother married
a Muggle (which Hermione must have deduced, as someone said, from
Tobias's occupation and address as listed in the wedding
announcement). The idea that Spinner's End is his childhood home is an
assumption, and to me it makes no sense given all the hexes, which it
would have been much easier to learn, and much safer given the MoM's
methods of detecting illegal magic, to practice them in a house full
of pureblood wizards, Dark or otherwise, than in a Muggle
neighborhood, where he would easily get caught. And the magical
bookshelves are also a bit hard to explain in a Muggle house.

Why should we care whether Spinner's End was Severus's childhood home?
I have no idea. I just do.

Carol, who still thinks that Snape bought the place as an adult and
fixed it up to suit his tastes as a bachelor wizard who spent a lot of
time reading and not much time cleaning house







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 18:22:46 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:22:46 -0000
Subject: DD would not make Snape take a UV (Was: RE Good Reasons for DD to die)
In-Reply-To: <ebcag0+3nkt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd95m+gb8l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156742

> > > Carol earlier, quoting herself:
> > > > What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable > 
> >>Vow could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that
DD would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against
> > > > his will.
> SNIP
> 
> > Carol, still confused about how a UV could be a "gift" and hoping
that katssirius will clarify her position
> >
Brothergib responded: 
> Firstly, I believe (as many others have also posted) that DD's 
> blackened hand is evidence that the curse on the ring is probably 
> killing DD. Therefore, it is likely DD and Snape have already
discussed the possibility that Snape could publicly execute DD (when
DD was at death's door) to prove Snape's allegiance to LV.
> 
> One could then argue that the UV is irrelevant to Snape, since he
has already agreed with DD to be his executor. The big problem with
Snape taking the UV is that it limits his options. If he is going to
kill DD anyway and therefore prove his allegiance, why make the UV at
all? Bella will trust Snape soon enough!
> 
> One possibility is that Draco is the unknown quantity here! If Snape
is to kill DD, it has to be in a very particular way. Perhaps the UV
was supposed to prove Snape's allegiance to Draco. The hope is that
Draco will take Snape into his confidence and therefore DD/Snape have
more control over the situation. If this was the case, it didn't work.
Snape spends most of HBP trying to persuade Draco to let him help.
> 
> Another (less likely) scenario is that Snape really doesn't know 
> anything about Draco's task. It always seemed strange to me that LV 
> would let Snape know that Draco was involved in a plan to kill DD. I 
> don't think LV completely trusts Snape as yet (which is why he has 
> Wormtail spying on him) so why would he risk prewarning DD. If this
is the case, then perhaps it was just a calulated risk on Snape's
part. The aim being that in making the UV he might then find out more
about Draco's task.
> 
> Finally, maybe LV ordered Snape to make the UV. A loyal DE would not 
> think twice about agreeing to a pact to help kill DD. In that case
it could be seen as the 'ultimate gift' from Snape to LV ultimately 
> leading to the death of DD (the only one LV ever feared).

Carol responds:
For the record, I wasn't talking about the UV that Snape made with
Narcissa. I was discussing katssirius's suggestion that Dumbledore had
made Snape take a *different* UV and that *this other UV* was the
basis of DD's trust in Snape. I argued that a UV was Dark Magic and
that it involved compulsion, and for both reasons was antithetical to
DD's way of doing things. Katssirius conceded this point, but argued
that DD still extracts unwilling promises from people (for example,
the one he extracted from Harry before the cave expedition) and that
he seems to have asked such a promise from Snape. (Katssirius, please
correct me if I have your position wrong--BTW, it would help if you
linked your posts to the thread rather than making new posts.) I agree
that that seems to be some such promise on Snape's part (see the
argument in the forest), but I don't think it was the basis for DD's
trust in Snape, which goes back much farther, probably to the point
when he first began spying for DD before Godric's Hollow. (I do wish
that people wouldn't take small quotes out of context, which confuses
subsequent posters. Not that I'm opposing snipping, but enough context
should be left that the intended meaning is clear. Brothergib isn't
the only one who thought I was talking about Snape's UV to Narcissa
thanks to the out-of-context snippet.)

I'm still not clear as to what katssirius meant by "ultimate gift,"
but at least she(?) explained that she was talking about the vow or
promise that Snape made to DD (the one we know about from the argument
in the forest) and not about a second UV, which we agree that DD would
not have asked Snape to make. Nor were we implying that DD would have
asked Snape to make a UV with Narcissa. (That seems to be all her own
idea, made possible by the fact that Bella had followed her to Snape's
house and could act as bonder.) We were, again, discussing a
hypothetical UV between DD and Snape, which we agree was not made
because DD would not compel someone to do his bidding using Dark
magic. (The force of his personality is another matter, as I think we
see on the tower.)

As for the points you make here, I think that Snape took the
(canonical) UV because Narcissa asked him to swear to protect and
watch over Draco, as he intended to do, anyway. Taking that particular
vow was no great risk (he was used to walking a tightrope between life
and death, anyway) and would persuade Narcissa that he was on her side
(as he was, in the sense that he wanted to protect Draco and keep him
from commiting murder or being killed) and would help to dispel the
last of Bellatrix's doubts about his loyalty to LV. (Neither of them
was likely to tell Voldemort, who would not approve of their going
behind his back to protect Draco.) The third provision obviously
caught Snape by surprise (the hand twitch), but since he was on his
knees with his wand hand bound by ropes of fire to Narcissa's, there
wasn't much he could do except agree to it. (I believe that he told DD
about all three provisions but am not going to argue that here.)

Carol, hoping that the altered thread title will help posters to see
the point that she was actually trying to make







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug  9 18:34:10 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:34:10 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebd5ej+lppu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd9r2+1tai@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156743


> Carol responds:
> Impact or not, I can't reconcile Severus's growing up in a Muggle
> neighborhood with knowing all those hexes, invented or not. Even if
> the restriction on underage magic wasn't in effect when Severus 
was a
> child, the Statute of Secrecy certainly was, and all those hexes 
being
> performed in a Muggle neighborhood would certainly have been 
detected,
> particularly if he hexed a Muggle. And Severus certainly identifies
> with the Prince side of his family, which suggests, though it 
doesn't
> prove, that he grew up with them--maybe as a kind of stepchild, the
> *half-blood* Prince among the pure-bloods, which would explain the 
air
> of neglect that Harry notes in the Pensieve memory and even the
> greying underpants. If the Princes were like the Blacks, maybe they
> didn't care about such things. Theri money would have been better
> spent (in their view) on Dark artifacts. There's no indication that
> Severus wore second-hand robes or any suggestion that his family 
was
> as poor as the Weasleys.
> 
> I can't see young Severus dressing as a Muggle and attending a 
Muggle
> school. (It's another matter for the adult Snape, who can Apparate 
and 
> place anti-Muggle spells on his house, to hide there.) And having 
one
> Potions book that belonged to his mother doesn't that all of his 
books
> were second hand. Maybe a love of books runs in the family and he
> inherited his mother's books--or the Prince family library. One 
things
> for sure--those books didn't belong to Tobias. And Muggle houses in
> industrial neighborhoods don't usually have wall-to-wall 
bookshelves
> or magically hidden doors.
> 
> The house doesn't reveal anything about his childhood background. 
All
> we learn about his background in HBP is that his witch mother 
married
> a Muggle (which Hermione must have deduced, as someone said, from
> Tobias's occupation and address as listed in the wedding
> announcement). The idea that Spinner's End is his childhood home 
is an
> assumption, and to me it makes no sense given all the hexes, which 
it
> would have been much easier to learn, and much safer given the 
MoM's
> methods of detecting illegal magic, to practice them in a house 
full
> of pureblood wizards, Dark or otherwise, than in a Muggle
> neighborhood, where he would easily get caught. And the magical
> bookshelves are also a bit hard to explain in a Muggle house.
> 
> Why should we care whether Spinner's End was Severus's childhood 
home?
> I have no idea. I just do.
> 
> Carol, who still thinks that Snape bought the place as an adult and
> fixed it up to suit his tastes as a bachelor wizard who spent a 
lot of
> time reading and not much time cleaning house
>

wynnleaf
My impression is that the biggest problem for you with Snape growing 
up in a working class muggle neighborhood is Sirius' (or Lupin's?) 
assertion that he came to school knowing more jinxes and hexes than 
7th years.  Note that in that comment, it wasn't that Snape came to 
school knowing more Dark Magic, but more jinxes and hexes.  In 
another comment, Sirius and Lupin say that Snape was always really 
into the Dark Arts.  But we are not told that he came to school 
knowing lots of Dark Arts, just more hexes, etc.

Now my problem with this comment is that it is information we only 
get from Marauders.  Sirius and Lupin, and in particular Lupin, 
later acknowledge that their actions toward Snape were not right, 
but in general they try to justify their attitude toward Snape by 
saying that he hated them, never missed an opportunity to hex them 
(or James), gave as good as he got, etc.  I don't have my books 
here, but as I recall the comment about Snape knowing all the hexes 
and jinxes as a 1st year was not made in conjunction with 
justifications for their treatment of Snape.  Nevertheless, I think 
that the adult Marauders had a general tendency to try to view the 
school-age Snape in as much a "he deserved it," "he asked for it," 
and "we were justified in considering him an enemy from Day One," 
kind of way.  I would think that from the early part of their school 
days, the Marauders would sometimes have some sort of conscious 
stricken moments when they'd have to justify their attitude toward 
Snape.  Part of that would include reassuring themselves that Snape 
was always bad, came to school bad, etc.  

In real life, I probably wouldn't consider people like Lupin and 
Sirius to have a realistic "take" on their childhood enemy.  I'd 
think that they'd developed their own sort of mythos of Snape, which 
helped them feel better about their actions toward him.  

Of course, Snape's later actions of engaging in hexing matches with 
them, getting really interested in the Dark Arts, and eventually 
becoming a Death Eater, would all add to their viewpoint and tend to 
justify whatever they'd told themselves about him early on.

But I don't put a great deal of stock into a Marauder's evaluation --
 over 20 years later -- of 11 year old Snape's knowledge of hexes.  

In any case, even if he did know more hexes and jinxes, he *could* 
have learned them from books and his own creativity, and practiced 
them as well.  After all, as long as his mother was living there, 
too, wouldn't any Ministry of Magic detection of magic have been 
assumed to be *her* actions, not Severus'?  I think I recall this 
being explained somewhere in either one of the last two books or by 
JKR in an interview.

wynnleaf






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 19:01:17 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:01:17 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebcpvo+8338@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdbdt+gp8e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156744

Brothergib wrote:
> I think we must remember that at the end of OOTP, DD tells Harry
that he had concocted a plan to destroy LV. That plan involved Harry,
and because of it's importance it was imperative that DD not generate 
> feelings for Harry. The plan was too important. Therefore we have 
> canon evidence that DD had decided on a course of action to defeat 
> Voldemort and that he would have to remain emotionally detatched for 
> it to succeed. As we know, in the case of Harry, he failed in this 
> goal.
> However, it also seems that this plan also involved Severus Snape.
It therefore follows that DD would also tell himself that he needed to 
> remain emotionally detatched from the consequences for Snape that 
> this plan entailed. I do not think it would be hard for DD to remain 
> emotionally detatched when it came to Snape!!
> 
> Therefore, from his own mouth, DD has stated that he very much
wanted to be cold, hard, detatched from the suffering of others to
ensure his plan succeeded!
>
Carol responds:
I agree that DD had a plan to defeat LV that involved Snape and that
would work best if he remained emotionally detached, and I agree that
he failed to remain emotionally detached with Harry, who would have to
face terrible danger if Voldemort was to be destroyed. But I think DD
also failed to remain detached from Snape, whom he was also sending,
repeatedly, into terrible danger.

Canon evidence from the scene where DD sends Snape to Voldemort to
claim that he's still a loyal DE (note that Snape has just displayed
loyalty to DD by showing Fudge his Dark Mark as proof that LV has
returned):

"'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 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" (GoF Am. ed. 713).

There can be only one explanation for DD's silence. He's too overcome
by emotion to speak. (BTW, Snape's paleness and glittering eyes
exactly mirror Harry's before he enters the third-floor corridor in
SS/PS, a description the narrator has to step out of Harry's pov to
give us.)

So, yes, DD has a long-standing plan to defeat LV and Snape has always
been part of it, at great risk to himself. But DD is not indifferent
to Snape, nor does he fail to appreciate his courage and the valuable
services that only he can perform. I would even argue that Dumbledore
loves Snape as a son, as this excerpt seems to show. (IMO, Snape loves
him in return, which made it extremely difficult to obey DD's last
wish, but that isn't part of this argument.)

Carol, who find this scene and Snape's courageous revelation of his
Dark Mark to Fudge compelling evidence that Snape is DDM






From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Wed Aug  9 19:20:27 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 19:20:27 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebd5ej+lppu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdchr+eep1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156745

>Carol responds:
>Impact or not, I can't reconcile Severus's growing up in a Muggle
>neighborhood with knowing all those hexes, invented or not. 
>snip<
>The house doesn't reveal anything about his childhood background.
>snip<
>Carol, who still thinks that Snape bought the place as an adult and
>fixed it up to suit his tastes as a bachelor wizard who spent a lot 
of
>time reading and not much time cleaning house.

Laurawkids:

First, a question to you all.  Do we know where Harry's town, or 
Snape's are?  Do we have general directions to place them here or 
there in the UK?  If we know they are nowhere near each other, then 
never mind, but if we have nothing on them yet, I think I have found 
something in OOTP which may support what Carol says here.  

p. 56 OOTP US paperback:

   "Bearing south!" shouted Mad-Eye.  "Town ahead!"
   "They soared right, so that they did not pass directly over the 
glittering **spiderweb** of lights below." (** mine)

It's not much, but this may be a tip-off that Spinner's End is in 
the next town over from Harry.  That may show that Snape took the 
house years ago to be closer to pre-Hogwarts Harry, or the house is 
really a safe-house for the Order with Snape being its main 
tennant.  

With things heating up and Harry coming of age soon, LV would 
certainly have liked Wormtail to do his own scouting of the 
Dursley's area, and keep track on Snape's interaction with Harry 
over the summer, so he puts him there.  

Dumbledore may have summoned the dusty mead from Spinner's End.  It 
would be the closest stock of it.   

Will Snape and Draco find that Sp.End is surrounded when they flee, 
and decide that there is some sort of protection to be had at the 
Dursley's?!!  

Would that not be fun, to find that all the Harry-haters were 
uncomfortably camped at No. 4, waiting for Harry to come back from 
the wedding?!!!!  They would get on like a house on fire!!  Snape 
would have to hide in Harry's closet under the stairs at some point, 
just for fun.  



Not related, but I wonder what the state of protection is now at 
Hogwarts, after DD messed with it so they could fly in on their 
brooms.  Will Harry remember this in a desperate moment in the 
summer and be able to enter and have Hogwarts and DD's office and 
pensive all to his onesies?  We know Harry now has many ways of 
unlocking doors.  

We know Snape can fly well enough to referee, maybe he was 
legellem'd by DD that this was a new way in, so he could take refuge 
there after everyone went home.  Will Harry be there and confront 
Snape, thus giving them a nice uninterrupt-ed/able hashing out of 
everything?

And why did Sluggy seem a bit anxious to get everyone gone from 
Hogwarts the night DD died?  That seems like some plan.   

Laurawkids, who would never, ever shred a book unless it was about 
Barney the purple dinosaur.
     














From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug  9 20:52:20 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:52:20 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <ebdbdt+gp8e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdhu4+ol7v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156746

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>> "'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 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" (GoF Am. ed. 
713).
> 
> There can be only one explanation for DD's silence. He's too 
overcome
> by emotion to speak. (BTW, Snape's paleness and glittering eyes
> exactly mirror Harry's before he enters the third-floor corridor in
> SS/PS, a description the narrator has to step out of Harry's pov to
> give us.)
> 

Playing devil's advocate, that is not the only explanation. It could 
simply be that DD is deep in thought now that his plan is finally 
kicking into action. It could be that DD is worrying about whether 
Snape can pull it off. IMO Snape being trusted by LV is key to 
Harry's eventual defeat of LV. Therefore DD would be very worried 
about Snape's first contact with LV. He would be worried whether he 
was emotionally involved or not. It is vital to the success of the 
plan!

Brothergib






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug  9 21:15:33 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:15:33 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eb3v5d+rg0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdj9l+f7sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156747

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "katssirius" <katbofaye at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol wrote earlier:
> "There must be some more valid reason for Dumbledore's trust in 
Snape
> than a vow that would cost Snape's life if he broke it. IOW,
> Dumbledore must believe that Snape deserves his trust and have solid
> reasons for that belief.
> 
> "Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there 
are
> some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable 
Vows
> as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes"
> 
Katssirius replied:
> I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
> way.  I think you make an excellent argument both for it being dark
> magic and a compulsion.  I thought of it as the ultimate gift.  I
> will stake my life on this vow.  However I understand your point
> that the nobility of the gift is lost once choice is lost and as you
> said Dumbledore believes in choices.  

My apologies for not reading the posts correctly! Was trying to cram 
in a post in the 5 minutes I had at work! I thought I had therefore 
better reply to the original post. The way katssirius presents the UV 
as an 'ultimate gift' would suggest that Snape had said to DD that he 
would make an UV to prove his allegiance. Is this the case? If so, I 
think DD would decline this as an unnecessary gesture. 

If we belive that DD doesn't misjudge people, then the fact that  
Snape deeply regrets that LV targeted the Potters, could give us a 
strong enough reason for DD to trust Snape. Whether this deep regret 
is due to feelings for Lily or because he feels he 'owes' James is 
not certain yet.

Brothergib







From littleleah at handbag.com  Wed Aug  9 21:25:50 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:25:50 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebdchr+eep1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdjsu+602f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156748

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama at ...> 
wrote:
> 
> First, a question to you all.  Do we know where Harry's town, or 
> Snape's are?  Do we have general directions to place them here or 
> there in the UK?  If we know they are nowhere near each other, 
then 
> never mind, but if we have nothing on them yet, I think I have 
found 
> something in OOTP which may support what Carol says here.  
> 
> p. 56 OOTP US paperback:
> 
>    "Bearing south!" shouted Mad-Eye.  "Town ahead!"
>    "They soared right, so that they did not pass directly over the 
> glittering **spiderweb** of lights below." (** mine)
> 
> It's not much, but this may be a tip-off that Spinner's End is in 
> the next town over from Harry.  That may show that Snape took the 
> house years ago to be closer to pre-Hogwarts Harry, or the house 
is 
> really a safe-house for the Order with Snape being its main 
> tennant.  

Leah:

I think the only geographical canon we have is from PS/SS which has 
the original statement that Little Whinging is in Surrey, and we are 
also told that Harry returns from his trip to Diagon Alley from 
London's Paddington station.  Based on the fact that no town in 
Surrey is served from Paddington (it's either Waterloo or Victoria 
stations), an ingenious article:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/britain/atlas-b-surrey.html

 in the HP Lexicon has worked out a location for Little Whinging 
near the Berkshire border, Berkshire generally being served by 
trains from Paddington. 

As to Spinners End, I don't think we are given any geographical 
location, although the setting, urban decay, canal and mill chimney 
strongly suggest a north country, possibly Yorkshire or Lancashire 
setting, though a large Midlands town like Birmingham or 
Wolverhampton would not be ruled out.  (It could of course be in 
Scotland or another part of the British Isles, but the picture it 
conjured for me was a northern English town).

If your idea is correct, and the lexicon essay is correct, then the 
town would have to be due south of the Egham/Staines area of 
Surrey.  The first large town due south is Guildford in Surrey which 
does not present the right sort of mental picture at all, being a 
commuter/service industry town, quite affluent.  Looking at this 
history of industry in Guildford:

http://www.guildford.gov.uk/GuildfordWeb/Leisure/Guildford+Museum/Gui
ldfordSites/HistoryNotes/Industry+and+Railways.htm

you can see that it was once a biggish railway town, had a large 
brewing industry and an ironworks, which might help your case.  It 
also has a canalised river, but that's well maintained, and the bits 
I've seen don't resemble the setting in OOTP.  

The problem with this, is that if the Lexicon essay has correctly 
located Little Whinging, then a flight south towards Guildford, (or 
anywhere due south of Little Whinging) would mean having to fly 
north east towards London, whereas Moody goes south east, then veers 
south west to avoid the motorway (M25 etc).  That only works if 
Grimmauld place is situated somewhere near the south coast rather 
than in central London. 

I have to say that I find the idea of a southern location for 
Spinners End highly dubious,given its description and if Snape was 
really placed there to keep an eye on Harry, wouldn't we have some 
hint of this in at least one of the books?   

Leah  






From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug  9 21:15:32 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:15:32 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebd5ej+lppu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdj9k+4viv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156749

Carol responds:

> Impact or not, I can't reconcile Severus's growing up 
> in a Muggle neighborhood with knowing all those hexes,

houyhnhnm:

What hexes do we *know* that Snape knew before he came 
to school?  There is only Sirius'statement that "Snape 
knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the 
kids in seventh year", which is clearly hyperbole (and 
Sirius is given to it).  I'm not ready to take Sirius' 
word for it without some other kind of corroboration in 
canon.  Not just because he biased, but because 
exaggeration is his style.

I don't doubt that Snape knew a lot more *about* magic 
than the average first year when he arrived at Hogwarts. 
Maybe he even knew more spells. So did Hermione and she 
was raised not only in a Muggle neighborhood, but by Muggle parents.

Carol:

> All we learn about his background in HBP is that his 
> witch mother married a Muggle (which Hermione must have 
> deduced, as someone said, from Tobias's occupation and 
> address as listed in the wedding announcement).

houyhnhnm:

"Tobias Snape was a Muggle from what it said in the _Prophet_."  
I took that to mean that the _Prophet_ stated Tobias was a 
Muggle, but now I see it could also be interpreted merely 
as Hermione's deduction.  In that case, Tobias Snape 
may not have been a Muggle at all.  That would be a hoot!  
(Maybe he was a Squib ;-)

Snape could still be a half-blood, since Rowling has divided 
the WW into purebloods, half-bloods, and Muggle-born (25%, 
50%, 25%, respectively, at least at Hogwarts).  Apparently 
there is no such thing as a three-quarters wizard, or a 
one-eighth witch. Anyone with some Muggle ancestry, but 
at least one magical parent is considered a half-blood.  
It follows that we can't really say anything about Eileen's 
ancestry either.  She could have had a Muggle parent herself 
and married a Muggle and her son would still be called 
"half-blood" by the WW.

Or *maybe* Severus Snape is not the Half Blood Prince after 
all.  I've been feeling all along that the push to conclude 
Snape is the HBP was very strong and the hard evidence very 
weak and very circular.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug  9 22:13:49 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 18:13:49 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End
References: <ebdj9k+4viv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002001c6bc01$1df19a80$6d92400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156750

houyhnhnm102:
> Or *maybe* Severus Snape is not the Half Blood Prince after
> all.  I've been feeling all along that the push to conclude
> Snape is the HBP was very strong and the hard evidence very
> weak and very circular.

Magpie:
Weak and circular?  The man comes out an introduces himself as the 
Half-Blood Prince in the book.  Pretty straight and to the point, with 
nothing we know contradicting it.

-m 





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 22:27:46 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:27:46 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebbc7o+orsr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdnh2+tqtr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156751

Rebecca wrote: 
> Perhaps a hidden wizard painting that can hear what's going on in
> the house????

Carol responds:
That's a really good suggestion, which would explain how DD knew that
Vernon was threatening to throw Harry out and Petunia was in danger of
capitulating, though the wizard would have had to be a quick talker. 

It might also explain how "the sender of the letter" in SS/PS
(McGonagall?) knew that Harry had been moved from the cupboard under
the stairs to the smallest bedroom, though it wouldn't explain how the
sender also knew that the family had moved to "the Hut on the Rock,
the Sea." (Maybe the letter magically "knew" the address, just as owls
seem to know how to find the recipient of a letter, even without an
address?)

Still, I like the possibility of a hidden wizard painting better than
chocolate frog cards, which Petunia certainly wouldn't have in her
house. Not that she'd want a hidden wizard painting, either, but maybe
it was part of her bargain with Dumbledore. Woe to Petunia if Vernon
ever finds it!

Carol, who thinks that the instruments on DD's desk are another way
that DD could watch Harry more closely than he knows and hopes they'll
be explained in Book 7 despite DD not being there to do it himself







From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug  9 23:15:44 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 23:15:44 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <002001c6bc01$1df19a80$6d92400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ebdqb0+f6sb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156752

Magpie:

> Weak and circular?  The man comes out an introduces himself 
> as the Half-Blood Prince in the book.  Pretty straight and to 
> the point with nothing we know contradicting it.

houyhnhnm:

And nothing supporting it except the statement of the man who ran 
across the lawn.  How do we know it was Snape?

Talk about a Chekhov's Gun.  Rowling brings a .500 Magnum on stage, 
shows it to us no less than three times in the first five chapters 
(purple homeland security leaflet, DD's remark about stawberry jam, 
Arthur and Molly's exchange of passwords) and then uses it to shoot 
blanks (Grabbe and Goyle disguised as little girls). 







From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Aug 10 00:38:11 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:38:11 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebdqb0+f6sb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdv5j+41hv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156753

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>

> 
> And nothing supporting it except the statement of the man who ran 
> across the lawn.  How do we know it was Snape?
> 
 
and who WOULD know?  Harry asked Lupin if he knew who the Half-Blood
Prince was and Lupin didn't know - Harry told him about the old
Potions book and the spells and still Lupin didn't have a clue.  So,
it was not common knowledge on who the identity of the HBP was.

Snape knew...Snape knew because Harry used Sectumsempra on Draco -
Snape created that hex.  Snape knew because Harry was a Potion's 
genuis, something that Harry never was while Snape taught the class. 

Snape knew his old Potions book fell into Harry's hands - he knew it
because he saw it in Harry's mind.

When Harry tried the Levicorpus spell, non verbally, Snape knew.  That
is when he revealed to Harry that he was the Half-Blood Prince.  

Snape knew way too much about the spells and the book.  He only could
have known all those things if he was the author, the owner, the Half
Blood Prince.

And with his mother's maiden name being Prince, the pieces of the
puzzle fall neating into place.  

colebiancardi
(I didn't know there was any doubt that Snape is the Half-Blood Prince)







From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Aug 10 00:48:16 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:48:16 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebdv5j+41hv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdvog+5bqu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156754

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote:
 
> And with his mother's maiden name being Prince, the pieces of the
> puzzle fall neating into place.  

that should be falling neatly into place.

And English is my first language...

jeezz......

colebiancardi







From mros at xs4all.nl  Wed Aug  9 22:41:02 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:41:02 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End.
References: <ebd5ab+a9mm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <002f01c6bc04$e4da2330$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156755

Eggplant:

>>>I also assume it was Snape's childhood home because it seems the exact
sort of place a young Snape would grow up in, dingy, rather poor, and
in a Muggle neighborhood as befitting his Muggle father. I doubt JKR
will find a more colorful place.<<<



Marion:

Is there any reason why a wizard family wouldn't live between Muggles?
The Ancient and Noble Black family lived in Grimauld Place, the only wizard family in a whole neighbourhood of Muggles!
I think Sev lived with his grandparents (I think he lost both parents before going to Hogwarts) in Spinners End. Why should the Princes be any different than the Turnpikes or the Ollivanders.
The Ollivanders probably live above the shop, but who knows where and how the Turnpikes live? Not every wizard family has a manor or a cottage in the country. Not every wizard family is independent rich or works for the Ministery. Some of them are shopkeepers or they make things. My guess would be that the Princes were one of these 'working class' wizard families. Or maybe they had once seen better times but things got rough. It happens.
I find it rather disturbing that the fact that Tobias Snape was a Muggle would immediately suggest to people that the Snapes lived in squalor. As if Wizards could not live in squalor (the Gaunts for instance?) As if Muggles were somehow a dirty, filty subspecies of near-humans whose favourite pasttime would be rolling around in the mud.
Or do I misread the post and you mean that Snape was apparantly poor (dingy grey underwear etc) and that Spinner's End fits that image?
Still. A working class neighbourhood in a Northern industrial town in the fifties and sixties when Snape grew up might not have been rich, but it would have been clean. Very clean. Scrubbed stoops, polished doorknobs. Women judged eachother on the cleanliness of their homes, the way the children were dressed (clean and whole if not entirely new) and how those children behaved (polite) And how often their respective husbands went to the pub.
"Never to poor to buy soap", was the motto in those days.

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







From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 00:00:47 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:47 -0000
Subject: History and Myth Behind HP
In-Reply-To: <d10ko3+ohnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdsvf+ssrc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156756

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Maria" <queen_amidalachic at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> The Stag
> 
> In a unicorn legend I came across, it is believed that the stag a 
> friend of the unicorn would devour the serpent, who represented 
evil. 

Joe:
The white stag in Irish mythology is one of the animals which if you 
see it and follow it you are likely to find yourself in the magical 
otherworld.









From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 00:45:22 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:45:22 -0000
Subject: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?
In-Reply-To: <eb2i0j+bdpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdvj2+salv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156757

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" 
<eggplant107 at ...> wrote:
> 
> I won't pretend this theory has no holes in it; for one thing it's 
not
> very compatible with the hatred etched into the harsh lines of 
Snape's
> face when he killed Dumbledore. 

Joe:
I think DD told (through occlumency/legilimency combo) Snape to undo 
the freezing charm on HP as the DEs were leaving the tower. Snape 
didn't want to hence his look of hatred. I don't buy HPs theory that 
a spell dies when the caster dies because HPs protection under the 
Dursley's roof that DD cast holds until he's 17. 

>And for another it's very hard to
> understand why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry what was going on, if 
not
> before the killing then immediately after in a letter or 
something. 

Joe: 
Owls can be intercepted and DD couldn't allow Harry's interfering 
with the plan or LV finding out. 









From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Wed Aug  9 20:39:06 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 20:39:06 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebdchr+eep1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdh5a+rlbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156758

> >Carol responds:
> >Impact or not, I can't reconcile Severus's growing up in a Muggle
> >neighborhood with knowing all those hexes, invented or not.
> >snip<
> >The house doesn't reveal anything about his childhood background.
> >snip<
> >Carol, who still thinks that Snape bought the place as an adult
and
> >fixed it up to suit his tastes as a bachelor wizard who spent a
lot
> of
> >time reading and not much time cleaning house.
>
> Laurawkids:
>
> First, a question to you all.  Do we know where Harry's town, or
> Snape's are?  Do we have general directions to place them here or
> there in the UK?  If we know they are nowhere near each other,
then
> never mind, ....<snip>


Laurawkids:
I answered my own query by going to the Lexicon.  It seems that
Spinner's End is far from London, while Little Whinging is not too
far.  I wouldn't put it past Moody in that scene to fly way out of
their way, but it really describes the spiderweb lights as the first
town they fly over.  Sorry.

Laurawkids, wistfully thinking of thet "Convocation of Hate" at the
Dursley's and wishing I could read all the great exchanges between
those assembled.









From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Aug 10 01:28:07 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 01:28:07 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebdv5j+41hv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebe237+tskn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156759

colebiancardi:
 
> Snape knew...Snape knew because Harry used Sectumsempra 
> on Draco -Snape created that hex.  Snape knew because Harry 
> was a Potion's genuis, something that Harry never was while 
> Snape taught the class.

houyhnhnm:

Snape did not reveal that he had created the Sectumsempra 
curse during the scene in the bathroom. That scene can 
be read with the assumption that Snape is only suspicious 
of Harry being up to something (and Snape is always 
suspicious that Harry is up to something).  There is 
nothing in the chapter to contradict such a reading.  

colebiancardi:

> Snape knew his old Potions book fell into Harry's hands - 
> he knew it because he saw it in Harry's mind.

houyhnhnm:

He saw *a* potions book in Harry's mind.  He could recognize 
it as his own or he could simply want to see the book because 
he supects Harry of being up to something, knows Harry cannot 
do Occlumency, and therefore knows the thought coming to the 
forefront of Harry's mind is connected with the use of a Dark
curse.  There is no hard evidence in that chapter to tell us 
which it is.

colebiancardi:

> When Harry tried the Levicorpus spell, non verbally, Snape 
> knew.  That is when he revealed to Harry that he was the 
> Half-Blood Prince.

houyhnhnm:

Only if the man on the lawn really *is* Snape.  There is 
nothing, I mean nothing, else in the book that *proves* 
Snape is the HBP except the statement of the man on the 
lawn.  The only other canon connection between Snape and 
Levicorpus is the fact that it was used *on* him.   And 
how do we know for sure that it really was Snape on the 
lawn?  Because he said he was the HBP. That's what I mean 
by a circular argument.

colebiancardi:  
 
> Snape knew way too much about the spells and the book.  
> He only could have known all those things if he was the 
> author, the owner, the Half Blood Prince.

houyhnhnm:

Or because he is the DADA professor, a former Death Eater, 
used the Libatius Borage book when he was a student, and 
had Levicorpus used on him.

colebiancardi:

> And with his mother's maiden name being Prince, the pieces 
> of the puzzle fall neating into place.

houyhnhnm:

We don't even know that for sure, only that a woman named 
Eileen Prince married a man named Snape and they had a child.  
If the name of the child had been mentioned or even the date 
of the birth announcement had been given I would feel more 
secure that I was not being led down the garden path.

I'm not sure that the "Snape" was a polyjuiced impostor.  
I can't begin to imagine who it would be, if not Snape.  
I'm only saying that there is no evidence in the entire 
book of Snape being the HBP except the statement in "Flight 
of the Prince" and there is no proof that it really is 
Snape on the lawn and that makes me suspicious.

Somebody, show me one piece of evidence that doesn't 
involve conjecture, insinuation, sleight of hand, or 
leaping to a conclusion. 








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 02:04:24 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:04:24 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebdqb0+f6sb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebe478+ff0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156760

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>
> Magpie:
> 
> > Weak and circular?  The man comes out an introduces himself 
> > as the Half-Blood Prince in the book.  Pretty straight and to 
> > the point with nothing we know contradicting it.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> And nothing supporting it except the statement of the man who ran 
> across the lawn.  How do we know it was Snape?
> 
> Talk about a Chekhov's Gun.  Rowling brings a .500 Magnum on stage, 
> shows it to us no less than three times in the first five chapters 
> (purple homeland security leaflet, DD's remark about stawberry jam, 
> Arthur and Molly's exchange of passwords) and then uses it to shoot 
> blanks (Grabbe and Goyle disguised as little girls).
>
Carol responds:
Nothing except his handwriting, mentioned in OoP, his potion-making
ability, his invention of those spells, etc. Only snape would have
brought up James as he was (very skilfully) fending off Harry's
spells. do you think it was also someone else who saved DD from the
ring horcrux, Katie Bell from the cursed necklace, and Draco from
Sectumsempra? And who but the inventor of Sectumsempra would know the
countercurse?

Assuming a straightforward reading with the man on the tower being
Snape, the evidence for Snape as HBP is all there in the book--and
IMO, that mystery is solved, as the minor mystery of each book always
is. If that man is an imposter and snape is not the HBP, all the irony
of Harry learning from and identifying with the young Snape is lost.

We have enough mysteries to be getting on with just figuring out
Snape's motives on the tower. What's to be gained by making him
someone else?

Carol, who thinks that if anyone wasn't who they appeared to be in
HBP, it was Tonks







From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Aug 10 02:44:11 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:44:11 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebe237+tskn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebe6hr+ghju@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156761

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
<big snip> 
> We don't even know that for sure, only that a woman named 
> Eileen Prince married a man named Snape and they had a child.  
> If the name of the child had been mentioned or even the date 
> of the birth announcement had been given I would feel more 
> secure that I was not being led down the garden path.
> 
> I'm not sure that the "Snape" was a polyjuiced impostor.  
> I can't begin to imagine who it would be, if not Snape.  
> I'm only saying that there is no evidence in the entire 
> book of Snape being the HBP except the statement in "Flight 
> of the Prince" and there is no proof that it really is 
> Snape on the lawn and that makes me suspicious.
> 
> Somebody, show me one piece of evidence that doesn't 
> involve conjecture, insinuation, sleight of hand, or 
> leaping to a conclusion.
>

really.  I mean.  Do we really think that JKR wrote up this whole
complicated plot, which spanned the whole of book 6, only to discard
it in book 7?  with everything else that has to be done, do we really
need *another* polyjuiced imposter(been there, done that) and the
*real* Snape is tucked away somewhere else?  

Snape knew the countercurse to Sectumsempra - I never stated that he
told Harry that he knew the curse in the bathroom scene.  I was
referring to the part in the chapter "Flight of the Prince".  Snape
tells Harry he invented Levicorpus and Sectumsempra (because Harry
tried to use them on Snape during that fight) ... Snape's words are
"You dare use my spells against me, Potter?  It was I who invented
them - I, the Half Blood Prince" 

I think JRK pretty much spelled it out for her readers with the
chapter heading - The Flight of the Prince.   Who is fleeing?  Snape.
 Unless, for some unknown reason, Draco is supposed to be the HBP.  

As readers haven't even asked her this question, gee, is Snape really
the Half Blood Prince, I think it is pretty much a given he is who he
says he is.  

I think that JKR spelled it out quite clearly.  There is such a thing
as overkill.   What does either a real Snape or a fake Snape have to
gain by admitting they are the Half Blood Prince?  

And the news article - isn't Hermione considered the voice of reason
and truth?  If you want a straight answer, go to Hermione....<bg>she
never did finish her sentence, but she wouldn't have stated that
Eileen & Tobias didn't have a son named Severus if she hadn't of read
it in the paper.  She did state they had a son and then Harry rudely
interrupted her before she could finish. 

colebiancardi
(I mean, how many people doubted that Vader when he stated he was
Luke's father?  I didn't.  I thought it was bang-y and was horrified
by it, but I believed it)
 







From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Aug 10 04:03:00 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 04:03:00 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebe478+ff0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebeb5k+f96n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156762

*-Carol responds:

> Nothing except his handwriting, mentioned in OoP, his 
> potion-making ability, his invention of those spells, etc. 
> Only snape would have brought up James as he was (very 
> skilfully) fending off Harry's spells. do you think it 
> was also someone else who saved DD from the ring horcrux,
> Katie Bell from the cursed necklace, and Draco from 
> Sectumsempra? And who but the inventor of Sectumsempra 
> would know the countercurse?

houyhnhnm:

How do we know Snape invented those spells?  Because he's 
the Half Blood Prince.  How do we know he's the Half Blood 
Prince?  Because he invented the spells.  That's my point.

There have been a lot more than two students at Hogwarts 
with small cramped handwriting, I feel pretty confident. 
Snape's class seems to have been unusually talented. We 
don't know that the spell Snape performs on Draco is a 
specific counter-curse to Sectumsempra. "Snape"'s reference 
to "your filthy father" is the weak point in my argument.  
It is the closest thing to proof that "Snape" is Snape. 
And I'm not claiming that Snape was not Snape all through 
the book, only at the end.

Carol:
 
> Assuming a straightforward reading with the man on 
> the tower being Snape, 

houyhnhnm:

If Snape is the man on the tower, then, yeah, he's the 
Half Blood Prince.  I'm not assuming he's the man on the tower.

Carol:

> We have enough mysteries to be getting on with just figuring 
> out Snape's motives on the tower. What's to be gained by making 
> him someone else?

houyhnhnm:

The answer to the question of Snape's motives on the tower may be that 
he wasn't on the tower. 






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug  9 16:18:01 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:18:01 -0000
Subject: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son (was  Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?))
In-Reply-To: <ebcr4i+dsqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd1rp+eegg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156763

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
But if JKR goes out and turns Snape into an uber-hero who was on the 
right side the whole time, no mistakes made, then I will give away 
my books and never read them anything about Harry Potter again.

Abergoat writes:
But what if Snape IS just another Voldemort-type (filled with hatred 
and contempt for everyone) but just happens to hate Voldemort more 
than everyone else? I don't think he'll be a hero even if he has 
always been on the right side - I suspect anything he does is for 
revenge, not a 'hero' worthy emotion. But Dumbledore would recognize 
that everyone (even Mundungus) has their uses.

phoenixgod2000 wrote:
Snape at least becomes marginally more interesting if he is a flawed 
man who made mistakes, tries to make up for them, and continues to 
make mistakes along the way based on his human falliblities.

Abergoat writes:
I think even Dumbledore fits that statement. Just as you hate the 
idea
of a good Snape I've never understood why so many people want Snape 
to
have joined the Death Eaters for the 'wrong' reasons and then 'see 
the
light'. Personally, I think the essence of character is relatively
fixed long before adulthood and Snape was an adult when he joined the
Death Eaters. People don't change that much in fundementals...and
certainly not over unrequited love. I think JKR's grasp of what
drives people is better than that. Snape is calculating, I'm sure his
entrance into the Death Eaters was also calculated. Regulus was
different, it is suggested he was allowing himself to be driven by 
the
expectations of others. I cannot say I can think of an instance where
we get that from Snape.

Tinktonks:

Sorry to be a conversation crasher but I just had to throw my two 
cents in here, Firstly I think it is very sad that you would give 
away your books if Snape turned out to be a good guy Phoenixgod. 
Personally I love Snape as a character because he is a complex 
person. If he turns out to be a good guy then that is just one more 
level to him. I think Sirius phrased it best (Cant remember the 
exact quote but it was along the lines of `the world isn't divided 
into nice people and death eaters').

As Harry us the `hero' (subject to book 7 of course) I'm sure he 
would be dubbed `good guy' yet he doesn't always treat people that 
nicely.

Snape is a bitter warpish jerk who exerts power over people by 
putting them down, this is not nice but it doesn't mean he cant do 
good things. If Snape turns on LV and saves the day, he may be a 
have a go hero but it does not make him a brilliant person.

I also have to disagree with Abergoat (which pains me dearly as I 
love your posts and theories!!!) I don't think peoples personalities 
are set before adulthood at all. I can say from personal experience 
that people DO change dramatically.

Two years ago I got cancer and many people around me where affected 
so dramatically by this that they completely turned their lives 
around. Someone who I had come to dislike intensely suddenly 
realised how awful there behaviour had been and how it affected 
other people. She has never acted in this way again and is one of my 
best friends.

I think despite all his inadequacies and bitterness Snape cares very 
deeply for Dumbledore. I believe that if DD's death turns Snapes 
life around then it wouldn't be too much of a surprise.

I think JKR really does have a great understanding I human nature 
and believes in chances just like DD!

Tinktonks - Rant over. Sorry!










From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 09:10:51 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:10:51 -0000
Subject: DD would not make Snape take a UV (Was: RE Good Reasons for DD to die)
In-Reply-To: <ebd95m+gb8l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebet6r+8lr8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156764

> Carol:
<snip> I think that Snape took the
> (canonical) UV because Narcissa asked him to swear to protect and
> watch over Draco, as he intended to do, anyway. Taking that 
particular
> vow was no great risk (he was used to walking a tightrope between 
life
> and death, anyway) and would persuade Narcissa that he was on her 
side
> (as he was, in the sense that he wanted to protect Draco and keep 
him
> from commiting murder or being killed) and would help to dispel the
> last of Bellatrix's doubts about his loyalty to LV. (Neither of 
them
> was likely to tell Voldemort, who would not approve of their going
> behind his back to protect Draco.) The third provision obviously
> caught Snape by surprise (the hand twitch), but since he was on his
> knees with his wand hand bound by ropes of fire to Narcissa's, 
there
> wasn't much he could do except agree to it. (I believe that he 
told DD
> about all three provisions but am not going to argue that here.)
> 
>
a_svirn:
Not a great risk? I wonder how you can say that. When you take a UV 
your very life is at stake ? literally. I'd say the risk is 
ultimate. Unless you argue that Snape was suicidal and wanted to 
shuffle off this mortal coil anyway (so why not impress Bellatrix 
while he was at it?) you can't possibly call the risk negligible. 

Moreover, the question of risk aside, as we all know, taking the vow 
muddled his already somewhat murky loyalties. Snape, being as he is 
more that commonly astute, was bound to consider this angle too. In 
fact, that was the angle he should have considered first and 
foremost. Somehow jeopardising the Resistance war effort just to 
allay Bellatrix's suspicions does not seem worth a gamble. As for 
Narcissa, she was already there on her knees pleading with him. She 
didn't look like someone harbouring dark suspicions. 







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 10 10:18:23 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:18:23 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebe237+tskn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebf15f+l19s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156765

houyhnhnm:
> We don't even know that for sure, only that a woman named 
Eileen Prince married a man named Snape and they had a child.  
If the name of the child had been mentioned or even the date 
of the birth announcement had been given I would feel more 
secure that I was not being led down the garden path.

Ceridwen:
Hermione is about to give it when Harry breaks into her statement by 
saying Eileen Prince Snape gave birth to a murderer.  Hermione, who 
is looking at the item at the time, does not disagree.  She says 
something like, 'Well, yes...'  Though it is not exactly a bald-faced 
revelation, it's a soft-glove relation to it, in my opinion.

houyhnhnm:
> I'm not sure that the "Snape" was a polyjuiced impostor.  I can't 
begin to imagine who it would be, if not Snape.  I'm only saying that 
there is no evidence in the entire book of Snape being the HBP except 
the statement in "Flight of the Prince" and there is no proof that it 
really is Snape on the lawn and that makes me suspicious.

Ceridwen:
I share your suspicions that Crabbe and Goyle are not the only 
Polyjuiced people in the book.  I keep returning to that Magnum you 
mentioned, cocked, loaded, and left lying on the table, and keep 
looking for the main Polyjuiced character.  I've thought of Tonks in 
the past, and am still not certain that it wasn't someone else who 
approached Harry outside the RoR.  I've considered Snape on the 
tower.  But the Snape who ran off with the DEs just presents like the 
real Snape to me, so when did he and the impostor switch?  Harry was 
on his heels at almost every moment.  Convenient if he wasn't there 
when and where the switch would be made.

As for who, in every instance where I suspected Polyjuice, my mind 
went directly to Narcissa.  She had a lot at stake: her son.  We see 
her in Spinner's End begging Snape to do something to save him from 
his enforced fate.  Why would she just go home after this and start 
browsing catalogs?

One other slim possibility would be Bellatrix.  She does seem to have 
some feelings for family, though those feelings are buried pretty 
deep.  I could easily imagine her with a look of 'hatred and 
revusion', too.  But then, why claim the HBP title?  Why stop someone 
from Crucio'ing Harry?

You see my problem with this.  JKR has nixed the idea that Dumbledore 
and Snape changed places in saying that DD is really dead, and the 
two characters don't seem to be interchangeable at the end.  Though, 
through parts of HBP, I could see the DD we imagine to be stressed 
because he is going to die by the end of the book, actually being 
someone else.  But, I prefer the straight reading: he knew he didn't 
have the luxury of time and was actually peeved with Harry in some 
scenes.

houyhnhnm: 
> Somebody, show me one piece of evidence that doesn't involve 
conjecture, insinuation, sleight of hand, or leaping to a conclusion.

Ceridwen:
If that was easy, it would ruin this 'first half of a two-parter'.
I wish I could point you to the heavy-weight Polyjuiced individual!  
It would ease my own mind to know.  But since this is supposed to be 
the first part of a single story, the revelations didn't happen.  
We're in the dark.

Ceridwen.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 10 10:32:44 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:32:44 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebe237+tskn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebf20c+e5jv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156766

houyhnhnm:
> I'm not sure that the "Snape" was a polyjuiced impostor.  I can't 
begin to imagine who it would be, if not Snape.

Ceridwen:
Okay, I'm answering twice to the same post.  I just had another 
thought on who might be Polyjuiced, though I still don't think this 
person was fleeing Hogwarts in Flight of the Prince.

What if LV himself was Polyjuiced to look like someone in only one 
scene?  Yes, I could see him on the tower; I can't see him on the 
lawn, and the problem of switching places intrudes.  I can't see him 
as Tonks - Harry's scar would have hurt, wouldn't it?  Even if not, I 
just can't see that.  Not LV, he would have rather killed Tonks and 
Harry, I think, and The Battle for the WW would have started in HBP.  
After all, LV would have been right there in Hogwarts...

So, when and where would LV have been Polyjuiced?  If at all, then at 
Spinner's End.  Still doesn't read quite right for the Snape of 
Spinner's End to be LV, but I think it would be more in his style to 
try and trap followers into revealing treacherous ways than to sneak 
around Hogwarts.  The other shoe didn't drop, neither Bellatrix nor 
Narcissa are reported dead or tortured after this.

But, since I do agree that someone was Polyjuiced as someone else, 
why not consider LV as a possible Polyjuiced Someone?

Ceridwen.







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 10:38:12 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 10:38:12 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebdchr+eep1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebf2ak+6pt6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156767

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama at ...> wrote:

> First, a question to you all.  Do we know where Harry's town, or 
> Snape's are?  Do we have general directions to place them here or 
> there in the UK?  If we know they are nowhere near each other, then 
> never mind, but if we have nothing on them yet, I think I have found 
> something in OOTP which may support what Carol says here.  
> 
> p. 56 OOTP US paperback:
> 
>    "Bearing south!" shouted Mad-Eye.  "Town ahead!"
>    "They soared right, so that they did not pass directly over the 
> glittering **spiderweb** of lights below." (** mine)
> 
> It's not much, but this may be a tip-off that Spinner's End is in 
> the next town over from Harry.  

Geoff:
Members' analysis from canon in previous discussions suggests 
that they are not close at all.

The opinion of members over the years is that Little Whinging is 
fairly close to Heathrow. For the enlightenment of non-UK residents, 
Surrey is one of the "Home Counties" which surround London. 
Traditionally, it has been to the south-west of London - I started 
teaching in Surrey in the1960s before that part of it was absorbed 
into Greater London. At the same time, Middlesex, which lay north 
of the river, was broken up, part going to Greater London and part 
to become an extension  of Surrey now lying north of the river.

We also know from 'Philosopher's Stone' that Hagrid left Harry to 
get his train at Paddington railway station. This station is the London 
terminal of the old Great Western Railway which heads out towards 
Bristol and South Wales and stays on the north side of the river which 
lends credence to Little Whinging being part of "New" Surrey. If Harry's 
home was in Surrey south of the Thames, he would have travelled 
from Waterloo.

With regard to Spinner's End, most us who live in the UK felt that 
it was a northern town, possibly a Lancashire cotton town or a 
Yorkshire woollen town. The description of the run down streets 
and the derelict mill seemed to bear this out.







From hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 12:33:44 2006
From: hansandrea1 at yahoo.co.uk (Hans Andra)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:33:44 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Will Harry die?
Message-ID: <20060810123344.14550.qmail@web26112.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156768

Will Harry Die?  That's the same as asking, "Did Jesus die?" or "Did Orpheus die?" or ?Horus?*?
  The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no".
  Harry will die but he will come back, just like Jesus, Orpheus, Horus and other liberators! The whole purpose of Harry Potter is to prove that there is a way to vanquish death permanently.
  What evidence is there?
Just look at the basic story:
  A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will change the world. The baby is born and a star appears to announce his birth. When the king of this world hears about the birth he tries to have the baby killed, but fails. The child grows up in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a young age. But as he grows older he knows he will have to meet his arch-enemy: Satan.
  You all know that story ? that?s the story of Jesus. But it?s also the story of Harry Potter. In Harry?s case the star is Sirius, who becomes his God-Father. (In ancient Egypt Sirius announced the birth of Horus). At a young age Harry saves many lives, wins battles against dragons and giant snakes, and dodges death by Voldemort time and again. The world loves Harry; that?s why you?re reading this!
  The story is basically so similar to that of Jesus we can easily see that it will end the same way as Jesus? story. Just as Jesus died to save the world, so Harry will lay down his life for the wizarding world. But just as Jesus rose from the dead after three days, so will Harry.
  How will Harry do this? We think Harry will go through the arch with the veil in the Department of Mysteries. In the ancient spiritual traditions which Jo is following, this gateway is called the Gate of Saturn.
  We believe the scar which Voldemort gave Harry when Voldemort tried to kill him is a Horcrux. Harry will realise this, and, after killing the other 5 Horcruxes, will enter the Gate of Saturn to sacrifice himself, making Voldemort mortal. Harry will meet Sirius there, surrounded by a brilliant golden light. Harry, without the last Horcrux, will then return through the arch with the veil, possibly with the help of Sirius, and confront the mortal Voldemort. We don?t believe Harry will kill Voldemort. Harry will learn in Part 7 of the Septology that love cannot kill. In the power of that force Voldemort will dissipate like a puff of smoke.
  This whole theme is anticipated in Part 1, in the last two chapters, entitled Through the Trapdoor and The Man with Two Faces. There Harry faces the three headed dog, just like Orpheus in the Greek legend. He walks through an underground world and finally faces Voldemort who lives in Quirrell?s head. Voldemort attacks Harry, but he wins because of his mother?s love. He is then "dead" for three days but finally wakes up again.
  We believe that the 7 trials in Part 1 are clues to Part 7. And just as Love saves Harry in his confrontation with Voldemort in Part 1, so it will in Part 7. We believe Lily is somehow connected with the Room of Love, which will be opened in Part 7.
  We see a great similarity between The Alchemical Wedding of Christian Rosycross, a book published in 1616, and Harry Potter. This story also features voluntary death and resurrection, and a Room of Love, called "The Sepulchre of Venus". Christian Rosycross enters the Sepulchre and sees Venus, i.e. Love, in all its naked beauty. This fills him with compassion for suffering humanity and so this makes him come back to be gatekeeper of the castle. We believe that there is a strong probability that Harry will also do a similar thing, and become gatekeeper, taking Hagrid?s place.
  For more details of what we believe will happen in Part 7, visit http://harrypotterforseekers.com/book7.php.
  Hans Andr?a
  * See Tom Harpur: The Pagan Christ, Thomas Allen Publishers, Toronto 2004


                            "Rowling said she couldn't answer the questions about the book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven." CST 99

  "If I talk too freely about whether I believe in God I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." JKR






















From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 12:06:48 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:06:48 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Harry's Reaction to Sirius' Death
In-Reply-To: <eb57s2+oebf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060810120648.82836.qmail@web38303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156769

--- Sherry Gomes <sherriola at earthlink.net> wrote:
  > I've always felt HBP was full of Harry's grief.
> It is just that he doesn't express it in more
> traditional ways.  He's not
> verbal about it at all.  But then, Harry doesn't
> discuss his hurts with others.  

  Cassy:
  Ok, I admit, I probably wasn't attentive enough to Harry's feeling after all. More subtle signs of his grief were somewhat lost for me, because I was too much interested in the plot, I suppose. It's just the contrast between how Harry openly showed his negative emotions in OOP and how he didn't in the beginning of HPB seemed rather striking to me. But then again, he did change a lot between these two books.

 





From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 11:10:14 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (sallyaltass)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:10:14 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebf20c+e5jv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebf46m+ddp8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156770

>
> Ceridwen: (snipped)
>
> What if LV himself was Polyjuiced to look like someone in only one
> scene?  Yes, I could see him on the tower; I can't see him on the
> lawn, and the problem of switching places intrudes.  I can't see
him
> as Tonks - Harry's scar would have hurt, wouldn't it?
> So, when and where would LV have been Polyjuiced?  If at all, then
at
> Spinner's End.  Still doesn't read quite right for the Snape of
> Spinner's End to be LV, but I think it would be more in his style
to
> try and trap followers into revealing treacherous ways than to
sneak
> around Hogwarts.  The other shoe didn't drop, neither Bellatrix
nor
> Narcissa are reported dead or tortured after this.
>
> But, since I do agree that someone was Polyjuiced as someone else,
> why not consider LV as a possible Polyjuiced Someone?
>

I believe that this is a really interesting idea.  IMO Snape is not
polyjuiced and swapped, and his motives for killing Dumbledore in
the tower are purely because of theUV he made with Narcissa re
Draco, Draco could not carry out the 'job' he was recruited for by
LV, and so Snape had to carry out the 'job' or be killed himself.

As for LV being the polyjuiced one, I agree that it is a posibility
that he was at Spinners End with Bella, Snape and Narcissa.  IMO LV
was Wormtail, and as everyone with few exceptions believe that
Wormtail is dead, then no one be any wiser.  We never actually meet
LV in HBP, and Wormtails actions at Snape's home is slightly out of
character, and is more argumentative with Snape.  He is clearly
disgusted of Snape's attitude to him, and when he comments that he
can speak to LV himself if he so wishes could be a more sinister
remark that Snape doesn't pick up on.  Also Wormtail constantly
avoids Snape's eyes, and even though LV is an excellent Occulamens,
so is Snape, and as Wormtail was supposed to be 'talentless', Snape
would become suspicious if he could tell that Wormtail was hiding
things through legimency.

I apologise if this argument has been made before, but I am new to
the posting board.  I am very passionate about HP and am constantly
reading and cross-referencing the book.

Sally









From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Thu Aug 10 13:41:31 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:41:31 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
Message-ID: <ebfd2b+cbfd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156772

The exact script from the second reading in New York is now online at 
the Leaky Cauldron. It's here: http://www.the-leaky-
cauldron.org/#static:eventreports/jkrnycnight2

There are some things I found interesting, most notably this one about 
Dumbledore, which sounded IMO a bit different in the reports of the 
visitors.

JKR said, that she couldn't answer the question, if we will see him in 
action again, since the answer is in book 7, but that we shouldn't 
expect him to do a Gandalf. That does not sound, as if a short time 
return (like the one from James and Lily during the climax of GoF) is 
out of question. Yes, Dumble's dead, but the answer to the question if 
we will see him in action again is in book 7. I'm betting on more than 
just Portrait!Dumbledore in HP 7.

The second thing is about the Snape question. There was a lot of 
discussion, if she either confirmed or strongly hinted at Snape's true 
loyalties, (no matter which one). I was always surprised by this, 
because I couldn't imagine her simply saying this during a qsimple 
reading. But now that I read the full transcript, it's IMO pretty clear 
that she didn't confirm anything.

Salman Rushdie's last question was: "So, is Snape good or bad? In our 
opinion, everything follows from it."

And her answer to this was: "Well, Salman, your opinion [that 
everything follows from it], I would say, is right." This is all she 
said regarding this question. No hint regarding his loyalties, no 
matter for which side, just, that his true loyalties indeed are highly 
significant. And well all knew this anyway. ;-) 

Hickengruendler
















From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Wed Aug  9 18:02:07 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:02:07 -0000
Subject: Snape (was Re: Choices (wasThe Unloved Son ))
In-Reply-To: <ebd3en+ndq0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebd7uv+rebd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156773

> Mike:
> <snip>
> Isn't it obvious that Snape was acting on DD's orders when he
> AKed him on the tower? He was told to do it to save Draco from
> becoming a killer as well as from being killed by the other DEs
> (why else were they there? Witnesses? Please!). Then, by taking
> charge, he hustles the DEs out of the school to minimize the
> damage to everybody else. Remember, Snape was in his office when
> this whole escapade started. Obviously, he wasn't privy to what
> Draco's/LV's overall plan entailed. An ESE!Snape, in on the plan,
> doesn't wait in his office just so he can stun an unsuspecting
> Flitwick and chance missing everything.
>
> Now, you say he was saving his own neck because of the UV he made
> with Narcissa, and you are right. But, for how long and at what
> cost? He is now the second most wanted wizard in the WW and he
> doesn't have the support network LV has. He may even have pissed
> LV off by intervening in Draco's behalf. I don't think LV wanted
> things to go off the way they did, LV had a different outcome in
> mind.


Hi everyone,

     I am new to the group but I just wanted to throw this out there
to all of you who believe Snape is indeed, evil.

Would Dumbledore beg for his life?
Would Dumbldore, trusting Snape need to plead with him to help?

DD said "Please..." because he was asking Snape to go through with
whatever plan they had come up with.

What else could DD be asking Snape to help with? Please blast the
Death Eaters, I don't have my wand? No. Snape only hesitates because
what he is about to do he finds very hard.

Why does Dumbledore freeze Harry when he is under the cloak? So he
can't mess up the plan. He knows Harry can take care of himself and
he is invisible. No need to freeze him...no other reason except to
prevent him from messing up the plan.

And finally...

If Dumbledore trusts Snape and he says over and over he does, why
does he refuse him the Defense Against the Dark Arts post year after
year? We hear right off the bat that Dumbledore doesn't trust Snape
to take the job..that is the RUMOR. We know DD encourages rumors that
are untrue. Ex: The Shrieking Shack is Haunted...to protect people
from Lupin when he is there.

How could DD trust Snape to be a spy for the order but NOT trust him
to teach DADA? The answer is he couldn't.  Dumbledore wanted Snapes
character to be called into question. Why does DD suddenly just
decide to give Snape the job? Because he knows he won't be coming
back. =)

Robert







From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 00:08:55 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:08:55 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <eb9l9u+l5s5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdten+ld4p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156774

"esmith222002" <c.john at ...> wrote:
> Having just been enjoying the discussion on Petunia and thinking
> about 'Remember my last', I was reminded of a problem I had with
> the entire scene. <snip> How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is
> about to throw Harry out of the house?

Joe:
Throughout the series DD displays some degree of omniscience that
I'm not entirely comfortable with outside of deities.

> So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and
> then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it.
> <snip>
> Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?


Joe:
Abnormally long extensible ears? Perhaps from Fred and George's joke
shop? ;-)








From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 00:18:51 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:18:51 -0000
Subject: RE Good Reasons for DD to die
In-Reply-To: <eb3v5d+rg0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdu1b+3bso@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156775

> "Carol, who thinks that McGonagall's statement in SS/PS that there
> are some things Dumbledore is too noble to do applies to Unbreakable
> Vows as well as to Unforgiveable Curses and Horcruxes"
>
> katssirius:
> I must admit I had not thought about the unbreakable vow in this
> way.  I think you make an excellent argument both for it being dark
> magic and a compulsion.

Joe:
Irish myth is filled with such unbreakable vows compelling their
recipients to follow them or die. Invariably the person placing the
recipient under such a vow is a person possessing magical powers
whether explicitly stated in the myth or not.

People who engage in this behavior in Irish myths are not
necessarily evil, though.

I don't know if that affects things in the Potterverse, however.













From joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 00:50:29 2006
From: joemurphyus at sbcglobal.net (Joe)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:50:29 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <eas45o+rsku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebdvsl+fj17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156776

Laurawkids <balrogmama at ...> wrote:
> Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having
> *more* to her (humanness).  <snip>
>
> I suppose she would have to be Lily's half-sister for this to work.

Joe:
Why? I don't see a problem with HP having Elf blood in his veins in
addition to wizzard blood. There may be an advantage to it.









From raymonddavenport at btinternet.com  Thu Aug 10 13:00:02 2006
From: raymonddavenport at btinternet.com (raymond300659)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:00:02 -0000
Subject: Polyjuiced Dumbledore, Snape (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebf15f+l19s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebfaki+fe4b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156777


> Ceridwen:
> <snip> I keep returning to that Magnum you mentioned, cocked,
> loaded, and left lying on the table, and keep looking for the
> main Polyjuiced character.  <snip>
> JKR has nixed the idea that Dumbledore and Snape changed places
> in saying that DD is really dead, and the two characters don't
> seem to be interchangeable at the end.  Though, through parts of
> HBP, I could see the DD we imagine to be stressed because he is
> going to die by the end of the book, actually being someone else.
> But, I prefer the straight reading: he knew he didn't have the
> luxury of time and was actually peeved with Harry in some scenes.


Raymond:
DD polyjuiced...I think spell broken on death as this seems to be
the normal thing. Harry felt spell holding him broken when DD was
killed and when Harry straightened DD`s glasses and looked at the
face he knew so well.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 11:50:17 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 11:50:17 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebf15f+l19s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebf6hp+9ljb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156778

houyhnhnm:
I'm not sure that the "Snape" was a polyjuiced impostor.  I can't
begin to imagine who it would be, if not Snape.  <snip>

Ceridwen:
I share your suspicions that Crabbe and Goyle are not the only
Polyjuiced people in the book.  I keep returning to that Magnum you
mentioned, cocked, loaded, and left lying on the table, and keep
looking for the main Polyjuiced character.  I've thought of Tonks in
the past, and am still not certain that it wasn't someone else who
approached Harry outside the RoR.  <snip>

As for who, in every instance where I suspected Polyjuice, my mind
went directly to Narcissa.  <snip>

<<SNIP>>

Tinktonks:

Nobody would need to polyjuice Tonks--she's Metamorphamagus (Probably
spelt ALL WRONG sorry!) all they'd have to do is act like her. But I
can't see anyone else getting all snuggly with Lupin ; ) We can rule
out Fenir because of Bill's wounds being cursed wounds, Lupin is a
distinct possibilty as he definitely acts a little strangely in the
scene after the fight, is it just because of the werewolf attack?

Here I'm going to give a whacky theory and it will be ripped to
shreds, but hey.

Prof Flitwick was under the imperious curse and sent to call Snape
by the DE. That is why Snape cursed him, to lift the imperious
curse. He left his office without telling the truth because he
wanted to keep Hermione and Luna out of danger (he knows them, and
that they would want to fight to save their friends even if it meant
getting killed).

Tinktonks








From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 14:18:28 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (Robert Allen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 07:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Question on Snape:
In-Reply-To: <ebf46m+ddp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060810141828.87915.qmail@web60925.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156779

Sally:
> IMO Snape is not polyjuiced and swapped, and his motives for 
> killing Dumbledore in the tower are purely because of the UV 
> he made with Narcissa re Draco, Draco could not carry out the 
> 'job' he was recruited for by LV, and so Snape had to carry 
> out the 'job' or be killed himself.
> <snip>


Robert:
If Snape is evil why, at the end of HBP did JK write that his face 
was twisted as if he was in as much pain as the howling dog? 
   
The bad guys like killing and destruction...and as far as we can 
tell the bad guys won at the end of HBP...so why would Snape be "in 
pain..."
   
Everyone just needs to come to terms with the fact that he is 
essentially good...






From angelitafs at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 15:44:14 2006
From: angelitafs at yahoo.com (Angelita Figueroa Salas)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 08:44:14 -0700
Subject: Spinner's End, Wormtail
In-Reply-To: <ebf46m+ddp8@eGroups.com>
References: <ebf20c+e5jv@eGroups.com> <ebf46m+ddp8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20876d4b0608100844n7719d95ex2daba946371bab4c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156780

Sally:
> As for LV being the polyjuiced one, I agree that it is a posibility
> that he was at Spinners End with Bella, Snape and Narcissa. IMO LV
> was Wormtail, and as everyone with few exceptions believe that
> Wormtail is dead, then no one be any wiser. <snip>
>
> I apologise if this argument has been made before, but I am new to
> the posting board. I am very passionate about HP and am constantly
> reading and cross-referencing the book.


Regarding Wormtail being polyjuiced and/or dead, don't you have to 
be alive to be polyjuiced since you need hair or something? This is 
a theory I hadn't thought of!

Sorry if this has been discussed, I too am new to the list as well 
and passionate about HP.

@ngelita







>



-- 
No hay que llegar primero, pero hay que saber llegar.


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






From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Aug 10 17:48:37 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:48:37 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebf6hp+9ljb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebfrhl+csbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156781

colebiancardi:

> Snape tells Harry he invented Levicorpus and Sectumsempra 
> (because Harry tried to use them on Snape during that 
> fight) ... Snape's words are "You dare use my spells 
> against me, Potter? It was I who invented them - I, 
> the Half Blood Prince"

houyhnhnm:

If the Snape on the tower and the lawn is really Snape, 
then of course he is the Half Blood Prince.  But is there 
anything we can point to that conclusively proves that it 
really is Snape?  I can't find anything.  Seeing him on 
the Marauders' Map would have done so, but, conveniently, 
Hermione doesn't have the Map when she is waiting outside 
Snape's office.  The narrator points that out. "We didn't 
know what was going on upstairs, Ron had taken the map ..."

There is also nothing that conclusively proves Snape is 
the HBP, *except* the statement of the character on the 
law.  It is all assumption.

I'm not a fan of fantasy literature.  Mystery is my 
recreational reading genre of choice.  So that's the 
lens through which I tend to look at the Potter books.  
And leading readers on all though book 6 to assume that 
Snape was the HBP only to turn that assumption upside 
down in book 7 is exactly what a mystery writer would do.

I don't have an alternative theory.  My point is this:  
IF Rowling WERE to reveal in book 7 that Snape is not 
the HBP, there is nothing one could go back to in the 
previous story and say that she cheated. There is nothing 
that absolutely rules it out.  That makes me suspicious.

Ceridwen:

> You see my problem with this. JKR has nixed the idea 
> that Dumbledore and Snape changed places in saying that 
> DD is really dead, 

houyhnhnm:

No, she hasn't.  She has stated that Dumbledore is dead.  
The slippery Ms. Rowling has gone out of her way to avoid 
saying "Dumbledore was killed on the tower".  First in the 
press conference, when she referred to the "the character 
who died at the end of book six", then in her answer to a 
question about Draco on the first night at the Radio City 
Music Hall reading when she said "let's just say that Draco 
would not have murdered the person in question".  So 
Dumbledore is dead, but as she said in the LC/Mugglenet 
interview a year ago, "the question is when and how".

I'm certain we're in for a big surprise in book 7.  I don't 
have a theory about what it's going to be (except I think 
it will have to do with someone in book 6 not being who they 
appeared to be), but I'm looking forward to it. I am confidant
of not being disappointed.






From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Aug 10 18:23:15 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:23:15 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebfrhl+csbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebftij+107ea@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156782

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> colebiancardi:
> 
> > Snape tells Harry he invented Levicorpus and Sectumsempra 
> > (because Harry tried to use them on Snape during that 
> > fight) ... Snape's words are "You dare use my spells 
> > against me, Potter? It was I who invented them - I, 
> > the Half Blood Prince"
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> If the Snape on the tower and the lawn is really Snape, 
> then of course he is the Half Blood Prince.  But is there 
> anything we can point to that conclusively proves that it 
> really is Snape?  I can't find anything.  Seeing him on 
> the Marauders' Map would have done so, but, conveniently, 
> Hermione doesn't have the Map when she is waiting outside 
> Snape's office.  The narrator points that out. "We didn't 
> know what was going on upstairs, Ron had taken the map ..."
> 
> There is also nothing that conclusively proves Snape is 
> the HBP, *except* the statement of the character on the 
> law.  It is all assumption.
> 
> I'm not a fan of fantasy literature.  Mystery is my 
> recreational reading genre of choice.  So that's the 
> lens through which I tend to look at the Potter books.  
> And leading readers on all though book 6 to assume that 
> Snape was the HBP only to turn that assumption upside 
> down in book 7 is exactly what a mystery writer would do.
> 
>  

colebiancardi:

I see what you are saying now.  But again, what on earth does this 
buy us?  Nothing.  The irony is gone if it isn't Snape.  The danger 
to Snape is gone.  His loyalities and everything else is gone.

nothing at all anymore with Snape.  Which I don't think that is what 
JKR has in mind for Mr Severus.

colebiancardi
(who on earth would want to drink the "essence" of Snape to 
impersonate him?  ugggggg....)







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 10 18:40:57 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:40:57 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebf6hp+9ljb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebfujp+33vk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156783

Tinktonks:
> Nobody would need to polyjuice Tonks--she's Metamorphamagus 
(Probably
spelt ALL WRONG sorry!) all they'd have to do is act like her. But I 
can't see anyone else getting all snuggly with Lupin ; )

Ceridwen:
I'm not sure if I was clear here.  I meant someone Polyjuiced to look 
like Tonks, not that someone Polyjuiced Tonks.  Sorry for any 
misunderstandings!

The only problem with Tonks was that she didn't metamorph at all.  
She was mousey all through the book.  This is part of what got me 
suspicious: if someone had Polyjuiced into her, they might not be 
able to pull off the odd assortment of hair colors.  They might not 
know how to do it, even in a body just like hers.  Other things that 
got me:

Her Patronus changed.  Of course, before HBP, we didn't know that 
Patronuses were set and couldn't change, but since Snape made a point 
to mention it, I wondered if it was someone else's Patronus, someone 
he knew, and he was telling them that he had noted the difference so 
stop using the Patronus.

She wasn't clumsy.  She jumped off a moving train dragging Harry with 
her.

She wasn't her usual ebullent self.

We learn that she was unhappy about Lupin shrugging her off, but that 
thought still niggled at me.  Was it the real reason?  Everything 
seems to fit, especially with the tale of Merope's poor magical 
powers and her overbearing family and, later on, being dumped by TR 
Sr.

Houyhnhnm (sp?) mentions that the idea of someone disguised as 
someone else is hammered into the first chapters like a shoot-out at 
the Chekhov Corral.  We get the Ministry pamphlet, Dumbledore making 
a point to mention his favorite jam, and the 
unforgettable "Mollywobbles".  Was the gun in these first acts only 
loaded with weak blanks?

Ceridwen.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 18:44:09 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:44:09 -0000
Subject: Question on Snape:
In-Reply-To: <20060810141828.87915.qmail@web60925.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebfupp+jrch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156784

> Robert:
> If Snape is evil why, at the end of HBP did JK write that his face 
> was twisted as if he was in as much pain as the howling dog? 

Alla:

I don't have HBP with me at this minute, so could be wrong, but I don't 
remember the word *pain* mentioned in that sentence. I think that 
comparison was a bit more ambigious than just flat out stating that 
Snape was in pain. Open for interpretation, me thinks. :)

   
 
> Everyone just needs to come to terms with the fact that he is 
> essentially good...
>

Alla:

Erm... Thanks, but no thanks. :-)






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 10 18:49:08 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:49:08 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebfrhl+csbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebfv34+p3jn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156785

Ceridwen:
> 
> > You see my problem with this. JKR has nixed the idea 
> > that Dumbledore and Snape changed places in saying that 
> > DD is really dead, 

houyhnhnm:
> 
> No, she hasn't.  She has stated that Dumbledore is dead.  
> The slippery Ms. Rowling has gone out of her way to avoid 
> saying "Dumbledore was killed on the tower".  First in the 
> press conference, when she referred to the "the character 
> who died at the end of book six", then in her answer to a 
> question about Draco on the first night at the Radio City 
> Music Hall reading when she said "let's just say that Draco 
> would not have murdered the person in question".  So 
> Dumbledore is dead, but as she said in the LC/Mugglenet 
> interview a year ago, "the question is when and how".

Ceridwen:
Heh.  Yeah, that's right.  She didn't say 'killed', even.  She 
said 'died'.  Could it just be part of keeping the Big Secret for 
those who haven't yet read the book, the 'when and how' of it?

houyhnhnm:
> I'm certain we're in for a big surprise in book 7.  I don't 
> have a theory about what it's going to be (except I think 
> it will have to do with someone in book 6 not being who they 
> appeared to be), but I'm looking forward to it. I am confidant
> of not being disappointed.

Ceridwen:
That's one thing I like about the HP series: I'm almost never 
disappointed.  I wasn't too crazy about the ships and how they were 
launched, but that's peripheral.  The main things are always 
delightful.

I agree with you that someone besides Crabbe and Goyle had to have 
been Polyjuiced.  The 'other shoe', if it really was the other shoe, 
didn't make much of a noise when it dropped.  If someone was 
impersonating someone else, though, who could have been impersonated, 
and who could have done the impersonating?

Ceridwen.






From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 17:15:50 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (sallyaltass)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:15:50 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebdten+ld4p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebfpk6+3130@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156786

(snipped)
>
> "esmith222002" <c.john@> wrote:
> > Having just been enjoying the discussion on Petunia and thinking
> > about 'Remember my last', I was reminded of a problem I had with
> > the entire scene. <snip> How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is
> > about to throw Harry out of the house?
>
> Joe:
> Throughout the series DD displays some degree of omniscience that
> I'm not entirely comfortable with outside of deities.
>
> > So how is it that DD knows what Vernon/Petunia have just said and
> > then managed to produce an instantaneous Howler to prevent it.
> > <snip>
> > Fawkes? Patronus? Something else?
>
IMO I think that perhaps DD doesn't know exactly that Vernon has
threatened to throw Harry out of the house, owls can not fly quick
enough for the Howler to reach Petunia in the same instant.  I
believe that DD was extremely shrewd, and so just actually assumed
that following the nights events, and with the Dursley's extremely
Dark Age attutude towards magic, they would attempt to throw Harry
out.

Regarding the fact that there could be some sort of wizarding
portrait in the house that told Hogwarts where Harry was sleeping,
again, I don't think that that is a feesable idea.  Hagrid says to
Harry in ch 4 in PS/SS 'The Keeper of the Keys' (snipped), "I was
allowed ter do a bit [of magic] ter follow yeh an' get yer letters
to yeh and stuff..." Which explains exactly how Hagrid knew where
Harry was sleeping at any given time and also that he wasn't getting
his letters.  This again though, shows exactly how shrewd DD is, as
he would have had to pull a few strings at the ministry to allow
Hagrid to perform the magic in the first place.

Sally











From monzaba at poczta.onet.pl  Thu Aug 10 19:21:52 2006
From: monzaba at poczta.onet.pl (monika_zaboklicka)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:21:52 -0000
Subject: Muggle-lovers?
Message-ID: <ebg10g+jnd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156787

DE hate Muggles. That's certain and proven. But I came to think 
that "blood-traitors" and "Muggle-lovers" are hardly much better:
1. Artur's old department at Ministry is clearly considered least-
important. Remember Molly's boasts about his promotion? Arthur had 
had been experienced at protecting Muggles, but who cared? He was 
sent to protect wizards against their follies. They even gave him 
more staff.
2. We were told, repeatedly, that Arthur was absolutely *fascinated* 
with Muggles' machinery. People who are very fond of a subject 
usually become very good at it. Arthur did not. I suppose he was just 
amusing himself and never thought that Muggles' clever little ways 
had been worth studying.
3. Molly is certainly a very family-centered woman. It pains her not 
to have all her children over for holidays. Yet she keeps inviting 
the Grangers' only child to stay at the Burrow, apparently not once 
stopping to think that the poor dentints might like to see their 
Hermione from time to time.
4. The wizards are trigger-happy with "Obliviate", so long as it's 
used on Muggles. Using the charm on fellow wizards seems to be 
considered improper, but hey, who cares if a Muggle keeps wishing 
people Merry Xmas in a midst of summer? Did anybody check that the 
Roberts' were fully back in their senses before they were let to meet 
their Muggle neighbours? I doubt it.
5. Fudge & Co had no right to judge whom the Prime Minister should be 
talking to. They *could* have waited with news about the wizarding 
world till *after* the man had had talked with the President.

Certainly, from a Muggles' perspective, it is not a case of "Lord, 
keep my [wizarding] friends away from me, and I can deal with my 
enemies myself". But it would be better if the Muggle-lovers had 
treated their Muggle friends' security, achievements, families, 
memories and time-tables with more respect.  







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 19:23:11 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:23:11 -0000
Subject: DD's omniscience (was how does DD know what Petunia/ Vernon said?)
Message-ID: <ebg12v+es9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156788

> Joe:
> Throughout the series DD displays some degree of omniscience that
> I'm not entirely comfortable with outside of deities.
> 

Tonks:
IMO that is what we are supposed to think about him. He is human, but 
he seems to have these unusual abilities. This is to make us stop and 
wonder about why. He is very wise and gives us ideas to think about 
and follow. He is the closest thing to a deity in the series, other 
than the one who is very quietly in the background. (By that I mean 
the existence, practiced or not, of the Christian religion as 
evidence by the holidays.)

DD is either an example of a martyr or a symbol of Christ. I know 
many do not agree. Whatever and whoever DD is, he is the greatest 
wizard of all times. By that fact alone he would have knowledge that 
others do not have. He has the same knowledge as LV and more.  He 
does not have to practice the dark arts to have this knowledge. 

I expect that DD in his travels into the world of magical knowledge 
may have come upon the same temptations as Tom, but did not follow 
them. I think that DD's basic personality is much different than 
Tom's so that is part of why DD is able to resist the temptations to 
use the knowledge for his own gain. (This also fits with the mirror 
and stone in book 1. "Whoever what to find it, but not use it". This 
is I suspect true of the mystical knowledge that exist in the WW. It 
can be used for good, to help others, but not for personal gain. And 
I think it is part of making the true stone, which we will see Harry 
do in book 7.)

Also I would not be surprised if Fawkes is more that he seems. In the 
series, IMO, Fawkes represents the Holy Spirit. Fawkes may be able to 
transmit information to DD, sort of like telepathy.  Remember in CoS, 
Fawkes came to Harry and Ginny's rescue.  And DD said something to 
the effect that "you must have shown real loyalty to me down there to 
bring Fawkes to you".  This shows that Fawkes was the one who knew 
what was happening in the chamber and that Harry needed help. DD did 
not send Fawkes, he went on his own.

Tonk_op 







From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 17:36:33 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (sallyaltass)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:36:33 -0000
Subject: Question on Snape:
In-Reply-To: <20060810141828.87915.qmail@web60925.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebfqr1+dveb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156789

Sally:
> > IMO Snape is not polyjuiced and swapped, and his motives for
> > killing Dumbledore in the tower are purely because of the UV
> > he made with Narcissa re Draco, Draco could not carry out the
> > 'job' he was recruited for by LV, and so Snape had to carry
> > out the 'job' or be killed himself.
> > <snip>

Robert:
> If Snape is evil why, at the end of HBP did JK write that his face
> was twisted as if he was in as much pain as the howling dog?
>
> The bad guys like killing and destruction...and as far as we can
> tell the bad guys won at the end of HBP...so why would Snape
> be "in pain..."
>
> Everyone just needs to come to terms with the fact that he is
> essentially good...


Sally:

I apologise if you got the wrong end of the stick from my original
post, I don't particulary believe that Snape is evil, I just wanted
to make my point that I think Snape, although he detests the fact that he has to kill DD, is doing it because he has been involved in a
biding magical contract and so otherwise would lose his life.

>From reading all the posts on the subject of why Snape killed DD, it
is clear that most on the list believe that Snape and DD knew that
the end was coming, and so is it a possibility that Snape had told
DD about the UV?  Afterall, throughout HBP, DD had tried pushing HP
off Malfoy's tail.  IMO this is because Snape had already told DD
about Malfoy's recruitment into the DE, afterall Snape is in essence
a 'double agent', working both for the Order and the DE.  IMO DD was
begging Snape to go ahead with the UV's end to save Malfoy the
horror and pain of actually having to kill someone, and so then
Snape could rescue Malfoy, who had not realised what the enormity of
what joining the DE would be.










From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 19:28:16 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:28:16 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebfrhl+csbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg1cg+glbb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156790

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:
>
> colebiancardi:
> 
> > Snape tells Harry he invented Levicorpus and Sectumsempra 
> > (because Harry tried to use them on Snape during that 
> > fight) ... Snape's words are "You dare use my spells 
> > against me, Potter? It was I who invented them - I, 
> > the Half Blood Prince"
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> If the Snape on the tower and the lawn is really Snape, 
> then of course he is the Half Blood Prince.  But is there 
> anything we can point to that conclusively proves that it 
> really is Snape?  I can't find anything.  Seeing him on 
> the Marauders' Map would have done so, but, conveniently, 
> Hermione doesn't have the Map when she is waiting outside 
> Snape's office.  The narrator points that out. "We didn't 
> know what was going on upstairs, Ron had taken the map ..."
> 
> There is also nothing that conclusively proves Snape is 
> the HBP, *except* the statement of the character on the 
> law.  It is all assumption.
> 

Ken:

Well there is that famous cramped handwriting that Carol is certain to
bring up, or rather has brought up. Something doesn't seem right about
that handwriting though. We know that Snape's writing is cramped
because of the pensieve scene. Is that the only reason? We "saw" his
handwriting there but of course it is Harry who really saw it there.
Harry, Ron, and Hermione have had Snape as a teacher for 6 years by
the end HBP. Is it possible that *none* of them have become familiar
enough with Snape's writing in all that time to recongnize it in the
potions book? Does he *never* hand back an assignment with his
"helpful" comments scribbled in the margins? And Harry for certain saw
it in Snape's memory. What do you think, Carol if you are reading
this, is the handwriting a certain ID of Snape with the HBP or could
it be a red herring? Why is it that none of the trio instantly
recognizes the HBP's handwriting as Snape's?

I don't know where this polyjuice theory goes. It does sound plausible
enough to me to warrant consideration. I suppose that Snape could have
been captured at some point and replaced with an impostor. Maybe the
author's plan was originally to kill Snape after the conclusion of HBP
but she let him escape in book 7 instead and it *is* Snape who got the
reprieve. One of the reasons that I was favoring the DD is not dead
theory is that *every* potion mentioned in Slughorn's first class has
either been used prominently in previous books or in HBP. The only
apparent exception is the Draught of Living Death. I was suspicious
that DD had been given it at the end of HBP. Maybe it is actually
Snape who is imprisoned somewhere by means of it. Or have I forgotten
a previous use of the DoLD?

I guess the key is that is there *anything* that *certainly* ID's 
Snape as the HBP? Or are there just several things that point that way
but are inconclusive when examined in detail? Hermione never actually
said that Eileen gave birth to a son named Severus though we are
intended to believe that she was about to. Even if Snape is her son
that doesn't mean he was the only half blood Prince floating around.
And right to the very end Hermione insists it is a girl's handwriting.
Don't appeal to the "wonderful irony" either, JKR insists that writers
are cruel. DD's killer would not spare Irony.

Ken







From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Aug 10 20:17:44 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:17:44 -0400
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <1155238247.2067.19036.m22@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1155238247.2067.19036.m22@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C88AD12CB735D2-11F0-A8E@FWM-D28.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156791

Ken wrote:
I guess the key is that is there *anything* that *certainly* ID's 
Snape as the HBP? Or are there just several things that point that way
but are inconclusive when examined in detail? Hermione never actually
said that Eileen gave birth to a son named Severus though we are
intended to believe that she was about to. Even if Snape is her son
that doesn't mean he was the only half blood Prince floating around.
And right to the very end Hermione insists it is a girl's handwriting.
Don't appeal to the "wonderful irony" either, JKR insists that writers
are cruel. DD's killer would not spare Irony.

Julie:
The main problem with saying Snape can't be IDed with certainty
in the Tower scene is that this is true of almost any given 
character in almost any given scene. Take Sirius for instance...
 
How do we know it was Sirius who fell through the veil? It 
looked like him but there's no absolute certain proof that it
wasn't someone polyjuiced to look like him. Maybe it was 
Emmeline Vance, and DD wanted her to go through the veil to
report what he can expect from his next great adventure. She
cleverly positioned herself in front of the veil for Bellatrix
to send her through, all the while channeling Sirius's temper
and recklessness. To cover her disappearance, the whole killed 
by DEs story was concocted after the fact. Meanwhile DD put
Sirius into even deeper hiding to protect him from his own
worst impulses, and Sirius will return in Book 7 to help Harry
now that DD is dead and can't keep him confined any longer.
 
Okay, that's not very probable, but it does illuminate the
fact that just about anyone could be polyjuiced at any time 
in the books. We can take any scene and devise a theory why
that person wasn't really *that* person and why not. 
 
I agree that JKR will certainly surprise us in Book 7, and
one of those surprises may include an unexpectedly polyjuiced
character. I just don't think it will be at the expense of 
jettisoning important character moments and plotlines, like
the real Sirius sacrificing himself to save Harry, and the
real Snape being the boy Harry so identified with as well as
the man Harry despises. Why waste great psychological 
developments like that?
 
Julie  
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Aug 10 21:02:48 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:02:48 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <ebg5ej+ic5t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg6to+81ke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156793

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Hans Andr?a <hansandrea1 at ...> wrote:
>
> Will Harry Die? That's the same as asking, "Did Jesus 
die?" or "Did Orpheus die?" or "Horus?*"
> The answer to this question is both "yes" and "no".
> Harry will die but he will come back, just like Jesus, 
Orpheus, Horus and other liberators! The whole purpose 
of Harry Potter is to prove that there is a way to vanquish
death permanently.
> What evidence is there?
> Just look at the basic story:
> A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will
change the world. The baby is born and a star appears 
to announce his birth. When the king of this world hears
about the birth he tries to have the baby killed, but fails. 
The child grows up in wisdom and in stature, and in 
favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a 
young age. But as he grows older he knows he will have 
to meet his arch-enemy: Satan.
> You all know that story ? that's the story of Jesus. But 
it's also the storyof Harry Potter.

Geoff:
This is a reprise of the threads and discussions which we had
up at intervals up to about 15 months ago.

First of all, as an evangelical Christian, I think that other group
members who are also believers will agree with me that you
cannot equate the Harry Potter books with Jesus Christ. Your
statements "he will come back just like Jesus, Orpheus, Horus
and the other liberators" and "that's the story of Jesus. But it's
also the story of Harry Potter" create the suggestion in the mind
of non-Christians that Jesus Christ is just a fictional story character
? which he is most certainly /not/. In Christian belief, he is God
incarnate and lives today calling human beings to let his Spirit
enter their lives. Harry, much as I like his company, is but a
fictional character.

I imagine that any believing Christian would shy away from the
idea of writing a story with the implication that it was giving an
alternative route to eternal life because of the uncertainty and
problems that it would cause and the possible undermining of
the belief of others. I would just, as an aside, say that C.S.Lewis
in writing "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" made it clear
that he was producing an allegorical picture of Christianity
intended to help children come to the real truth about Jesus.

Taking your suggestion that JKR would write the books to mirror
the Alchemical Wedding and the Path of Liberation means that at
some point she will have to take time to explain what this all means
and how it has worked out in the series, otherwise she is implying
that only people who have "special knowledge" will be able to
understand the meaning of the story ? which was the line taken by
the Gnostics in the early Christian church. How is this meant to have
any relevance for the thousands upon thousands of young readers
for whom the stories have had so much appeal?

Jo Rowling has stated that she is a Christian. I have written in the
past on more than one occasion that the only requirements for belief
were stated by Jesus himself in John 3:16 "God so loved the world that
he gave his only and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life." and in John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth
and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This is
the incredibly simple ? and yet incredibly difficult ? way to come to
faith. People who wrap this in a cocoon of ritual and tradition do
God a disservice.

I am sure that fellow believers on the group will share with me the
view that this must lie at the back of her thinking in these books and
the comments she has made about them; it is not another Da Vinci
Code approach entwining the truth in a labyrinth of human, unproven
theories.










From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Thu Aug 10 21:02:51 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:02:51 -0000
Subject: Theory on Petunia
In-Reply-To: <ebdvsl+fj17@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg6tr+5slc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156794


> Laurawkids <balrogmama@> wrote:
> > Petunia has House Elf in her blood, which would qualify for having
> > *more* to her (humanness).  <snip>
> >
> > I suppose she would have to be Lily's half-sister for this to work.
>
> Joe <joemurphyus at ...>:
> Why? I don't see a problem with HP having Elf blood in his veins in
> addition to wizzard blood. There may be an advantage to it.


Laurawkids:
I can see your point.  It could explain why Dobby does what he does.
The fact that Harry does not share the neatness gene (his hair) might
show Harry does not have it.

As a mother with 4 homeschooled kids, I need Petunia to have a magical
need to clean and a magical ability to do so, because I surely don't!

Laurawkids









From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 10 21:30:48 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:30:48 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <8C88AD12CB735D2-11F0-A8E@FWM-D28.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebg8i8+okru@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156795

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
>
> Ken wrote:
> I guess the key is that is there *anything* that *certainly* ID's 
> Snape as the HBP? Or are there just several things that point that way
> but are inconclusive when examined in detail? Hermione never actually
> said that Eileen gave birth to a son named Severus though we are
> intended to believe that she was about to. Even if Snape is her son
> that doesn't mean he was the only half blood Prince floating around.
> And right to the very end Hermione insists it is a girl's handwriting.
> Don't appeal to the "wonderful irony" either, JKR insists that writers
> are cruel. DD's killer would not spare Irony.
> 
> Julie:
> The main problem with saying Snape can't be IDed with certainty
> in the Tower scene is that this is true of almost any given 
> character in almost any given scene. Take Sirius for instance...
>  

I agree that it is a problem. It is a problem for the author, not the
reader. If she has introduced an element that can be used to great
effect in almost any situation yet her characters ignore it on most
occasions that is her problem not mine. If you think that polyjuice is
the worst such element in this series you have not thought very
carefully about time turners. I doubt that there is, or could be, any
problem in the books that does not have a trivial solution involving a
time turner. The burden is on the author to show us why her characters
make no use of their most powerful tools.

I can't accept arguments base on a love of the irony in the
Snape/Harry relationship that falls out of the HBP subplot simply
because I believe this author values tricking the reader above irony.

Ken







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 21:34:31 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:34:31 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebdh5a+rlbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg8p7+bi0d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156796

Laurawkids wrote:
> I answered my own query by going to the Lexicon.  It seems that
> Spinner's End is far from London, while Little Whinging is not too
> far.  I wouldn't put it past Moody in that scene to fly way out of
> their way, but it really describes the spiderweb lights as the first
> town they fly over.  Sorry. <snip>
>
Carol responds:
I don't think the Advance Guard would need to fly over Spinner's End,
anyway. Snape was on his way to 12 GP to give his report. He arrives
just minutes before Harry ("He's just arrived, the meeting's started,"
Mrs. Weasley tells the Order members right after she greets Harry, OoP
am. ed. 61). Possibly his arrival is the reason for the signals (red
and green wand sparks), which tell the Order members that it's time to
leave, or more likely he informs them that he's on his way since the
flight takes more than a few minutes. In any case, he wouldn't have
been at Spinner's End, so there's no reason to fly over it. Quite
possibly, Snape also saw the wand sparks and knew what they were about.

Carol, just putting two and two together in terms of timing






From muellem at bc.edu  Thu Aug 10 21:40:39 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:40:39 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebg8i8+okru@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg94n+hhvs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156797

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> 
wrote:
 > I can't accept arguments base on a love of the irony in the
> Snape/Harry relationship that falls out of the HBP subplot simply
> because I believe this author values tricking the reader above irony.
> 
 
colebiancardi:

well, isn't the BIG QUESTION, the trick(so to speak), is Snape evil 
now?  Loyal to LV?  DD was duped?  

I am not sure where this idea that Snape isn't Snape came from.  It 
seems to have come up within the last day or so.  But at any rate, to 
trick us by having Snape not be Snape - what on earth does that buy 
us?  Is Snape dead or locked up somewhere?  Harry finds the "good" 
Snape and all is well again?  How is that forwarding the story in a 
decent way? Is Regulus Snape?  LOL...sorry, I have a thing about 
Regulus :)


I really am trying to understand where this idea sprung from, as I 
think that for over a year now, it wasn't even anything anyone doubted
(or at least it wasn't on the board)..

colebiancardi
(scratching her head in wonder...)







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 22:08:47 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:08:47 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? (Was: DD would not make Snape take a UV )
In-Reply-To: <ebet6r+8lr8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgapf+g70n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156798

Carol earlier:
> <snip> I think that Snape took the (canonical) UV because Narcissa
asked him to swear to protect and watch over Draco, as he intended to
do, anyway. Taking that particular vow was no great risk (he was used
to walking a tightrope between life and death, anyway) and would
persuade Narcissa that he was on her side (as he was, in the sense
that he wanted to protect Draco and keep him from commiting murder or
being killed) and would help to dispel the last of Bellatrix's doubts
about his loyalty to LV. <snip> The third provision obviously caught
Snape by surprise (the hand twitch), but since he was on his knees
with his wand hand bound by ropes of fire to Narcissa's, there wasn't
much he could do except agree to it. (I believe that he told DD >
about all three provisions but am not going to argue that here.)
> > 
> >
> a_svirn:
> Not a great risk? I wonder how you can say that. When you take a UV 
> your very life is at stake ? literally. I'd say the risk is 
> ultimate. Unless you argue that Snape was suicidal and wanted to 
> shuffle off this mortal coil anyway (so why not impress Bellatrix 
> while he was at it?) you can't possibly call the risk negligible. 
> 
> Moreover, the question of risk aside, as we all know, taking the vow 
> muddled his already somewhat murky loyalties. Snape, being as he is 
> more that commonly astute, was bound to consider this angle too. In 
> fact, that was the angle he should have considered first and 
> foremost. Somehow jeopardising the Resistance war effort just to 
> allay Bellatrix's suspicions does not seem worth a gamble. As for 
> Narcissa, she was already there on her knees pleading with him. She 
> didn't look like someone harbouring dark suspicions.
>

Carol responds:
Let me rephrase that. Taking the first part of the vow, the part that
Narcissa mentioned when she asked him if he would take it, was a
*calculated* risk. Snape is not suicidal, nor is he remotely stupid,
but I think he felt that it would be safe to take this portion of the
vow, as he intended to protect Draco, anyway. Possibly, DD had told
him to do whatever was required to keep Draco from carrying out his
task, so he decided that taking the vow was the best thing to do under
the circumstances, with the added benefit of helping Narcissa and
helping to dispel the last of Bellatrix's doubts. (He had already gone
to great pains to persuade her of his loyalty to the Dark Lord,
stating that he wanted her to tell the other doubters his answers as
well.) But he didn't agree to take the vow (unaware of the third
provision) *just* to allay her suspicions. His primary reason seems to
have been to protect Draco and to keep faith with Narcissa. He has to
play both sides, and both sides (Narcissa and Dumbledore) want to help
Draco, to keep him alive and, in DD's case, at least, to keep him from
becoming a murderer. As this is also Snape's goal, he's willing to put
his life on the line to protect Draco, as he would have done in any
case. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course, but I think the affection he
feels for Draco is real.) I think that *Snape* would consider the
risk, if not negligible, at least manageable, not much more dangerous
than what he was already doing. (He could be killed at any time if his
true loyalties are revealed.)

The third provision is another matter, of course. He didn't anticipate
it and didn't want to agree to it, but IMO he had no choice at that
point. I forgot to mention that besides being bound by ropes of fire
to Narcissa, and already bound by the first part of the oath,
Bellatrix was standing over him with her wand pointed right at him.

I don't understand what you mean by "jeopardising the Resistance war
effort." How would the first part of the UV, to protect Draco, do
that? The third part might do so, *unless* Snape and DD had already
realized that DD was going to die anyway (from the longterm effects of
the ring Horcrux if not as the result of LV's plan). I think DD
realized that the "resistance effort" would have to go on without him
after this year (note that he's finally showing Harry what he needs to
know to fight LV and otherwise tidying up odds and ends, including
finding a longterm replacement for Snape as Potions master and HoH). 

At any rate, can you clarify your point and exactly what you disagree
with in my view? I'm assuming DDM!Snape and that Snape is telling the
truth about knowing what LV wants Draco to do (not about the Vanishing
Cabinets, of course; just that he's assigned Draco the impossible task
of killing DD). I'm also assuming that Snape has informed DD of this
plan and is doing his best to follow DD's orders without revealing the
true loyalties he has taken such pains to conceal.

Carol, confused as to why a_svirn thinks that Snape took the UV






From musefatale at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 21:52:03 2006
From: musefatale at yahoo.com (Danielle)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:52:03 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <20060810123344.14550.qmail@web26112.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebg9q3+sie7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156799

I sent a private message to Hans in relation to somewhat off-topic
comments I had about his post. I felt as though they had no place
here. The comments that I did feel were relevant are below. 

>Hans:   A prophecy is made that a baby will be born who will change
the world. The baby is born and a star appears to announce his birth.
When the king of this world hears about the birth he tries to have the
baby killed, but fails. The child grows up in wisdom and in stature,
and in favour with God and man. He performs miracles at a young age.
But as he grows older he knows he will have to meet his arch-enemy:
Satan.>

Danielle: Okay, that answers the "what do Jesus and Harry Potter have
in common" question.  It makes a lot of sense. Any Christian writing a
book like this would have thought about that as a possibility for a
storyline. However, Jo has said more than once that Harry Potter DOES
NOT have any religious undertones. She is not promoting religion or
the absence of religion in her books. It simply does not factor into
her writing. She has said, however, that she does tie historical
events into her books. She has said that there is historical relevance
to Voldemort's birth and 1949. That when things go awry in the Muggle
world, they go awry in the Wizarding world and vice versa. Likewise,
she's said that there are a lot of mythological references in her books. 

>Hans:   The story is basically so similar to that of Jesus we can
easily see that it will end the same way as Jesus' story. Just as
Jesus died to save the world, so Harry will lay down his life for the
wizarding world. But just as Jesus rose from the dead after three
days, so will Harry.>

Danielle: I believe that Harry will die, but I cannot see how he would
be able to come back, except for as a ghost. Jo has said that we will
find out why some people become ghosts and others do not. 

>Hans:   We believe the scar which Voldemort gave Harry when Voldemort
tried to kill him is a Horcrux. Harry will realise this, and, after
killing the other 5 Horcruxes, will enter the Gate of Saturn to
sacrifice himself, making Voldemort mortal. Harry will meet Sirius
there, surrounded by a brilliant golden light. Harry, without the last
Horcrux, will then return through the arch with the veil, possibly
with the help of Sirius, and confront the mortal Voldemort. We don't
believe Harry will kill Voldemort. Harry will learn in Part 7 of the
Septology that love cannot kill. In the power of that force Voldemort
will dissipate like a puff of smoke.>

Danielle: I have heard the Harry is a Horacrux theory a couple of
times before, and I personally agree with most of it. Why would Harry
have to go through the Veil? Why could not he just let Voldemort kill
him if he is aware of his position as Horacrux and he can come back? 
Why does he need someone else to help him? Jo has said that the entire
reason for her killing Dumbledore and Sirius is that Harry has to
defeat Voldemort alone. Frankly, I do not see Jo writing anything even
remotely like this at all in her book. It is too much. It is too
ridiculous. We have seen that she likes to do things simply.

>Hans:   We believe that the 7 trials in Part 1 are clues to Part 7.
And just as Love saves Harry in his confrontation with Voldemort in
Part 1, so it will in Part 7. We believe Lily is somehow connected
with the Room of Love, which will be opened in Part 7.

Danielle: Jo has said the parts of Chamber of Secrets allude to Book
7, not Sorcerer's Stone. 

> 
> Hans:  "Rowling said she couldn't answer the questions about the
book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven." CST 99
> 
>   "If I talk too freely about whether I believe in God I think the
intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's
coming in the books." JKR >
 
Danielle: I would like to see your sources for this. I do not recall
Jo saying this in any interview.

I know this is a long post, I just felt that I needed to repond to
some points on the message board. If anyone else wants to know any of
my critiques on the former post, just say so and I'll post the entire
thing on the off-topic board.

Peace and Love
Danielle











From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Thu Aug 10 21:44:52 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 21:44:52 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End and Hogwart's protection
In-Reply-To: <ebg8p7+bi0d@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebg9ck+cqce@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156800

> Carol responds:
> I don't think the Advance Guard would need to fly over Spinner's
End,
> anyway. Snape was on his way to 12 GP to give his report. He
arrives
> just minutes before Harry ("He's just arrived, the meeting's
started,"
> Mrs. Weasley tells the Order members right after she greets Harry,
OoP
> am. ed. 61). Possibly his arrival is the reason for the signals
(red
> and green wand sparks), which tell the Order members that it's
time to
> leave, or more likely he informs them that he's on his way since
the
> flight takes more than a few minutes. In any case, he wouldn't have
> been at Spinner's End, so there's no reason to fly over it. Quite
> possibly, Snape also saw the wand sparks and knew what they were
about.
>
> Carol, just putting two and two together in terms of timing

Laurawkids:
HMMMMM.  Could you be saying that it is Snape who is up there
shooting the sparks?  Somehow that feels like a Snape thing to do:
be helping, yet not want to have any contact whatsoever with Harry
in his house.  He would see them take off and then he would wing it
to 12 GP and get there just a bit ahead.

It really would not be a big deal if he were up there, since he is
in the Order, and expected to help out.


Laurawkids, who still wants someone's feedback on the Hogwarts
protection issue, or relevant previous threads which may have
discussed it.











From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 22:23:15 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:23:15 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebf20c+e5jv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgbkj+2ugr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156801

Ceridwen wrote:
> But, since I do agree that someone was Polyjuiced as someone else, 
> why not consider LV as a possible Polyjuiced Someone?

Carol responds:
Sorry to snip our whole post, but I just can't buy Snape not being the
Half-blood Prince and the person in the tower and the flight scene.
There's just no reason for someone polyjuiced as Snape to be so upset
about Harry using his spells against him, or about James, and we've
been set up since Book 1 for Snape to be a Legilimens. Also, there's
no one we know who could fend off Harry's spells the way Snape did,
and the irony/poignancy is lost if it wasn't Snape who stopped him
from being Crucio'd. (Sorry, Ceridwen. I know this isn't really your
argument, it' hounnyhm's [sp!!]).

As for someone other than a Snape imposter being polyjuiced, you've
considered Tonks. And what about Blaise Zabini lolling against the
column in the Hog's Head? Maybe "he" was Bellatrix and that's how
Rosmerta was Imperio'd?

Or Polyjuiced Crabbe and Goyle could be paving the way for someone
else to use Polyjuice Potion in Book 7. I'm betting on Draco.

Carol, wondering what hounnyhmn (sp) thinks would be accomplished by
having an imposter!Snape as the real HBP








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 10 23:22:29 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:22:29 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebg1cg+glbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgf3l+kmco@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156802

Ken wrote:
> 
> Well there is that famous cramped handwriting that Carol is certain
to bring up, or rather has brought up. Something doesn't seem right
about that handwriting though. We know that Snape's writing is cramped
> because of the pensieve scene. Is that the only reason? We "saw" his
> handwriting there but of course it is Harry who really saw it there.
> Harry, Ron, and Hermione have had Snape as a teacher for 6 years by
> the end HBP. Is it possible that *none* of them have become familiar
> enough with Snape's writing in all that time to recongnize it in the
> potions book? Does he *never* hand back an assignment with his
> "helpful" comments scribbled in the margins? And Harry for certain
saw it in Snape's memory. What do you think, Carol if you are reading
> this, is the handwriting a certain ID of Snape with the HBP or could
> it be a red herring? Why is it that none of the trio instantly
> recognizes the HBP's handwriting as Snape's?
><snip>

> Don't appeal to the "wonderful irony" either, JKR insists that
writers are cruel. DD's killer would not spare Irony.

Carol responds:
Since you ask, IMO, the description of young Snape's handwriting in
the Pensieve memory is there for two reasons: To show that he, like
Hermione, likes to get in as much information as possible into his
answers because he knows a lot about this subject (DADA), and to
prepare us for the HBP's virtually identical handwriting. Both pieces
of information turn out to be important in HBP: Snape is a Potions
genius, he's a DADA genius who invents his own spells (and 
countercurses), and he's a Healer (the bezoar is suggested both in the
book, in Teen!Snape's snarky style, and by Adult!Snape in his
first-ever Potions lesson with Harry.) Hermione thinks that the HBP
might be a girl because the handwriting resembles hers, but it not
only resembles but is identical to the minuscule, cramped writing of
Teen!Snape in his DADA OWL. So Hermione's idea that it must be a
girl's writing is a red herring. We have Snape's own word that he *is*
the HBP. (Sorry: not buying the polyjuiced imposter idea, which again
would destroy the irony of Snape having to kill Dumbledore to save
Harry, who would have been killed by the DEs if both Snape and DD had
been killed. IMO, but I've given my evidence elsewhere and it's OT here.) 

Teen!Snape's handwriting could be smaller than Adult!Snape's, which
Harry sees chiefly on the board, where it would have to be large
enough for the students to read (and he could use printing rather than
handwriting, for that matter). also, Teen!Snape is writing small for
two reasons, to cram as many words as possible into his DADA exam and
to squeeze words into the margin. Adult!Snape doesn't seem to write
comments on the student's essays. He just seems to assign the number
of points he thinks they deserve, or when the students are preparing
for their OWLs, the mark the essay would have received if it were an
OWL exam. With all those students and everything else he has to do,
including prowling the halls at night and holding detentions, he
really doesn't have time to make detailed comments. (I *know* how long
that takes, and I also know that some students don't even read them
after you've taken all that trouble!)

I've discussed the whole topic in great detail elsewhere, so I'll just
link you to that post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148895

And, sorry, Ken. I *do* insist that the lovely irony of Teen!Snape
teaching Harry and Harry identifying with and defending him would be
entirely lost if the HBP were anyone else. You're free to think
otherwise, of course.

Carol, apologizing for the hurried post, but I said it all better in
the earlier one







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Thu Aug 10 23:52:42 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:52:42 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Muggle-lovers?
In-Reply-To: <ebg10g+jnd0@eGroups.com>
References: <ebg10g+jnd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44DBC6CA.2010403@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156803

monika_zaboklicka wrote:
> DE hate Muggles. That's certain and proven. But I came to think 
> that "blood-traitors" and "Muggle-lovers" are hardly much better:

I was thinking that all the Wizards consider muggles to be animals. The 
only difference is that DE think muggles are an unpleasant pest, that 
should be either mass-murdered or just hunted for pleasure, and people 
like Arthur think muggles are akin to very cute and clever dogs.

More examples for your list: in GoF, the way the Weasleys come for a 
visit. Arthur just decided to connect their fireplace. Stupid muggles, 
they didn't keep it ready for a friendly wizarding family to drop in.

The way Ron words his letter: "ask the muggles" if you can go. If they 
say yes, we'll pick you up. If they say no, we'll pick you up anyway.

And I still want to know what happens if a muggle family refuses to send 
their child to Hogwarts. Do they always dispatch Hagrid to deal with 
difficult customers?

Irene



From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug 11 00:17:18 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:17:18 -0000
Subject: Muggle-lovers?
In-Reply-To: <44DBC6CA.2010403@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <ebgiae+tlku@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156804

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin <irene_mikhlin at ...>
wrote:
> 
> I was thinking that all the Wizards consider muggles to be animals. The 
> only difference is that DE think muggles are an unpleasant pest, that 
> should be either mass-murdered or just hunted for pleasure, and people 
> like Arthur think muggles are akin to very cute and clever dogs.
> 


oh, I don't think that Wizards consider muggles to be animals.  Most
of the Wizards, according to Hagrid and Ron, marry muggles -
otherwise, they would have died out.  If Wizards thought that of
muggles, they wouldn't marry them - I mean, would you marry your cat?
 And have sex and then offspring from that union?

No.  I think that all but DE's view muggles as humans, just like
themselves, only having different talents.  DE's, IMHO, view muggles
like the Nazi's viewed Jews - subhuman and not to breed or intermingle
with and therefore,  something to be wiped out.  

colebiancardi
(who does love her cat, Obi-Wan, but would never think of marrying him)







From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com  Fri Aug 11 00:28:29 2006
From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:28:29 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Muggle-lovers?
In-Reply-To: <ebgiae+tlku@eGroups.com>
References: <ebgiae+tlku@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44DBCF2D.3040000@btopenworld.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156805

colebiancardi wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, IreneMikhlin <irene_mikhlin at ...>
> wrote:
>> I was thinking that all the Wizards consider muggles to be animals. The 
>> only difference is that DE think muggles are an unpleasant pest, that 
>> should be either mass-murdered or just hunted for pleasure, and people 
>> like Arthur think muggles are akin to very cute and clever dogs.
>>
> 
> 
> oh, I don't think that Wizards consider muggles to be animals.  Most
> of the Wizards, according to Hagrid and Ron, marry muggles -
> otherwise, they would have died out.

Are you sure he said Muggles? I seem to remember he said "muggleborns", 
but I might be wrong.

I don't know, Arthur's attitude seems to me very patronising, "ah, look 
at the clever tricks they do, bless...". And he is the best wizarding 
world has to offer.

> No.  I think that all but DE's view muggles as humans, just like
> themselves, only having different talents.

No, I don't think they view them as equals, "just like themselves". You 
don't go and obliviate equals until they half lose their mind.

Irene



From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 11 00:35:14 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:35:14 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebgbkj+2ugr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgjc2+gn54@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156806

Carol responds:
> Sorry to snip our whole post, but I just can't buy Snape not being 
the Half-blood Prince and the person in the tower and the flight 
scene.

Ceridwen:
I already mentioned that I don't think Snape was anyone but Snape on 
the tower and afterwards on the grounds.  I could see some 
possibility on the tower, but when would this imposter and the real 
Snape change places with Harry running after him?  How could these 
collaborators - and they would have to collaborate in order to change 
places - be assured that Harry or anyone else following wouldn't see 
the switch?  It's too risky in the bad way for spies as it gives 
identity away.

I suggested that *if* we saw a Polyjuiced Snape-imposter in HBP, it 
would have been at Spinner's End.  Any other time, even though I'm 
tempted to think LV might have really wanted to teach DADA and so did 
the Polyjuice thing to finally do it (just for a lark of a 
suggestion, btw, can you imagine LV crying into his pillow at night 
because he was denied the job?), I think Snape was Snape was Snape, 
period.

But I do think someone more major than Crabbe and Goyle was 
Polyjuiced.  Why else would JKR introduce the dire possibilities of 
Polyjuiced baddies, then bonk us on the head with it like it was 
glasses of mead?  The only other possibility, as someone (I think it 
was you, too bad I snipped early!) suggested, would be if someone 
important was Polyjuiced in book 7.

Ceridwen, hoping she cleared this up a little.






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 00:50:50 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:50:50 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebfd2b+cbfd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgk9a+sfsd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156807

<hickengruendler at ...> wrote:
>
> The exact script from the second reading in New York is now online at 
> the Leaky Cauldron. It's here: http://www.the-leaky-
> cauldron.org/#static:eventreports/jkrnycnight2
> 

Neri:
This link may be broken. I suggest going to:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#article:8938
where there are links to both the transcript and the video.

To save you some clicking and searching, here is the part with
Rushdie's question:

*********************************************************
Salman Rushdie: Hello, we are Salman and Milan Rushdie. (Crowd
applauds) Umm -

JK Rowling: I'm not that sure this is fair. (Crowd laughs) I think you
might be better at guessing plots than most. But anyway, off you go.

Salman Rushdie: We are 9 and 59. And one of us is good at guessing
plots, not me. And this is really Milan's question and it's kind of a
follow-up to the previous one.

JK Rowling: Alright. Okay.

Salman Rushdie: Until the events of Volume 6, it was always made plain
that Snape might have been an unlikable fellow but he was essentially
one of the good guys. (Crowd screams approval)

JK Rowling: I can see this is the question all really want answered.

Salman Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had always
vouched for him. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villian and
Dumbledore's killer. We cannot, or don't want to believe this. (Crowd
laughs) Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy, (crowd
applauds) from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead
and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to
put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come face
to face, (crowd laughs) Harry may have more allies than he or
Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (Crowd laughs, applauds
and screams) In our opinion, everything follows from it.

JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right. But I
see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore
is definitely dead.

[more followes about grief management] 
*************************************************************

There are two significant differences between this transcript and the
previous transcript we discussed here, and IMO both these differences
confirm my view that Salman Rushdie was making an if/then statement.
Firstly, he says: "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good
guy, *from which it follows that* Dumbledore can't really be dead" (I
stress the difference from the first transcript).  It is obvious that
Dumbledore being alive, in Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape being
good. It is not an AND statement "Snape is good AND Dumbledore can't
be dead". It is not even a list of things that are not necessarily
connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be dead, 3)...". It
is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be dead".

Secondly, when Rushdie repeats the words "follows from" he says: "is
Snape good or bad? *In our opinion* everything follows from it (I
stress again the difference from the previous transcript). Rushdie's
words "in our opinion" are important here because JKR's answers here
"well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right". It is obvious
that by "your opinion" JKR was meaning Rushdie's "In our opinion
everything follows from this". IOW it was precisely the "follows from"
part that JKR was validating.

So as I wrote before, Rushdie was basically saying "IF Snape is good
THEN it follows that Dumbledore can't be dead", and JKR was basically
answering "this statement is correct but Dumbledore *is* dead". If we
treat this as a logical argument then the unavoidable conclusion is
that Snape can't be good. The only wiggle room I see here for
Good!Snape is if JKR wasn't treating this as an absolutely logical
statement or if her logic was faulty. 

I also watched the video and it didn't change my impression. One thing
that isn't in the transcript is that JKR is following each sentence of
Rushdie with "aha..." and "yes..." and after Rushdie says "our theory
is that Snape is in fact still a good guy" JKR says "right..." in a
tone of "I'm following you, please continue..." and then momentarily
panics, apparently realizing that this might be interpreted as if she
agrees. This may have contributed to the first impression that JKR was
validating Snape being good, but from watching the video it's pretty
obvious she wasn't doing any such thing. It was also obvious that both
Rushdie and JKR were carefully weighting each word. Rushdie was
reading the question from a note and keeping with the written
sentences despite interference from the crowd, and JKR was listening
attentively and considering every word of her reply.

I also noticed that Rushdie very wisely blamed this whole theory on
his 9 years old son rather than on himself <g>.


> Hickengruendler:
> There are some things I found interesting, most notably this one about 
> Dumbledore, which sounded IMO a bit different in the reports of the 
> visitors.
> 
> JKR said, that she couldn't answer the question, if we will see him in 
> action again, since the answer is in book 7, but that we shouldn't 
> expect him to do a Gandalf. That does not sound, as if a short time 
> return (like the one from James and Lily during the climax of GoF) is 
> out of question. Yes, Dumble's dead, but the answer to the question if 
> we will see him in action again is in book 7. I'm betting on more than 
> just Portrait!Dumbledore in HP 7.

Neri:
My bet is on a pensieve memory of Dumbledore. In fact, probably more
than one. We will need *lots* of explanations.


Neri






From kjones at telus.net  Fri Aug 11 01:26:17 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:26:17 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebgjc2+gn54@eGroups.com>
References: <ebgjc2+gn54@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44DBDCB9.7040207@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156808

Ceridwen wrote:
> Carol responds:
>> Sorry to snip our whole post, but I just can't buy Snape not being 
> the Half-blood Prince and the person in the tower and the flight 
> scene.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I already mentioned that I don't think Snape was anyone but Snape on 
> the tower and afterwards on the grounds.  I could see some 
> possibility on the tower, but when would this imposter and the real 
> Snape change places with Harry running after him?  How could these 
> collaborators - and they would have to collaborate in order to change 
> places - be assured that Harry or anyone else following wouldn't see 
> the switch?  It's too risky in the bad way for spies as it gives 
> identity away.

   KJ writes:

     I don't see how Snape could be a substituted person.  His part has 
been carefully protected from giving us that impression, unlike Tonks, 
who is very suspicious.  There were numerous hints in the book and the 
poly-juicing of Crabbe and Goyle, who I think were the red herrings. JKR 
says that we will see DD in action in book 7, but that he will not do a 
Gandalf. We also know that DD was forcing Snape to agree to something he 
did not like. We have also been told that DD's family is important in 
the coming book, and she does not specifically mention Dumbledore as the 
person who died in book 6.  I am wondering, as a result of these latest 
posts, if perhaps Dumbledore has already died as a result of his wounds, 
and was replaced temporarily by Aberforth. Assuming Snape was able to 
fake the AK, and Aberforth survived, we will see him again in book 7, 
but Dumbledore will still be dead. DD did seem somewhat crankier in book 
7, God knows he had reason, but maybe it wasn't him. DD would be the 
last person in the world to be suspected of being someone else.

   KJ




From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 01:28:32 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:28:32 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? (Was: DD would not make Snape take a UV )
In-Reply-To: <ebgapf+g70n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgmg0+rp05@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156809

> Carol:
<snip> Taking the first part of the vow, the part that
> Narcissa mentioned when she asked him if he would take it, was a
> *calculated* risk. Snape is not suicidal, nor is he remotely 
stupid,
> but I think he felt that it would be safe to take this portion of 
the
> vow, as he intended to protect Draco, anyway. Possibly, DD had told
> him to do whatever was required to keep Draco from carrying out his
> task, so he decided that taking the vow was the best thing to do 
under
> the circumstances, with the added benefit of helping Narcissa and
> helping to dispel the last of Bellatrix's doubts. (He had already 
gone
> to great pains to persuade her of his loyalty to the Dark Lord,
> stating that he wanted her to tell the other doubters his answers 
as
> well.) But he didn't agree to take the vow (unaware of the third
> provision) *just* to allay her suspicions. His primary reason 
seems to
> have been to protect Draco and to keep faith with Narcissa. He has 
to
> play both sides, and both sides (Narcissa and Dumbledore) want to 
help
> Draco, to keep him alive and, in DD's case, at least, to keep him 
from
> becoming a murderer. As this is also Snape's goal, he's willing to 
put
> his life on the line to protect Draco, as he would have done in any
> case. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course, but I think the affection he
> feels for Draco is real.) I think that *Snape* would consider the
> risk, if not negligible, at least manageable, not much more 
dangerous
> than what he was already doing. (He could be killed at any time if 
his
> true loyalties are revealed.)
> 
> The third provision is another matter, of course. He didn't 
anticipate
> it and didn't want to agree to it, but IMO he had no choice at that
> point. I forgot to mention that besides being bound by ropes of 
fire
> to Narcissa, and already bound by the first part of the oath,
> Bellatrix was standing over him with her wand pointed right at him.

a_svirn:
But that's just it ? the risk wasn't manageable and if it was 
calculated we are still in the complete dark about the nature of 
those calculations. If it were manageable risk he wouldn't have 
ended up stuck with the third provision. He did, after all, 
neglected to negotiate the precise wording. Rather careless of him, 
I'd say. In fact, why did he have to agree to the third provision at 
all? If he didn't want to, he didn't have to, did he? He could have 
halted the proceeding without even risking his cover. It was Draco's 
mission and from a true Death Eater's point of view Snape shouldn't 
have meddled. As for protecting Draco, he didn't have to take the 
vow for that. In fact, he didn't even have to convince Narcissa of 
his good intentions. Just like he never bothered to gain Harry's 
trust in order to protect him. As for Draco, again, he didn't need 
an UV as an excuse for watching out for him. He was a sort of a 
family friend and Draco seemed to have trusted him in the past. 
That's in itself was enough for Draco to believe that Snape's 
concern for him was genuine. (Especially, since it was.) Instead, 
Snape's taking the vow only made Draco mistrustful and resentful. 
All in all, to take an UV just to protect Draco seems like 
*unnecessary* risk, not manageable one. 

As for Snape's calculations we have to assume that he miscalculated 
rather badly. If, that is, we are dealing with the DDM Snape. 
However, I, for one, don't see how he can not be "remotely stupid" 
if he didn't anticipated the trap of the third provision. At the 
very least he should have been na?ve in the extreme not to smell a 
rat as soon as Narcissa mentioned the UV. He must have known ? none 
better ? that he wouldn't be able to save Draco from Voldemort if 
Draco failed his mission (unless he could prevail on him to change 
sides, but then,  Narcussa didn't count on *that*). He must have 
known also that Narcissa knew that nothing but the successful 
completion of the task Voldmort had allotted for her son would 
ensure Draco's safety. Add the two and you get the third provision. 
Whatever Snape's calculations might have been this should have been 
part of them. 

> Carol:
> I don't understand what you mean by "jeopardising the Resistance 
war
> effort." 

a_svirn:
You don't think that eliminating the leader of the Resistance can 
weaken the cause? 

> Carol:
How would the first part of the UV, to protect Draco, do
> that? The third part might do so, *unless* Snape and DD had already
> realized that DD was going to die anyway (from the longterm 
effects of
> the ring Horcrux if not as the result of LV's plan). 

a_svirn:
Wait a minute, you said that Snape *didn't* anticipate the third 
provision. If so, how come he "already realised" that Dumbledore was 
dying and even turned that piece of intelligence to good use? 

> Carol:
> At any rate, can you clarify your point and exactly what you 
disagree
> with in my view? I'm assuming DDM!Snape and that Snape is telling 
the
> truth about knowing what LV wants Draco to do (not about the 
Vanishing
> Cabinets, of course; just that he's assigned Draco the impossible 
task
> of killing DD). I'm also assuming that Snape has informed DD of 
this
> plan and is doing his best to follow DD's orders without revealing 
the
> true loyalties he has taken such pains to conceal.

a_svirn:
Well, I don't know *what* to think, to tell you the truth. I am 
quite as baffled by the whole business of the UV as Bellatrix. I 
don't believe, however, that Snape knew about Draco's mission. It 
looks to me as though he skilfully drilled both sisters in order to 
garner as much information as possible. 
> 
> Carol, confused as to why a_svirn thinks that Snape took the UV
>
a_svirn, no less confused as to why he did. 







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 01:38:13 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:38:13 -0000
Subject: The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape being evil?)
In-Reply-To: <eb8g9t+nqr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgn25+qn2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156810

 
> Sydney:
> 3.  Harry already knows about the life-debt.  Whatever Harry doesn't
> know about Snape, it has to be something shocking that will forge a
> connection between them, otherwise that whole relationship doesn't
> have anywhere to go.  I mean, how would it play as a scene?  "Well,
> Harry, it turns out that... Snape owed a life-debt to your father!" 
> "Yeah, I know.  I knew that six years ago".  "Yeah, but what you don't
> know ... is that he takes it really, really seriously!".  Um.  Yeah,
> great scene.  And before Neri comes in with the DeathRay!LifeDebt
> theory, that isn't a good scene either, in terms of what it does to
> Harry.  It would be a practical factor, not an emotional one, and the
> Snape/Harry dynamic is all about emotions.

Neri:
I have to clarify here that I never thought that Harry is going to
find out about Snape's life-debt from this or that explanation. It
would be indeed a waste of a good plot. I've always assumed that Harry
is going to find out right when Snape saves his life, probably by
stepping between him and Voldemort, and not one second before that.
There would be BANG and emotions aplenty. 

What happens after Snape saves Harry and finally repays his life debt
is completely open, but I'd hazard a speculation that Snape will find
himself in a situation where his ties with Voldemort are irrevocably
severed and he must throw his lot with Order or die ? exactly the
situation he was trying to avoid throughout the whole series. At that
time all the cards will be laid on the table and Snape would have the
chance to explain his motivations and actions throughout the series
himself.

Harry's emotions would certainly be important but I suspect you
overestimate the importance of Snape's emotions. Like Dumbledore and
Sirius he is more a plot device than a main character. It is plot and
theme first that he was created to serve. 

Neri








From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 00:35:20 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:35:20 -0700
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebfpk6+3130@eGroups.com>
References: <ebdten+ld4p@eGroups.com> <ebfpk6+3130@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608101735y78769f91l4e05c8df43653558@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156812

> "esmith222002" <c.john@> wrote:
> > Having just been enjoying the discussion on Petunia and thinking
> > about 'Remember my last', I was reminded of a problem I had with
> > the entire scene. <snip> How does DD know that Petunia/Vernon is
> > about to throw Harry out of the house?

Lynda:

I've always thought that DD probably kept an eye/ear in the MOM Unauthorized
Use of Magic office.  Not just for Harry, either, but for all the students
under his care at Hogwarts.  That would explain his knowledge.

Lynda


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







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 02:10:04 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:10:04 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <ebg9q3+sie7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgots+61e6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156813

Re: Will Harry die? (long) 

> Hans: "Rowling said she couldn't answer the questions about the
> book's religious content until the conclusion of book seven." CST
99
> > "If I talk too freely about whether I believe in God I think
the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess
what's coming in the books." JKR >
>
> Danielle: I would like to see your sources for this. I do not
recall Jo saying this in any interview.
>

Tonks:
These are quotes from interviews with JKR that you can find at Quick 
Quote Quill.  Hans has recorded them correctly.  It was these 
comments from JKR and some interesting symbols that I saw in the 
first book that made me start to wonder what she was doing and to 
delve into the books in more detail.

I know many do not agree with me, and that is fine.  I do think, 
however, given the comments by JKR and the symbolism that I see, 
that she does have as a blueprint and framework of the series, a 
Christian theme. It is not necessary for the reader to ever see or 
know the blueprint or see the foundation.  It is not necessary for 
the person who buys a new home to know every detail of its 
construction, but it is important that these details be there in 
order to produce the final result. The same is true for the story in 
a book. 

I have been reading transcripts of some lectures by Carl Jung which 
were on Alchemy, of all things. I would never have expected him to 
write about Alchemy. He talks of it as associated with the 
subconscious and with the process of Individuation. And since the HP 
series is about the coming of age of a young boy into a man, the 
series can certainly be seen as representing the process of 
individuation. 

Now Hans would be the first to tell you that he and I have never 
quite seen eye to eye on the idea of Alchemy being part of the HP 
books.  And as I am reading the notes from Jung, I reluctantly have 
to say that there does seem to be a pattern in the HP that does fit 
with much of what Jung has sited.  This is much to my compete 
shock!  There are many symbols and concepts from Alchemy in the 
books. Even the 2 snakes that DD saw going in opposite directions 
are there.  

Does this mean that JKR has read Jung's work?  I don't know.  She 
got the ideas from somewhere. She is a very intelligent woman and 
may know or has had a Jungian therapist who would have told her 
about his work.  Since she starts the series with references to 
Flamel and the Philosopher's Stone, I think that is also a clue to 
the possibility that she has in fact read his work. 

So all in all, what do I think the blueprint and framework of the 
books are?  They, IMO, are about the maturation of a young boy into 
a man, both psychologically and spirituality. The process of Alchemy 
is very old, predating Christianity.  Jung says that it appears to 
show universal truths that are present in a variety of religions.  
The Christian Alchemist came to it rather late and wrote until the 
17th century.  Much of what is currently written about Alchemy is, I 
think, from a Gnostic view, which is Hans' viewpoint. 

In my view Harry comes into maturity and his spirituality has a 
Christian tone, but so far only hidden in the framework of the 
series.  JKR said in one of her more resent interviews  last year, 
that she has not wanted to talk much about the religious aspect of 
the books, but if the interviewer would ask her after book 7, she 
will tell them, but by they will know, because they will see it.  

To answer Geoff, I don't think that the books make Jesus into a 
fictional character.  I think the books show the process of becoming 
a fully functional human being that gives a role model for all of 
us. It shows Harry as everyman, becoming all that he has the God 
given capacity to become.  And this includes discovering the Christ 
within himself.

Let me explain.  According to Jung, the early Alchemist did not 
understand the concept of the unconscious as we do.  They projected 
onto matter, and thus thought that God was in the matter and had to 
be freed.  Today, from a Christian perspective we would say that the 
idea of "the kingdom of God is within you" means at the core of our 
being, within us, within the part of our unconscious that we think 
of as the soul.  And in a sense this does agree with the ancient 
alchemist because we as humans do represent matter, the earth.  The 
process of modern Alchemy is going within the self to the deep 
unconscious and freeing the image of Christ that is in each of us. 
This is a Christian perspective, but it can also work with Buddha or 
whatever God or enlightened one of other religions as well.   It is 
a universal concept.  I understand it best from the Christian 
perspective.  I think that JKR is strongly influenced by that 
perspective as well, but is trying to write it for all people and 
that is why the symbolism that I see as explicitly Christian is not 
explained by her or shown in an unveiled manner.

As to will Harry die? I have already written about that in detail. 
Briefly, IMO, he and Ginny will both go beyond the veil, and return 
with Fawkes who represents the Holy Spirit. Harry is not 
representing Jesus, or Christ, he is discovering the Christ within 
himself in a symbolic death to the old self which I think will 
include a part of LV that is within him.


Tonks_op  









From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Aug 11 02:31:56 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 22:31:56 EDT
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
Message-ID: <55d.4b76033.320d461c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156814

>Neri
>Firstly, he [Rushdie] says: "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still  a 
good
guy, *from which it follows that* Dumbledore can't really be dead"  (I
stress the difference from the first transcript). It is obvious  that
Dumbledore being alive, in Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape  being
good. It is not an AND statement "Snape is good AND Dumbledore  can't
be dead". It is not even a list of things that are not  necessarily
connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be dead,  3)...". It
is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be  dead".

>Secondly, when Rushdie repeats the words "follows from" he  says: "is
Snape good or bad? *In our opinion* everything follows from it  (I
stress again the difference from the previous transcript).  Rushdie's
words "in our opinion" are important here because JKR's answers  here
"well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right". It is  obvious
that by "your opinion" JKR was meaning Rushdie's "In our  opinion
everything follows from this". IOW it was precisely the "follows  from"
part that JKR was validating.

>So as I wrote before, Rushdie  was basically saying "IF Snape is good
THEN it follows that Dumbledore can't  be dead", and JKR was basically
answering "this statement is correct but  Dumbledore *is* dead". If we
treat this as a logical argument then the  unavoidable conclusion is
that Snape can't be good. The only wiggle room I  see here for
Good!Snape is if JKR wasn't treating this as an absolutely  logical
statement or if her logic was faulty. 

Nikkalmati
I can't agree with this analysis of the respective statements.  If "A  is 
true, then B is not true."
>From this statement you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not true."
It is still possible  to say "B is true and A is also true."  
(Somebody else will have to fill in the technical terms; it has been way  too 
long for me).
 
I also believe that JKR was agreeing that everything follows from whether  SS 
is good or bad.  I believe this statement is prospective as in  "everything 
that comes later follows from whether SS is good or bad"  not " what already 
happened on the Tower follows from whether  SS is good or bad."  But with JKR, 
who knows?   
Nikkalmati


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




From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Aug 11 02:55:06 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:55:06 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <44DBDCB9.7040207@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ebgria+ijne@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156815

KJ writes:
 
> I don't see how Snape could be a substituted person.  
> His part has been carefully protected from giving us 
> that impression, unlike Tonks, who is very suspicious.  
> There were numerous hints in the book and the poly-juicing 
> of Crabbe and Goyle, who I think were the red herrings. 
> JKR says that we will see DD in action in book 7, but 
> that he will not do a Gandalf. We also know that DD was 
> forcing Snape to agree to something he did not like. We 
> have also been told that DD's family is important in the 
> coming book, and she does not specifically mention 
> Dumbledore as the person who died in book 6.  I am 
> wondering, as a result of these latest posts, if perhaps 
> Dumbledore has already died as a result of his wounds, 
> and was replaced temporarily by Aberforth. Assuming Snape 
> was able to fake the AK, and Aberforth survived, we will 
> see him again in book 7, but Dumbledore will still be dead. 
> DD did seem somewhat crankier in book 7, God knows he had 
> reason, but maybe it wasn't him. DD would be the last 
person in the world to be suspected of being someone else.

houyhnhnm:

Aberforth!  That's an interesting possibility I hadn't 
considered.  I *have* wondered if Dumbledore was already 
dead before the scene on the tower.

I agree that it would really demolish Snape's character 
if the powerfully magical wizard and healer who emerged 
in HBP turned out to be ... well, Dumbledore.  It's not 
what I *want* to see happen and I don't really think it's 
too likely.  That potential scenario interests me, though, 
because I don't see anything in the book that absolutely forbids it.

I have been bemused by the assumptions people were ready 
to leap to after the Richard and Judy Show interview in 
June and again recently after Rowling's remarks in NYC 
and it has got me to thinking about assumptions people 
take for granted in the books.

So I am trying to look at *all* possibilities because 
that will make the surprise coming in book 7 all the more
enjoyable.  I think the ending is going to throw everyone 
for a loop.







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 02:55:45 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 02:55:45 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebgk9a+sfsd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgrjh+une6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156816






Neri snipped:

So as I wrote before, Rushdie was basically saying "IF Snape is good
THEN it follows that Dumbledore can't be dead", and JKR was basically
answering "this statement is correct but Dumbledore *is* dead". If we
treat this as a logical argument then the unavoidable conclusion is
that Snape can't be good. The only wiggle room I see here for
Good!Snape is if JKR wasn't treating this as an absolutely logical
statement or if her logic was faulty.

Snow:

Or if Snape is good and bad
and Just Out for Himself! (Confusing but 
doable, I have an entire theory on this one
with canon(s)) 
I've been on both sides of the fence about Snape and this truly is 
the only way it works. 

Neri snipped again:

I also noticed that Rushdie very wisely blamed this whole theory on
his 9 years old son rather than on himself <g>.

> Hickengruendler:
> There are some things I found interesting, most notably this one 
about 
> Dumbledore, which sounded IMO a bit different in the reports of the 
> visitors.
> 
> JKR said, that she couldn't answer the question, if we will see him 
in 
> action again, since the answer is in book 7, but that we shouldn't 
> expect him to do a Gandalf. That does not sound, as if a short time 
> return (like the one from James and Lily during the climax of GoF) 
is 
> out of question. Yes, Dumble's dead, but the answer to the question 
if 
> we will see him in action again is in book 7. I'm betting on more 
than 
> just Portrait!Dumbledore in HP 7.

Neri:
My bet is on a pensieve memory of Dumbledore. In fact, probably more
than one. We will need *lots* of explanations.

Snow:

Yep, agreed
we need to know about the defeat of Grindlewald for 
instance, many different roads she could travel with this statement. 
Dumbledore would be an action figure in this circumstance but not in 
action. 

I, personally, would like to pursue the question that was asked about 
what question had she never been asked before that should have been 
and JK hesitated with a reply that she couldn't answer because it 
would give away the ultimate ending. And there were several questions 
that could have been asked, not just one. This is, in my opinion, the 
road we need to travel. What question has `she' never been asked that 
would give away the ending? Now there is something to ponder! 
I'm going to take a stab at it and say the founders. Salazar is the 
main character other than Godric, so naturally they are dismissed if 
you're a mystery type enthusiast. I like the fact that each of the 
head of house would have been from a different background. I wrote 
about this many moons ago, but I think it's time to reconsider that: 
Slytherin was pureblood, Gryffindore was half, Ravenclaw was squid 
and Hufflepuff was muggleborn. 

In any case, I think that we need to start thinking far outside the 
realm in which we have been ever since `she' has reiterated in this 
last contact that `she' still does not feel that anyone can guess the 
ending. 


This is the most exciting news I've heard!

Snow







From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Aug 11 03:13:27 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:13:27 EDT
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
Message-ID: <3f5.817931f.320d4fd7@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156817

 
 
> Carol:
<snip> Taking the first part of the vow, the part  that
> Narcissa mentioned when she asked him if he would take it, was  a
> *calculated* risk. Snape is not suicidal, nor is he remotely  
stupid,
> but I think he felt that it would be safe to take this  portion of 
the
> vow, as he intended to protect Draco, anyway.  <snip> 
But he didn't agree to take the vow (unaware of the third
>  provision) *just* to allay her suspicions. His primary reason 
seems  to
> have been to protect Draco and to keep faith with Narcissa.  <snip>
> The third provision is another matter, of course. He didn't  
anticipate
> it and didn't want to agree to it, but IMO he had no  choice at that
> point. I forgot to mention that besides being bound by  ropes of 
fire
> to Narcissa, and already bound by the first part of  the oath,
> Bellatrix was standing over him with her wand pointed right at  him. 
Nikkalmati: 
I have to agree with most of your post (even the parts I snipped), but I tend 
 to agree with a_svirn see below on the extent of SS's knowledge.  I don't  
think SS knew Draco's task in Spinners End and took the vow (to protect Draco)  
to find out what was going on.  If Narcissa trusted him and told Draco to  
cooperate with him, he could find out the task and thwart it.  It was too  
important to pass up the chance to gain this information.  I am relying on  his 
surprise at the visit, Bella's surprise that he knew the task (he didn't),  
Bella's surprise he would take the vow, and the significant (to me <g>)  pause when 
he looked out the window at the empty street (trying to decide what  he would 
say to Narcissa).  We don't have any reason to believe that LV  would share 
his plan for Draco with SS.  LV is secretive, Bella seems to  think it is 
treasonous to reveal the task, and SS is not shown as being in favor  with LV; 
otherwise, why is PP living with SS and openly spying on  him? 
Nikkalmati 

>a_svirn:
But that's just it ? the risk wasn't  manageable and if it was 
calculated we are still in the complete dark about  the nature of 
those calculations. If it were manageable risk he wouldn't  have 
ended up stuck with the third provision. He did, after all,  
neglected to negotiate the precise wording. Rather careless of him, 
I'd  say. In fact, why did he have to agree to the third provision at 
all? If he  didn't want to, he didn't have to, did he? <snip> 
<snip> 
As for Snape's calculations we have to assume that he miscalculated  
rather badly. If, that is, we are dealing with the DDM Snape. 
However,  I, for one, don't see how he can not be "remotely stupid" 
if he didn't  anticipated the trap of the third provision. At the 
very least he should  have been na?ve in the extreme not to smell a 
rat as soon as Narcissa  mentioned the UV. <snip>
Nikkalmati: 
This IMHO is confusing hindsight with the calculations made at the spur of  
the moment -- which is all SS had.  Of course, it didn't turn out well, but  
for that I blame Bella, who interfered with Draco and prevented SS from finding  
out from him his task and how he was going to carry it out. If she taught  
him Occulmancy, it can only be to keep out SS.  I also think SS  underestimated 
Naracissa or at least her deviousness.  If he did not know  Draco's task, he 
could not anticipate how important it would be for Narcissa to  trap him into 
doing it, if Draco failed.  We don't know enough about the UV  to know if SS 
had any choice but to swear to part 3 once he had begun.   However, even if he 
could have backed out, unless he anticipated the nature of  the task, there was 
no overwhelming reason to stop and lose all he could gain  from making the 
vow.  He did have an uneasy feeling, none the less.   Note "the twitch."  I do 
think SS told DD everything and that at some time  it became clear to both DD 
and SS what Draco had been told to do.  Hence,  Plan B( whatever that was), 
which ended at the Tower. 
Nikkalmati 

>a_svirn:
<snip>. I 
don't believe, however, that Snape  knew about Draco's mission. It 
looks to me as though he skilfully drilled  both sisters in order to 
garner as much information as possible. 
Nikkalmati: 
Agreed. 
>  






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




From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Fri Aug 11 03:14:09 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:14:09 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Unloved Son (was Re: Could I be wrong about Snape bei...
Message-ID: <590.26739e1.320d5001@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156818

In a message dated 8/7/06 1:04:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
tonks_op at yahoo.com writes:


> IMO, DD has a spot in his heart for Tom too, and it breaks his heart 
> to see what Tom has become

Sandy:
I totally agree with this. I was really struck by the way DD talked to LV 
during their confrontation at the MoM in OoP, and he called him Tom. I thought it 
was very profound.

Sandy


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




From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 11 03:35:40 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:35:40 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebgf3l+kmco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebgtuc+aamg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156819

> Carol responds:
> first-ever Potions lesson with Harry.) Hermione thinks that the HBP
> might be a girl because the handwriting resembles hers, but it not
> only resembles but is identical to the minuscule, cramped writing of
> Teen!Snape in his DADA OWL. 

Ken:

I know that you keep *saying* that the two writings are identical but
neither here nor in the previous message that you refer to do I see
any *proof* of this. I agree that you are drawing the conclusion that
the narrator intends, I just don't know whether that conclusion is a 
red herring.

Carol:

> Teen!Snape's handwriting could be smaller than Adult!Snape's, which
> Harry sees chiefly on the board, where it would have to be large
> enough for the students to read (and he could use printing rather than
> handwriting, for that matter). also, 

Ken:

I thought briefly that Snape's writing on the board should have settled
the matter and then like you I remembered that he produced it 
magically. For all we know the writing on the board is Helvetica bold,
300 point. It seems very odd to me that in the course of 6 years
none of the trio has seen Snape's handwriting enough to recognize
it as the Prince's. That isn't conclusive, merely suspicious. You 
apparently recall a scene where Snape *did* write on the board by
hand and dismiss it because Harry doesn't notice details. Hermione
does though.

>Carol:
> 
> And, sorry, Ken. I *do* insist that the lovely irony of Teen!Snape
> teaching Harry and Harry identifying with and defending him would be
> entirely lost if the HBP were anyone else. You're free to think
> otherwise, of course.
> 

Oh, I agree that this would kill that irony. It  occurs to me that if 
a writer wanted to fool a reader like Carol her best bet would be
to set out a delicious plate of irony and then cruelly knock it to the floor
in book 7 ;-)

I don't know if this goes anywhere or not. It is an apparently new
piece of out-of-the-box thinking. Do we have anything else to 
do right now? You're not going to outwit the unreliable narrartor
from inside the box.

Ken








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 04:40:51 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 04:40:51 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebgrjh+une6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebh1oj+fmvu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156820

> Nikkalmati:
> I can't agree with this analysis of the respective statements.  If
"A  is 
> true, then B is not true."
> From this statement you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not true."

Neri:
You are correct. This still leaves an alternative possibility "A is
not true and B is not true". However, here we have additional
information: JKR also tells us that B is true (that is, that
Dumbledore *is* dead). This strikes down the alternative possibility
and therefore we are left only with "A is not true and B is true"
(that is, Snape isn't good and Dumbledore is dead). 

> Nikkalmati:
> It is still possible  to say "B is true and A is also true."  

Neri:
No, it isn't. An AND statement is reversible. That is, "B is true and
A is also true" is the same as "A is true and B is also true", which
most certainly contradicts "if A is true, then B is not true".

> Nikkalmati: 
> I also believe that JKR was agreeing that everything follows from
whether  SS 
> is good or bad.  I believe this statement is prospective as in 
"everything 
> that comes later follows from whether SS is good or bad"  not " what
already 
> happened on the Tower follows from whether  SS is good or bad."

Neri:
It seems pretty clear to me that Rushdie's last sentence "so is Snape
good or bad? In our opinion, everything follows from it" is the
summary of his previous sentences: "Our theory is that Snape is in
fact, still a good guy, from which it follows that Dumbledore can't
really be dead and that the death is a ruse cooked up between
Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry
and Voldemort come face to face, Harry may have more allies than he or
Voldemort suspects". IOW, "everything" includes, among other things
(the ruse, Harry not alone) that Dumbledore can't be dead.


> Snow:
> 
> Or if Snape is good and bad
and Just Out for Himself! (Confusing but 
> doable, I have an entire theory on this one
with canon(s)) 
> I've been on both sides of the fence about Snape and this truly is 
> the only way it works.

Neri:
Hmmm. You may have noticed that I was careful not to write "Snape is
bad", since this actually doesn't follow from Rushdie's argument. But
lets hear your theory. We never have enough of Snape theories.

Neri








From technomad at intergate.com  Fri Aug 11 05:00:38 2006
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 00:00:38 -0500
Subject: Hermione and her parents
Message-ID: <001701c6bd03$1b776980$ce510043@D6L2G391>

No: HPFGUIDX 156821

I've had a theory for a long time that Hermione is able to spend so many 
holidays at the Burrow because her parents are doing other things 
themselves.  I know that there's organizations for doctors that go overseas 
into hellish Third World countries to try to save lives---_Medicins sans 
Frontieres,_ or something like that---so there might well be something 
analogous for dentists.

Or Hermione's sister might be _such_ a handful for whatever reason ("special 
needs," incorrigible juvenile delinquent, what-have-you) that Herm's parents 
are just as happy to have her out of the line of fire so that they can deal 
with their other girl. 




From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Aug 11 05:47:43 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 01:47:43 EDT
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
Message-ID: <bd5.2cc3ef4.320d73ff@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156822

Neri wrote:
Salman Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had  always
vouched for him. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villian  and
Dumbledore's killer. We cannot, or don't want to believe this.  (Crowd
laughs) Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy,  (crowd
applauds) from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be  dead
and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape  to
put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come  face
to face, (crowd laughs) Harry may have more allies than he  or
Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (Crowd laughs,  applauds
and screams) In our opinion, everything follows from it.

JK  Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right. But I
see that I  need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore
is definitely  dead.

[more followes about grief management]  
*************************************************************

There  are two significant differences between this transcript and the
previous  transcript we discussed here, and IMO both these differences
confirm my view  that Salman Rushdie was making an if/then statement.
Firstly, he says: "Our  theory is that Snape is in fact still a good
guy, *from which it follows  that* Dumbledore can't really be dead" (I
stress the difference from the  first transcript).  It is obvious that
Dumbledore being alive, in  Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape being
good. It is not an AND statement  "Snape is good AND Dumbledore can't
be dead". It is not even a list of things  that are not necessarily
connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be  dead, 3)...". It
is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be  dead".
 
 
Julie:
But JKR doesn't respond by saying "Your theory is right." She  responds
"Your *opinion* is right" directly after Rushdie says "In our  *opinion*,
everything follows from it (whether Snape is good or bad)." So it is 
just as likely, if not more likely, that she was in fact responding  to
the opinion and not the theory. Which leaves unanswered the question
of whether Snape is good or bad. 

Neri again:
Secondly, when Rushdie repeats the words "follows from"  he says: "is
Snape good or bad? *In our opinion* everything follows from it  (I
stress again the difference from the previous transcript).  Rushdie's
words "in our opinion" are important here because JKR's answers  here
"well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right". It is  obvious
that by "your opinion" JKR was meaning Rushdie's "In our  opinion
everything follows from this". IOW it was precisely the "follows  from"
part that JKR was validating.
 
Julie:
I sort of see what you're saying...maybe. But I think Rushdie was
expressing a more generalized opinion about the story when he
said "everything follows from it." I don't think he meant Dumbledore
being alive or dead depends respectively on whether Snape is good 
or bad. Rather that many plot points will be reevaluated based on
whether Snape turns out to be good or bad.
 
I also don't think JKR would consider bothering to even note  that
DD's death does NOT answer whether Snape is good or bad. It very
obviously doesn't, because we've already come up with numerous 
workable theories on this group how DD can be dead and Snape can
be either good or bad. (Heck even polyuiced!Snape is workable if
not very likely nor very good storytelling.) Whatever *JKR's* flavor  of
Snape will turn out to be, DD being dead doesn't seal it, and I don't
see why she'd be *less* obscure than usual when  Snape's loyalty  
is without a doubt the biggest question to be answered in Book 7  (by 
her own admission).


Neri:
So as I wrote before, Rushdie was basically saying "IF Snape is  good
THEN it follows that Dumbledore can't be dead", and JKR was  basically
answering "this statement is correct but Dumbledore *is* dead". If  we
treat this as a logical argument then the unavoidable conclusion  is
that Snape can't be good. The only wiggle room I see here  for
Good!Snape is if JKR wasn't treating this as an absolutely  logical
statement or if her logic was faulty. 
 
Julie:
I don't see why we should treat it as a logical  argument as most
people don't carefully analyze the logic of words and arguments 
during a conversation, especially one in the midst of a crowd where
the conversation is being interrupted by lots of noise and laughter.
I'd have absolutely no expectation for JKR to follow the logic of 
Rushdie's words in the exact manner you've presented. I'm not a
stupid person, and I'm sure I wouldn't have done so, unless I had
a few minutes to rehear/reread Rushdie's exact words and analyze
their meaning before I answered! Which, of course, isn't possible
in that situation.

Neri:
I also watched the video and it didn't change my impression.  One thing
that isn't in the transcript is that JKR is following each sentence  of
Rushdie with "aha..." and "yes..." and after Rushdie says "our  theory
is that Snape is in fact still a good guy" JKR says "right..." in  a
tone of "I'm following you, please continue..." and then  momentarily
panics, apparently realizing that this might be interpreted as if  she
agrees. This may have contributed to the first impression that JKR  was
validating Snape being good, but from watching the video it's  pretty
obvious she wasn't doing any such thing. It was also obvious that  both
Rushdie and JKR were carefully weighting each word. Rushdie  was
reading the question from a note and keeping with the  written
sentences despite interference from the crowd, and JKR was  listening
attentively and considering every word of her reply.
 
Julie:
I agree all JKR's "ah" and "yes" comments meant was that she
was listening to each sentence. It doesn't follow that she was
putting them all together and analyzing them all as one logical 
statement that she should reply to as such. JKR's a writer, not
a logician or mathematician (to say the least ;-). I don't think 
she is thinking along the lines, "If A, then B, if not A, then not
B..." She also often answers questions in a partial manner, or in a 
deliberately obscure manner, so there is no reason to think she
wouldn't do so here. Addressing Rushdie's last statement in and
of itself (Everything follows from it--whether Snape is good or bad)
would be right in character for her, IMO.



Julie 



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




From kkersey at swbell.net  Fri Aug 11 06:23:11 2006
From: kkersey at swbell.net (kkersey_austin)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:23:11 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <55d.4b76033.320d461c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebh7of+rv64@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156823


> Nikkalmati
> I can't agree with this analysis of the respective statements.  If
> "A  is true, then B is not true."
> From this statement you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not 
> true."

(Elisabet dusts off her mathematician hat)
Er, nope. The statement "P implies Q" *is* equivalent to "(Not Q)
implies (not P)". 

Applying this to the A's and B's of your formulation above, we get:
"If A is true, then B is false" is equivalent to "If B is not false,
then A is not true", which, after cleaning up a bit, is the same as
"If B is true, A is not true."  

QED. :-)

> It is still possible  to say "B is true and A is also true."  

Er, nope again. Because if A is true, then your statement above
assures us that B isn't. (But  "A is false and B is also false" is not
contradicted, so it is a possibility


The problem with Neri's argument isn't the logical structure, but the
truth of the premise: he believes that JKR confirmed that Rushdie's
"if-then" statement was correct; I strongly believe she did nothing of
the sort. She only addressed two specific points: first, confirming
that his specific opinion that "everything follows" from Snape being
good or evil is "correct" (and her echoing his word "opinion" is
pretty strong evidence that she was talking about that particular
statment, not Rushdie's entire theory); the other being her
contradicting one aspect of his theory by stating that DD is indeed dead. 

Nowhere in her answer do I see her addressing the truth of the
hypothetical "if then" regarding the connection between Snape being
good or evil and DD being alive or not. 

I know some (Neri for one) diagree with this interpretation, and the
confusion over the exact wording with the different transcripts
floating around further clouds the issue. I may change my mind after
seeing the video, but so far I feel pretty safe in assuming that
nothing she said addressed the truth of the statement in question.

> Nikkalmati
> I also believe that JKR was agreeing that everything follows from
> whether  SS  is good or bad.  I believe this statement is 
> prospective as in "everything that comes later follows from whether
> SS is good or bad"  not " what already happened on the Tower follows
> from whether  SS is good or bad."  But with JKR, who knows? 

I agree. "Everything" is ambiguous - and whether she meant it is
events in the plot or thematic issues that follow is unclear. Likely both.

Elisabet, wielding her logic Big Paddle*

*Way, way old TBAY allusion; I think the Harry and the Potters concert
tonight blasted some of my brain cells back a few years, sorry! 







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Fri Aug 11 08:04:50 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:04:50 -0000
Subject: Penmanship (wasPolyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebgtuc+aamg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebhdn2+45cu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156824


> Ken:
> 
> I thought briefly that Snape's writing on the board should have 
settled
> the matter and then like you I remembered that he produced it 
> magically. For all we know the writing on the board is Helvetica 
bold,
> 300 point. It seems very odd to me that in the course of 6 years
> none of the trio has seen Snape's handwriting enough to recognize
> it as the Prince's. That isn't conclusive, merely suspicious. You 
> apparently recall a scene where Snape *did* write on the board by
> hand and dismiss it because Harry doesn't notice details. Hermione
> does though.

Potioncat:
At least once Professor Snape's writing was described as tall and 
spikey..or at least a 'D' was. We saw the cramped handwriting of 5th 
year Severus and then the cramped handwriting of a mystery student. 
Those two match as well as we readers can tell. (Not having the 
samples and not being experts.)

I clearly remember thinking the writing in the Potions book was 
similar to Severus's writing, but I dismissed it. I think JKR was 
playing by Neri's rule, of avoiding a non-description. That is, Harry 
noticed the handwriting's description but didn't associate it with 
any previous handwriting. We however, had the ability (or not) of 
remembering the previous handwriting. I think Hermione's comment was 
the red herring, because it made us question the evidence.



On a slightly different slant: Someone up thread mentioned that 
Hermione never says, Eileen Snape's child was named Severus, and that 
Harry interrupted her before she finished her sentence. OK, but she 
did acknowledge that Severus was the child. Perhaps she would have 
said "gave birth to twins." But I don't think there is any doubt that 
Severus Snape is the son of Eileen Prince.

Potioncat, hoping she added something and didn't just say the same 
things that Carol did. 







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 11:41:27 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:41:27 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <ebgots+61e6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebhqd7+lo4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156826

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

> To answer Geoff, I don't think that the books make Jesus into a 
> fictional character.  I think the books show the process of becoming 
> a fully functional human being that gives a role model for all of 
> us. It shows Harry as everyman, becoming all that he has the God 
> given capacity to become.  And this includes discovering the Christ 
> within himself.

Geoff:
I didn't intend to imply that. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What 
I said was I thought that Hans'  phrases "he will come back just like Jesus, 
Orpheus, Horus and the other liberators" and "that's the story of Jesus. But 
it's also the story of Harry Potter" juxtaposed Christianity with a swathe of 
material which is fictional and thus, by implication, suggested that the life 
of Jesus was in the same category.

Since I have often written that I see Harry as an "everyman" on a journey, which 
is how Christian belief begins anyway, I can draw parallels with faith knowing 
that JKR is a Christian and therefore will echo her faith in her writing either 
overtly or covertly.









From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 11:39:35 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:39:35 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebgbkj+2ugr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156827

Ceridwen wrote:
But, since I do agree that someone was Polyjuiced as someone else,
why not consider LV as a possible Polyjuiced Someone?

Carol responds:
Sorry to snip our whole post, but I just can't buy Snape not being
the Half-blood Prince and the person in the tower and the flight
scene.
There's just no reason for someone polyjuiced as Snape to be so
upset about Harry using his spells against him, or about James, and
we've been set up since Book 1 for Snape to be a Legilimens. Also,
there's no one we know who could fend off Harry's spells the way
Snape did, and the irony/poignancy is lost if it wasn't Snape who
stopped him
from being Crucio'd. (Sorry, Ceridwen. I know this isn't really your
argument, it' hounnyhm's [sp!!]).

<<snip>>

Tinktonks buts in:

Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a
polyjuiced Dumbledore. Both are sufficiently good
Occlumens/Legilimens that nobody would be able to tell the
difference. It was DD who took the UV that would take his life. He
knew throughout the whole book that Draco's attempts to kill he
WOULD end with his death because if Draco failed the vow would kick
in and kill him instantly anyway. This is why he shared all the
information about Horcruxes with Harry. This is also why he told
Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione (Obviously counting that
Hermione's logic would be important when he was gone)

Snape knew of this situation and had been ordered to take the killing
shot so that none of the DE or LV found out that Snape had allowed
DD to take his place. The look of revulsion was because Snape knew
he had to kill someone he cared for and that it should have been him
who had taken the vow in the first place and died instead.

Tinktonks (Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually
quite like it!)










From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 11:47:53 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:47:53 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebfujp+33vk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebhqp9+abj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156828

Tinktonks:
Nobody would need to polyjuice Tonks--she's Metamorphamagus (Probably
spelt ALL WRONG sorry!) all they'd have to do is act like her. But I
can't see anyone else getting all snuggly with Lupin ; )

Ceridwen:
I'm not sure if I was clear here.  I meant someone Polyjuiced to look
like Tonks, not that someone Polyjuiced Tonks.  Sorry for any
misunderstandings!

Tinktonks:
Sorry it was me that was unclear. I knew you meant that DE or bad guy
unknown took polyjuice to look like Tonks. My point is that why would
they need to, Tonks can look like whoever she wants to. The imposter
merely needed to introduce themself as Tonks then act with her
mannerisms. Who would know the difference between Tonks impersonating
someone or someone impersonating Tonks?

Tinktonks (Who has brainache just a little)








From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 11 12:46:04 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:46:04 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <001701c6bd03$1b776980$ce510043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ebhu6c+bkco@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156829

Eric Oppen:
> Or Hermione's sister might be _such_ a handful

Eddie:
According to the Harry Potter Lexicon
(http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/granger.html#family), Hermione's
sister isn't official canon, only an idea Rowling had early on but not
included in the end.


[Special note to HPfGU posters: "canon" is the word you are almost
definitely wanting.  It means "official law", "authoritative", etc. 
"Cannon" -- with 2 N's -- is a big piece of military artillery, which
as far as I know has not appeared in Harry Potter canon.]

Eddie









From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au  Fri Aug 11 06:27:31 2006
From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:27:31 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608101735y78769f91l4e05c8df43653558@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebh80j+2u1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156830

> Lynda:
>
> I've always thought that DD probably kept an eye/ear in the MOM
Unauthorized
> Use of Magic office.  Not just for Harry, either, but for all the
students
> under his care at Hogwarts.  That would explain his knowledge.

Katrina:
I think Dumbledore has kept a much closer eye on Harry than that
though. For example, where did Harry get his watch from? I can't
remember but I can't imagine the Dursley's buying him a watch, maybe
Dumbledore got it for him and is spying through it...
just a suggestion

Katrina











From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Fri Aug 11 13:42:30 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:42:30 EDT
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
Message-ID: <513.3b7fdb80.320de346@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156831

> Nikkalmati:
> I can't agree with your analysis of the respective  statements.
> If"A is true, then B is not true."
> From this statement  you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not true."

>Neri:
You are  correct. This still leaves an alternative possibility "A is
not true and B is  not true". However, here we have additional
information: JKR also tells us  that B is true (that is, that
Dumbledore *is* dead). This strikes down the  alternative possibility
and therefore we are left only with "A is not true  and B is true"
(that is, Snape isn't good and Dumbledore is dead). 
 
>Elisabet dusts off her mathematician hat)
Er, nope. The statement "P  implies Q" *is* equivalent to "(Not Q)
implies (not P)". 


Nikkalmati: (not a mathematician so I am not sure the ramifications of  using 
"implies")
Let me try an example:
Proposed statement:  If A is a doctor, B did not die.
Assuming B did die, does that prove A is not a doctor?
No
Of course, it is just as likely A is or is not a doctor.  We can't  tell - 
again JKR slips away.
Nikkalmati


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




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 14:55:43 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:55:43 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <513.3b7fdb80.320de346@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebi5pf+casm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156832


> Nikkalmati: (not a mathematician so I am not sure the ramifications 
of  using 
> "implies")
> Let me try an example:
> Proposed statement:  If A is a doctor, B did not die.
> Assuming B did die, does that prove A is not a doctor?
> No

Neri:
Yes. 

> Nikkalmati:
> Of course, it is just as likely A is or is not a doctor.  We can't  
tell

Neri:
If A was a doctor then B didn't die. If it's also given that B *did* 
die then the unavoidable conclusion is that A can't be a doctor.

Neri







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 11 15:40:06 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:40:06 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi8cm+mrr4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156833

Tinktonks:
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a 
polyjuiced Dumbledore...
(Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually quite like it!)

Ceridwen:
I like it.  The only problem I have with it is a pet theory of my own 
that has The Other Minister, Spinner's End, Will and Won't, and Horace 
Slughorn chapters all occuring on the same night, and in particular, 
the UV and Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position happening at 
almost the same time (I believe I snagged that last from Carol).

Of course, I had thought at one time that Snape looked out the window, 
seeing, and expecting to see, Dumbledore and Harry starting up to 
Slughorn's place.  I've been informed that this is probably not too 
likely.  :)  So, I could be wrong about the other chapters happening 
all at once, too.

I like it.  I'll have to study on it a while.

Ceridwen.







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug 11 16:01:32 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:01:32 -0000
Subject: Adding to Tinktonks idea (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi9ks+44n7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156834

> Tinktonks butts in:
> 
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a
> polyjuiced Dumbledore. Both are sufficiently good
> Occlumens/Legilimens that nobody would be able to tell the
> difference. It was DD who took the UV that would take his life. He
> knew throughout the whole book that Draco's attempts to kill he
> WOULD end with his death because if Draco failed the vow would kick
> in and kill him instantly anyway. This is why he shared all the
> information about Horcruxes with Harry. This is also why he told
> Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione (Obviously counting that
> Hermione's logic would be important when he was gone)
> 
> Snape knew of this situation and had been ordered to take the 
killing
> shot so that none of the DE or LV found out that Snape had allowed
> DD to take his place. The look of revulsion was because Snape knew
> he had to kill someone he cared for and that it should have been 
him
> who had taken the vow in the first place and died instead.
> 
> Tinktonks (Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually
> quite like it!)
>

Laurawkids:

WOW!  I like that!  I've been trying to figure out why Sluggy has 
made vats of polyjuice and felix in the first place.  He did not do 
it for Crabbe or Goyle to use.  Why would there have to be so much?  

It is because there was someone in the Order who had plans to use 
them.  They are taking the bad guy's ploy and using it too.  

So isn't it so obvious that DD would polyjuice himself as Snape 
(after learning about the rules of behavior around LV from a 
legilimens session), pop a good bit of Felix just to be sure, and 
set off to talk to the LV mano-a-mano in disguise?  Talk about the 
good information that would yield.  DD being more powerful/wise 
would be able to get more out of LV.  

This is how I'm imagining the tower scene to play out then:

-DD has promised to kill *himself* if Draco cannot kill him.  Things 
only go critical when the Des show up, thus making it a now or never 
situation.  

-Snape is not happy about any of it, thus the look.

-(my old theory) DD is wearing some sort of physical protection, and 
Snape blasts him into the sky instead of it killing him.  (He really 
should just slump to the ground with no signs of anything wrong with 
his body...see the autopsy report of the Riddle family.)

-moments before he dies from the vow from not killing himself, while 
hanging "suspended" in the air, he engages his time turner watch.  
He probably also turns invisible and gets his wand.

-he goes back to when Snape takes the vow, and substitutes himself 
for Snape with the polyjuice, thus taking the "sin" upon himself 
(yes, I'm also one who sees a lot of the Christ story here, too ; ) 
Whenever a story mimicks/mirrors the Good News, people are drawn to 
it, because it fulfills a deep need.  JMHO ) 

-He could do any number of things in this re-lived year.  This is 
the great thing about him being able to be invisible without a 
cloak, he will never risk seeing himself.  As the "time-turned" DD, 
he would just lurk about invisible most of the time and be able to 
walk right past himself.  OR, his watch actually has a hand on it 
that tells him where his "time-turned" self is at all times. How 
about both of those!   (BTW has anyone noticed this?:  GOF us pb 
pg.713-14:  "Harry slumped back against his pillows as Dumbledore 
disappeared.  Hermione, Ron, and Mrs. Weasley were all looking at 
him.  None of them spoke for a very long time."  Sounds like they 
were shocked to see him disappear, even though I always read it as 
if he walked out of the room.  The "him" they were looking at should 
be DD because he is the last person referenced) 

-Since Hermione uses her turner at least once a day to go to 
classes, couldn't DD have been using it to relive days with Harry 
all along?  That might explain how his hair seems to have gone grey 
so suddenly.

-He could fast forward to the moment of death right after he has 
taken a fatal wound from some other show-down, and/or die or just be 
finished off by the fall.  Thus the trickle of blood.  He really did 
die a few moments before the crowd got there.

-AND...Snape is not guilty of murder AT ALL, just of a bad wounding 
under orders from DD.  

_So, in this, DD can be really, truly dead, we can see DD in new 
action in book 7 by being shown his time-turned memories (obvious to 
Harry because he "knows" that DD was with him at that same real time 
moment),things can feel wrong during the tower scene (I mean we all 
noticed that there wassomething fishy there), and Snape can still be 
Dumbledore's man!

Crazy (but I hope like Jack!)?  I think DD's watch implies time 
travel, and I also think DD is supposed to be a God-figure while not 
quite being a god in this story.  He loves and forgives, and is 
insistent upon free-will, and seems in a way to be constrained to 
letting people make their own mistakes while also doing things 
around them to minimize the damage, and steer things in a positive, 
loving direction.  The reason DD seems foolish to many is that he is 
not controlling people when he could.  He -is- pulling strings 
forward and backward in time and influencing and spinning opinions 
without forcing people to act as he'd like.  That is like God to 
me.  God's foolishness is a stumbling block to Satan (LV is a Satan-
figure, but not quite Satan himself), because Satan cannot see how 
love and free-will could ever win.  Don't get me wrong, I can't 
square everything in the books with this view.

So I think that DD has used the time-turner (omnipresence), 
invisibility (nature of spirit), and his vast store of wisdom 
(omniscience) and power (omnipotence) and some big cauldrens of 
Polyjuice and Felix to take events that were not really the best, 
and make them turn out all right in the end.   

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that 
love God"  Romans 8:28  And Fawkes is the judge of who really loves 
DD or not.  

Laurawkids, who feels she probably went to far, but likes stirring 
it all up anyway.  

    
 
















From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 13:47:03 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:47:03 -0000
Subject: Canon v Cannon WAS: Re: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <ebhu6c+bkco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi1on+712p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156835

Eddie:
<SNIP>
[Special note to HPfGU posters: "canon" is the word you are almost
definitely wanting.  It means "official law", "authoritative", etc.
"Cannon" -- with 2 N's -- is a big piece of military artillery, which
as far as I know has not appeared in Harry Potter canon.]

Eddie

Tinktonks:
Just to be pedantic cannons HAVE appeared in Harry Potter books.
First in PS/SS where Dudley stupidly asks where the cannon upon
being awoken and I think also in the chapter in OotP where Harry
muses about the weapon. I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong,
that Harry dreams of something akin to a cannonand described as such.

Tinktonks
; )











From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 13:47:27 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:47:27 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <001701c6bd03$1b776980$ce510043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <20060811134727.96660.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156836

--- Eric Oppen <technomad at intergate.com> wrote:
 
> Or Hermione's sister might be _such_ a handful for
> whatever reason ("special 
> needs," incorrigible juvenile delinquent,
> what-have-you) that Herm's parents 
> are just as happy to have her out of the line of
> fire so that they can deal 
> with their other girl. 

Cassy:

Funny, I always thought that Hermione having a sister
was _abandoned_ plot point. But perhaps I was wrong...







From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 14:00:56 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:00:56 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebg1cg+glbb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060811140056.1216.qmail@web38302.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156837

--- Ken Hutchinson <klhutch at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<snip>
> Why is it that none of the trio
> instantly
> recognizes the HBP's handwriting as Snape's?
 
Cassy:

Well, they might simply have bad visual memory (which
is doubtful in Hermione's case). But people's
handwriting tends to change through the years. Once,
coming across my school notebooks, I couldn't read my
own handwriting. As for Harry seeing Snape writing in
a pensieve scene, he had all the right to absolutely
forget about it, considering the impotional impact of
what he saw next in this memory. 






From amsmith422 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 15:03:25 2006
From: amsmith422 at yahoo.com (amsmith422)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:03:25 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi67t+ks1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156838


> Tinktonks buts in:
>
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a
> polyjuiced Dumbledore. Both are sufficiently good
> Occlumens/Legilimens that nobody would be able to tell the
> difference. It was DD who took the UV that would take his life. He
> knew throughout the whole book that Draco's attempts to kill he
> WOULD end with his death because if Draco failed the vow would kick
> in and kill him instantly anyway. This is why he shared all the
> information about Horcruxes with Harry. This is also why he told
> Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione (Obviously counting that
> Hermione's logic would be important when he was gone)
>
> Snape knew of this situation and had been ordered to take the
killing
> shot so that none of the DE or LV found out that Snape had allowed
> DD to take his place. The look of revulsion was because Snape knew
> he had to kill someone he cared for and that it should have been
him
> who had taken the vow in the first place and died instead.
>


Anna responds:
This is my first post so forgive me if I'm butting
in or not quite on topic.  I believe, and have believed from the
first reading of HBP that Snape told Dumbledore about having to take
the UV.  Dumbledore knew that Draco was making an attempt on his
life and knew that if he should fail or be found out that he would
be killed.  So Dumbledore had to devise a way to save Draco and
Snape. I believe DD told Snape that if it came down to him being in
a position where he was about to be killed he wanted Snape to do it
(this would fulfill the UV and save Snape).  I believe that they
argued about this (Hagrid stumbled upon them arguing if you
remember) and I believe the look of Hatred on Snape's face as he
cast the Avada Kedavra (sp. sorry) was a mixture of pretence for the
audience he had and genuine loathing toward DD for making him do
it.  I also think Snape gave Harry a clue as he was blocking the
curses Harry was throwing at him.  He said blocked again and again
until you lean to close your mind.  I do not think he said this just
to be taunting but to press upon Harry that he needs to learn Occlumency I
believe Snape is somewhat good.  I believe he has a true love for
the dark arts but I also  believe that his hatred toward James did
not just stem from the bullying but also from the fact that Lily
chose James over him.  I think he was in love with her and I think
the fact that he was responsible for her death was what turned him
to the good side.  I also think that he made a vow to protect her son
(even though he loathes doing so because he reminds him so much of
James) as a means to "make it up to her" and that in the end he will
die protecting him.  Anyone agree or disagree???









From bawilson at citynet.net  Fri Aug 11 03:44:18 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:44:18 -0400
Subject: British magical education outside of Hogwarts
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAKvqmLIFtGUyVQKRydQSI2wEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156839

Irene:
"And I still want to know what happens if a muggle family refuses to send their
child to Hogwarts. Do they always dispatch Hagrid to deal with difficult
customers?"

BAW:
JKR says that a Hogwarts professor or someone from the Ministry of Magic comes
to explain matters.  A Muggle family that threw a wizardling sport would have
seen 'breakouts' as the child grew up.  How many 'Aunt Marge' incidents would it
take for a pair of reasonably bright parents to realize that there was something
wrong with the kid, and be actually glad to hear that (a) there was an
explanation and that (b) there was a place the child could go to get the
necessary training to bring the talent under control.
All fiction that I have read involving a functioning system of magic contains a
saying containing some variant of "To keep dark the mind of the mageborn is ill
done," or "An untrained sorcerer is a danger to himself and others."  It would
not be hard to persuade parents who had experienced an 'Aunt Marge' incident, or
something like the snake in the zoo, or even things like a child teleporting
himself to the roof of the school or an ugly sweater shrinking to doll-clothing
size that the kid needs to get the gift under control NOW.
Now, what of parents who are opposed to sending their children away--would not
have even considered boarding school if the child were nonmagical?  JKR does not
tell us because it is not relevant to the story--she's a storyteller, after all,
not an encylopedist--but she does say that some wizardling children are
homeschooled rather than sent to Hogwarts.  
Perhaps there is some scheme whereby Muggleborn wizardlets can attend Muggle
schools and have regular visits from teaching wizards and witches; we know that
the OWLs and NEWTs are administered not by Hogwarts, but by some outside
agency--so HOW a candidate prepares for the exams is not so important as that
they can pass.  Perhaps that is what Lupin did before he came to
Hogwarts--private tutor to young witches or wizards whose parents did not want
to send them to Hogwarts.  The mechanics of this will only be told to us if it
becomes important to the story.

BAW.









From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Fri Aug 11 16:33:50 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:33:50 -0000
Subject: British magical education outside of Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAKvqmLIFtGUyVQKRydQSI2wEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <ebibhe+hcbs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156840

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" 
<bawilson at ...> wrote:
> BAW:
> Now, what of parents who are opposed to sending their children away--
would not
> have even considered boarding school if the child were nonmagical?  
JKR does not
> tell us because it is not relevant to the story--she's a storyteller, 
after all,
> not an encylopedist--but she does say that some wizardling children 
are
> homeschooled rather than sent to Hogwarts.  

AmanitaMuscaria now - Sorry, but she actually says, in the FAQs:
"What education do the children of wizards have before going to 
Hogwarts?
They are, as many of you have guessed, most often home educated."
 It isn't instead of Hogwarts, but before.
Cheers. AmanitaMuscaria







From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 03:33:24 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (sallyaltass)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 03:33:24 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
Message-ID: <ebgtq4+49of@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156841

Sorry to re-open an old thread, but reading through some of them
last night, I noticed a belief that continual use of the time-
turners could possibly prematurely age a wizard, in regard to the
seemingly unchronological way DD's hair turns from auburn to silver
within the space of 15 years.

Reading OotP last night, one line in particular jumped out at me.
Ch24, "...said Harry heavily, looking into Lupin's prematurely lined
face".  JKR does make constant references towards Lupins aged
appearence, from when we first meet him on the Hogwarts Express in
POA Ch5.  "Though he seemed quite young, his light-brown hair was
flecked with grey".

This does seem to be a continued thread whenever Lupin's physical
appearance is described.  He always seems to be ageing, in what
could seem to be a somewhat clever way of describing what a hard
life Lupin is living with being a werewolf.  Afterall, people do
associate 'going grey' early with a particulary hard or stressful
situation.

However, IMO, this doesn't explain why JKR metions Lupin's premature
ageing in every single visual physical description she gives of
him.  We do know that Lupin is suffering hardship, and it doesn't
need to be stressed that he's looking even older every time Harry
looks at him.  This leads to the possibility that she is hinting at
something deeper rooted.  JKR is, afterall, renowned for placing
titbits that a reader may not always initially pick up on (I didn't
make the connection with Sirius Black transforming into a big black
dog for several reads...).  Ageing during time travel is a fairly
old theory, and isn't always necessarily obvious upon first glance.

The only problem with the theory that Lupin has been time travelling
is why?  Several of my colleagues are of the belief that Lupin is
not all that he seems and that he is in fact the a DE and LV's loyal
servant in POA instead of Wormtail, although personally I have found
no solid evidence within canon for that theory to stand up.
However, we know that JKR tends to make references such as these that
eventually do hold an important relevance.  At the same time,
however, she does tend to throw in the occasional red herring.
However, IMO, the former is more likely than the latter here.

I apologise if the post is somewhat garbled, my baby has been
keeping me awake tonight...

Eagerly waiting some lucidity on the matter of Lupin's premature
ageing.

A confused and tired Sally









From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 13:29:31 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:29:31 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <001701c6bd03$1b776980$ce510043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ebi0nr+kp20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156842

Eric Oppen <technomad at ...> wrote:
> I've had a theory for a long time that Hermione is able to
> spend so many holidays at the Burrow because her parents
> are doing other things themselves.  I know that there's
> organizations for doctors that go overseas into hellish
> Third World countries to try to save lives---_Medicins sans
> Frontieres,_ or something like that---so there might well be
> something analogous for dentists.

Ryan:

That does seem like something they might do with their vacation
time, doesn't it?

> Or Hermione's sister might be _such_ a handful for whatever
> reason ("special needs," incorrigible juvenile delinquent,
> what-have-you) that Herm's parents are just as happy to have
> her out of the line of fire so that they can deal with their
> other girl.

Ryan:

Hermione is an only child.
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

Ryan











From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 11 16:47:59 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:47:59 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <513.3b7fdb80.320de346@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebicbv+ul3s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156843

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98 at ... wrote:
>
> > Nikkalmati:
> > I can't agree with your analysis of the respective  statements.
> > If"A is true, then B is not true."
> > From this statement  you cannot extract "If B is true, A is not true."
> 
> >Neri:
> You are  correct. This still leaves an alternative possibility "A is
> not true and B is  not true". However, here we have additional
> information: JKR also tells us  that B is true (that is, that
> Dumbledore *is* dead). This strikes down the  alternative possibility
> and therefore we are left only with "A is not true  and B is true"
> (that is, Snape isn't good and Dumbledore is dead). 
>  
> >Elisabet dusts off her mathematician hat)
> Er, nope. The statement "P  implies Q" *is* equivalent to "(Not Q)
> implies (not P)". 
> 
> 
> Nikkalmati: (not a mathematician so I am not sure the ramifications
of  using 
> "implies")
> Let me try an example:
> Proposed statement:  If A is a doctor, B did not die.
> Assuming B did die, does that prove A is not a doctor?
> No
> Of course, it is just as likely A is or is not a doctor.  We can't 
tell - 
> again JKR slips away.
> Nikkalmati
> 

No, Elisabet remembers her math very well, unlike certain authors! The
two relationships in your first comment above are a statement and its
contrapostive in the lingo of logic. IF the statement is true THEN the
cotrapositive is also true. Always.

In your doctor example the two relationships are again a statement and
its contrapositive. And you are correct, in this case the
contrapositive is not true. But neither is the statement. The laws of
logic are not being violated here. Unfortunately doctors are not able
to save every patient. The contrapositive of a true statement will
also be true. The contrapositive of a false statement will be false.
And it works in the reverse too. A statement and its logical
contrapositive are ALWAYS either BOTH true or BOTH false.

Ken






From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Aug 11 16:49:31 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:49:31 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion/Why did Snape take the UV?/Hermione's Parents
In-Reply-To: <ebgtuc+aamg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebicer+cd6h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156844


> Ken:
> 
> I know that you keep *saying* that the two writings are identical 
but
> neither here nor in the previous message that you refer to do I see
> any *proof* of this. I agree that you are drawing the conclusion 
that
> the narrator intends, I just don't know whether that conclusion is 
a 
> red herring.

Magpie:
I just don't think these challenges are supported by the book.  This 
isn't a true-life investigation, it's a plot point in a re-cognition 
mystery.  All the clues we have point to Snape being the HBP.  The 
challenges to that don't come from the book, they come from standing 
outside the text in the real world and coming up with stuff from 
there--maybe the handwriting is only similar, not the same, maybe 
it's not Snape, Harry *must* recognize the handwriting of teen!Snape 
immediately (no one's handwriting is the same at 16 as it is at 38) 
or else it's a red-herring.  It's not showing me any evidence in the 
book it's not Snape, it's just coming up with outside reasons to not 
accept the evidence that is there for Snape.  

Which would be fine if the book wasn't finished and we were just 
keeping our options open, but what we're talking about is completely 
unpicking the entire plot of the HBP.  It turns the whole HBP story 
into a complete waste of time to be overturned in the next book.

Ken:
> Oh, I agree that this would kill that irony. It  occurs to me that 
if 
> a writer wanted to fool a reader like Carol her best bet would be
> to set out a delicious plate of irony and then cruelly knock it to 
the floor
> in book 7 ;-)

Magpie:
I don't think JKR is out to fool people above serving up a good 
story, and the irony is the part that's the good story. The 
Harry/Snape relationship is central to canon, and Harry's 
befriending and defending teen!Snape is more than just a funny 
irony, it goes straight to the heart of that relationship.  As I 
said above, what she would be knocking to the floor in Book 7 
wouldn't just be a passing bit of irony that Snape fans liked, but 
the whole plot thread of HBP.  It would be like deciding to tell us 
in Book V that Moody wasn't really Barty Crouch.  The mystery would 
get solved twice. The first, more satisfying answer, would be 
replaced by one that's only good point seems to be that it's 
different and more complicated, which imo is something that is only 
appealing in fandom.  (Which is why only in fandom would anyone 
consider RAB being Regulus Black to be "too obvious" and prefer it 
to be a random person.) 

>a_svirn:
I don't believe, however, that Snape knew about Draco's mission. It
looks to me as though he skilfully drilled both sisters in order to
garner as much information as possible.

Nikkalmati:
Agreed.

Magpie:
This is one of these things that I just can't get my mind around.  
How is Snape in any way skillfully getting information about Draco's 
task through this vow?  From Spinner's End:

*  *  *

"The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it," Narcissa continued, 
her eyes still closed.  "He wishes none to know of the plan.  It 
is...very secret.  But--"

"If he has forbidden it, you ought not to speak," said Snape at 
once.  "The Dark Lord's word is law."

[...]

"There" [Bellatrix] said triumphantly to her sister. "Even Snape 
says so: you were told not to talk, so hold your silence!"

But Snape had got to his feet and strode to the small window, peered 
through the curtains at the deserted street, then closed them again 
with a jerk. He turned round to face Narcissa, frowning.

"It so happens that I know of the plan," he said in a low voice.  "I 
am one of the few the Dark Lord has told..."

And later:

"He intends me to do it in the end, I think.  But the is determined 
that Draco should try first.  You see, in the unlikely event that 
Draco succeeds, I shall be able to remain at Hogwarts a little 
longer, fulfilling my useful role as spy."

*  *  *

This is all before Snape takes the vow.  We've got Snape actually 
stopping Narcissa from just telling him what the task is without the 
suicidal vow--that's the second time she's tried to do it. The first 
time Bellatrix stopped her.  I can understanding the thinking that 
Snape feels he has to say not to talk if Voldemort told her not to 
because it shows loyalty to Voldemort, but is that really better 
than taking the UV he does?  The woman doesn't need to be skillfully 
pumped for information, she's come to give it to him.  Snape, if 
anything, just needs to find a skillful way to allow her to tell it 
to him without looking too eager to Bellatrix.  Actually, it really 
doesn't matter if he looks too eager to Bellatrix, because looking 
eager is exactly in character for a DE, whose whole life would 
revolve around jockeying for position close to Voldemort and trying 
to find out stuff like this.

Snape then converses confidently about Draco's task (which I never 
doubted was to kill DD myself--it's heavily hinted already).  Is he 
just faking, taking a gamble that whatever his task is it stands to 
reason all these things would apply to it?  He could be, but I think 
JKR was writing Snape fishing for information the scene would read 
as a fishing for information scene.  Instead Snape is the one in 
control, cutting people off, and telling us Voldemort's feelings for 
Lucius.  

Why do I think he took the UV?  I honestly don't.  I don't think I 
can until it's explained to me in the next book. And I think that 
whatever the reason is it will mean that Snape knew what vow he was 
taking and also that Dumbledore knew Snape took the vow.  I think 
the only unknown factor for these two in HBP was Draco's Vanishing 
Cabinet--which fits well with the themes of the series.

Eric Oppen:
Or Hermione's sister might be _such_ a handful for whatever reason 
("special needs," incorrigible juvenile delinquent, what-have-you) 
that Herm's parents are just as happy to have her out of the line of 
fire so that they can deal with their other girl.

Magpie:
Hermione doesn't have a sister.  JKR had planned to give her one, 
but never did.  As to her parents, it's always been suggested it's 
Hermione's choice to be where she is at holidays.  Her parents 
usually seem to plan vacations when she comes home, like when she 
went to France.  In OotP they plan a ski vacation and Hermione 
cancels at the last minute.  They don't seem to have any choice in 
the matter.

-m








From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 13:48:26 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:48:26 -0000
Subject: Muggle-lovers?
In-Reply-To: <44DBCF2D.3040000@btopenworld.com>
Message-ID: <ebi1ra+fpjl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156845

<snip>
> Irene:
> <snip> I don't know, Arthur's attitude seems to me very
> patronising, "ah, look at the clever tricks they do, bless...".
> And he is the best wizarding world has to offer.
>
> colebiancardi:
> > No.  I think that all but DE's view muggles as humans, just
> > like themselves, only having different talents.
>
> Irene:
> No, I don't think they view them as equals, "just like themselves".
> You don't go and obliviate equals until they half lose their mind.


Ryan:

Arthur's a pureblood, though, and may not really be "the best the
wizarding world has to offer."  It's quite possible that many of the
half-blood and muggleborn wizards and witches are less patronizing
towards muggles.

I do think, though, that we need to ask ourselves if muggles really
are wizards' equals.  I also think we need to consider what we mean
by "equals."

Ryan









From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 14:20:51 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:20:51 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebhqp9+abj0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi3o3+o3ic@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156846


> Tinktonks <spookedook at ...> :
> Sorry it was me that was unclear. I knew you meant that DE or bad
> guy unknown took polyjuice to look like Tonks. My point is that
> why would they need to, Tonks can look like whoever she wants to.
> The imposter merely needed to introduce themself as Tonks then act
> with her mannerisms. Who would know the difference between Tonks
> impersonating someone or someone impersonating Tonks?

Ryan:

But Tonks tends to change her appearance fairly often, even just to
entertain Hermione and Ginny.  Someone impersonating Tonks would be
conspicuous just because they look the same all the time.

Ryan









From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 14:23:37 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 14:23:37 -0000
Subject: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebh80j+2u1v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi3t9+c9e0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156847

> Katrina:
> I think Dumbledore has kept a much closer eye on Harry than that
> though. For example, where did Harry get his watch from? I can't
> remember but I can't imagine the Dursley's buying him a watch,
> maybe Dumbledore got it for him and is spying through it...

Ryan:

Harry's watch could just be one of Dudley's cast-offs, like much of
Harry's muggle-wear is.

Ryan









From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 15:06:35 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:06:35 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebi5pf+casm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi6dr+4j7u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156848

> > Nikkalmati: (not a mathematician so I am not sure the
> > ramifications of using "implies")
> > Let me try an example:
> > Proposed statement:  If A is a doctor, B did not die.
> > Assuming B did die, does that prove A is not a doctor?
> > No
>
> Neri:
> Yes.
>
> > Nikkalmati:
> > Of course, it is just as likely A is or is not a doctor.  We
> > can't tell
>
> Neri:
> If A was a doctor then B didn't die. If it's also given that B
> *did* die then the unavoidable conclusion is that A can't be a
> doctor.


Just a quick point that Neri doesn't seem to have grasped.  A could
could still be a doctor, but not necessarily an MD.  It is also quite
a well known point that doctors are not miracle workers, and so do
not always produce the inevitable cure.  If B did die, and A was a
doctor, can't it be given that A was just having a bad day.  JKR
does have a habit of weighing her answers carefully, but also she is
has got just as much of a habit of placing red herrings.  IMO, this
has become a little too analytical...

My brain hurts...

Sally












From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 11 15:57:09 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:57:09 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebe6hr+ghju@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebi9cl+mjqt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156849

> "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh@> wrote:
> <big snip>
> > We don't even know that for sure, only that a woman named
> > Eileen Prince married a man named Snape and they had a child.
> > If the name of the child had been mentioned or even the date
> > of the birth announcement had been given I would feel more
> > secure that I was not being led down the garden path.
> >
> > Somebody, show me one piece of evidence that doesn't involve
> > conjecture, insinuation, sleight of hand, or leaping to a
> > conclusion.

> colebiancardi:
> And the news article - isn't Hermione considered the voice of
> reason and truth?  If you want a straight answer, go to
> Hermione....<bg> she never did finish her sentence, but she
> wouldn't have stated that Eileen & Tobias didn't have a son
> named Severus if she hadn't of read it in the paper.  She did
> state they had a son and then Harry rudely interrupted her
> before she could finish.


Just to make a point, that on the page before it is canon that
Hermione says "...I was right about Eileen Prince once owning the
book.  You see...she was Snape's mother."  It is over the page that
Harry cuts her off while she is saying that Eileen gave birth to
Snape.  I think that is a substantial argument that Snape is the
HBP, and is the person who identifies himself as being so to Harry
in ch28.

My brain is really hurting now...

Sally










From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 16:58:13 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:58:13 -0000
Subject: British magical education outside of Hogwarts
In-Reply-To: <ebibhe+hcbs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebicv5+6v5r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156850


> > BAW <bawilson@>:
> > Now, what of parents who are opposed to sending their
> > children away-- would not have even considered boarding
> > school if the child were nonmagical?  JKR does not tell
> > us because it is not relevant to the story <snip> but she
> > does say that some wizarding children are homeschooled
> > rather than sent to Hogwarts.
>
> AmanitaMuscaria:
> Sorry, but she actually says, in the FAQs:
> "What education do the children of wizards have before going
> to Hogwarts?
> They are, as many of you have guessed, most often home
> educated."
> It isn't instead of Hogwarts, but before.

Ryan:

JKR's comment doesn't seem to negate the possibility that some
parents choose not to send their children to Hogwarts.  We know,
for instance, that Lucius considered sending Draco to Durmstrang.
We also know that DD isn't sure if Aberforth can read, which
implies that he might not have much "book-learnin'," so he might
not have gone to school anywhere.  It seems possible that Morfin
and Merope Gaunt might not have gone to school either.

Ryan










From angelitafs at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 03:39:36 2006
From: angelitafs at yahoo.com (Angelita Figueroa Salas)
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 20:39:36 -0700
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <1155266897.76.21451.m36@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1155266897.76.21451.m36@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20876d4b0608102039x3c3e2258maa1d2c299a2ff8c6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156851

> KJ writes:
> > <snip> and was replaced temporarily by Aberforth. Assuming 
> > Snape was able to fake the AK, and Aberforth survived, we 
> > will see him again in book 7, but Dumbledore will still be 
> > dead.
>
> houyhnhnm:
> Aberforth! That's an interesting possibility I hadn't
> considered. I *have* wondered if Dumbledore was already
> dead before the scene on the tower.
> <snip>
> I have been bemused by the assumptions people were ready
> to leap to after the Richard and Judy Show interview in
> June and again recently after Rowling's remarks in NYC
> and it has got me to thinking about assumptions people
> take for granted in the books.

@ngelita:

At the Scholastic book tour discussion here in LA a few weeks ago, 
it was mentioned that Aberforth is alive and runs/owns the Hogshead 
pub (?) . An interesting theory was that he has some or all the 
horcruxes and WILL pay a big role in book 7. I don't know if this is 
true or not as I will have to re-read everything to find this out... 
and of course, there were the un-named incidents with the goats. ;)

@ngelita new to the list so apologizes if this has been discussed 
already...


-- 
It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than 
our abilities.





From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Aug 11 17:27:58 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:27:58 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebiemu+t61o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156852

Tinktonks buts in:
 
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. 
> It was a polyjuiced Dumbledore.

houyhnhnm:

There was such a theory proposed on the Mugglenet forum--
DIATSSISE
http://tinyurl.com/fhg7c

I found the "forgive me" argument quite convincing.  If 
you extend the theory to claim that Snape and Dumbledore 
were regularly exchanging places, it does answer a lot of 
questions.

1.  Dumbledore's seemingly OOC behavior at the Dursley's
2.  Why Snape took the UV
3.  Why DD trusted Snape
4.  The argument in the forest
5.  Why DD took the memory about visiting TR at the orphanage 
    out of a bottle instead of out of his head.  (That's 
    the passage Rowling read at Radio City, btw--??)

It kind of ruins Snape's character and it destroys some of the 
touching moments between Harry and DD. Would Rowling sacrifice 
character to plot?  NEVAHHH! :-P






From celizwh at intergate.com  Fri Aug 11 17:58:59 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 17:58:59 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebi9cl+mjqt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebigh3+7k6k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156853

Sally:

> Just to make a point, that on the page before it is canon 
> that Hermione says "...I was right about Eileen Prince 
> once owning the book. You see...she was Snape's mother."

houyhnhnm:

It is canon that Hermione draws the *conclusion* that 
Eileen Prince is Snape's mother.  We are not shown the 
evidence on which she based that conclusion, so we can't 
judge whether it was warranted or not. (If we had been 
shown the _Prophet_ articles word-for-word, it would be 
a different story.)  Hermione is not always right.

@ngelita:

> At the Scholastic book tour discussion here in LA a 
> few weeks ago, it was mentioned that Aberforth is 
> alive and runs/owns the Hogshead pub (?) .

houyhnhnm:

For that matter, Aberforth was alive and well at the 
funeral, so if he was impersonating DD on the tower his 
death would have to have been faked. (Or someone else 
is impersonating him.)  







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 11 18:03:17 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:03:17 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebigp5+d3km@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156854

 
> Tinktonks buts in:
> 
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a
> polyjuiced Dumbledore. Both are sufficiently good
> Occlumens/Legilimens that nobody would be able to tell the
> difference. It was DD who took the UV that would take his life. He
> knew throughout the whole book that Draco's attempts to kill he
> WOULD end with his death because if Draco failed the vow would kick
> in and kill him instantly anyway. This is why he shared all the
> information about Horcruxes with Harry. This is also why he told
> Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione (Obviously counting that
> Hermione's logic would be important when he was gone)
> 
> Snape knew of this situation and had been ordered to take the killing
> shot so that none of the DE or LV found out that Snape had allowed
> DD to take his place. The look of revulsion was because Snape knew
> he had to kill someone he cared for and that it should have been him
> who had taken the vow in the first place and died instead.
> 
> Tinktonks (Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually
> quite like it!)
>


Sure, I'll buy a little of that. I'm an easy sell for crackpot
theories. Why? Because the author has said that no one will guess the
ending and I take that as a challenge. If you want to divine the
ending you have to consider EVERY possibility and follow it through to
see where it leads. Many possibilities lead no where but the thing to
remember is that even the correct ones will appear to lead no where
initially because this is a complex story. It is only when several of
these apparent dead ends are combined into a whole that the way
forward is likely to be revealed. The people with the best chance to
do that are those who think like JKR. I am not one of those. I have
severe issues with the structure of the Potterverse and it is unlikely
that I will be able to extrapolate along the same trajectory that
Rowling will choose. I might be able to recognize the path as hers if
one of you can point it out to me.

The canon police will not help in this endeavor. Correctly interpreted
canon can separate what is not possible from what is. Red herrings
abound and so many of our police are emotionally invested in items
that could be, not definitely are but could be, red herrings that we
have to regard them as Sirens calling us back inside the box. The
clues are inside the box, the answers are not.

To echo what DD told Harry about the horcrux hunt we who want to
predict book 7 must desert the shores of the comfortable known and
sail the seas of uncertainty towards the land of the could be. While
we must not forget where we have come from the truth lies ahead rather
than astern.

So be bold, fellow mariner, and send us reports on what lies your way!

Ken

PS: Did someone say there are no cannons in Harry's world? Behold, I
give you the Chudley Cannons! ;-)






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 18:58:45 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 18:58:45 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion (was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebi3o3+o3ic@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebik15+4b9q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156855

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" wrote:
>
> 
> Ryan:
> 
> But Tonks tends to change her appearance fairly often, even just to
> entertain Hermione and Ginny.  Someone impersonating Tonks would be
> conspicuous just because they look the same all the time.
> 

Mike:

I have a question. If you take Polyjuice with the hair of a 
Metamorphmagus, what do you look like when you transform? Do you 
look like the person the Metamorphmagus was impersonating at the 
time you took her hair, or do you look like her true self when she 
hasn't transformed anything? Or, possibly, does a metamorphmagus 
have an inherant resistance to anybody transforming into themselves. 
As in, you can't transform into a transformer. (Reminds me of the 
toys my kids played with when they were young <g>) And what is the 
true state of someone who can change themself at will? 







From random832 at gmail.com  Fri Aug 11 19:00:09 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 15:00:09 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebi6dr+4j7u@eGroups.com>
References: <ebi5pf+casm@eGroups.com> <ebi6dr+4j7u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608111200x33c0871cmbe4de443190dc548@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156856

On 8/11/06, Sally Altass <sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Neri:
> > If A was a doctor then B didn't die. If it's also given that B
> > *did* die then the unavoidable conclusion is that A can't be a
> > doctor.
>
> Just a quick point that Neri doesn't seem to have grasped.  A could
> could still be a doctor, but not necessarily an MD.

Which still only means "If A was a doctor then B didn't die" is false,
NOT that "if B died A is not a doctor" doesn't follow from it.

Proof that the latter follows from the former:
(A is a doctor) IMPLIES NOT (B died) [original statement]
NOT (A is a doctor) OR NOT (B died) [definition of implication]
NOT (B died) OR NOT (A is a doctor) [disjunction is commutative]
(B died) IMPLIES NOT (A is a doctor) [definition of implication]



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 19:24:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:24:54 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebi8cm+mrr4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebili6+duj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156857

Tinktonks:
> > Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a 
> polyjuiced Dumbledore...
> (Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually quite like it!)
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I like it.  The only problem I have with it is a pet theory of my
own that has The Other Minister, Spinner's End, Will and Won't, and
Horace Slughorn chapters all occuring on the same night, and in
particular, the UV and Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position
happening at almost the same time (I believe I snagged that last from
Carol).
<snip>
> I like it.  I'll have to study on it a while.
> 
> Ceridwen.
>

Carol responds:
Snape tells Draco that *he* made the Unbreakable Vow. Also, I don't
think that even DD knows Snape well enough to impersonate him so
accurately. And how would he and snape have known that Narcissa was
coming, not to mention Bellatrix, who followed Narcissa against
Narcissa's will.

FWIW, I agree that the first four chapters occur roughly
simultaneously, and it's just possible that Slughorn's acceptance of
the Potions position coincides with Narcissa getting her brainwave for
the UV (which could not have been part of her oirginal plan since it
requires Bellatrix's presence) just at the moment when Snape becomes
officially the DADA instructor and therefore subject to the so-called
jinx (the DADA curse).

Carol, who thinks we should drop the polyjuiced Snape idea and just
talk about Snape as Snape and DD as DD in posts concerning them and
their motives






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 19:50:55 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 19:50:55 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebgtq4+49of@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebin2v+eh6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156858

"sallyaltass" wrote:
>
> Sorry to re-open an old thread, but reading through some of them
> last night, I noticed a belief that continual use of the time-
> turners could possibly prematurely age a wizard, in regard to the
> seemingly unchronological way DD's hair turns from auburn to silver
> within the space of 15 years.
> 
> Reading OotP last night, one line in particular jumped out at me.
> Ch24, "...said Harry heavily, looking into Lupin's prematurely lined
> face".  JKR does make constant references towards Lupins aged
> appearence, from when we first meet him on the Hogwarts Express in
> POA Ch5.  "Though he seemed quite young, his light-brown hair was
> flecked with grey".
> 
> This does seem to be a continued thread whenever Lupin's physical
> appearance is described.  He always seems to be ageing, in what
> could seem to be a somewhat clever way of describing what a hard
> life Lupin is living with being a werewolf.  Afterall, people do
> associate 'going grey' early with a particulary hard or stressful
> situation.
> 
> However, IMO, this doesn't explain why JKR metions Lupin's premature
> ageing in every single visual physical description she gives of
> him.  We do know that Lupin is suffering hardship, and it doesn't
> need to be stressed that he's looking even older every time Harry
> looks at him.  This leads to the possibility that she is hinting at
> something deeper rooted.  JKR is, afterall, renowned for placing
> titbits that a reader may not always initially pick up on (I didn't
> make the connection with Sirius Black transforming into a big black
> dog for several reads...).  Ageing during time travel is a fairly
> old theory, and isn't always necessarily obvious upon first glance.
> 
> The only problem with the theory that Lupin has been time travelling
> is why?  <snip>

Carol responds:
The idea of time travel causing aging is not canonical; it's fan
speculation.

IMO, Lupin's premature aging *does* relate to his being a werewolf.
Until PoA, his transformations were painful, with the only relief
coming from being able to run with his Animagi friends for about ten
months a year at some point in IIRC their fourth or fifth year. When
they first see him on the train, he is clearly just recovering from a
rough night as a werewolf. At Hogwarts, he not only has good meals to
recover his health, he has the Wolfsbane Potion that Snape makes for
him and he can't make for himself. (Evidently it isn't available from
wizarding apothecaries or St. Mungo's, either, or the werewolf problem
would be solved.) So each time Harry sees Lupin after PoA (in OoP,
"The Advance Guard," it's been just over a year since Lupin left
Hogwarts), the ravages of being a werewolf are more clearly visible.
In HBP, he's undercover as a spy on the werewolves, which also,
surely, takes its toll on his mental and emotional health, and he's
probably grieving for Sirius and trying to deal with Tonks.

I'd say that his premature aging is easily explainable and that we
don't need a time turner to explain it, even if time-turner-induced
aging were canonical.

Carol, hoping that Redeemed!Snape will provide Lupin with Wolfsbane
Potion again







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:02:53 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:02:53 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <ebi0nr+kp20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebinpd+ei0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156859

> Eric Oppen <technomad@> wrote:
> > I've had a theory for a long time that Hermione is able to
> > spend so many holidays at the Burrow because her parents
> > are doing other things themselves.  I know that there's
> > organizations for doctors that go overseas into hellish
> > Third World countries to try to save lives---_Medicins sans
> > Frontieres,_ or something like that---so there might well be
> > something analogous for dentists.
> 
> Ryan:
> 
> That does seem like something they might do with their vacation
> time, doesn't it?
> 

Tonks:
Doctors without Borders is a favorite charity of JKR. And I think 
that Dentist would be part of it.  However, do we know if the 
Granger's are Christian? Maybe they are Jewish. They could celebrate 
Hanukah as a family and then they go do whatever and Hermione visits 
her friends who do observe Christmas and she gives and receives 
Christmas presents. That is not so unusual. Many Jewish people that I 
know even give their children presents from Santa and have a tree too.

Tonks_op








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:24:42 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:24:42 -0000
Subject: Confounding Conjectures Re: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebili6+duj4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebip2a+iv4v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156860

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"  wrote:
<snip>
> 
> Carol, who thinks we should drop the polyjuiced Snape idea and just
> talk about Snape as Snape and DD as DD in posts concerning them and
> their motives
>
Mike:

Why? What's wrong with wild conjecture? It's fun and as Ken says:

> I'm an easy sell for crackpot theories. Why? Because the author 
> has said that no one will guess the ending and I take that as a
> challenge. If you want to divine the ending you have to consider 
> EVERY possibility and follow it through to see where it leads. 
> Many possibilities lead nowhere but the thing to remember is that 
> even the correct ones will appear to lead nowhere initially 
> because this is a complex story. It is only when several of
> these apparent dead ends are combined into a whole that the way
> forward is likely to be revealed.

Another part of this thread, concerning Polyjuice, brought up the 
possibility that Tonks was being impersonated. We did see an 
ebullient, pink-haired Tonks greeting Harry off the train at the end 
of OotP. Then 2 weeks later we have this sad, unimaginative and 
mousy haired Tonks talking to Molly when Harry and DD come acallin'. 
Did seem way out of character, didn't it? I know at the end of HBP 
we finally get an explanation and see Tonks with her pink hair again 
(sorry Tonks!Polyjuiced folks, this kind of shoots it down) but it 
was fun to conjecture. Someone thinking along these lines could 
easily come up with a breakthrough idea. To quote Ken again:

> The clues are inside the box, the answers are not. <

So I say, let the wildest and wooliest ideas be cast into the HP4GU 
winds and let's see which ones gain purchase.

Mike, who like Ken doesn't think like JKR, and needs others who have 
the gift to point the way







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:29:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:29:56 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebiemu+t61o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebipc4+a2tc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156861

houyhnhnm wrote:
<snip>
> 5.  Why DD took the memory about visiting TR at the orphanage 
>     out of a bottle instead of out of his head.  (That's 
>     the passage Rowling read at Radio City, btw--??)
> 
> It kind of ruins Snape's character and it destroys some of the 
> touching moments between Harry and DD. Would Rowling sacrifice 
> character to plot?  NEVAHHH! :-P
>
Carol responds:
So you're conceding that polyjuiced Snape/DD ruins the plot! Hooray!

But that's an interesting point you made in number 5. Since the
Pensieve is usually empty when DD or Snape pours memories into it
(unless, as in GoF, DD is adding them all together to "sift" them), I
don't think that memories are actually stored in the Pensieve itself,
as some posters seem to believe. DD obviously bottles other people's
memories rather than putting them into his own head, but it's
interesting that in this case, he would bottle his own memory. (Yes,
I'm assuming that DD is himself in this scene.) It gives me hope that
he bottled several more, including the important conversations with
Snape and the eavesdropping incident, for which we have two or three
partial and conflicting accounts.

Maybe DD wills Harry the memories and the Pensieve, but for some
reason Harry is delayed in viewing or receiving them, so that we don't
get the truth about Snape until near the end of the book. Or maybe
Harry views them one at a time throughout the book because his rage
prevents him from dealing with them all at once. It would give us
interesting respites from the Horcrux hunt. Maybe he has to talk with
DD's portrait before he can force himself to view them.

Carol, just speculating in the second paragraph but willing to provide
canon for the first paragraph if anyone wants it <winks at Ken>








From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:17:21 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:17:21 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <ebinpd+ei0p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebiokh+a3c5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156862

> Tonks:
> <snip> However, do we know if the Granger's are Christian? Maybe
> they are Jewish. They could celebrate Hanukah as a family and then
> they go do whatever and Hermione visits her friends who do observe
> Christmas and she gives and receives Christmas presents. <snip>

Ryan:

Maybe, but given that no Jewish holidays have been mentioned in the
series, I'm betting that none of the main characters are Jewish.  I
mean we've never heard Hermione mention Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur,
which are more important than Chanukah.

Ryan










From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:49:58 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:49:58 -0000
Subject: Polyjuice potion/Why did Snape take the UV?/Hermione's Parents
In-Reply-To: <ebicer+cd6h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebiqhm+jopi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156863

> Magpie:
> This is one of these things that I just can't get my mind around.  
> How is Snape in any way skillfully getting information about Draco's 
> task through this vow?  

a_svirn:
I am not saying that he's getting information through the vow. I meant 
that he'd been doing it up until the subject of the vow come up. As 
for the vow itself I simply don't get why he took it. 







From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 20:26:22 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 20:26:22 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebin2v+eh6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebip5e+89is@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156864

> Sally wrote:
> > <snip> I noticed a belief that continual use of the time-
> > turners could possibly prematurely age a wizard, <snip>
> > This does seem to be a continued thread whenever Lupin's physical
> > appearance is described.  He always seems to be ageing, in what
> > could seem to be a somewhat clever way of describing what a hard
> > life Lupin is living with being a werewolf. <snip>
>
> Carol responds:
> The idea of time travel causing aging is not canonical; it's fan
> speculation. <snip>

Ryan:

It may indeed be speculation.  I would propose that needn't be a case
of time travel causing aging, per se.  However, we have nothing in
canon to suggest that characters don't age while they're "time-
turned."  So, if a character repeatedly goes back in time, they may
continue to age biologically.  If a character uses a time-turner
often enough (to the point of being a time-turner junky) they might
appear "prematurely aged" to other people.

By the way, I agree with you, Carol, that Lupin's prematurely aged
appearance is most likely due to chronic malnutrition and the stress
of being werewolf and outcast.

Ryan









From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 21:12:36 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:12:36 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <3f5.817931f.320d4fd7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebirs4+fd38@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156865

> >a_svirn:
> But that's just it ??" the risk wasn't  manageable and if it was 
> calculated we are still in the complete dark about  the nature of 
> those calculations. If it were manageable risk he wouldn't  have 
> ended up stuck with the third provision. He did, after all,  
> neglected to negotiate the precise wording. Rather careless of 
him, 
> I'd  say. In fact, why did he have to agree to the third provision 
at 
> all? If he  didn't want to, he didn't have to, did he? <snip> 
> <snip> 
> As for Snape's calculations we have to assume that he 
miscalculated  
> rather badly. If, that is, we are dealing with the DDM Snape. 
> However,  I, for one, don't see how he can not be "remotely 
stupid" 
> if he didn't  anticipated the trap of the third provision. At the 
> very least he should  have been na??ve in the extreme not to smell 
a 
> rat as soon as Narcissa  mentioned the UV. <snip>

> Nikkalmati: 
> This IMHO is confusing hindsight with the calculations made at the 
spur of  
> the moment -- which is all SS had.  Of course, it didn't turn out 
well, but  
> for that I blame Bella, who interfered with Draco and prevented SS 
from finding  
> out from him his task and how he was going to carry it out. If she 
taught  
> him Occulmancy, it can only be to keep out SS.  I also think SS  
underestimated 
> Naracissa or at least her deviousness.  If he did not know  
Draco's task, he 
> could not anticipate how important it would be for Narcissa to  
trap him into 
> doing it, if Draco failed. 

a_svirn:
But if he didn't know about the task then the whole point is moot. 
Carol argued that he did know in which case he couldn't help but 
anticipate the third provision, IMO. 

> Nikkalmati: 
 We don't know enough about the UV  to know if SS 
> had any choice but to swear to part 3 once he had begun.  

a_svirn:
Well, Arthur Weasly was able to stop Fred and Ron after they had 
already started the ritual. 

> Nikkalmati:
 However, even if he 
> could have backed out, unless he anticipated the nature of  the 
task, there was 
> no overwhelming reason to stop and lose all he could gain  from 
making the 
> vow.  

a_svirn:
Which means that risk wasn't at all calculated and manageable. I'd 
say that this is in itself an *overwhelming reason* NOT to make the 
vow. Just what did Snape gain by taking it? The disadvantages are 
glaringly obvious, but what are the advantages? 

> 
> >a_svirn:
> <snip>. I 
> don't believe, however, that Snape  knew about Draco's mission. It 
> looks to me as though he skilfully drilled  both sisters in order 
to 
> garner as much information as possible. 
> Nikkalmati: 
> Agreed. 

a_svirn:
I am pleased you say so! Unfortunately, it still doesn't explain the 
UV itself...








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 22:05:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:05:32 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <ebirs4+fd38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebiuvc+3p1n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156866

 
> > Nikkalmati: 
>  We don't know enough about the UV  to know if SS had any choice but
to swear to part 3 once he had begun.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Well, Arthur Weasly was able to stop Fred and Ron after they had 
> already started the ritual. 

Carol responds:
Stopping two five year-olds who don't really know what they're doing
is completely different from stopping two Dark witches like Bella and
Narcissa. Also, the kids probably hadn't reached the stage where Ron's
hand was bound to George's with rings of fire. (Personally, I think
Arthur heard them trying to make Ron swear to do something and saw him
Ron and George on their knees with Fred standing over them with a wand
but stopped them before any harm was done.) Even if the kids had
reached that stage (and surely even Fred and George weren't that
talented at Dark magic at age five!), Arthur wasn't one of the parties
to the vow. He was an armed outsider (meaning he had a wand and was
not a party to the IMO uncompleted vow) and could apparently undo the
damage, if any. 

But Snape is in Ron's position, that is, he's the person making the
vow, and the Bonder is not a five-year-old Fred but a loyal DE who
suspects him of disloyalty to the Dark Lord. He's kneeling on the
floor with his wand hand bound to Narcissa's by a double ring of fire.
Even if he could grab his wand left-handed and somehow undo the vow
(which I don't think is possible since it's Unbreakable), it would be
fatally stupid to attempt it with Bella standing over him with a wand,
not to mention that it would prove to both women that he was in league
with Dumbledore and they would find some way to report him without
incriminating themselves.

I think that once he's taken the first two provisions, he has no
choice but to take the unanticipated third one and hope there's a
loophole.

Carol, who thinks that both Snape and DD knew about Draco's "job" (but
not about the Vanishing Cabinets) and that Snape told DD about all
three provisions of the Vow







From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 11 22:19:44 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:19:44 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <ebiuvc+3p1n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebivq0+2vj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156867

> > a_svirn:
> > Well, Arthur Weasly was able to stop Fred and Ron after they had 
> > already started the ritual. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> Stopping two five year-olds who don't really know what they're 
doing
> is completely different from stopping two Dark witches like Bella 
and
> Narcissa. Also, the kids probably hadn't reached the stage where 
Ron's
> hand was bound to George's with rings of fire. (Personally, I think
> Arthur heard them trying to make Ron swear to do something and saw 
him
> Ron and George on their knees with Fred standing over them with a 
wand
> but stopped them before any harm was done.) Even if the kids had
> reached that stage (and surely even Fred and George weren't that
> talented at Dark magic at age five!), Arthur wasn't one of the 
parties
> to the vow. He was an armed outsider (meaning he had a wand and was
> not a party to the IMO uncompleted vow) and could apparently undo 
the
> damage, if any. 
> 
> But Snape is in Ron's position, that is, he's the person making the
> vow, and the Bonder is not a five-year-old Fred but a loyal DE who
> suspects him of disloyalty to the Dark Lord. He's kneeling on the
> floor with his wand hand bound to Narcissa's by a double ring of 
fire.
> Even if he could grab his wand left-handed and somehow undo the vow
> (which I don't think is possible since it's Unbreakable), it would 
be
> fatally stupid to attempt it with Bella standing over him with a 
wand,
> not to mention that it would prove to both women that he was in 
league
> with Dumbledore and they would find some way to report him without
> incriminating themselves.
> 
> I think that once he's taken the first two provisions, he has no
> choice but to take the unanticipated third one and hope there's a
> loophole.
> 

a_svirn:
But if you are right, then taking an UW, *any* UW, is unmanageable, 
and by definition unpredictable risk. Let's see: once you start you 
can be made to swear just about anything. As soon as you are on your 
knees and the ritual is started you are at the complete mercy of the 
persons involved. They could change wording without warning, come up 
with provisions at will and so on. How you can even begin to assess 
risks with such an arrangement? Of course, if you trust second and 
third parties implicitly it is another matter entirely. But we don't 
have to consider this eventuality. Not at the Spinner's End, at any 
rate. 






From ladypensieve at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 12 01:26:08 2006
From: ladypensieve at yahoo.com (Kathy)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 01:26:08 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <3f5.817931f.320d4fd7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebjang+e2nk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156868

The reason Snape took the vow were two-fold.

1.  It's a plot ploy so we know what an UV is when we find out
    a crucial point:

    Why does Dumbledore trust Snape?  Because Snape took an
    UV to protect Harry with his life.  To see my whole theory
    go to schnoogle.  It's a one shot (about 20 pages)under 
    Lady Pensieve.  

2.  Because Snape used Legilimens to read Narcissa's mind.
    He already knew what the plan was, but he had another
    plan with Dumbledore.  By taking the UV he knew that he
    could protect both Dumbledore and Draco at the same time.

KathyO


--- In HPforGrownupsI don't think SS knew Draco's task in Spinners End 
and took the vow (to protect Draco) to find out what was going on. If 
Narcissa trusted him and told Draco to cooperate with him, he could 
find out the task and thwart it. It was too important to pass up the 
chance to gain this information. I am relying on his surprise at the 
visit, Bella's surprise that he knew the task (he didn't), Bella's 
surprise he would take the vow, and the significant (to me <g>) pause 
when he looked out the window at the empty street (trying to decide 
what he would say to Narcissa). We don't have any reason to believe 
that LV would share
his plan for Draco with SS. LV is secretive, Bella seems to think it is
treasonous to reveal the task, and SS is not shown as being in favor 
with LV; otherwise, why is PP living with SS and openly spying on him?
Nikkalmati







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug 12 02:41:46 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:41:46 -0000
Subject: Aberforth at DD's funeral (Was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebigh3+7k6k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebjf5a+p23r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156869


@ngelita wrote:
> 
> > At the Scholastic book tour discussion here in LA a 
> > few weeks ago, it was mentioned that Aberforth is 
> > alive and runs/owns the Hogshead pub (?) .
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> For that matter, Aberforth was alive and well at the 
> funeral, so if he was impersonating DD on the tower his 
> death would have to have been faked. (Or someone else 
> is impersonating him.)
>

Abergoat writes:
Does it bother anyone else that no condolences were offered to the
barman at the funeral? Several members of the Order have met him...and
if he does look like Dumbledore then Mad Eye and Hagrid should have
had no trouble recognizing him.

I think that Aberforth WAS the barman...until shortly after the
prophecy. Why wouldn't Voldemort come to get Aberforth's memory of the
prophecy? And if Aberforth refused? Perhaps transforming to a goat
would be a suitable punishment for the brother of Voldemort's old
transfiguration teacher...just another example of something Voldemort
could do that Dumbledore couldn't fix. (smirk)

Abergoat







From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 04:09:32 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 21:09:32 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <ebhqd7+lo4v@eGroups.com>
References: <ebgots+61e6@eGroups.com> <ebhqd7+lo4v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156870

> Geoff:
> What
> I said was I thought that Hans'  phrases "he will come back just like Jesus,
> Orpheus, Horus and the other liberators" and "that's the story of Jesus. But
> it's also the story of Harry Potter" juxtaposed Christianity with a swathe of
> material which is fictional and thus, by implication, suggested that the life
> of Jesus was in the same category.


Sarah:
Wow.  I get that you personally happen to believe in Jesus, and so
does JKR.  However, millions of people have believed in the Greek and
Egyptian gods, just as you do in yours.  I'm not sure what "other
liberators" Hans is referring to, but its entirely possible there are
still millions of people with faith in them.  Proclaiming that one's
own gods are real while all others are fictional, is a bit intolerant
and religiocentric in my personal opinion.

Sarah
Atheist who considers Jesus the Christ an historical and literary
figure of no more or less import than Zeus, Osiris, etc.



From random832 at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 04:44:28 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:44:28 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ebgots+61e6@eGroups.com> <ebhqd7+lo4v@eGroups.com>
	 <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608112144x7899094bu60ac25fd2c2c7663@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156871

> Sarah
> Atheist who considers Jesus the Christ an historical and literary
> figure of no more or less import than Zeus, Osiris, etc.

The others are not actual historical figures, though they were
historically important (not the same thing). My point is it sounds
here like you're denying that Jesus, the man, existed at all, not just
that he was the son of god and all that blah blah - why go that far?
Just to be contrary?

-- 
Random832
Also atheist/agnostic, but there's nothing wrong with saying that he
was built, and that he was a very well-programmed robot...



From scarah at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 05:09:18 2006
From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah)
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:09:18 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608112144x7899094bu60ac25fd2c2c7663@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ebgots+61e6@eGroups.com> <ebhqd7+lo4v@eGroups.com>
	 <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>
	 <7b9f25e50608112144x7899094bu60ac25fd2c2c7663@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3202590608112209w758c4bdckeb2486acf57cd993@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156872

Jordan
> The others are not actual historical figures, though they were
> historically important (not the same thing). My point is it sounds
> here like you're denying that Jesus, the man, existed at all, not just
> that he was the son of god and all that blah blah - why go that far?
> Just to be contrary?

Sarah:

No... thus I applied the adjective "historical" to only him when I
wrote that sentence.  I concede bad comparison.  How does Siddartha
grab you?

Sarah



From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug 12 08:04:58 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:04:58 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebk23a+4nnb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156873

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah <scarah at ...> wrote:

> Wow.  I get that you personally happen to believe in Jesus, and so
> does JKR.  

Geoff:
Precisely. If that is the case, then for Hans to impose his own views on 
JKR's writings and state that she is conforming to his views is perhaps 
rather dogmatic. I would be a little happier if he said that he "thought" 
that was her aim rather than declaring it to be so.

Sarah:
> However, millions of people have believed in the Greek and
> Egyptian gods, just as you do in yours.  I'm not sure what "other
> liberators" Hans is referring to, but its entirely possible there are
> still millions of people with faith in them.  Proclaiming that one's
> own gods are real while all others are fictional, is a bit intolerant
> and religiocentric in my personal opinion.

Geoff:
I don't proclaim that my "gods" are real; I believe that my God - 
singular - is real. If nothing else, the historical evidence for Jesus 
being a real person is available. The Greek and Egyptian gods were 
not that.

My usual stance is that I am not religious. I am a Christian and 
millions of Christians will tell you that they have a personal experience 
of meeting with Christ which is why they are what they are. I believe 
that I enjoy a personal relationship with God through Christ and am not 
just going through a series of routines and rituals laid down by tradition 
or history.

Going back to the basic point of this latest series of message, the 
fact is that, after a long gap, Hans has brought up again is whether JKR 
would have introduced a long and complex belief structure into her books 
which I think are intended to be read for pleasure and satisfaction rather 
than as philosophical and religious treatises.






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug 12 11:30:28 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 11:30:28 -0000
Subject: Aberforth at DD's funeral (Was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebjf5a+p23r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebke4k+9aa5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156874


> Abergoat writes:
> Does it bother anyone else that no condolences were offered to the
> barman at the funeral? Several members of the Order have met him...and
> if he does look like Dumbledore then Mad Eye and Hagrid should have
> had no trouble recognizing him.

Potioncat:
I really cannot remember. We know Aberforth is the barman. Harry knows 
Aberforth is DD's brother. Does Harry know Aberforth is the barman?

(This is one way the unreliable narrator is used, when the narrator 
sees something but doesn't "know" what he sees, but the reader knows. 
It's used in Huck Finn this way too.)

If canon shows that Harry does know that DD's brother Abeforth is the 
barman,then pay no attention to the sentences behind the ( ).






From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 12 14:17:33 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:17:33 -0000
Subject: Prefects
Message-ID: <ebkntt+j5b4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156875

It doesn't really effect the plot...but could someone (English 
reader?) explain to me the prefect system?  I'm not sure that we use 
it in the US, at least, we don't use it in the public school system I 
attended.  When Percy was in 5th year, he was named a prefect.  When 
Ron and Hermione were in 5th year, they were named prefects.  I 
thought it was a one-year post.  When the trio entered 6th year, I 
assumed that other 5th years would take over...but R/H remained 
prefects.  Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th 
years and 7th years)?  That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of 
Indians.

Carodave






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug 12 08:40:21 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 08:40:21 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <ebiokh+a3c5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebk45l+2goh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156876

Tonks:
>> <snip> However, do we know if the Granger's are Christian? Maybe
>> they are Jewish. <snip>

Ryan:
> Maybe, but given that no Jewish holidays have been mentioned in the
> series, I'm betting that none of the main characters are Jewish.  I
> mean we've never heard Hermione mention Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur,
> which are more important than Chanukah.

Tinktonks:

Also Hermione mentions buying her parents teeth flossing mints for
christmas in PoA.

Tinktonks










From raymonddavenport at btinternet.com  Sat Aug 12 14:28:19 2006
From: raymonddavenport at btinternet.com (raymond300659)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 14:28:19 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <ebkntt+j5b4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebkoi3+10s1k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156877

Carodave <carodave92 at ...> wrote:
> It doesn't really effect the plot...but could someone (English
> reader?) explain to me the prefect system?  I'm not sure that we
> use it in the US, at least, we don't use it in the public school
> system I attended. <snip>

In USA they are like hall moniters.

Raymond









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 12 16:47:41 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 16:47:41 -0000
Subject: Aberforth at DD's funeral (Was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebke4k+9aa5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebl0nd+7771@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156878

Abergoat wrote:
> > Does it bother anyone else that no condolences were offered to the
> > barman at the funeral? Several members of the Order have met
him...and if he does look like Dumbledore then Mad Eye and Hagrid
should have had no trouble recognizing him.
> 
> Potioncat:
> I really cannot remember. We know Aberforth is the barman. Harry
knows Aberforth is DD's brother. Does Harry know Aberforth is the barman?
> 
> (This is one way the unreliable narrator is used, when the narrator 
> sees something but doesn't "know" what he sees, but the reader
knows. It's used in Huck Finn this way too.)
> 
> If canon shows that Harry does know that DD's brother Abeforth is
the barman,then pay no attention to the sentences behind the ( ).
>
Carol responds:
Potioncat is right. There's no indication that Harry knows that
Aberforth is the barman. Otherwise, the narrator would hardly have
stated that the barman from the Hog's Head was one of the attendees at
the funeral. Harry has seen Aberforth's photograph only once, when his
mind was on other things (like Wormtail sitting between his parents
and how many of those people were about to die or lose their minds).
Also, Aberforth was out of context in the photo, and probably not
wearing his apron, so Harry didn't recognize him as the barman. The
reader does--we've put two and two together with the goat clue and
other things, such as DD's remark that he's friendly with the local
barmen (meaning, IMO, that Aberforth, at least, is part of his
extensive spy network). But Harry doesn't usually try to fit evidence
together unless he has a personal stake in it.

As for why no one offered condolences to Aberforth, we don't know
that. Harry merely glimpsed "the barman" and noticed that he was
attending the funeral. Otherwise, his attention was engaged by other
things, like the service itself. And no one offers condolences during
the funeral. They would have done so before or more likely afterward,
out of Harry's hearing. Unless Aberforth is keeping a low profile and
doesn't want to be the center of attention as the bereaved brother.

BTW, I wonder if Aberforth is a fence for Mundungus's stolen goods--a
Fagin among the Order members--as well as a spy for DD. That would
explain what Mundungus was doing at the Hog's Head when he was
supposedly kicked out twenty years earlier (another cover story)? If
so, I think it's likely that Aberforth has the locket Horcrux. (He may
also know what happened with Snape, DD, and the ring Horcrux.
*Someone* need to tell us that story, since DD never did!)

Carol, wondering what JKR meant when she said we should think about
Dumbledore's family







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 12 18:57:29 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:57:29 -0000
Subject: Aberforth at DD's funeral (Was Re: Spinner's End)
In-Reply-To: <ebjf5a+p23r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebl8ap+g8ka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156879

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Abergoat writes:
> Does it bother anyone else that no condolences were offered to the
> barman at the funeral? Several members of the Order have met 
him...and
> if he does look like Dumbledore then Mad Eye and Hagrid should have
> had no trouble recognizing him.

Carodave: 
According to Moody when he showed Harry the photo, Aberforth only 
attended that one meeting of the Order.  It could be the only time 
anyone ever met him, and was 15 years ago.  They may not remember 
him.
> 
> I think that Aberforth WAS the barman...until shortly after the
> prophecy. Why wouldn't Voldemort come to get Aberforth's memory of 
the
> prophecy? And if Aberforth refused? Perhaps transforming to a goat
> would be a suitable punishment for the brother of Voldemort's old
> transfiguration teacher...just another example of something 
Voldemort
> could do that Dumbledore couldn't fix. (smirk)
> 
> Abergoat

Carodave:
Harry sees Aberforth tending bar long after the prophecy...when the 
DA organizes in the Hogs Head.  Why would Aberforth have a memory of 
the prophecy?  He would only have overheard as much as Snape did.  
Voldemort has already heard that much.
>








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 20:21:32 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:21:32 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebh1oj+fmvu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebld8d+kj28@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156880

Snow (me) previously:

Or if Snape is good and bad
and Just Out for Himself! (Confusing but 
doable, I have an entire theory on this one
with canon(s)) 
I've been on both sides of the fence about Snape and this truly is 
the only way it works.

Neri:
Hmmm. You may have noticed that I was careful not to write "Snape is
bad", since this actually doesn't follow from Rushdie's argument. But
lets hear your theory. We never have enough of Snape theories

Snow:

Well since you asked


Let's start with accepting everything Faith has to offer us about 
Snape throughout the series and attempt to come to some concluding 
questions. 

(1)Snape has shown animosity towards Harry since their first meeting 

Snape's first face-to-face encounter with Harry shows us that he 
carries no love for the boy when he singles him out and embarrasses 
him for his lack of knowledge. SS pg. 137 
This is but the beginning of a long beret of examples.  

What type of conclusion could we come to about Snape's treatment of 
Harry? 

(a)Snape really doesn't like Harry 
(b)Snape is evil
(c)Snape is training Harry for an opponent that is much more fatal 
than a barrage of insults  

(2)Snape has saved Harry on several occasions

Snape saved Harry from his bucking broom that Quirrell bewitched and 
he carried Harry from the Lake after the dementors attacked. Snape 
was also seen as one of Crouch Jr's enemies according to the Foe 
Glass. Snape drew the deatheaters away from the castle in the last 
book before they could do anymore damage and gave Harry a few sparing 
lessons on his way out. 

What conclusion can we derive from Snape's actions?

(a)Snape had to save Harry because he would have to answer to 
Dumbledore
but
Dumbledore's dead in the last example so
(b)Snape is just prolonging Harry's life so that Voldemort can take 
him down himself
(c)Snape needs Harry to kill Voldemort

(3)What side of the fence is Snape sitting on

Snape has been on Dumbledore's side since the beginning of the series 
but we know that he was on the opposing side with much credit given 
to his dark art skills. Dumbledore has vouched for Snape's 
credibility many times claiming that he has turned from his wicked 
ways and is now no more a deatheater than himself. 
Snape's biggest disappointment to date has been losing the Order of 
Merlin where he became unhinged but to his disappointment was a bit 
of gleam in Dumbledore's eye 
POA pg. 420 "Well there you have it, Severus," said Dumbledore 
calmly. "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able 
to be in two places at once
" 
Snape stood there, seething, staring from Fudge
to Dumbledore, whose 
eyes were twinkling behind his glasses. 
"Fellow seems quite unbalanced," said Fudge

"Oh, he's not unbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He's just 
suffered a severe disappointment."

Conclusion?

(a)Snape is Dumbledore's man even though Dumbledore is dead at his 
hand
(b)Dumbledore trusted Snape because he knew that Snape needs Harry to 
kill Voldemort and/or Snape needs an Order of Merlin for (?)
(c)Snape is at the very least under Dumbledore's thumb and at best 
Dumbledore's right-hand man


The following is a summed up conclusion that I have come to and the 
reasons as to why

My Snape-journey experience on this list began with accepting Snape 
as written: dark, greasy and abusive.  I soon learned, through many 
readings from authors on this forum and their interpretations, that 
there was a fair argument to oppose my way of thought. I then became 
a fence sitter on my original belief. Years went by and I accepted 
that Snape must be DDM, because there were too many situations where 
Snape could have chosen (if he were evil to the core) to show his 
true colors but did not. The most recent book with all its innuendos 
had left me feeling extremely indecisive yet again. It seemed that no 
matter what shoes I attempt to put Snape in, they simply did not fit. 
So I went back to the drawing board but this time I was enlightened 
by so much information from not only the books but also this forum 
that I had a new perspective; what could make Snape appear to be all 
three people, DDM, ESE, and OFH? The answer was really very simple
he 
was all three! The tricky part was connecting it. We all need to know 
why Snape went to the dark side and why he returned (it is the key 
George
and Diana agrees). Speculation is, unfortunately our only 
alternative to making a conclusive, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt 
determination of who Snape is and which side he is on. 

It appears to me that whatever it is that Snape needs that has caused 
him to act the way he has lies within Harry's fight against 
Voldemort. Let me make an analogy to this statement. If you have 
placed money on a fighter to win and this fighter is young, 
inexperienced and doesn't train for the fight would you expect him to 
win? Another question, what does it normally take for a fighter to 
win? If we substitute Rocky as the fighter, I would say immediately 
the answer would be Eye of the Tiger. You have to want the win enough 
that even when the odds are not in your favor you will succeed. Now 
if we use Harry as the Young, Inexperienced Fighter (which he is) 
then he needs to be trained
he also needs the Eye of the Tiger. We 
have already witnessed what Harry is capable of when he has the Eye 
of the Tiger just look at Sirius' death. When Harry is working 
towards saving someone else he's unstoppable! I would have to 
conclude that Harry has been being trained up for the past six years 
(and many times through Snape's involvement). Even Harry would agree: 

SS pg. 302 "He's a funny man, Dumbledore. I think he sort of wanted 
to give me a chance. I think he knows more or less everything that 
goes on here, you know. I reckon he had a pretty good idea we were 
going to try, and instead of stopping us, he just taught us enough to 
help." 

From Harry's own mouth comes the words "he just taught us" and the 
training continues up to and including the end of book six when Snape 
reminds Harry that he needs to close his mind. 

HBP pg. 603 "Blocked again and again and again until you learn to 
keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!"
 
Why would Snape remind Harry about his need for Occlumency unless 
Snape is attempting to once again teach Harry? If Snape were Evil, 
why would he have said this to Harry at all, how would this serve a 
purpose for EvilSnape? 

No matter how much Dumbledore appears to trust Snape there is one 
line that tells `me' that Dumbledore only trusts Snape because he 
knows what Snape needs and wants
 something that Dumbledore has 
carefully controlled that Snape never fulfills.  (Which is apparently 
the Order of Merlin to set him free from whatever
 The end of POA 
shows Snape drooling intently (POA pg. 386) and then irate at the 
thought of the Merlin award fading (starting on pg 419 of POA) 

The `one line' in reference is when Harry first dives into the 
pencieve (in GOF) but towards the end of this scene when Dumbledore 
finds Snape claiming that the scars on his and Karkaroff's arms are 
returning, and Dumbledore says with a sigh, "A connection I could 
have made without assistance". (GOF pg. 598)
This line was said in front of Harry and gave such an air to `me' 
that Dumbledore was very unsatisfied with the latest details from 
Snape. 

Dumbledore has exhibited many such tendencies towards Snape in front 
of Harry usually to Snape's embarrassment and rage. These tendencies 
to Snape are very bland and put off easily but are there nonetheless 
and emphasize Dumbledore's control of Snape's behavior and successes. 

COS pg 82 when Dumbledore calmly reminds Snape that Harry and Ron are 
not in his House and therefore He could not determine their 
punishment. 
Or on pg 144 when Dumbledore through twinkling blue eyes firmly 
states that Harry is innocent until proven guilty. 
These are just two examples from the same book that obtain the same 
result, infuriating Snape in front of Harry. 
These are not isolated incidents of this type of occurrence. 
Dumbledore, more times than not, is quite pleased at the reaction he 
receives from Snape when he is thwarted from succeeding. It tells me 
that Dumbledore may trust Snape but he has no specific love driven 
motive to do so. 
My impression is that Dumbledore trusts Snape only to the degree that 
he is no longer a deatheater. He trusts him because Snape gave 
Dumbledore the ultimate information that initially brought down 
Voldemort. If Voldemort were to become aware of the fact that Snape 
gave Dumbledore the dark lords victims next location, Snape would be 
dead. If Snape hadn't told Dumbledore useful information, when he was 
caught spying over the Prophecy, the Ministry would have tried him as 
a deatheater. (Talk about being caught between a rock and a hard 
place) 
Now this scenario would appear to make Snape look like a coward on 
either side of good or bad and what is it that enraged Snape at the 
end of HBP, oh yeah "Don't call me coward". And what would be the 
opposite reaction to Snape if he were to earn The Order of Merlin
 
you guessed it Hero. 
So Snape's main ambition is to clear his name by achieving such a 
feet. But then there is Dumbledore who needs Snape's help (and he is 
quite useful) so Dumbledore is not in any way saddened at Snape's 
near miss in receiving his trophy for the capture of Sirius. This 
tends to make me feel as though Dumbledore is using Snape. Just 
because Dumbledore trusts Snape it does not directly follow that 
Snape's motives are pure to Dumbledore's cause. It only shows that 
Dumbledore is aware of Snape's wants or needs and that he can be used 
by Dumbledore to achieve his own goal because of it. 

If there is one reason alone as to why I would feel Snape is not 
simply DDM it would be because the majority is usually wrong. There 
are way too many persons readily acceptant that Snape is all out for 
DD and His cause with disregard to JKR's statements against such 
portrayals that Snape is a good person. Yes, we have seen the good in 
him but it's not for Harry and it's doubtful that it is for love of 
Dumbledore, so what else could it be? 

Likewise if there is a reason I believe Snape is not purely Evil, I 
would have to say that since Dumbledore is dead there is very little 
reason for Snape to continue to allow Harry to live and to take it 
one step further by reminding Harry that he needs to continue to 
practice Occlumency. 

It only follows that if the two statements above have been dismissed 
the only reasonable option open for review would be that Snape is out 
for his own means which coincide with Harry's success. As much as he 
may loathe Harry, Snape needs the boy to win the fight! 

Just one last tidbit to add
When Hagrid heard the argument between 
Dumbledore and Snape; why would an EvilSnape beg that he wanted out 
if he wasn't in? And what would make a Dumbledore'sManSnape even ask 
to be released? 

Snape is trapped. To move forward he has to go back. 
You don't just turn in your resignation to the deatheater brigade and 
to be purely accepted back into the fold you would have to really 
appear to be loyal to its cause. Dumbledore covered Snape royally on 
that front even though it was with his own blood. Dumbledore was 
Snape's only protection to reach his goal, now he has to go back to 
ensure the fate of going forward into the future.  

Snape is out for himself; it's just that his goal lies parallel with 
Dumbledore's plan and Harry's future. The one thing they all have in 
common is the demise of Voldemort. 

Cheers
Snow










From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sat Aug 12 22:28:54 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 22:28:54 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebh1oj+fmvu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eblkn6+lo4j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156881

Snow:

As you may have noticed I wrote separately from the original Rushdie 
comments about my theory on OFH Snape. It does however play nicely 
into the comments from JKR because she could honestly state that 
Rushdie was correct in his opinions. 

If Snape is good Dumbledore can't be dead is the quote in question. 
Directly after saying Rushdie's opinion is right JKR emphatically 
pronounces that Dumbledore is indeed dead. 

It appears to be the only part of Rushdie's statement that she needed 
to clear up; all else is a true scenario as seen by Rushdie with the 
one exception that Dumbledore is dead. This in your opinion 
automatically secures that Snape is `not good', why? I've never 
believed Snape to be good no matter which side of the fence he was 
on. You can still do good things if you are a bad person if it is in 
your best interest. This Is Snape. Snape has been anything but a good 
person; Faith will back me up on that. That does not mean that his 
objective is not the same as Dumbledore; they both want Voldemort to 
be evicted. The end product would be the same if Dumbledore and Snape 
need the same result, wouldn't it? So even if Snape still has lethal 
hatred for Harry and his colleagues but needs Voldemort to be 
vanquished for his own agenda, wouldn't he still follow the only plan 
that has a fat chance of succeeding? 

Snow







From vinitasrivastava_83 at rediffmail.com  Sat Aug 12 20:02:36 2006
From: vinitasrivastava_83 at rediffmail.com (Vinita Srivastava)
Date: 12 Aug 2006 20:02:36 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
Message-ID: <20060812200236.1433.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156882

 ?
 ?
 ?
Hi
 This is a presumption of what I think will happen to Harry in the 7th and the final installment of Harry Potter. As all of you know that Ms. Rowling has deided to kill Harry in the last book but what I think is that she does not mean killing Harry in literally what I think she means is that it will probably Harry who would take over from Voldemort as the Dark Lord thus killing him . I came up with this idea because in the the fifth book Dumbledore tells Harry that the only difference between Harry & Voldemort is that Harry has a good heart but what I think will happen to Harry is that after losing so many people who are close to him he would finally give up on good and go over to the evil side so that he does not have to suffer any more. And with Dumbledore dead  there will be nobody to guide him .

Unless Dumbledore's death is only an eyewash.
So do let me know what are your real thoughts regarding what I think about the 7th book.
Thanks
Regards

Vinita Srivastava






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 01:03:01 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 01:03:01 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <20060812200236.1433.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com>
Message-ID: <eblto5+56s2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156883

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vinita Srivastava" 
<vinitasrivastava_83 at ...> wrote:  ?
>  ?
> Hi
>  This is a presumption of what I think will happen to Harry in the 
7th and the final installment of Harry Potter. As all of you know 
that Ms. Rowling has deided to kill Harry in the last book ...<HUGE 
SNIP>


Alla:

Hi, welcome to the group :) I  truly don't mean to sound sarcastic, 
but I have to ask. Do you know something I don't? :)

When is it became known that JKR *for sure* decided to kill Harry? I 
mean, she teases us and does not give a straight answer as to 
whether he will live or die, but I don't remember her answering with 
certainty and why would she give up such important plot point?

Could you refer me to the source of your knowledge on this issue?

Thanks a lot,

Alla








From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 01:57:16 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 21:57:16 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <ebk23a+4nnb@eGroups.com>
References: <3202590608112109h40c2302eu5b2aa025f957c093@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ebk23a+4nnb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608121857r6a2c8115h5b541cefb9bc4507@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156884

> Geoff:
> I don't proclaim that my "gods" are real; I believe that my God -
> singular - is real.

Don't you mean your God _are_ real?

-- 
Random832, i just think it's amusing that the most mainstream
religion's number of gods can be best described as "one. maybe three.
yeah, three - well, sort of. not really. okay, it's one. almost."



From drednort at alphalink.com.au  Sun Aug 13 02:32:02 2006
From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:32:02 +1000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prefects
In-Reply-To: <ebkntt+j5b4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44DF1BC2.32762.9D5C0ED@drednort.alphalink.com.au>

No: HPFGUIDX 156885

On 12 Aug 2006 at 14:17, carodave92 wrote:

> It doesn't really effect the plot...but could someone (English 
> reader?) explain to me the prefect system?  I'm not sure that we use 
> it in the US, at least, we don't use it in the public school system I 
> attended.  When Percy was in 5th year, he was named a prefect.  When 
> Ron and Hermione were in 5th year, they were named prefects.  I 
> thought it was a one-year post.  When the trio entered 6th year, I 
> assumed that other 5th years would take over...but R/H remained 
> prefects.  Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th 
> years and 7th years)?  That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of 
> Indians.

The thing is, there's no single 'prefect system'. A lot of British schools (and for that matter, 
schools throughout the Commonwealth) have prefects, but there's no single set way that the 
system will necessarily work.

>From what I can work out (as somebody who does understand such systems quite well) it 
seems that at Hogwarts, prefects are appointed at Fifth Year and remain prefects through 
fifth, sixth, and seventh year. At seventh year, a Head Boy and Head Girl are appointed, and 
these may or may not have been prefects previously.

This would give six prefects in each House for a total of 24 prefects across the school at any 
one time - either including or in addition to the Head Boy and Girl.

In terms of numbers of chiefs to numbers of Indians, it really depends on how big the school 
is. Estimates of the school size tend to range from just under 300 to somewhere around 
1000, depending on which evidence people decide to give credence to.

>From my perspective, 24 prefects out of 280 students would seem on the high side - but not 
ridiculously so - I am aware of schools that have had ratios at that level. 24 out of 1000 would 
be entirely reasonable.

So the numbers don't seem that odd.

We also have indications that some other positions - such as Quidditch Captain - are 
considered equivalent to a prefects position in at least some ways - but it's hard to say 
exactly how equivalent they are from the canon.

It's also important to realise that depending on the school, a prefects position can be either 
purely symbolic, right up to being a position of very real power - especially when you look at 
history, at some schools in the past, prefects have been very important and powerful. 
Hogwarts in many ways seems to be an old fashioned school in its operations, and prefects 
are reasonably powerful and important. In such an environment, where prefects actually do 
real and important work, you may need more of them than in an environment, where it's just 
a privilege without real utility.

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 gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Aug 13 10:48:57 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 10:48:57 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608121857r6a2c8115h5b541cefb9bc4507@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebn02p+47mm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156886

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Geoff:
> > I don't proclaim that my "gods" are real; I believe that my God -
> > singular - is real.
> 
> Don't you mean your God _are_ real?


Geoff:
No, I don't. 

This is really outside the remit of the group, but, as a Christian, I 
visualise God in three ways which helps me to understand his actions 
a little more clearly. As Father, I see him as the creator of everything. 
As Christ, I see him as God when he took on human form. As Holy 
Spirit, I believe that this is God existing within a Christian's life; I 
believe that when I became a Christian many years ago, I didn't just 
go through a form of words but asked the Holy Spirit to come into 
my life. This does not make him into three different beings.

It is very difficult to satisfactorily explain this; I hope that the above 
will shed a little more light, poorly expressed as it is.

My apologies to the House Elves as I am dangerously near to the cliff 
edge of being off-topic.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Aug 13 13:19:03 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 13:19:03 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <44DF1BC2.32762.9D5C0ED@drednort.alphalink.com.au>
Message-ID: <ebn8s7+q5ee@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156887

Shaun wrote: 
> It's also important to realise that depending on the school, a 
prefects position can be either 
> purely symbolic, right up to being a position of very real power - 
especially when you look at 
> history, at some schools in the past, prefects have been very 
important and powerful. 
> Hogwarts in many ways seems to be an old fashioned school in its 
operations, and prefects 
> are reasonably powerful and important. In such an environment, 
where prefects actually do 
> real and important work, you may need more of them than in an 
environment, where it's just 
> a privilege without real utility.


Potioncat:
In the HP stories, prefects seem to have power (Percy handed out 
strict punishments during test times) and duties (Ron and Hermione 
had to help patrol halls), but we only see prefects as they fit with 
the story. It was important for us to see Percy puffed up with pride 
over being prefect and Head Boy---yet we have no idea at all who any 
other Head Boys have been during Harry's terms. We don't know who hte 
other Gryffindor prefects are either. It was important to see Ron 
rather than Harry become prefect--yet nothing is said about the 
prefects for Ginny's class. I assume she isn't one.









From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 14:17:08 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:17:08 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebld8d+kj28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebnc94+osth@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156888

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Snow (me) previously:
> 
> Or if Snape is good and bad
and Just Out for Himself! 

GIANT SNIP

GIANT SNIP

FEE FI FO FUM
GIANT SNIPS AT THE ENGLISHMAN


> 
> Snape is trapped. To move forward he has to go back. 
> You don't just turn in your resignation to the deatheater brigade 
and 
> to be purely accepted back into the fold you would have to really 
> appear to be loyal to its cause. Dumbledore covered Snape royally 
on 
> that front even though it was with his own blood. Dumbledore was 
> Snape's only protection to reach his goal, now he has to go back 
to 
> ensure the fate of going forward into the future.  
> 
> Snape is out for himself; it's just that his goal lies parallel 
with 
> Dumbledore's plan and Harry's future. The one thing they all have 
in 
> common is the demise of Voldemort. 
> 
> Cheers
> Snow
>

Randy replies.

I really like this scenario.  It makes Snape a very well-written 
character with complexities that are only understood in the context 
of many situations.  He is not to be trusted completely, but we must 
trust him in the performance of our immediate tasks in Book Seven.  
He does not like Harry, but he must encourage him to be able to use 
him in Book Seven to acheive his own ends.

He has a bit of Gollum in him.  He goes along with the Hobbits in 
order to try to get his precious ring back.  He never tells the 
Hobbits about the Spider ahead.  He does know the way to Mordor and 
supplies information that the Hobbits need to fulfill their tasks.  
He is never to be completely trusted, but must be trusted during the 
journey (with a watchful eye of course).

I think you have done an excellent job of defining Snape!

IMO, Snape is the character who embodies the concept of Envy in this 
series.  He envies the power and adulation that others get while he 
nevers receives credit for his accomplishments.  Perhaps he will 
receive this credit only if he dies in the effort to destroy 
Voldemort.  

On the other hand, maybe Snape opens a small Potions Shop in 
Diagonally after the war.  He could marry a nice witch and go on to 
have 2.5 kids and worry about taxes and lawn care and such.;0)









From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 14:45:35 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 14:45:35 -0000
Subject: An excellent summary of Alchemy
Message-ID: <ebnduf+qfc6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156889

Here is a very concise, well-written summary of the principles of 
Alchemy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A676370

As others have mentioned Alchemy in relation to Harry Potter before, 
I thought this would provide a "Cliff Notes" version to those who 
have no time to delve into the confusing language of Alchemy.

It does have some easily recognizable connections to the HP series.

The Blackening Stage of Sirius Black
The Whittening Stage of Albus Dumbledore
The Reddening Stage of (I believe) Rubeus Hagrid

If Harry has LOVE and Voldy has SOUL (just look at his record 
collection;0), then blood must be given from the Reddening process 
to unite the opposites of HARRY AND VOLDY.  At least in some 
mystical sense of the words !  Neither can survive without the 
other.  The Self cannot be realized without the unification of the 
dark side of subconcious and the light side of conscious.  We must 
deal with our DARK SIDE like Luke Skywalker must face Darth Vader.

Given this theory, I think Rubeus Hagrid will die to provide the 
Reddening process just as Albus D. died for the Whitening and Sirius 
B. died for the Blackening.  Grawp could actually provide something 
significant here. If Hagrid dies, Grawp could become so angry that 
he destroys the large number of Death Eaters and various bad guys 
that outnumber the good guys in the denouement of the series.  Just 
a wild thought spoken by another Giant with a small brain!

Why don't the few of you who actually read this post talk amongst 
yourselves and add your own comments on how to apply Alchemy to Book 
Seven resolutions!

Randy ( who gave up his Red Eye to keep JKR from killing him off in 
book Seven!)











From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Aug 13 16:57:35 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 13 Aug 2006 16:57:35 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/13/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1155488255.20.25183.m36@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156890


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday August 13, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060813/d2b9adf6/attachment.html>

From shirleejuly31 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 06:01:22 2006
From: shirleejuly31 at yahoo.com (shirleejuly31)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:01:22 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <20060812200236.1433.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebmf7i+s2f4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156891

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vinita Srivastava"
<vinitasrivastava_83 at ...> wrote:
 ?
> Hi
>  This is a presumption of what I think will happen to Harry in the
7th and the final installment of Harry Potter. As all of you know
that Ms. Rowling has decided to kill Harry in the last book but what
I think is that she does not mean killing Harry in literally what I
think she means is that it will probably Harry who would take over
from Voldemort as the Dark Lord thus killing him . I came up with
this idea because in the the fifth book Dumbledore tells Harry that
the only difference between Harry & Voldemort is that Harry has a
good heart but what I think will happen to Harry is that after
losing so many people who are close to him he would finally give up
on good and go over to the evil side so that he does not have to
suffer any more. And with Dumbledore dead  there will be nobody to
guide him .
>
> Unless Dumbledore's death is only an eyewash. <SNIP>


Hmmm..
I regards to your thoughts I would have to say that you have an
interesting theory, However I do not feel the same as you. I do
believe, and am preparing myself, for a full out death for my
precious character Harry. In the first book, I forget where exactly,
but the centaurs see it in the stars. Firenze is yelled at by Bane
in the Forbidden Forest not to interfere with what has been fortold,
and though they may have seen the rise of Voldemort, I believe they
have also seen the fall of Harry. Harry is too full of hope and love
to be taken to the dark side in my opinion, so as I see it, he will
fight to the death and take Voldemort with him. It is my hope,
though that Harry will live on, but the stars seem to be against him.
This is just my thoughts however, but I love to read new theories
everyday.
JKR has aready stated that Dumbledore is dead and gone too.
I'd love a response if any. ;)

Shirlee









From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au  Sun Aug 13 06:23:10 2006
From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 06:23:10 -0000
Subject: Haeey's watch. WAS: Re: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebi3t9+c9e0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebmgge+uadj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156892

> Ryan:
>
> Harry's watch could just be one of Dudley's cast-offs, like much of
> Harry's muggle-wear is.
>

Katrina:
Yeah but its a working watch. Harry gets Dudley's broken things, and
all his ugly clothes or the stuff he grows out of. Although I suppose
his arm could have grown too big for his watch.










From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug 13 17:37:05 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:37:05 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <ebmf7i+s2f4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebno01+s0c4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156893

>Shirlee wrote (snipped)
>  In the first book, I forget where exactly,
> but the centaurs see it in the stars. Firenze is yelled at by Bane
> in the Forbidden Forest not to interfere with what has been fortold,
> and though they may have seen the rise of Voldemort, I believe they
> have also seen the fall of Harry.

However, in the same section, Firenze replies to Bane that the stars
have been wrong before, and so even though it would appear that
Firenze is 'interfering' (for want of a better word) in what has been
foretold, IMO he isn't.  In OotP, Firenze makes a point of teaching
the students that not everything in the stars is what it seems, and
for them not to place too much faith in predicting the future as
nothing is for certain.  To be honest, JKR doesn't seem to place very
much in Divination, as she constantly makes references to how woolly
and inaccurate predictions can be.  Even the Prophecy which Prof. Trewlaney makes re: Harry and LV could have gone different ways.

Sally











From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Aug 13 19:14:15 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:14:15 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebld8d+kj28@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebntm7+fibs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156894


> 
> Neri:
> Hmmm. You may have noticed that I was careful not to write "Snape is
> bad", since this actually doesn't follow from Rushdie's argument. 
But
> lets hear your theory. We never have enough of Snape theories

> Snow:
> 
> Well since you asked

> 
> Let's start with accepting everything Faith has to offer us about 
> Snape throughout the series and attempt to come to some concluding 
> questions. 
> 
> (1)Snape has shown animosity towards Harry since their first 
meeting 
> 
> Snape's first face-to-face encounter with Harry shows us that he 
> carries no love for the boy when he singles him out and embarrasses 
> him for his lack of knowledge. SS pg. 137 
> This is but the beginning of a long beret of examples.  
> 
> What type of conclusion could we come to about Snape's treatment of 
> Harry? 
> 
> (a)Snape really doesn't like Harry 
> (b)Snape is evil
> (c)Snape is training Harry for an opponent that is much more fatal 
> than a barrage of insults  
> 
> (2)Snape has saved Harry on several occasions
> 
> Snape saved Harry from his bucking broom that Quirrell bewitched 
and 
> he carried Harry from the Lake after the dementors attacked. Snape 
> was also seen as one of Crouch Jr's enemies according to the Foe 
> Glass. Snape drew the deatheaters away from the castle in the last 
> book before they could do anymore damage and gave Harry a few 
sparing 
> lessons on his way out. 
> 
> What conclusion can we derive from Snape's actions?
> 
> (a)Snape had to save Harry because he would have to answer to 
> Dumbledore
but
> Dumbledore's dead in the last example so
> (b)Snape is just prolonging Harry's life so that Voldemort can take 
> him down himself
> (c)Snape needs Harry to kill Voldemort
> 

Julie:
Let me address your theory at this point, where I believe
you've already invalidated everything that follows (or at 
least left it open to many alternative interpretations) by
leaving out several conclusions we can derive from Snape's
actions above. The two most obvious are:

(d) Snape saved Harry because while he may not like the
boy he does not want him dead, nor any other child under 
his tutelege. He may very well enjoy taunting his students,
even to the point of verbal abuse at times, but he draws
the line at physically harming them, or allowing physical
harm to come to them if he can prevent it. In other words,
his conscience won't allow him to stand by while Harry dies.

(e) Snape is trying to repay his life debt to James by
saving the son, since he can no longer save the father.

(f) My personal favorite, a combination of (d)&(e). Which
ties perfectly into a DDM!Snape. Not to mention, this is
*exactly* the explanation Dumbledore gave Harry. "Snape
hated your father, but he didn't want him dead." (so why
would he want the son dead?). "Snape saved you (in PS/SS)
hoping to repay his life debt to your father." (These 
aren't exact quotes, but the gist of Dumbledore's words.)

I'm actually a little confused over why you left these
conclusions out, since they are in fact the ones given
in the books. And no, that doesn't mean they are true, but 
certainly they should be included in any list of possible
conclusions based upon Faith, yes?

Julie








From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 13 20:11:29 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:11:29 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
Message-ID: <ebo11h+c6iu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156895

Sherlock Holmes, a man not noted for his modesty, admitted that his
older brother Mycroft was even smarter than he was, the only reason
few had heard of Mycroft was that he was very lazy and extremely
strange. I was wondering if JKR could have something similar in mind
for Aberforth. I'm probably dead wrong but I picture Aberforth as a
good man and a magical genius even greater than his brother but very
hard to work with because you can't get a straight answer out of him,
I see Aberforth as a sort of magical Rainman (I'm a excellent
bartender, I get my boxer shorts at K-Mart in Cincinnati.) I'll tell
you one thing, Aberforth must be odd indeed if even Mad Eye calls him
a "strange chap". And I don't even want to talk about the goats.

Eggplant  








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 21:22:53 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 21:22:53 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebntm7+fibs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebo57d+2u3o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156896



Julie snipped slightly:

(d) Snape saved Harry because while he may not like the
boy he does not want him dead, nor any other child under 
his tutelege. He may very well enjoy taunting his students,
even to the point of verbal abuse at times, but he draws
the line at physically harming them, or allowing physical
harm to come to them if he can prevent it. In other words,
his conscience won't allow him to stand by while Harry dies.

Snow:

I believe I said very much the same thing further on in my post. I 
totally agree that Snape has and will save Harry for several reasons; 
Dumbledore was still watching; and as I said Snape needs Harry 
because Harry is the only one that can 'say goodnight to the bad 
guy'. 

Julie:

(e) Snape is trying to repay his life debt to James by
saving the son, since he can no longer save the father.

Snow:
 
Open for interpretation but I do agree that this is what we have been 
told by the old string-puller. 

Julie:

(f) My personal favorite, a combination of (d)&(e). Which
ties perfectly into a DDM!Snape. Not to mention, this is
*exactly* the explanation Dumbledore gave Harry. "Snape
hated your father, but he didn't want him dead." (so why
would he want the son dead?). "Snape saved you (in PS/SS)
hoping to repay his life debt to your father." (These 
aren't exact quotes, but the gist of Dumbledore's words.)

Snow:

Quotes actually can be very important in determining what may 
actually be meant, just look at the Prophecy. Even a punctuation mark 
can change the meaning of the whole sentence.  I am curious about 
where the first non-verbatim remark came from, which book was this 
said? I seem to recall James not hating Snape and therefore saved him 
from the Shrieking Shack but I don't recall it being stated or hinted 
at that Snape didn't want James dead. 

Julie:

I'm actually a little confused over why you left these
conclusions out, since they are in fact the ones given
in the books. And no, that doesn't mean they are true, but 
certainly they should be included in any list of possible
conclusions based upon Faith, yes?

Snow:

Agreed that anything Faith has to imply must be considered. I left 
nothing out intentionally but since there are six books I'm certain 
that I did not cover every angle that could be included. Dear Snape 
had quite a bit of page time ;)

I am not attempting to change anyone's mind on the way they feel 
about Snape only offering an alternative to consider. I was a DDM 
enthusiast at one point and quite understand the position. However, 
whether Snape is good, bad or indifferent is crucial to the storyline 
and this is the bigger fish to catch so I need to put Snape in the 
right shoes if I have even half a chance of figuring out the bigger 
puzzle. 

Snow-thanking Randy for his post!







From Mhochberg at aol.com  Sun Aug 13 22:40:01 2006
From: Mhochberg at aol.com (Mary)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:40:01 -0000
Subject: Ginny as an accidental Horcrux
Message-ID: <ebo9o1+f8bg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156897

My teenage son came up this theory recently and I find it intriguing, 
especially as a possible sequel to JK's 7 book series.

In COS, Tom Riddle says to Harry,"..to put a little of my soul back 
into her." 

We know that the part of Voldemort's soul that was in the diary was 
destroyed when Harry pierced the book with the Basilik's tooth. The 
question is: was all of the soul that Tom put into Ginny sucked back 
into the book or Tom? Could any of it been left behind in Ginny? 

It's an interesting thought because this would be a "second generation" 
horcrux, that of the Tom Riddle/prefect stage of Voldemort's character. 

Any comments or ideas?

---Mary









From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 13 22:56:18 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:56:18 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Prefects
In-Reply-To: <44DF1BC2.32762.9D5C0ED@drednort.alphalink.com.au>
References: <ebkntt+j5b4@eGroups.com>
	 <44DF1BC2.32762.9D5C0ED@drednort.alphalink.com.au>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608131556k340f7553h45e22d7a0328d8e1@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156898

Dreadnought:
> In terms of numbers of chiefs to numbers of Indians, it really depends on how
> big the school is. Estimates of the school size tend to range from just under 300
> to somewhere around 1000, depending on which evidence people decide to give
> credence to.
>
> From my perspective, 24 prefects out of 280 students would seem on the high
> side - but not ridiculously so - I am aware of schools that have had ratios at that
> level. 24 out of 1000 would be entirely reasonable.

If you accept the idea that student numbers are depressed due to being
a decade or so after VoldWar1, and the system hasn't been adapted,
it's reasonable. My theory is that Harry's class, and those older than
(and one year younger) are probably significantly smaller than the
years entering school in POA and later.

Hmm... that would make the class size 280 in PS and COS, and with each
graduating class being about 40 and each incoming class being, say,
140, we've got 100 more each year to stabilize back at 980, in other
words about 1000 (well, assuming there weren't another war. It'll
probably take substantially longer for the numbers to recover)

-- 
Random832



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 23:43:14 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:43:14 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebo57d+2u3o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebodei+5pqn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156899

> >>Julie:
> > <snip>
> > (d) Snape saved Harry because while he may not like the
> > boy he does not want him dead, nor any other child under 
> > his tutelege. He may very well enjoy taunting his students,
> > even to the point of verbal abuse at times, but he draws
> > the line at physically harming them, or allowing physical
> > harm to come to them if he can prevent it. In other words,
> > his conscience won't allow him to stand by while Harry dies.

> >>Snow:
> I believe I said very much the same thing further on in my post.

Betsy Hp:
I went back and reread your post, Snow, and I don't see where you 
suggest that Snape doesn't allow Harry to be killed because his 
conscience won't allow it.  Of course I may well be missing 
something. <g>

> >>Snow:
> I totally agree that Snape has and will save Harry for several    
> reasons; Dumbledore was still watching; and as I said Snape needs 
> Harry because Harry is the only one that can 'say goodnight to the 
> bad guy'. 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but that's not what Julie is saying in her option (d).  She's 
saying that no matter how useless Snape thinks Harry might be, no 
matter how much Snape might dislike Harry, he would never stand by 
and let a child, *any* child, die.  Because, contrary to Harry's 
beliefs, Snape is not a monster.  Dumbledore's watching eye, the 
need to kill Voldemort need not apply.  (At least, that's how *I* 
interperted option (d).  Please correct me if I'm wrong, Julie. <g>)

> >>Julie:
> > (e) Snape is trying to repay his life debt to James by
> > saving the son, since he can no longer save the father.
> > 
> > (f) My personal favorite, a combination of (d)&(e). Which
> > ties perfectly into a DDM!Snape. Not to mention, this is
> > *exactly* the explanation Dumbledore gave Harry. "Snape
> > hated your father, but he didn't want him dead." (so why
> > would he want the son dead?). "Snape saved you (in PS/SS)
> > hoping to repay his life debt to your father." (These 
> > aren't exact quotes, but the gist of Dumbledore's words.)

> >>Snow:
> <snip>
> I am curious about where the first non-verbatim remark came from, 
> which book was this said? I seem to recall James not hating Snape 
> and therefore saved him from the Shrieking Shack but I don't      
> recall it being stated or hinted at that Snape didn't want James   
> dead. 

Betsy Hp:
The second remark is easy (and I'll include it just for clarity's 
sake <g>).

"Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it?  Professor Snape 
couldn't bear being in your father's debt....I do believe he worked 
so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him 
and your father even.  Then he could go back to hating your father's 
memory in peace...." [SS scholastic paperback p.300]

(Though I will point out that there's nothing suggestive in 
Dumbledore's words of a formulaic and predictable kind of magic 
being worked.  It all seems like something Dumbledore sees Snape 
doing to himself rather than a magical life-debt at work.)

The first remark ("Snape hated your father, but he didn't want him 
dead." [quoting Julie]) was harder to find.  I *think* Julie may 
have been referring to this conversation in HBP:

[Harry speaking:] "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius!  Haven't 
you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up 
dead?"
[Dumbledore's response:] "You have no idea of the remorse Professor 
Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interperted the 
prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life 
and the reason that he returned --" [HBP scholastic hardback p.549]

That Dumbledore sees Snape feeling great remorse for his part in the 
death of James and Lily *could* be interpreted to mean that Snape 
wasn't actually out to kill James.  

Actually though, on that same page is a quote that I think shoots 
down one of the main points in your OFH!Snape theory, Snow.  Let me 
go back to your main post on that.

> >>Snow:
> <snip>
> My impression is that Dumbledore trusts Snape only to the degree  
> that he is no longer a deatheater. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But right at the moment Harry is pushing Dumbledore on Snape, is 
questioning how *far* Snape can be trusted, especially given his 
past behavior, Dumbledore says this:

"I am sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely." [ibid] 

I just don't see much wiggle room in that statement.  Dumbledore 
doesn't say "I know Severus Snape and I trust him to behave in a 
predictable fashion" or "When it comes to taking down Voldemort, 
Snape is someone I trust".  No, Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape 
*completely*.  There's no caveat to that statement.  And I think 
Dumbledore refused to include a caveat because he doesn't actually 
have one when it comes to trusting Snape.

> >>Snow:
> <snip>
> No matter how much Dumbledore appears to trust Snape there is one
> line that tells `me' that Dumbledore only trusts Snape because he
> knows what Snape needs and wants
 something that Dumbledore has
> carefully controlled that Snape never fulfills. (Which is         
> apparently the Order of Merlin to set him free from whatever
 The 
> end of POA shows Snape drooling intently (POA pg. 386)...

Betsy Hp:
I just don't see it.  I really don't see Snape doing everything he's 
doing for a shiny Ministry medal.  You claim that Snape is "drooling 
intently" after the Order of Merlin.  What actually occurs is this:

"Shocking business...shocking...miracle none of them died...never 
heard the like...by thunder, it was lucky you were there, Snape...."
"Thank you, Minister."
"Order of Merlin, Second Class, I'd say.  First Class, if I can 
wrangle it!"
"Thank you very much indeed, Minister." [PoA scholastic hardback 
p.386]

So, where's the drooling?  Snape's thank you for the Order doesn't 
even get an exclamation point.  Sure, Snape seems pleased, what with 
the "very much indeed", but *drooling*?  The culmination of all his 
hopes and the very reason he became a spy on Voldemort (on the verge 
of winning, no follower of Geneva Conventions when he's angry at 
someone Voldemort)?  I just don't see it.  Snape is pleased.  He's 
not jumping up and down oh so very happy.  In fact he doesn't speak 
of the Order of Merlin again.

[An aside: Actually, he segues very quickly into his old "Harry 
should be suspended" song and dance.  Why does Snape keep singing 
that old tune, I wonder?]

> >>Snow:
> ...and then irate at the thought of the Merlin award fading       
> (starting on pg 419 of POA)

Betsy Hp:
But the Order of Merlin is *never* mentioned.  What Snape is 
screaming about is Sirius getting away and Harry getting away with 
helping the escape.  Dumbledore does say Snape has suffered a severe 
disappointment but why would we assume it has anything to do with 
the Order of Merlin?  Especially since we knew how much Snape 
*hated* Sirius and was thrilled with the idea of Sirius getting what 
he had coming.  Sirius getting away seems enough disappointment to 
be going on with, IMO.

Honestly, with all we've learned about Snape and the Marauders it 
makes *so* much sense that Snape reverts to a child screaming about 
the unfairness of life at this point.  I honestly doubt Snape had a 
thought about the lost Order of Merlin.  Later it may have been an 
insult on top of injury, but it certainly doesn't seem the 
underlying cause of his rage at this point, since he never, never 
mentions it. 

*Lupin* mentions it.  Actually, he's the one to come up with and 
float that particular theory.

"Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to 
save your lives."  He sighed.  "That was the final straw for 
Severus.  I think the loss of the Order of Merlin hit him hard." 
[PoA scholastic hardback p.423]

But are we really supposed to take Lupin's view as a keen insight 
into one Severus Snape?  Lupin lies.  He conceals and he 
misdirects.  I don't know that he does it with evil intention, but 
he certainly does it.  And as easily as breathing, I think.  If he 
doesn't know, he'll happily make it up.  Especially if it keeps 
people from asking uncomfortable questions.  "Why does Snape hate 
you so, Professor Lupin?"  

If there's one thing I think *doesn't* drive Snape, it's getting an 
Order of Merlin.  I think Snape could care less.

Betsy Hp, enjoying talking about Snape again since it's been awhile 
for me <g>






From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Aug 14 00:51:16 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:51:16 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebodei+5pqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebohe4+7taj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156900

Snow:

> > I am curious about where the first non-verbatim 
> > remark came from, which book was this said? I seem to 
> > recall James not hating Snape and therefore saved him 
> > from the Shrieking Shack but I don't recall it being 
> > stated or hinted at that Snape didn't want James dead. 
 
Betsy Hp:

> The first remark ("Snape hated your father, but he 
> didn't want him dead." [quoting Julie]) was harder to 
> find.  I *think* Julie may have been referring to this 
> conversation in HBP: [snip]

houyhnhnm:

It sounds to me like what *Quirrell* said to Harry:

"But Snape always seemed to hate me so much."
"Oh, he does," said Quirrell casually, "heavens, yes.  
He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know?  
They loathed each other.  But he never wanted you /dead/." 
(PS/SS, Scholastic pbk, 290)

Betsy Hp:

> But right at the moment Harry is pushing Dumbledore on 
> Snape, is questioning how *far* Snape can be trusted, 
> especially given his past behavior, Dumbledore says this:

> "I am sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely." [ibid] 

houyhnhnm:

I don't see how it can get much plainer than that.

Betsy Hp:

> *Lupin* mentions it.  Actually, he's the one to come up 
> with and float that particular theory.

houyhnhnm:

I'm just about to where, if it came out of Lupin's mouth, 
I'm already inclined to doubt.  I mean is anything Lupin 
says ever accurate?  From Dumbledore's tenure as headmaster
to the reason James and Severus were enemies?  I'm not 
saying he's a liar.  It's more like, whenever he opens 
his mouth, nothing comes out but cheese blintz.







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Aug 14 01:26:50 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:26:50 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebodei+5pqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebojgq+tuno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156901

 <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm, but that's not what Julie is saying in her option (d).  She's 
> saying that no matter how useless Snape thinks Harry might be, no 
> matter how much Snape might dislike Harry, he would never stand by 
> and let a child, *any* child, die.  Because, contrary to Harry's 
> beliefs, Snape is not a monster.  Dumbledore's watching eye, the 
> need to kill Voldemort need not apply.  (At least, that's how *I* 
> interperted option (d).  Please correct me if I'm wrong, Julie. <g>)

Julie:
You're exactly right :-) I do believe Snape has a conscience,
independent of seeking Dumbledore's approval. We may think his
conscience is a little lax when it comes to his teaching methods
and his treatment of Harry and Neville, but he does draw a line 
somewhere. And it is at a fairly significant somewhere IMO, as 
he doesn't ever physically hurt any children (except shoving a
teenage Harry once in extreme anger) and protects them when 
they are in danger with as much vigilance (and in many cases,
more vigilance) as any other teacher at Hogwarts. (And, I might
add, seems as distressed as any of them that a student might
be in very grave danger when it is discovered that Ginny is
in the Chamber of Secrets.) 

(<snip>

Betsy Hp:

> The first remark ("Snape hated your father, but he didn't want him 
> dead." [quoting Julie]) was harder to find.  I *think* Julie may 
> have been referring to this conversation in HBP:
> 
> [Harry speaking:] "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius!  Haven't 
> you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up 
> dead?"
> [Dumbledore's response:] "You have no idea of the remorse Professor 
> Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interperted the 
> prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the greatest regret of his 
life 
> and the reason that he returned --" [HBP scholastic hardback p.549]
> 
> That Dumbledore sees Snape feeling great remorse for his part in 
the 
> death of James and Lily *could* be interpreted to mean that Snape 
> wasn't actually out to kill James. 

Julie:
Thanks for bringing up this quote, Betsy, as it does support the
idea that Snape was never out to kill James, nor wanted him dead.
The quote I remembered though was from PS/SS. I just took the time
to research it--which I should have done before I posted previously--
and I must apologize, as it turns out it wasn't Dumbledore who
said it, and it wasn't really refering to James after all.

"But Snape seems to hate me so much." (Harry speaking, believing
that Snape was behind hexing his broom and trying to kill him.)

"Oh, he does," Quirrel said casually, "heavens, yes. He was at
Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each
other. But he never wanted *you* dead."

So my apologies! It was Quirrel speaking of Snape not wanting 
*Harry* dead rather than James. I still stand by my belief that  
Snape has a conscience though.

Betsy Hp:
> Actually though, on that same page is a quote that I think shoots 
> down one of the main points in your OFH!Snape theory, Snow.  Let me 
> go back to your main post on that.
> 
> > >>Snow:
> > <snip>
> > My impression is that Dumbledore trusts Snape only to the degree  
> > that he is no longer a deatheater. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But right at the moment Harry is pushing Dumbledore on Snape, is 
> questioning how *far* Snape can be trusted, especially given his 
> past behavior, Dumbledore says this:
> 
> "I am sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely." [ibid] 
> 
> I just don't see much wiggle room in that statement.  Dumbledore 
> doesn't say "I know Severus Snape and I trust him to behave in a 
> predictable fashion" or "When it comes to taking down Voldemort, 
> Snape is someone I trust".  No, Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape 
> *completely*.  There's no caveat to that statement.  And I think 
> Dumbledore refused to include a caveat because he doesn't actually 
> have one when it comes to trusting Snape.

Julie:
I agree on this too. Whether Snape is good or bad, it's clear
Dumbledore put a GREAT deal of trust in Snape, trusting him with
the lives of the students, including the life of the boy-who-lived,
with many secrets of the Order, and who knows what else. If he
believed Snape was only acting out of some sort of self-interest,
rather than from a genuine moral imperative to do what is right
(no matter what caused Snape to come to his senses and see how
evil Voldemort and his goals really are), then Dumbledore would
be a far bigger fool to entrust so much to Snape than even some 
fans imagine him to be (if Snape turns out to be ESE/OFH).

Hmm, maybe that didn't come out clearly. Point is, no one is 
going to put the level of trust Dumbledore has put in Snape in
someone who is *not* idealogically committed to a cause, not
when that cause is the very survival of his world. If Snape
is ESE or OFH, he somehow managed to convince Dumbledore of his 
complete commitment to the cause, which is where Dumbledore 
would have been fooled (though I don't believe that happened ;-).

Julie







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 00:17:15 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:17:15 -0700
Subject: Harry's watch. WAS: Re: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <ebmgge+uadj@eGroups.com>
References: <ebi3t9+c9e0@eGroups.com> <ebmgge+uadj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608131717x603929b8n75a862fa14dc2dac@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156902

Ryan:
>
> Harry's watch could just be one of Dudley's cast-offs, like much of
> Harry's muggle-wear is.
>

Katrina:
Yeah but its a working watch. Harry gets Dudley's broken things, and
all his ugly clothes or the stuff he grows out of. Although I suppose
his arm could have grown too big for his watch.

Lynda:

Harry has also repaired some of the cast-offs he gets from the Dursleys,
like the alarm clock.  I thought and have no reason to think other than that
the Dursleys are the source from which the watch came.

Lynda








From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 00:27:05 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 17:27:05 -0700
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <ebno01+s0c4@eGroups.com>
References: <ebmf7i+s2f4@eGroups.com> <ebno01+s0c4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608131727o745ff2a7x819cace8d76119b9@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156903

Vinita Srivastava:

As all of you know that Ms. Rowling has decided to kill Harry in the last
book but what I think is that she does not mean killing Harry in literally
what I think she means is that it will probably Harry who would take over
from Voldemort as the Dark Lord thus killing him

Lynda:

I never thought that I knew that Ms. Rowling had decided to kill Harry in
the last book.  In any interview I ever saw, read, etc.she has not said who
will die in the last book.  I do know that this has been widely rumored, but
rumor is merely speculation.  I have also read many people on another forum
speculating that Harry will take over Voldemort's place after he does indeed
kill him.  I very highly doubt that this will happen as it will put the last
six books and the majority of the story thus far (good always coming out
ahead of evil if only by the narrowest of margins) and turn it into a
farce.  I don't think Rowling wants to do that.  I could be wrong, but I
don't think she wants to do that.

Lynda







From crisarrieta at ig.com.br  Mon Aug 14 01:23:07 2006
From: crisarrieta at ig.com.br (tina_00)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:23:07 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did Snape take the UV?
Message-ID: <eboj9r+7h2k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156904

Carol responds:
> I think that once he's taken the first two provisions, he has no
> choice but to take the unanticipated third one and hope there's a
> loophole.
> 

a_svirn:
But if you are right, then taking an UW, *any* UW, is unmanageable, 
and by definition unpredictable risk. Let's see: once you start you 
can be made to swear just about anything. As soon as you are on your 
knees and the ritual is started you are at the complete mercy of the 
persons involved. They could change wording without warning, come up 
with provisions at will and so on. How you can even begin to assess 
risks with such an arrangement? Of course, if you trust second and 
third parties implicitly it is another matter entirely. But we don't 
have to consider this eventuality. Not at the Spinner's End, at any 
rate. 

 
Tina now:

Maybe Snape was calculating a bigger risk ? Voldemort being informed 
of their conversation. Especially after Snape interrupted Narcissa 
saying he knew about the plan, if he didn't (or even if he did, but 
wasn't supposed to). It doesn't seem to be very ooc for Bella to ask 
Voldemort why he trusted Snape with that information.

By agreeing with the Unbreakable Vow, Snape is making sure their 
conversation never reaches Voldemort, since Bella seems to love her 
sister enough not to want to put her in trouble. Before the Vow, 
Bella wouldn't have a strong motive to hide Narcissa's motivations 
to go to Spinner's End ? she was desperate, and she wanted Snape to 
help her protect her son, but she didn't *do* anything. If Snape had 
refused, nothing serious would have happened and no one could be 
accused of interfering in the big plan, therefore the conversation 
wouldn't necessarily have to remain a secret between the three. With 
the Unbreakable Vow, everything changes. Now Narcissa *is* 
interfering in the plan, and Voldemort could punish her for that.

So, yes, the Vow is too great of a risk for a DDM Snape, but it 
could seem at the time a better alternative. Add to that Snape's 
affection for Draco and Narcissa and his need to make a decision 
quickly, the Vow seemed the lesser evil ? until that witch (with a 
b) came up with the unexpected third provision, but at that time it 
was too late to stop it.










From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 14 01:37:29 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:37:29 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebodei+5pqn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebok4p+7qbu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156905



Betsy Hp:
I went back and reread your post, Snow, and I don't see where you 
suggest that Snape doesn't allow Harry to be killed because his 
conscience won't allow it. Of course I may well be missing 
something. <g>

Snow:

Oh thanks for pointing this out! I was referring to the very first 
line where Snape doesn't want Harry dead. 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but that's not what Julie is saying in her option (d). She's 
saying that no matter how useless Snape thinks Harry might be, no 
matter how much Snape might dislike Harry, he would never stand by 
and let a child, *any* child, die. Because, contrary to Harry's 
beliefs, Snape is not a monster. Dumbledore's watching eye, the 
need to kill Voldemort need not apply. (At least, that's how *I* 
interperted option (d). Please correct me if I'm wrong, Julie. <g>)

Snow:

I guess if it is in Snape's best interest he would, especially if it 
earned him an Order of Merlin for the act :) 

Betsy Hp:
The second remark is easy (and I'll include it just for clarity's 
sake <g>).

"Funny, the way people's minds work, isn't it? Professor Snape 
couldn't bear being in your father's debt....I do believe he worked 
so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him 
and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father's 
memory in peace...." [SS scholastic paperback p.300]

(Though I will point out that there's nothing suggestive in 
Dumbledore's words of a formulaic and predictable kind of magic 
being worked. It all seems like something Dumbledore sees Snape 
doing to himself rather than a magical life-debt at work.)

Snow:

Again open to interpretation. Dumbledore says he `believes' that this 
is why Snape acted in such a manner
Dumbledore also stated that an 
old man makes mistakes therefore I would conclude that you believe 
everything that Dumbledore has said and Nagini is definitely a 
Horcrux >g<

Betsy Hp:

The first remark ("Snape hated your father, but he didn't want him 
dead." [quoting Julie]) was harder to find. I *think* Julie may 
have been referring to this conversation in HBP:

[Harry speaking:] "He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't 
you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tend to end up 
dead?"
[Dumbledore's response:] "You have no idea of the remorse Professor 
Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interperted the 
prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life 
and the reason that he returned --" [HBP scholastic hardback p.549]

Snow:

As I was looking up possible quotes I also ran across this one but 
dismissed it because remorse for what Snape realized what he had done 
is not the same as not wanting James dead. Ask anyone who believes in 
LOLLIPOPS.  Both James and Lily died because of `his' information. 

Betsy Hp:
But right at the moment Harry is pushing Dumbledore on Snape, is 
questioning how *far* Snape can be trusted, especially given his 
past behavior, Dumbledore says this:

"I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely." [ibid] 

I just don't see much wiggle room in that statement. Dumbledore 
doesn't say "I know Severus Snape and I trust him to behave in a 
predictable fashion" or "When it comes to taking down Voldemort, 
Snape is someone I trust". No, Dumbledore trusts Severus Snape 
*completely*. There's no caveat to that statement. And I think 
Dumbledore refused to include a caveat because he doesn't actually 
have one when it comes to trusting Snape.
 
Snow:

Dumbledore surely trusts Snape to the degree that he has stated but 
why does he trust Snape completely is the answer I was approaching. 
Dumbledore trusts Snape completely because he realizes that no matter 
what; Snape has to save Harry to save himself. Snape is tied into the 
cause, not because he wants to be but because he has to be to protect 
his own best interest. 

Betsy Hp:
I just don't see it. I really don't see Snape doing everything he's 
doing for a shiny Ministry medal. You claim that Snape is "drooling 
intently" after the Order of Merlin. What actually occurs is this:

"Shocking business...shocking...miracle none of them died...never 
heard the like...by thunder, it was lucky you were there, Snape...."
"Thank you, Minister."
"Order of Merlin, Second Class, I'd say. First Class, if I can 
wrangle it!"
"Thank you very much indeed, Minister." [PoA scholastic hardback 
p.386]

So, where's the drooling? Snape's thank you for the Order doesn't 
even get an exclamation point. Sure, Snape seems pleased, what with 
the "very much indeed", but *drooling*? The culmination of all his 
hopes and the very reason he became a spy on Voldemort (on the verge 
of winning, no follower of Geneva Conventions when he's angry at 
someone Voldemort)? I just don't see it. Snape is pleased. He's 
not jumping up and down oh so very happy. In fact he doesn't speak 
of the Order of Merlin again.

[An aside: Actually, he segues very quickly into his old "Harry 
should be suspended" song and dance. Why does Snape keep singing 
that old tune, I wonder?]

Snow:

I do bow to your accusation and you are correct that this verb usage 
was an assumption derived (by myself) as an opposite reaction to 
Snape finding that he would not be receiving the Order. 

I will however submit for your scrutiny a quote from Dumbledore 
during this same scene that tells me that Dumbledore still questions 
Snape:

POA pg 390 "I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted 
in Potter's mind?" spat (look at this spat) Snape. "Something about a 
rat, and Pettigrew being alive-"

"That, indeed, is Black's story," said Dumbledore, surveying Snape 
closely through his half-moon spectacles. 

Oh yeah, Dumbledore is doing his Legilimence on Snape. This is the 
person that he supposedly trusts emphatically but he still needs to 
keep a check on him, why? 

Betsy Hp:
But the Order of Merlin is *never* mentioned. What Snape is 
screaming about is Sirius getting away and Harry getting away with 
helping the escape. Dumbledore does say Snape has suffered a severe 
disappointment but why would we assume it has anything to do with 
the Order of Merlin? Especially since we knew how much Snape 
*hated* Sirius and was thrilled with the idea of Sirius getting what 
he had coming. Sirius getting away seems enough disappointment to 
be going on with, IMO.

Honestly, with all we've learned about Snape and the Marauders it 
makes *so* much sense that Snape reverts to a child screaming about 
the unfairness of life at this point. I honestly doubt Snape had a 
thought about the lost Order of Merlin. Later it may have been an 
insult on top of injury, but it certainly doesn't seem the 
underlying cause of his rage at this point, since he never, never 
mentions it. 

*Lupin* mentions it. Actually, he's the one to come up with and 
float that particular theory.

"Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to 
save your lives." He sighed. "That was the final straw for 
Severus. I think the loss of the Order of Merlin hit him hard." 
[PoA scholastic hardback p.423]

But are we really supposed to take Lupin's view as a keen insight 
into one Severus Snape? Lupin lies. He conceals and he 
misdirects. I don't know that he does it with evil intention, but 
he certainly does it. And as easily as breathing, I think. If he 
doesn't know, he'll happily make it up. Especially if it keeps 
people from asking uncomfortable questions. "Why does Snape hate 
you so, Professor Lupin?" 

If there's one thing I think *doesn't* drive Snape, it's getting an 
Order of Merlin. I think Snape could care less.

Snow:

You do put a decent argument forward but inasmuch as you have argued 
against Snape being out for himself you claimed Lupin to be a liar as 
evidence. How is it you realize this is a fact, Pippin will be very 
interested as much as myself I am sure ;) 

Betsy Hp, enjoying talking about Snape again since it's been awhile 
for me <g>

Snow-who hasn't been seen much in the past year but enjoys when the 
list gets involved in good discussion. If we all agree with each 
other where would that take us








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 01:47:24 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:47:24 -0000
Subject: Ginny as an accidental Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebo9o1+f8bg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eboknc+2jq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156906

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mary" <Mhochberg at ...> wrote:
>
> My teenage son came up this theory recently and I find it intriguing, 
> especially as a possible sequel to JK's 7 book series.
> 
> In COS, Tom Riddle says to Harry,"..to put a little of my soul back 
> into her." 
> 
> We know that the part of Voldemort's soul that was in the diary was 
> destroyed when Harry pierced the book with the Basilik's tooth. The 
> question is: was all of the soul that Tom put into Ginny sucked back 
> into the book or Tom? Could any of it been left behind in Ginny? 
> 
> It's an interesting thought because this would be a "second generation" 
> horcrux, that of the Tom Riddle/prefect stage of Voldemort's character. 
> 
> Any comments or ideas?
> 

Neri:
Someone apparently had thought about something like that the very day
HBP was out, because Melissa Anelli put the question to JKR in the
famous three-part interview and JKR pretty much shot it down:

*********************************************************
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm

MA: Someone put it to me last night, that if Ginny, with the diary -

JKR: Harry definitely destroyed that piece of soul, you saw it take
shape, you saw it destroyed, it's gone. And Ginny is definitely in no
way possessed by Voldemort.

MA: Is she still a parselmouth?

JKR: No.
*********************************************************

However, note that JKR doesn't say it's impossible in principle. I
quite agree that what happened between Ginny and Diary!Horcrux was
meant as a hint that soul parts can do unexpected things. They can
tempt people, they can possess them, they can make them forget things,
and they can pass magical powers to them. 

Neri








From quigonginger at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 01:48:36 2006
From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 01:48:36 -0000
Subject: Harry's watch. WAS: Re: How does DD know what Petunia/Vernon said?
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608131717x603929b8n75a862fa14dc2dac@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebokpk+2quj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156907

> Ryan:
> >
> > Harry's watch could just be one of Dudley's cast-offs, like much of
> > Harry's muggle-wear is.
Snip others' comments

Ginger:  

Knowing Dudders, it could be that Dud got the watch, but it didn't 
have all the bells and whistles he wanted, so he chucked it out the 
window, threw a tantrum, got a new one, and Harry got the old one.

Or Harry could have nicked it...Nah.

Ginger, on break from school and finally caught up







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 14 02:10:21 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 22:10:21 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE/Why does Snape take the vow?
References: <ebojgq+tuno@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <013901c6bf46$ccaf6320$5760400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 156908

> a_svirn:
> I am not saying that he's getting information through the vow. I meant
> that he'd been doing it up until the subject of the vow come up. As
> for the vow itself I simply don't get why he took it.

Magpie:
Oh!  That makes sense, then.  I was naturally thinking that if you can't get 
your information without promising to assassinate your own leader upon pain 
of your own death, you just can't be the best information-getter.In this 
case it totally defeats the purpose--he wants to know what the task is so 
that he can stop it being done.

> Julie:
> You're exactly right :-) I do believe Snape has a conscience,
> independent of seeking Dumbledore's approval. We may think his
> conscience is a little lax when it comes to his teaching methods
> and his treatment of Harry and Neville, but he does draw a line
> somewhere. And it is at a fairly significant somewhere IMO, as
> he doesn't ever physically hurt any children (except shoving a
> teenage Harry once in extreme anger) and protects them when
> they are in danger with as much vigilance (and in many cases,
> more vigilance) as any other teacher at Hogwarts. (And, I might
> add, seems as distressed as any of them that a student might
> be in very grave danger when it is discovered that Ginny is
> in the Chamber of Secrets.)

Magpie:
I think this is an important part of Snape's characterization, actually, and 
a reason why most definitions of the phrase "out for himself" don't work for 
me.  Snape is just so dang bunged up and seems to feel so wronged and 
furious and yet *constrained* much of the time.  He finds ways to abuse his 
power that please him, but you see him snape back into line with a word from 
Dumbledore or McGonagall.  He's really not somebody who's and out and out 
villain.  What makes him interesting is the way he wants to work within a 
system or be validated by one.  It's a different type of jerk.  I think 
that's what people often try to get around with his behavior--there are 
opportunities for vengeance he doesn't take.

-m







From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Mon Aug 14 03:01:12 2006
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:01:12 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebhq9n+u3ke@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebop1o+hoq7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156909

> Tinktonks buts in:
> 
> Ok so try this for size. It wasn't Snape at Spinners End. It was a
> polyjuiced Dumbledore. Both are sufficiently good
> Occlumens/Legilimens that nobody would be able to tell the
> difference. It was DD who took the UV that would take his life. He
> knew throughout the whole book that Draco's attempts to kill he
> WOULD end with his death because if Draco failed the vow would kick
> in and kill him instantly anyway. This is why he shared all the
> information about Horcruxes with Harry. This is also why he told
> Harry to confide in Ron and Hermione (Obviously counting that
> Hermione's logic would be important when he was gone)
> 
> Snape knew of this situation and had been ordered to take the 
killing
> shot so that none of the DE or LV found out that Snape had allowed
> DD to take his place. The look of revulsion was because Snape knew
> he had to kill someone he cared for and that it should have been him
> who had taken the vow in the first place and died instead.
> 
> Tinktonks (Anyone buying this one even for a second? I actually
> quite like it!)

oh my gosh! I love it!!! Your idea finally provoked me out of 
lurkdom, if only to say: yes, it's certainly something worth looking 
into...at last an excuse to re-re-re-read that chapter...

(sorry for the short post)






From strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca  Mon Aug 14 03:06:10 2006
From: strawberryshaunie at yahoo.ca (strawberryshaunie)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:06:10 -0000
Subject: Hermione and her parents
In-Reply-To: <ebhu6c+bkco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebopb2+hq1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156910


> [Special note to HPfGU posters: "canon" is the word you are almost
> definitely wanting.  It means "official law", "authoritative", etc. 
> "Cannon" -- with 2 N's -- is a big piece of military artillery, which
> as far as I know has not appeared in Harry Potter canon.]
> 
> Eddie

haha right you are, Eddie, just one thing...
PS, british ed. chapter 4, p.39:

BOOM. They knocked again. Dudley jerked awake.
"Where's the cannon?" he said stupidly.






From angelitafs at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 13 01:32:15 2006
From: angelitafs at yahoo.com (Angelita Figueroa Salas)
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 18:32:15 -0700
Subject: Harry dying
Message-ID: <20876d4b0608121832t21c1ab80nface4dbd06a39e11@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156911

<vinitasrivastava_83 at ...> wrote:

>  >
> > Hi
> > This is a presumption of what I think will happen to Harry in the
> 7th and the final installment of Harry Potter. As all of you know
> that Ms. Rowling has decided to kill Harry in the last book ...<HUGE SNIP>
>
> Alla:
<SNIP>
>> When is it became known that JKR *for sure* decided to kill Harry? <SNIP>


@ngelita:

I'm with Alla here. JKR has been pretty emphatic that DD is dead and I
believe here--but while she has given hints yes, but nothing in stone that
Harry will die.

Personally I don't think Harry will die--but these are my own hopes ;)

@




-- 
It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our
abilities.


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






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 04:38:36 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:38:36 -0000
Subject: Harry dying
In-Reply-To: <20876d4b0608121832t21c1ab80nface4dbd06a39e11@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebouoc+2q7t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156912

>
> > ><vinitasrivastava_83@> wrote:
> 
> > >
> > > Hi
> > > This is a presumption of what I think will happen to Harry in 
> > > the 7th and the final installment of Harry Potter. As all of 
> > > you know that Ms. Rowling has decided to kill Harry in the
> > > last book ...<HUGE SNIP>
> >
> > Alla:
> <SNIP> When has it became known that JKR *for sure* decided to 
> > kill Harry? <SNIP>
> 
> 
> @ngelita:
> 
> I'm with Alla here. JKR has been pretty emphatic that DD is dead 
> and I believe her--but while she has given hints yes, but nothing 
> in stone that Harry will die.
> <snip> 
> 

Mike now:

I don't want to put words in your mouth vinitasrivastava, but could 
you be basing your Harry_dies_in_the_end thoery on JKR's Richard and 
Judy interview? Here's the transcript from QQQ:

Jo: I've never been tempted to kill him off before the end of book 
7. I have always planned seven books and that is where I want to go, 
where I want to finish on seven books. But I can completely 
understand the mentality of an author who thinks "Well I am going to 
kill them off because that means there can be no non-author written 
sequels as they call them, so it will end with me and after I am 
dead and gone" - they would be able to bring back the character and 
write a load of ...

If this is the basis, I don't see JKR *saying* she's going kill 
Harry off, I see her understanding why an *author* would kill off 
their main character to prevent some *unauthorized* person from 
continuing the story. Well, I think Jo is pretty safe in this 
respect. I know there is a lot of fanfic out there using the HP 
characters, but would anybody accept any other author's version of 
the Potterverse besides JKR's? 

She may be drawing upon other authors and various mythologies but 
the Potterverse is uniquely hers and unprecedentedly so. Could 
anyone, especially anyone on this list, accept another author 
writing Harry Potter's adult sequel? I rather doubt it and I bet 
14.5 knuts that JKR knows it. Therefore she is probably pretty 
confident that she doesn't have to kill Harry for this reason. So 
any decision as to whether or not Harry lives is probably going to 
be made irrespective of this line of thinking.

Mike, hoping he isn't repeating someone's elses post since it takes 
him years to type anything










From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 04:57:10 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:57:10 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebohe4+7taj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebovr6+g1e8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156913

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote:
>
< big ol' snip> 
> 
> > Betsy Hp:
> >
> > *Lupin* mentions it.  Actually, he's the one to come up 
> > with and float that particular theory.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I'm just about to where, if it came out of Lupin's mouth, 
> I'm already inclined to doubt.  I mean is anything Lupin 
> says ever accurate?  From Dumbledore's tenure as headmaster
> to the reason James and Severus were enemies?  I'm not 
> saying he's a liar.  It's more like, whenever he opens 
> his mouth, nothing comes out but cheese blintz.
>

Mike:

Thanks houyhnhnm, you had me rolling on the floor with that one. And 
I agree with you, talk about an *unreliable narrator*, how about an 
unfathomable teacher nee werewolf! Peeves has him pegged, "loony, 
loopy, Lupin". He's as reliable as a stopped watch and right just as 
often.







From raymonddavenport at btinternet.com  Mon Aug 14 08:45:31 2006
From: raymonddavenport at btinternet.com (raymond300659)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 08:45:31 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
Message-ID: <ebpd7b+10krd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156914

Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone thinks Aberforth
is the barman at the Hogs Head. What if Albus and Aberforth are twins?
JKR says look at Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is dead but
does not use a forname so using this thought which died?

Raymond.






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Aug 14 15:27:26 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:27:26 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End
In-Reply-To: <ebdj9k+4viv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq4ou+c61c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156915


houyhnhnm wrote:
> "Tobias Snape was a Muggle from what it said in the _Prophet_."  
> I took that to mean that the _Prophet_ stated Tobias was a 
> Muggle, but now I see it could also be interpreted merely 
> as Hermione's deduction.  In that case, Tobias Snape 
> may not have been a Muggle at all.  That would be a hoot!  
> (Maybe he was a Squib ;-)

Abergoat adds:
I think this might have a good chance. JKR has Neville say in book 1
that his family thought he was 'all muggle' for ages. Some readers say
this is just because JKR hadn't come up with the term squib yet but it
doesn't change the fact that a non-magical person with magical parents
called himself 'all muggle'. We have no idea how long the house at
Spinner's end could have been in the Snape or Prince families. It may
well have been in the family's hands for generations. A convenient
place to hide their expensive book collection.

Who knows.

Abergoat








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 15:42:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:42:54 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebok4p+7qbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq5lu+ci27@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156916


Snow wrote:
> <big snip>

> Dumbledore surely trusts Snape to the degree that he has stated but 
> why does he trust Snape completely is the answer I was approaching. 
> Dumbledore trusts Snape completely because he realizes that no matter 
> what; Snape has to save Harry to save himself. Snape is tied into the 
> cause, not because he wants to be but because he has to be to protect 
> his own best interest. 

<snip>

I will however submit for your scrutiny a quote from Dumbledore
during this same scene that tells me that Dumbledore still questions
Snape:

POA pg 390 "I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted
in Potter's mind?" spat (look at this spat) Snape. "Something about a
rat, and Pettigrew being alive-"

"That, indeed, is Black's story," said Dumbledore, surveying Snape
closely through his half-moon spectacles.

Oh yeah, Dumbledore is doing his Legilimence on Snape. This is the
person that he supposedly trusts emphatically but he still needs to
keep a check on him, why? <snip>
> 
>Carol responds:
I'm in the camp (not surprisingly) that interprets "completely" to
mean "completely," meaning "in every respect." Frankly, I don't see
how any other interpretation is possible. (Whether DD is right or
wrong to trust Snape completely is of course, another matter. I think
he is, but we'll find out for sure in Book 7.)

As for your interpretation of the quotation from PoA, DD also trusts
Harry completely, yet he frequently scrutinizes him as if performing
Legilimency on him. But in this case, why use Legilimency on Snape,
who is stating his feelings quite clearly and not concealing anything
that I can see?

Just possibly, DD is attempting to use mutual Legilimency to send
Snape a message, letting him know, perhaps, that he believes Black's
story and will later tell Snape why. But Snape still believes his own
version of events (Black is a murderer, werewolf!Lupin was helping
him, the business about a rat is a "fairy story" that only kids under
a Confundus charm would fall for (and it certainly is far-fetched and
unexpected even to the reader. I was certainly suspicious of the story
the first time I read it until the point where Pettigrew is turned
back into a man, which Snape doesn't see because he's unconscious).

BTW, it's clear from the context that CAPSLOCK!Snape is furious about
"Potter" helping Black escape--nothing to do with the loss of the
Order of Merlin. Note that Lupin, who presents this theory, is not
present to witness this scene.

Carol, noting that DD's faith in Snape is not damaged by this incident
and seems to increase with every book






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 16:04:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:04:18 -0000
Subject: Ginny as an accidental Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <eboknc+2jq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq6u2+mn06@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156917

Neri wrote:


> However, note that JKR doesn't say it's impossible in principle. I
> quite agree that what happened between Ginny and Diary!Horcrux was
> meant as a hint that soul parts can do unexpected things. They can
> tempt people, they can possess them, they can make them forget things,
> and they can pass magical powers to them. 
> 
> Neri
>
Thanks for the quote establishing that Ginny is not an accidental
Horcrux, which I snipped (see upthread).

However, if a soul bit possessed the person who destroys the Horcrux,
Harry would be possessed, forced to do Voldemort's will and having
gaps in his memory. OoP makes it clear that Harry is not possessed,
either by the diary soul bit (which appears from the quote to be
completely destroyed) or by the events at Godric's Hollow. Ginny's
soul bit appears to have been released when she got her own soul
back--or else she's only possessed intermittently and Diary!Tom has
the entire soul bit back (along with most of Ginny's soul) when he
talks to Harry and sets the Basilisk on him in the CoS.

I don't see this interview segment as evidence that Horcruxes can be
created accidentally. Tom deliberated the diary Horcrux, which already
had his memory in it, the original purpose being the one he states in
CoS, to carry on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work." He doesn't turn
Ginny into a Horcrux--her purpose is to set the Basilisk on the
"Mudbloods." She's never intended to keep him alive by storing a soul
bit in herself. In fact, the opposite is true. Once Diary!Tom decides
to go after Harry, her purpose changes, and instead of being
temporarily possessed to do his will, he is (figuratively) sucking the
soul out of her to bring himself to life. The soul here is her life
force--nothing to do with her powers. And she has the power to speak
Parseltongue (when she's possessed) not because she's acquired Tom's
powers but because he's controlling her and speaking through her (as
Voldemort speaks through Harry in the MoM, using Harry's voice). And
possession, as we know from Harry's experience with it, is a very
painful state, which lasted a short time because Voldemort couldn't
bear to be in his body. If a soul bit had any ability to feel, it
couldn't bear to be in Harry, either.

Carol, who thinks that Voldie's soul bits are only pieces of the life
force that holds a person on earth and that they're destroyed when the
Horcrux is destroyed or opened, regardless of any curse that may
attack the destroyer, as with the ring Horcrux







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Mon Aug 14 13:24:47 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:24:47 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebpd7b+10krd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebptiv+l5e1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156918

Raymond:

Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone thinks Aberforth
is the barman at the Hogs Head. What if Albus and Aberforth are twins?
JKR says look at Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is dead but
does not use a forname so using this thought which died?

Tinktonks:

Very good point. How many people are known just by their surname? All
the teachers insist that Sir/Madam/Proffessor is used except for
Dumbledore and Hagrid. As grawp would not share Hagrid's surname being
a maternal half sibling than the one remaining is Dumbledore. Does JKR
EVER say that Albus Dumbledore is DEAD?

Tinktonks.










From aslmiller at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 03:04:34 2006
From: aslmiller at yahoo.com (Ashley)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 03:04:34 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <ebmf7i+s2f4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebop82+109ed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156919

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "shirleejuly31"
<shirleejuly31 at ...> wrote:
> Hmmm..
> I regards to your thoughts I would have to say that you have an
> interesting theory, However I do not feel the same as you. I do
> believe, and am preparing myself, for a full out death for my
> precious character Harry. In the first book, I forget where exactly,
> but the centaurs see it in the stars. Firenze is yelled at by Bane
> in the Forbidden Forest not to interfere with what has been fortold,
> and though they may have seen the rise of Voldemort, I believe they
> have also seen the fall of Harry. Harry is too full of hope and love
> to be taken to the dark side in my opinion, so as I see it, he will
> fight to the death and take Voldemort with him. It is my hope,
> though that Harry will live on, but the stars seem to be against him.
> This is just my thoughts however, but I love to read new theories
> everyday.
> JKR has aready stated that Dumbledore is dead and gone too.
> I'd love a response if any. ;)
>
>


Shirlee,

I have to say I'm in your camp.  The theory that he, meaning Harry turns
dark is interesting but I don't believe that it is plausible.  No
offense is ment to anyone who thinks that it is.  I think that Harry
will die trying to take out Voldemort.  Now the question is will Voldy
die?  It would be quite an interesting if our hero dies without killing
the Dark Lord.  Because the prophecy does not state that Harry will win.
It says that he could take him out not that he will.  In some ways I am
hoping for that ending... Now before you all stone me let me explain.  I
would love to see many different out comes of book seven and that is one
of them.  Mostly because most of me doesn't believe that that is what
she will do.  But I digress.  I do not think Harry will live.  I agree
with the stars comment.  They do seem to be against him.  That was just
my humble opinion.  Okay a question before I go.  Am I the only one who
thinks what the Dursleys did to him was abuse?  Anyway, I'm off.

Ashley









From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Mon Aug 14 16:32:32 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:32:32 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebok4p+7qbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq8j0+fuj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156920

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> 
> Honestly, with all we've learned about Snape and the Marauders it 
> makes *so* much sense that Snape reverts to a child screaming about 
> the unfairness of life at this point. I honestly doubt Snape had a 
> thought about the lost Order of Merlin. Later it may have been an 
> insult on top of injury, but it certainly doesn't seem the 
> underlying cause of his rage at this point, since he never, never 
> mentions it. 
> 
> *Lupin* mentions it. Actually, he's the one to come up with and 
> float that particular theory.
> 
> "Professor Dumbledore managed to convince Fudge that I was trying to 
> save your lives." He sighed. "That was the final straw for 
> Severus. I think the loss of the Order of Merlin hit him hard." 
> [PoA scholastic hardback p.423]
> 
> But are we really supposed to take Lupin's view as a keen insight 
> into one Severus Snape? Lupin lies. 

Renee:
Yes, I suppose Lupin realises it's not the loss of the Order of Merlin
that hit Snape so hard. He knows only too well it's Sirius's escape
that made Snape froth at the mouth. But Sirius's escape was Harry's
(and Hermione's) doing. What if Lupin merely wants to avoid suggesting
that Harry's rescue of Sirius has played an indirect role in his
resignation? Harry's despondent enough at the time, thinking he has
accomplished nothing. Also, Lupin knows he deserves to leave anyway,
whatever Snape's motivation is. So he comes up with the - admittedly
lame - Order of Merlin explanation. Note that he doesn't present it as
a fact, but as an opinion.  

And whether Harry buys it or not, he doesn't draw any conclusions from
it, and the Order of Merlin is never brought up again in connection
with Snape. Harry simply doesn't care about it and it's not important.
If Lupin is lying here, it's a white lie.  

Renee








From rashi_khemka_11 at yahoo.co.in  Mon Aug 14 12:16:31 2006
From: rashi_khemka_11 at yahoo.co.in (rashi khemka)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:16:31 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <20060812200236.1433.qmail@webmail26.rediffmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060814121631.93718.qmail@web7713.mail.in.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156921

Vinita Srivastava <vinitasrivastava_83 at rediffmail.com> wrote:
>> As all of you know that Ms. Rowling has deided to kill Harry 
in the last book but what I think is that she does not mean killing 
Harry in literally what I think she means is that it will probably 
Harry who would take over from Voldemort as the Dark Lord thus 
killing him. <snip> <<

Hi Vinita,
             This is Rashi here. I think the hero never ever dies. 
So I think that he will kill Voldemort. He would  also spread good 
spirits all over.
         
Rashi
 	






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 18:27:18 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:27:18 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebgtq4+49of@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebqfa6+4i9r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156922

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sallyaltass" <sallyaltass at ...>
wrote:
>
> Sorry to re-open an old thread, but reading through some of them
> last night, I noticed a belief that continual use of the time-
> turners could possibly prematurely age a wizard, in regard to the
> seemingly unchronological way DD's hair turns from auburn to silver
> within the space of 15 years.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Eagerly waiting some lucidity on the matter of Lupin's premature
> ageing.
> 
> A confused and tired Sally
>

bboyminn:

I seriously doubt that Dumbledore or Lupin's aging is Time Travel
related. I think Lupin's aging is related to the tremendous level of
stress he endures in his daily life and in his werewolf transformations.

To deviate slightly, let's look at how time-turners cause additional
aging. Let's say Hermione takes three classes at once using a
time-turner. While the rest of the world experiences one linear hour
of time, Hermione experiences Three consecutive hours of time. That
is, she goes to one class, time-turns back an hour, goes to the second
class, time turns back an hour, and goes to the third class. To
Herione that represents three consecutive hours, to everyone else,
that represents a single hour. To the world, Hermione is in three
places at once; to Hermione however, one Hermione goes to three
consecutive classes.

Now Herione is already two hours older that everyone else. Everyone
else lives a 24 hour day, but Hermione lives a 24+2 or 26 hour day.

Let's assume she time-times three hours for class and three hours for
homework. To her that is 6 hours, to everyone else it's 2 hours.
Expand that to three times a week across 10 months and Hermione is
(very roughly) an extra month older than every one else.

So, to age years, one would have to do an astronomical amount of
time-turning. To age one extra year over the course of three normal
years, one would have to engage in 8,760 hours of time travel, or
2,920 hours per year. For reference the average 40 hour work week is
only 2080 hours per year.

Based on this, I think it is unlikely that anyone is doing any kind of
substantial long term time travel. 

However, the books frequently points out Lupin's aging and ragged
appearance; perhaps a little too often. I'm willing to bet there will
be some significance to it, but I can imagine what it will be.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 16:33:56 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:33:56 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebptiv+l5e1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq8lk+gbrp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156923

> Raymond:
> Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone thinks Aberforth
> is the barman at the Hogs Head. What if Albus and Aberforth are
> twins? JKR says look at Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is
> dead but does not use a forname so using this thought which died?


Robert:
Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. It is painfully obvous and
JKR has confirmed it.

Aberforth's duty in the story will be that he has the locket. This is
obvious because we know all of this for a fact:

#Harry and Sirius found a locket they could not open in Phoenix

#RAB is brought up in the same sequence of chapters and YES RAB is
Regulus. JKR all but said so in the LeakyMug interview.

#Concluding these two things we can figure out that the locket at GP
was the Horcrux.

#JKR doesn't write things just for the hell of it so why was M.
Fletcher stealing Sirus's stuff to ABERFORTH...

#Obviously Harry will remember the locket at GP then when he realizes
it is gone he will remember Fletcher and the barman at the Hogs Head
buying things from him. This is when he will find out who the barman
really is.

There is only 1 book left and tons to wrap up. JKR isn't going to have
tons of time to waste on things like Ginny is a Horcrux and an
Aberforth/Albus switch.

It is all going to end in the Department of Mysteries and Harry is
going to somehow knock Voldi through the arch. This way he won't have
to AK him. I don't think JKR would want Harry to kill outright.

Thoughts?

Robert






From phil at pcsgames.net  Mon Aug 14 18:53:25 2006
From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:53:25 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
References: <20060814121631.93718.qmail@web7713.mail.in.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <007901c6bfd2$f5fd8db0$6600a8c0@phil>

No: HPFGUIDX 156924

             This is Rashi here. I think the hero never ever dies. 
So I think that he will kill Voldemort. He would  also spread good 
spirits all over.
         
Rashi
  
Now Phil:
I do not think Jo will want to be known as the,
"Life sucks and then you die lady"
Harry will live, but he will also have to defeat Voldemort without killing him, for if he kills him Harry will split his soul.
After all the prophecy says Harry only needs to vanquish Voldemort, not kill him.
For example, Harry could fill Voldemort with so much love that he will willingly commit suicide.
Of course, my best guess is that Voldemort  will then become a ghost and haunt Hogworts.
 
Phil
   

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




From raymonddavenport at btinternet.com  Mon Aug 14 18:54:37 2006
From: raymonddavenport at btinternet.com (raymond300659)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:54:37 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebq8lk+gbrp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebqgtd+6ktp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156925


> > Raymond:
> > Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone thinks
> > Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. What if Albus and
> > Aberforth are twins? <snip>
>
> Robert:
> Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. It is painfully obvous
> and JKR has confirmed it. <snip>

Raymond:
Has JKR called the barman Aberforth? I have never seen the barman's
name in any of the books.










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 20:29:48 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:29:48 -0000
Subject: Will Harry die?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608121857r6a2c8115h5b541cefb9bc4507@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebqmfs+b6mu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156926

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Geoff:
> > I don't proclaim that my "gods" are real; I believe that my God -
> > singular - is real.
> 
Random832 said:
> Don't you mean your God _are_ real?
> 
 i just think it's amusing that the most mainstream
> religion's number of gods can be best described as "one. maybe 
three. yeah, three - well, sort of. not really. okay, it's one. 
almost."

Tonks:
To expand on what Geoff said. I will try to clarify the concept of 
the trinity.  A Christian sees God as one in essence with 3 
aspects.  Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer.  Each of these actions 
is given a different name, but they are one entity.  You might think 
of it as similar to a person having a mind, body, and spirit.  Mind 
would be the Father/(Mother to some feminist now days) Body is Jesus 
(Mind coming into physical existence in the world of matter), and 
Spirit as the Holy Spirit.

To try to bring this back to the topic so the house elves don't push 
me off the cliff that I see Geoff hanging onto by a thread
 (leans 
close to the edge and tosses a rope to Geoff.)

My view of the series is a little bit of what Hans sees, but as I 
have said, from a Christian POV.  So while I think that Alchemy has 
a place in the series I see it in a different way than Hans.
I encourage others to read some of the work of John Granger. I don't 
agree with him completely either, but I think that we are all seeing 
the same clues from slightly different angles. And as I have said 
elsewhere, I think that Harry will have a symbolic death and a 
symbolic resurrection.

Tonks_op 








From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Aug 14 20:41:39 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:41:39 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebqgtd+6ktp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebqn63+qoro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156927

Robert:

> > Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. It is 
> > painfully obvous and JKR has confirmed it. <snip>
 
Raymond:

> Has JKR called the barman Aberforth? I have never seen 
> the barman's name in any of the books.

houyhnhnm:

The fact that the part of Aberforth Dumbledore has been 
cast for the movie version of OotP suggests that he plays 
a bigger role than just a face in a picture.  Considering 
how much has been cut from the previous books when they 
were translated into movies and the fact that OotP is the 
longest, it also suggests that Aberforth must play an 
important role in the conclusion of the story.








From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Aug 14 21:18:46 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:18:46 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebqfa6+4i9r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebqpbm+atov@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156928

Steve/bboyminn:

> However, the books frequently points out Lupin's aging 
> and ragged appearance; perhaps a little too often. I'm 
> willing to bet there will be some significance to it, 
> but I can imagine what it will be.

houyhnhnm:

Something similar to this (I know people are going to *howl*.  
I'm sorry.):

Full Moon High [1981] however is the flipside of the coin. 
Made by genre stalwart Larry Cohen (It's Alive, Maniac Cop, 
etc.) this mild comedy stars Adam Arkin as an average high 
school joe who's bitten by a werewolf which slows down his 
aging enough for him to return to school twenty years later 
to try and win the big football game.

Well, it would explain the timeline discrepancy.  I can't 
believe that's a Flint.  It's too massive.







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug 14 21:27:15 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:27:15 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebqfa6+4i9r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebqprj+s4f5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156929

> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> I seriously doubt that Dumbledore or Lupin's aging is Time Travel
> related. I think Lupin's aging is related to the tremendous level of
> stress he endures in his daily life and in his werewolf transformations.
> 
> 

<snip>

> So, to age years, one would have to do an astronomical amount of
> time-turning. To age one extra year over the course of three normal
> years, one would have to engage in 8,760 hours of time travel, or
> 2,920 hours per year. For reference the average 40 hour work week is
> only 2080 hours per year.
> 
> Based on this, I think it is unlikely that anyone is doing any kind of
> substantial long term time travel. 
> 

Ken:

I agree that the stress of being a werewolf trying to fit into a
society that hates you is enough to account for Lupin's condition. And
you give a very good account of why a time turner *must* cause aging,
whether it is so stated in canon or not. After all if time turners
could prevent aging they would be very popular devices, wouldn't they?
 But, it wouldn't be hard to age yourself an extra year, just give
that time turner one mighty spin and you'd go back a year easily. You
could place a bet on the Quidditch World Cup while you were back there....

The time turner: it's the one place JKR *shouldn't* have gone.

Ken








From kaylee01 at woh.rr.com  Mon Aug 14 20:06:42 2006
From: kaylee01 at woh.rr.com (Stacy Patnode)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:06:42 -0500
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
References: <20060814121631.93718.qmail@web7713.mail.in.yahoo.com> <007901c6bfd2$f5fd8db0$6600a8c0@phil>
Message-ID: <002501c6bfdd$2992ec10$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3>

No: HPFGUIDX 156930

Now Phil:
 I do not think Jo will want to be known as the,
 "Life sucks and then you die lady"
 Harry will live, but he will also have to defeat Voldemort without killing 
him, for if he kills him Harry will split his soul.
 After all the prophecy says Harry only needs to vanquish Voldemort, not 
kill him.

Stacy:
I firmly believe Harry will live, but I don't really have any quotes from 
canon to back up my conviction.
However, I hardly think JKR wants to be known as 
"she-who-killed-off-the-boy-who-lived."  How could she ever overcome such a 
reputation?  Even if Harry vanquishes Voldemort as he dies, readers could 
just place JKR in Voldemort's vacated spot as the next dark lord for killing 
off such a beloved character.  :)
Stacy.









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 23:37:32 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:37:32 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebok4p+7qbu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebr1fs+mara@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156931

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip of quote>
> > (Though I will point out that there's nothing suggestive in 
> > Dumbledore's words of a formulaic and predictable kind of magic 
> > being worked. It all seems like something Dumbledore sees Snape 
> > doing to himself rather than a magical life-debt at work.)

> >>Snow:
> Again open to interpretation. Dumbledore says he `believes' that   
> this is why Snape acted in such a manner


Betsy Hp:
But isn't this what we're talking about?  How *Dumbledore* sees 
Snape?  How much and why Dumbledore trusts him?

> >>Snow:
> Dumbledore also stated that an old man makes mistakes therefore I 
> would conclude that you believe everything that Dumbledore has    
> said and Nagini is definitely a Horcrux >g<

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but I do believe that Dumbledore is *honest* about what he 
says.  If he says he believes something is so, then that is what he 
believes.  He might be mistaken, but that's his honest (though 
perhaps not complete, the sly fox <g>) assesment.
 
> >>Snow:
> Dumbledore surely trusts Snape to the degree that he has stated    
> but why does he trust Snape completely is the answer I was        
> approaching. Dumbledore trusts Snape completely because he         
> realizes that no matter what; Snape has to save Harry to save      
> himself. Snape is tied into the cause, not because he wants to be 
> but because he has to be to protect his own best interest.

Betsy Hp:
How do you get that out of "completely"?  If Snape doesn't kill 
Harry *only* because Harry is fated to kill Voldemort shouldn't 
Dumbledore tell Harry that "When it comes to your safety, I trust 
Severus Snape" or something along those lines? 

I think it can be argued (though I'd disagree with it <g>) that 
Snape should *not* be trusted completely.  But Dumbledore is pretty 
clear in stating that he *does* trust Snape that much.  There's 
nothing in the texts that suggest to me that Dumbledore sees Snape 
as a Death Eater on a leash.

> >>Snow:
> <snip>
> I will however submit for your scrutiny a quote from Dumbledore 
> during this same scene that tells me that Dumbledore still        
> questions Snape:
> 
> POA pg 390 "I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's      
> planted in Potter's mind?" spat (look at this spat)               
> Snape. "Something about a rat, and Pettigrew being alive-"
> "That, indeed, is Black's story," said Dumbledore, surveying Snape 
> closely through his half-moon spectacles. 
> 
> Oh yeah, Dumbledore is doing his Legilimence on Snape. This is the 
> person that he supposedly trusts emphatically but he still needs   
> to keep a check on him, why? 

Betsy Hp:
As Carol points out, Dumbledore also keeps a similarly close check 
on Harry at times.  Especially, I think, when Harry's emotions are 
running high.  Could Dumbledore be so very alert (I'm not sure I'm 
ready to say Legilimency is going on here) about Snape's state 
because he's a bit *worried* about him?  Dumbledore *must* have some 
idea of the bad blood between Snape and the Marauders.  I think he's 
aware that the loss of Black, the *innocence* of Black is going to 
hit Snape hard.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > *Lupin* mentions it. Actually, he's the one to come up with and 
> > float that particular theory.
> > <snip of quote>
> > But are we really supposed to take Lupin's view as a keen       
> > insight into one Severus Snape? Lupin lies. He conceals and he 
> > misdirects. I don't know that he does it with evil intention,    
> > but he certainly does it. And as easily as breathing, I think.   
> > If he doesn't know, he'll happily make it up. Especially if it   
> > keeps people from asking uncomfortable questions. "Why does     
> > Snape hate you so, Professor Lupin?" 
> > If there's one thing I think *doesn't* drive Snape, it's getting 
> > an Order of Merlin. I think Snape could care less.

> >>Snow:
> You do put a decent argument forward but inasmuch as you have      
> argued against Snape being out for himself you claimed Lupin to be 
> a liar as evidence. How is it you realize this is a fact, Pippin   
> will be very interested as much as myself I am sure ;)

Betsy Hp:
Thanks! <g>  But I'm not actually using Lupin's lying as evidence.  
I'm trying to *cut down* the only evidence suggesting Snape was hurt 
of the loss of the Order of Merlin by questioning the veracity of 
the only character to raise that possibility.  (I'm pretty sure 
Pippin is well aware of the many, many times Lupin has obfuscated a 
few facts in his polite, befuddled, sort of way. <g>) 

> >>Renee:
> <snip>
> What if Lupin merely wants to avoid suggesting that Harry's rescue 
> of Sirius has played an indirect role in his resignation? Harry's 
> despondent enough at the time, thinking he has accomplished       
> nothing. Also, Lupin knows he deserves to leave anyway, whatever   
> Snape's motivation is. So he comes up with the - admittedly lame - 
> Order of Merlin explanation. Note that he doesn't present it as
> a fact, but as an opinion.
> And whether Harry buys it or not, he doesn't draw any conclusions 
> from it, and the Order of Merlin is never brought up again in     
> connection with Snape. Harry simply doesn't care about it and it's 
> not important. If Lupin is lying here, it's a white lie.

Betsy Hp:
Yeeaahh... I tend to agree with you. Only...  It does make Snape out 
to be petty and childish doesn't it?  "Meh, he made me lose my 
precious reward so I'll snitch on him and make him lose his job. 
Nyah."  I see a bit of the classic passive-aggressive stuff Lupin is 
so very, very good at going on here.  (Calling Snape "Severus" is 
another example.)

I'm really not sure I'd go so far as Pippin and label Lupin ESE. 
(Though I'll admit that a massive reason for that is what JKR has 
said about him in her interviews.  And boy that's a weak place to 
hang a theory.  Look how her remarks on Draco led everyone astray.)

I did a massive post on Lupin a while back, and this was my 
conclusion:

"Lupin is a bundle of contradictions. It's easy to see how his 
behavior can seem suspicious enough to grant him the ESE moniker. 
It's also easy to see why he's considered such a wonderful person. 
Frankly, I think Lupin lacks the sort of initiative required to 
become ESE. And I also believe his pleasant passivity hides a wealth 
of pain. Snape referred to him as weak, and he is. (As he'd admit to 
you, himself.) But he doesn't have to be. We've seen Lupin take 
action and he's good at it, a natural leader. He is a good man. Now 
if only he'd *do* something."

Which, IMO, is a pretty wishy-washy conclusion. <g> (The entire post 
is here, for those who are interested.  Be warned, it's long.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149223

But yeah, that Lupin is the *only* character to suggest Snape was 
really *that* interested in an Order of Merlin is enough to help me 
conclude the exact opposite is probably true.  (I also seriously 
doubt Snape gave a rat's ass about James's quidditch skills. <g>)

Betsy Hp






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 00:32:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:32:30 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebr1fs+mara@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebr4mu+ujo6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156932

 Betsy Hp: <thoroughly snipped>
> Yeeaahh... I tend to agree with you. Only...  It does make Snape out 
> to be petty and childish doesn't it?  "Meh, he made me lose my 
> precious reward so I'll snitch on him and make him lose his job. 
> Nyah."  I see a bit of the classic passive-aggressive stuff Lupin is 
> so very, very good at going on here.  (Calling Snape "Severus" is 
> another example.) <snip>

Carol responds:
I've snipped most of your post (which, in general, I agree with) to
ask a question. I can see why you would regard the Order of Merlin
"explanation" as passive aggressive, but why regard his calling snape
"Severus" in that way? I always read it as an attempt at civility
(More civil than thou, maybe) until HBP, when I realized that Lupin
refers to Snape as Severus in third as well as second person. Now it
seems to me as if he sees Snape as an equal, an exact contemporary,
and he's calling him by his first name just as he did Sirius Black and
James Potter. Maybe in part it's genuine gratitude for the Wolfsbane
Potion, which saved him nine (should have been ten) months of
excessive suffering.

Carol, wondering if she's the only person on the list who believes
Lupin when he says "I neither like nor dislike Severus"






From dontask2much at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 00:54:35 2006
From: dontask2much at yahoo.com (rebecca)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:54:35 -0400
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
Message-ID: <001d01c6c005$617f9b00$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>

No: HPFGUIDX 156933

Something's been bugging me - please note, I don't have answers but I do 
have some intriguing questions. So, let's go waaa-aay back to the beginning, 
shall we?  First the passage below from PS/SS:



"....Dumbledore slipped the Put-Outer back inside his cloak and set off down 
the street toward number four, where he sat down on the wall next to the 
cat. He didn't look at it, but after a moment he spoke to it.

"Fancy seeing you here, Professor McGonagall."

He turned to smile at the tabby, but it had gone. Instead he was smiling at 
a rather severe-looking woman who was wearing square glasses exactly the 
shape of the markings the cat had had around its eyes. She, too, was wearing 
a cloak, an emerald one. Her black hair was drawn into a tight bun. She 
looked distinctly ruffled.

"How did you know it was me?" she asked.

"My dear Professor, I 've never seen a cat sit so stiffly."

"You'd be stiff if you'd been sitting on a brick wall all day," said 
Professor McGonagall."

What can we deduce from this passage? Well for one, McGonagall asks 
Dumbledore how he *knew* it was her, implying that's she's surprised he 
recognized her. Does this mean that Dumbledore didn't know what McGonagall 
looks like when in her Animagus form? Odd, because you'd think he would know 
that about his transfiguration professor? Yet there is more after Dumbledore 
confirms the rumors about James, Lily and Harry, are true:

"Professor McGonagall pulled out a lace handkerchief and dabbed at her eyes 
beneath her spectacles. Dumbledore gave a great sniff as he took a golden 
watch from his pocket and examined it. It was a very odd watch.  It had 
twelve hands but no numbers; instead, little planets were moving around the 
edge. It must have made sense to Dumbledore, though, because he put it back 
in his pocket and said, "Hagrid's late. I suppose it was he who told you I'd 
be here, by the way?"

"Yes," said Professor McGonagall. "And I don't suppose you're going to tell 
me why you're here, of all places?"

"I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he 
has left now."



McGonagall goes on to express shock that Dumbledore would consider leaving 
Harry with the Dursleys, *whom she has been watching all day.*  Question: 
Why has she been watching them *all day*? (She states she doesn't know what 
Dumbledore's plan is, nor that the rumors about James, Lily and Harry were 
true) While Hagrid told her that Dumbledore would be there, he evidently 
didn't tell her why nor what time. Because McGonagall has been there *all 
day* - what was so important that she had to to watch the Dursleys waiting 
for Dumbledore to arrive for some unknown purpose to her?

Don't know about you folks, but it's intriguing to me.  Anyone with 
thoughts, please share because it's driving me nuts! :)



Rebecca, who also noted that McGonagall is described as a "severe looking 
woman" and wonders about relations to another "severe" individual....




















From mros at xs4all.nl  Tue Aug 15 01:20:47 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:20:47 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
References: <ebr4mu+ujo6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000701c6c009$09cc9940$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156934

Betsy Hp: <thoroughly snipped>
> Yeeaahh... I tend to agree with you. Only... It does make Snape out 
> to be petty and childish doesn't it? "Meh, he made me lose my 
> precious reward so I'll snitch on him and make him lose his job. 
> Nyah." I see a bit of the classic passive-aggressive stuff Lupin is 
> so very, very good at going on here. (Calling Snape "Severus" is 
> another example.) <snip>

Carol responds:
>>>I've snipped most of your post (which, in general, I agree with) to
ask a question. I can see why you would regard the Order of Merlin
"explanation" as passive aggressive, but why regard his calling snape
"Severus" in that way? I always read it as an attempt at civility
(More civil than thou, maybe) until HBP, when I realized that Lupin
refers to Snape as Severus in third as well as second person. Now it
seems to me as if he sees Snape as an equal, an exact contemporary,
and he's calling him by his first name just as he did Sirius Black and
James Potter. Maybe in part it's genuine gratitude for the Wolfsbane
Potion, which saved him nine (should have been ten) months of
excessive suffering.

Carol, wondering if she's the only person on the list who believes
Lupin when he says "I neither like nor dislike Severus"<<<


Marion:
Ah, but Lupin will call Snape 'Severus' with tenacity when Snape insists on calling Lupin 'Lupin'. He's pushing familiarity where it is clearly not wanted. It's like when somebody stands just too close, invading your personal space. You inch away, signalling that you want a bit of distance between you to feel comfortable, but the annoying man *will* follow you, standing too close and smiling all the while in your face.
It's very insidious. You can't really attack the man for being too close, too familiar when familiarity isn't wanted, because isn't Lupin *nice*, isn't he 'just trying to be *friends*, "oh stop being so *sensitive* Severus".

The snot gets away with it too.

And of course there is the fact that Lupin calls Snape 'Severus' in front of the pupils. I'm not sure I'm right about this, but I believe that none of the teachers ever call eachother by their first names in front of the students. Snape certainly doesn't. He might call McGonegal 'Minerva' in private, but he wouldn't do so in front of the students. It's professional courtesy in part, just like, and part of, the fact that the teachers will form a unity in front of the students. By denying that professional courtesy, by denying him his title of 'professor', Lupin is *very* passive-agressive.

And then there is the Wolfsbane. Is it just me, or do others on this list also want to *kick* the werewolf for being so incredible cruel to Snape with that potion? Snape once, as a boy, nearly died because of an werewolf attack. An attack by Lupin, in fact. The only way he and the children in his care are safe from Lupin is by brewing a difficult potion. So he brings it and wants to see Lupin drink it. It's only after Lupin drinks the stuff that he can feel safe. And Lupin *knows* this. And then Lupin plays his little 'oh, just put it over there, I'll drink it later' games.
An outsider who knows nothing about Lupin being a werewolf or that Snape once was attacked by him would look at the interaction between Snape and Lupin with contempt. Here is this nice, friendly, smiling teacher and he's getting a potion from the ugly, always dour potions teacher (probably for the sniffles or something innocent like that, but we don't trust the ugly one, so maybe he wants to *poison* the kind one, better keep an eye on him) and the kind teacher puts it down to drink later, but the nasty, ugly, greasy git insists that he drinks it *now*. What a stinker. What a bully. Where does *he* get off, telling the nice one what to do?!
And all the while Lupin sits there, smiling, knowing full well that Snape won't sleep, won't feel *safe* if he doesn't know for sure that Lupin drank that blasted potion.

There's a weird, whacky but wonderful essay on Lupin's behaviour in HBP by swythyv over here: http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/164477.html  where she ponders wether Lupin in HBP is actually Peter Pettigrew in disguise, because Lupin's suggestions to Harry are so insidious and suggestive that she cannot imagine that kind Lupin made them.
I can imagine that all too well.


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






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 01:47:52 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 18:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Time-line Questions (Long)
Message-ID: <20060815014752.53440.qmail@web53015.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156935

Just thought I'd ask some questions to see if the HP4GU colleagues agree on the time-lines of the series. While I'm at it, bring up topical questions concerning the time-lines. I am a big proponent of Red_Hen who use to post on here as jodel_from_aol.
  Lots of this comes from her analysis of canonical evidence combined with JKR interviews and other info (e.g. Black Family Tapestry-BFT).
   
   
  Riddle Years
   
  Tom Riddle - born Dec 31, 1926.  Enters Hogwarts Sep 1, 1938. Graduates June 1945
  That would put his openning of the CoS in the Spring/Summer of '43, his 5th year.
  Tom then spends a years or so in the employ of B&B before the Hepzibah/Hokie incident when he departs Britain on his 'Dark Arts Quest'. He's gone for 10 years.
   
  -- In the Scholastic interview after the release of Gof (Potterverse summer of '95) JKR tells us McGonagall is a sprightly 70 year old. That puts her born in '25 or late '24. Which also puts her entering Hogwarts in Sep '36, two years before Tom and makes her a seventh-year when the CoS is openned. Significant?
   
  -- According to the BFT, Sirius' mum was born in '25 putting her 1-2 years ahead of Tom. Sirius' dad born in '29 putting him 2-3 years behind Tom. Hmmm, family of dark wizards, always sorted into Slytherin, but neither of em DEs?
   
   
  Vold War I Starts
   
  Tom returns in Dec '56 - Jan '57 to make his request for the DADA position. Dumbledore has become headmaster in Dec '56 and McGonagall is hired as Transfiguration Teacher at the same time. This ties in with Minerva telling Umbridge in the fall of 1995 that she will have been teaching "39 years this December".
   
  -- So are we agreed that Lupin's comment in PoA of "But then Dumbledore became Headmaster" is just another 'cheese blintz' (thank you houyhnhnm) coming out of Lupin's mouth? Wasn't DD the Headmaster before Lupin was born?
   
   
  Marauders Enter
   
  According to the charity BFT, Bella is born in '51 putting her entering Hogwarts in '62 or '63 at the latest. That means if Snape hung around with the 'Lestranges' at school (according to Sirius in GoF), Snape and the Marauders can enter Hogwarts no later than '69. Meaning the Marauders are born in '57 or '58. 
   
  -- This goes against the Lexicon. It also contradicts JKR's comments that (1) Snape is 35 or 36 in the summer of '95 and (2) Sirius is around 22 when he goes to Azkaban in '81. Which way do we like it? Add a year or so to JKR's age estimates or do we find fault with the BFT (remember, the BFT has Bella being born when her father is 13. This isn't the only problem with dates on the BFT). I'm hesitant to correct Bella's birth year for fear that it might be significant and I while I can see JKR not paying too close attention to earlier generations I can't see JKR messing up on the dates of her front line players. I suppose we could discount Sirius' comment, but this would definitely be my last choice. There couldn't be another married Lestranges? No, that throws too much out of whack.
   
  -- In the summer of '95, Sirius shows Harry the BFT. Canon states, "REGELUS BLACK. A date of death (some fifteen years previously) followed the date of birth."  (OotP, US, p.112). This makes Regelus dying in 1980, right? This certainly can't be an *unreliable narrator*, it's a straight forward statement of fact. Now, JKR comes out with her   charity BFT which says Regulus is born in '61 and dies in '79. I wonder which we should believe? This date, whichever is correct, has to be critical to the story, no?
   
  Backtracking a little; Using the above Marauder dates means that Molly must graduate no later than June '69, since she missed the planting of the Whomping Willow. That puts her and Aurthur born no later than '52 and probably in '51 making them contemporaries with Bella. I don't see any problem with this. Also, Lucius Malfoy is 41 years old in the fall of '95 meaning he was born in '54, a couple years, at least, younger than Aurthur. BTW, Rita is 43 in the fall of '94 meaning she was born in '51 also. How delicious!!
   
   
  The Weasleys
   
  Bill must be born in '70, Charlie in Dec '72, Percy in Aug '76, the twins in Apr '78. This makes Charlie entering Hogwarts in Sep '84 and graduating in Jun '91 before Harry enters in Sep '91. Backtracking both McGonagall and Oliver Wood's comments during PoA, Gryffindor last won the Quidditch Cup in '86, Charlie's second year at school. Kinda makes you wonder where Wood gets all his adoration for a player that last won the Cup a year before he entered school, doesn't it? And Gryffindor didn't win the Cup for Charlie's last five years at school. Hmmm, the *Legendary Charlie Weasley*?
   
   
  I welcome any comments, corrections, challenges, or compliments <g>. Especially, if I missed something in canon. Speaking of canon, do we consider canon only what's written in the HP books, or does it include things like FBAWTFT, or even JKR's charity BFT?
   
  Did anyone else notice that in the bottom left corner of the charity BFT it says, "Credits: Aberforth the Marauder (Intelligence)," ? Is this another obscure clue, cause there are a lot of parts of the BFT that don't seem very intelligent? At least they don't make sense pending some revelation in book 7.
   
  Thanx for your indulgence,
  Mike
   
  P.S. In that Scholastic, 2000 interview with JKR there was this:
   
  Question: What position did James play on the Gryffindor Quidditch team? Was it seeker like Harry, or something different?
J.K. Rowling responds: James was Chaser.
   
  Oh Really?!

 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

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




From kking0731 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 02:09:28 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:09:28 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebr1fs+mara@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebraco+8b4l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156936




> >>Snow:
> Again open to interpretation. Dumbledore says he `believes' that 
> this is why Snape acted in such a manner


Betsy Hp:
But isn't this what we're talking about? How *Dumbledore* sees 
Snape? How much and why Dumbledore trusts him?

Snow:

Yes it is. It is the `why' that counts. Dumbledore could trust Snape 
completely if he realizes that Snape has no other recourse. If Snape 
wants out of the Voldy clan then he doesn't want to go back and could 
therefore be completely trusted
or can he? Yes and no, he can be 
trusted to the extent that their main objectives are the same but 
getting there is another story. Dumbledore's man had quite a failing 
when he refused Harry Occlumency lessons. 


> >>Snow:
> Dumbledore also stated that an old man makes mistakes therefore I 
> would conclude that you believe everything that Dumbledore has 
> said and Nagini is definitely a Horcrux >g<

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but I do believe that Dumbledore is *honest* about what he 
says. If he says he believes something is so, then that is what he 
believes. He might be mistaken, but that's his honest (though 
perhaps not complete, the sly fox <g>) assesment.

Snow:

See that's the thing, Dumbledore does make a big mistake because he 
trusts Snape completely. Dumbledore allowed Snape to teach Harry 
Occlumency because he trusted Snape so completely that he 
forgot "that some wounds run too deep for the healing". If Snape were 
Dumbledore's man I would think he could have overcome his hatred for 
James for Dumbledore's sake and the greater good. Go one step further 
here and ask yourself why, if he hated James so much, Snape gave 
Dumbledore the information about Voldemort's plan to attack James and 
Lily? Love of Lily is one explanation; Snape saving his own hide is 
another. Or?

> >>Snow:
> Dumbledore surely trusts Snape to the degree that he has stated 
> but why does he trust Snape completely is the answer I was 
> approaching. Dumbledore trusts Snape completely because he 
> realizes that no matter what; Snape has to save Harry to save 
> himself. Snape is tied into the cause, not because he wants to be 
> but because he has to be to protect his own best interest.

Betsy Hp:
How do you get that out of "completely"? If Snape doesn't kill 
Harry *only* because Harry is fated to kill Voldemort shouldn't 
Dumbledore tell Harry that "When it comes to your safety, I trust 
Severus Snape" or something along those lines? 

I think it can be argued (though I'd disagree with it <g>) that 
Snape should *not* be trusted completely. But Dumbledore is pretty 
clear in stating that he *does* trust Snape that much. There's 
nothing in the texts that suggest to me that Dumbledore sees Snape 
as a Death Eater on a leash.

Snow:

I feel that is exactly what Dumbledore is saying to Harry; Snape will 
protect you because there is no one else that can put the baddy to 
bed. 

Snape can be completely trusted because he wants the same objective; 
Voldemort needs to be taken down. And it would be former-deatheater-
on-a-leash ;)

> >>Snow:
> <snip>
> I will however submit for your scrutiny a quote from Dumbledore 
> during this same scene that tells me that Dumbledore still 
> questions Snape:
> 
> POA pg 390 "I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's 
> planted in Potter's mind?" spat (look at this spat) 
> Snape. "Something about a rat, and Pettigrew being alive-"
> "That, indeed, is Black's story," said Dumbledore, surveying Snape 
> closely through his half-moon spectacles. 
> 
> Oh yeah, Dumbledore is doing his Legilimence on Snape. This is the 
> person that he supposedly trusts emphatically but he still needs 
> to keep a check on him, why? 

Betsy Hp:
As Carol points out, Dumbledore also keeps a similarly close check 
on Harry at times. Especially, I think, when Harry's emotions are 
running high. Could Dumbledore be so very alert (I'm not sure I'm 
ready to say Legilimency is going on here) about Snape's state 
because he's a bit *worried* about him? Dumbledore *must* have some 
idea of the bad blood between Snape and the Marauders. I think he's 
aware that the loss of Black, the *innocence* of Black is going to 
hit Snape hard.

Snow:

Dumbledore keeps a check on Harry through Legilimency to keep a check 
on Voldemort. Dumbledore wouldn't teach Occlumency to Harry, or even 
look at him in his fifth year, because he saw Voldemort lurking. 
Dumbledore is trusting but he isn't stupid. 

Betsy Hp:
Thanks! <g> But I'm not actually using Lupin's lying as evidence. 
I'm trying to *cut down* the only evidence suggesting Snape was hurt 
of the loss of the Order of Merlin by questioning the veracity of 
the only character to raise that possibility. (I'm pretty sure 
Pippin is well aware of the many, many times Lupin has obfuscated a 
few facts in his polite, befuddled, sort of way. <g>)

Snow:

The loss of the Order of Merlin is but an aside. It is a perk to 
Snape to prove that he was not cowardly in leaving Voldemort. The 
Marauders teased him and called him Snivellus during his school 
years, which may have prompted him to go to Voldemort in the first 
place, to prove himself.  


Cheers

Snow







From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Aug 15 02:26:35 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:26:35 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <000701c6c009$09cc9940$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <ebrbcr+ql0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156937

Carol responds:

> I've snipped most of your post (which, in general, I 
> agree with) to ask a question. I can see why you would 
> regard the Order of Merlin "explanation" as passive 
> aggressive, but why regard his calling snape "Severus" 
> in that way? I always read it as an attempt at civility 
> (More civil than thou, maybe) until HBP, when I realized 
> that Lupin refers to Snape as Severus in third as well as 
> second person. Now it seems to me as if he sees Snape as 
> an equal, an exact contemporary,and he's calling him by 
> his first name just as he did Sirius Black and James Potter. 

Marion:

> Ah, but Lupin will call Snape 'Severus' with tenacity 
> when Snape insists on calling Lupin 'Lupin'. He's pushing 
> familiarity where it is clearly not wanted. It's like when 
> somebody stands just too close, invading your personal space.

houyhnhnm:

It's also like addressing someone with the tu (du/ti) when 
they are using Usted (vous/Lei/Sie/chi).  Or like a man 
calling a female colleague "honey" or "dear" when she has 
made it clear she does not care for the familiarity.

Snape and Lupin may be the same age, but Lupin is *not* 
Snape's equal at Hogwarts, either in terms of seniority 
or position.  It is for Snape to initiate any advance 
towards intimacy. Can you believe that someone who stands 
upon his own dignity as much as Snape does would not be 
conscious of that and regard Lupin's uninvited familiarity 
as insolence rather than civility?






From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 14 16:30:08 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:30:08 -0000
Subject: Dursleys and Harry (wasn Re: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book)
In-Reply-To: <ebop82+109ed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebq8eg+ujtq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156938

Ashley <aslmiller at ...> wrote:
> Am I the only one who thinks what the Dursleys did to him was abuse?

Ryan:

I think you'd have a difficult time finding someone who DOESN'T think
that what the Dursleys did to Harry was abuse.

Ryan









From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug 15 02:45:37 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17ptf)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:45:37 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebraco+8b4l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebrcgh+oknt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156939


> 
> > >>Snow:
> > Again open to interpretation. Dumbledore says he `believes' that 
> > this is why Snape acted in such a manner

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But isn't this what we're talking about? How *Dumbledore* sees 
> Snape? How much and why Dumbledore trusts him?
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Yes it is. It is the `why' that counts. Dumbledore could trust 
Snape 
> completely if he realizes that Snape has no other recourse. If 
Snape 
> wants out of the Voldy clan then he doesn't want to go back and 
could 
> therefore be completely trusted
or can he? Yes and no, he can be 
> trusted to the extent that their main objectives are the same but 
> getting there is another story. Dumbledore's man had quite a 
failing 
> when he refused Harry Occlumency lessons. 
> 

Julie:
I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
some vituperous commentary over that demand. Instead Dumbledore
recognizes his *own* error in expecting Snape and Harry get 
beyond their extreme animosity toward each other. (And, yes, 
he did lay it on Snape's wounds that are too deep to heal, but
I'm sure he knows Harry's unauthorized snooping in the pensieve
rubbed salt directly in those wounds. He just didn't feel it
necessary to kick Harry when he's down by pointing this out).

But I agree it is a failing in Snape to discontinue the lessons,
as it was also a failing in Harry to snoop into something
that was totally private (at 15 he certainly knew better). 
However a person doesn't have to be without human failings to  
be trusted. If that were a requirement, then there would be no
one Dumbledore could trust, including Harry.  

Julie







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 03:08:22 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:08:22 -0000
Subject: Ginny as an accidental Horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebq6u2+mn06@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebrdr6+or5m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156940

> Neri wrote:
> 
> 
> > However, note that JKR doesn't say it's impossible in principle. I
> > quite agree that what happened between Ginny and Diary!Horcrux was
> > meant as a hint that soul parts can do unexpected things. They can
> > tempt people, they can possess them, they can make them forget things,
> > and they can pass magical powers to them. 

> Carol:
> 
> However, if a soul bit possessed the person who destroys the Horcrux,
> Harry would be possessed, forced to do Voldemort's will and having
> gaps in his memory.

Neri:
I didn't say and didn't mean to say that a soul bit would possess the
person who destroys the Horcrux. The soul part in the Diary was
destroyed immediately when the Diary was destroyed (as JKR confirmed)
so it didn't have time to possess Harry. 

> Carol:
> I don't see this interview segment as evidence that Horcruxes can be
> created accidentally.

Neri:
I didn't say and didn't mean to say that this interview is evidence
that Horcruxes can be created accidentally. What I did say was that
the Ginny case in CoS (and not the interview) shows that Horcruxes can
have all kind of interesting and unexpected capabilities. They aren't
necessarily inert things that just seat in one place doing nothing.

> Carol:
> Tom deliberated the diary Horcrux, which already
> had his memory in it, the original purpose being the one he states in
> CoS, to carry on Salazar Slytherin's "noble work."

Neri:
"The original purpose" is an apt term here. The diary Horcrux diverted
from its original purpose in circumstances that its maker couldn't
have foreseen. The Horcrux heard from Ginny about Voldemort's defeat
and Harry's involvement in it, and changed its first objective
accordingly, from killing mudbloods to destroying Harry Potter, which
was not even born yet when Tom had "deliberated" the diary Horcrux. 

And in fact it was exactly the independence of the diary that
convinced Dumbledore it was a Horcrux, even in the absence of any
other evidence:

***********************************************************
HBP, Ch. 23:

"A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory,
sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No,
something much more sinister had lived inside that book. ... a
fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux."
************************************************************

If this behavior were highly atypical for a Horcrux, then Dumbledore
wouldn't have reached this conclusion.

> Carol:
> He doesn't turn
> Ginny into a Horcrux--her purpose is to set the Basilisk on the
> "Mudbloods." She's never intended to keep him alive by storing a soul
> bit in herself. In fact, the opposite is true. Once Diary!Tom decides
> to go after Harry, her purpose changes, and instead of being
> temporarily possessed to do his will, he is (figuratively) sucking the
> soul out of her to bring himself to life.

Neri:
Exactly. Instead of remaining a mere Horcrux, the soul part attempts
(and nearly succeeds) in resurrecting the living Voldemort. I don't
think these were its original instructions. The soul part does it
because it heard that Voldemort had lost his body and powers.
Conclusion: Horcruxes can do unexpected things when faced with
unexpected circumstances.

> Carol:
> The soul here is her life
> force--nothing to do with her powers. And she has the power to speak
> Parseltongue (when she's possessed) not because she's acquired Tom's
> powers but because he's controlling her and speaking through her (as
> Voldemort speaks through Harry in the MoM, using Harry's voice).

Neri:
And yet AFAIK this is the only other case in the series where the
powers of one wizard are used through another wizard. There isn't
another mechanism for that in the series, so unless JKR invents some
completely new magic in the last book this is our best and only
candidate. And it is done by a Horcrux and it does involve parseltongue.  

> Carol:
> And
> possession, as we know from Harry's experience with it, is a very
> painful state, which lasted a short time because Voldemort couldn't
> bear to be in his body.

Neri:
We in fact see three cases of possessing a human in the series (Harry,
Ginny and Quirrell) and each of these cases is different. Possession
doesn't have to be a painful state, it doesn't have to be for a short
time and it doesn't have to involve gaps in memory. All these appear
to be incidental rather than obligatory. 

> Carol:
> If a soul bit had any ability to feel, it
> couldn't bear to be in Harry, either.
>

Neri:
Maybe, maybe not. It may depend on the soul bit, on Harry's situation
at the moment, and on the requirements of JKR's plot. But all the
other explanations of Harry ending up with Voldemort's powers and a
connection to his mind are even less supported. 
 

Neri








From amanda.fick at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 15 02:53:52 2006
From: amanda.fick at sbcglobal.net (Amanda Fick)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:53:52 -0400
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
Message-ID: <mailman.142.1576215612.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 156941

Hello!

 

I'm not much a talker on this group, actually not at all, but I was reading
a lot of theories where everyone thinks that Harry is a Horcrux.  I
personally don't think that is possible. From A Sluggish Memory: where
Slughorn is explaining how a Horcrux works.  Voldemort has to kill someone
and then split his soul to implant it into another person.  Remember what
Dumbledore explaining to Harry the number of horcruxes created and that he
didn't make the 6th Horcrux at Godric's Hollow as he planned.  Dumbledore
said, "Voldemort was still at least one Horcrux short of his goal of six
when he entered your parents' house with intention to kill you.  He seems to
have reserved the process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant
deaths.. I am sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your
death".  p 473 HBP (British Edition: hardcover).  He had planned to use
Harry's MURDER as his sixth Horcrux, not Harry as the Horcrux.  Voldemort
would have wanted Harry to survive in order to have Harry as his Horcrux.
Harry dead, would not help his case for immortality.  Instead he made it
with the Muggle Frank Bryce.  From this we can conclude that he did not use
Harry as a Horcrux.  He could not have been; Voldy lost his powers before he
could perform the powerful spell to create the Horcrux.  Dumbledore also
thinks that Nagini is the 6th Horcrux, and how often is Dumbledore
wrong?!!!!!

 

That's just my thoughts.

 

IUMUGGLE

AKA 

Amanda

 



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






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 03:22:17 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:22:17 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebrcgh+oknt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebrel9+oe2u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156942



> Snow:
> 
> Yes it is. It is the `why' that counts. Dumbledore could trust 
Snape 
> completely if he realizes that Snape has no other recourse. If 
Snape 
> wants out of the Voldy clan then he doesn't want to go back and 
could 
> therefore be completely trusted
or can he? Yes and no, he can be 
> trusted to the extent that their main objectives are the same but 
> getting there is another story. Dumbledore's man had quite a 
failing 
> when he refused Harry Occlumency lessons. 
>

Julie:
I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
some vituperous commentary over that demand. Instead Dumbledore
recognizes his *own* error in expecting Snape and Harry get 
beyond their extreme animosity toward each other. (And, yes, 
he did lay it on Snape's wounds that are too deep to heal, but
I'm sure he knows Harry's unauthorized snooping in the pensieve
rubbed salt directly in those wounds. He just didn't feel it
necessary to kick Harry when he's down by pointing this out).

Snow:

Dumbledore made a mistake that he had trusted Snape too much. 
Dumbledore put too much faith in the fact that Snape could be trusted 
to do anything Dumbledore asked of him, it was a mistake but one that 
didn't scrap the plan, it just made it a bit harder. 

I suppose Dumbledore could have resumed the lessons and he did have 
an alternative but he chose neither avenue. Even after Dumbledore 
told Harry that he had made the mistake of allowing Snape to teach 
Harry he continues to trust Snape. Yes he does and continues to do so 
because Dumbledore is aware that Snape needs the same objective. It's 
like I said, Snape can be trusted to the end result but getting there 
is a different story. 

Julie: 

But I agree it is a failing in Snape to discontinue the lessons,
as it was also a failing in Harry to snoop into something
that was totally private (at 15 he certainly knew better). 
However a person doesn't have to be without human failings to 
be trusted. If that were a requirement, then there would be no
one Dumbledore could trust, including Harry.

Snow:

We know he doesn't trust Harry (he came close right before the cave 
to telling him) because he doesn't allow Harry to know just why he 
trusts Snape sooooo completely, does he? He can't trust Harry for 
fear that Voldemort would find out. 
Tricky situation. 








From SteveSavicki at spoiledbrat.com  Tue Aug 15 02:31:23 2006
From: SteveSavicki at spoiledbrat.com (steve_savicki)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:31:23 -0000
Subject: Dudley's friends
Message-ID: <ebrblr+vriu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156943

Okay, I thought Dudley had a 2nd buddy, but I was rereading SS, and saw only the name Piers Polkiss. Wasn't there a second friend to Dudley?

Steve_savicki.










From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Aug 15 06:51:07 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:51:07 -0000
Subject: Dudley's friends
In-Reply-To: <ebrblr+vriu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebrqsr+s41t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156944

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "steve_savicki" <SteveSavicki at ...> wrote:

> Okay, I thought Dudley had a 2nd buddy, but I was rereading 
>SS, and saw only the name Piers Polkiss. Wasn't there a second 
>friend to Dudley?

Geoff:
There is certainly evidence in both PS and OOTP that Dudley 
had a number of friends and some are definitely named in the 
latter book...

'On the other hand, he'd got into terrible trouble for being 
found on the roof of the school kitchens. Dudley's gang had 
been chasing him as usual when, as much to Harry's surprise 
as anyone else's, there he was sitting on the chimney.'
(PS "The Vanishing Glass" p.23 UK edition)

'The figure in front was unmistakeably his cousin, Dudley 
Dursley, wending his way home, accompanied by his faithful 
gang.'
(OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.15 UK edition)

'He walked quickly, so that halfway along Magnolia Road Dudley's 
gang came into view again; they were saying their farewells at the 
entrance to Magnolia Crescent. Harry stepped into the shade of a
 large lilac tree and waited.
"... squealed like a pig, didn't he?" Malcolm was saying, to guffaws 
from the others.
"Nice right hook, Big D," said Piers.
"Same time tomorrow?" said Dudley.
"Round at my place, my parents will be out," said Gordon.
"See you then," said Dudley.'
(OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.16-17 UK edition)

'"You haven't got the guts to take me on without that thing, have 
you?" Dudley snarled.
"Whereas you just need four mates behind you before you can 
beat up a ten year old."'
(OOTP "Dudley Demented" p.18 UK edition)






From Schlobin at aol.com  Tue Aug 15 08:05:13 2006
From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:05:13 -0000
Subject: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebgk9a+sfsd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebrv7p+ah85@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156945

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:
>
> <hickengruendler@> wrote:
> >
> Salman Rushdie: Dumbledore himself - Dumbledore himself had always
> vouched for him. Now we are suddenly told that Snape is a villian 
and
> Dumbledore's killer. We cannot, or don't want to believe this. 
(Crowd
> laughs) Our theory is that Snape is in fact, still a good guy, 
(crowd
> applauds) from which it follows that Dumbledore can't really be dead
> and that the death is a ruse cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape 
to
> put Voldemort off his guard so that when Harry and Voldemort come 
face
> to face, (crowd laughs) Harry may have more allies than he or
> Voldemort suspects. So, is Snape good or bad? (Crowd laughs, 
applauds
> and screams) In our opinion, everything follows from it.
> 
> JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right. But I
> see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that Dumbledore
> is definitely dead.
> 
> [more followes about grief management] 
> *************************************************************
> 
> There are two significant differences between this transcript and 
the
> previous transcript we discussed here, and IMO both these 
differences
> confirm my view that Salman Rushdie was making an if/then statement.
> Firstly, he says: "Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good
> guy, *from which it follows that* Dumbledore can't really be dead" 
(I
> stress the difference from the first transcript).  It is obvious 
that
> Dumbledore being alive, in Rushdie's theory, follows from Snape 
being
> good. It is not an AND statement "Snape is good AND Dumbledore can't
> be dead". It is not even a list of things that are not necessarily
> connected: "1) Snape is good, 2) Dumbledore can't be dead, 3)...". 
It
> is clearly "IF Snape is good THEN Dumbledore can't be dead".
> 
> *****************

Interesting.

I drew the opposite conclusion from this transcript.

Rushdie says that if Snape is still a good guy Dumbledore can't 
really be dead.

When JKR says she agrees with his opinion, BUT Dumbledore is DEAD,
I think well, yes..

Snape is a good guy. Dumbledore was dying, and he told Snape to kill 
him. (I know I'm not the only one who espouses this theory). What 
could ingratiate Snape MORE with Voldemort AND his Death Eaters than 
Snape killing Dumbledore?

IF Dumbledore WAS already dying, then why not use his own death to 
establish Snape as a real DE. Then Snape would be in a position to 
help Harry in the Last Battle. (Another scenario is that Snape really 
is a DeathEater but he repents at the last minute, saves Harry and is 
redeemed. You never can tell with double agents).

Evidence that Dumbledore was dying and WANTED to die on that tower -- 
well, Prof. Dumbledore did not have to immobilize Harry when Draco 
appeared. Harry could certainly have given Draco a run for his money, 
and might even have been able to cause enough ruckus, given 
Dumbledore a wand, and prevented DD from dying....

Also, WHERE WAS FAWKES? In every other situation where Dumbledore was 
in trouble (Ministry of Magic, ruckus when Fudge tried to take him in 
DD's office), Fawkes shows up.... More evidence that DD wanted to die 
in such a way to establish Snape as a legitimate DE.

Susan

Want to join Harry Potter for Grownups Over 40? Email me at 
SusanGSMcGee at aol.com






From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Tue Aug 15 10:24:25 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:24:25 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebr1fs+mara@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebs7cp+5fif@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156946

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > >>Renee:
> > <snip>
> > What if Lupin merely wants to avoid suggesting that Harry's rescue 
> > of Sirius has played an indirect role in his resignation? Harry's 
> > despondent enough at the time, thinking he has accomplished       
> > nothing. Also, Lupin knows he deserves to leave anyway, whatever   
> > Snape's motivation is. So he comes up with the - admittedly lame - 
> > Order of Merlin explanation. Note that he doesn't present it as
> > a fact, but as an opinion.
>  If Lupin is lying here, it's a white lie.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Yeeaahh... I tend to agree with you. Only...  It does make Snape out 
> to be petty and childish doesn't it?  "Meh, he made me lose my 
> precious reward so I'll snitch on him and make him lose his job. 
> Nyah."  I see a bit of the classic passive-aggressive stuff Lupin is 
> so very, very good at going on here.  

Renee:
Sure, he's cultivating the idea that Snape is petty and childish, but
I happen to agree with him: Snape can be very petty and childish at
times. Of course, Lupin could have told Harry Snape had merely done
the responsible thing by flushing out the werewolf, but I don't think
Lupin believes this is Snape's only or even his main motivation. He's
 only too aware of Snape's hatred towards the Marauders. As he's not
going to let Snape get away with his revenge by merely calling it an
act of responsibility, he has no qualms attributing a petty motivation
to him. It's his way to get back at Snape. (I, for one, don't believe
Lupin when he says he neither likes nor dislikes Snape, Carol! He's
just trying to be `politically correct', and because he doesn't mean
it, he's not succeeding very well - his words have no discernible
effect on Harry.)
 
Betsy
> I think Lupin lacks the sort of initiative required to 
> become ESE. And I also believe his pleasant passivity hides a wealth 
> of pain. Snape referred to him as weak, and he is. (As he'd admit to 
> you, himself.) But he doesn't have to be. We've seen Lupin take 
> action and he's good at it, a natural leader. He is a good man. Now 
> if only he'd *do* something."

Renee:
This lack of initiative is one of the three main reasons I don't
believe in ESE!Lupin either, the other two being JKR's statements that
she loves him, and the token-good-werewolf thing. He's the prisoner of
his own desire to be harmless and pleasant towards the people he likes
and wants to be liked by. He isn't weak per se (or he could never be a
natural leader); a weak man would have given in to his baser instincts
long before Harry went to Hogwarts. But he tends to, well, emasculate
himself.   

Betsy:
> But yeah, that Lupin is the *only* character to suggest Snape was 
> really *that* interested in an Order of Merlin is enough to help me 
> conclude the exact opposite is probably true.  (I also seriously 
> doubt Snape gave a rat's ass about James's quidditch skills. <g>)
> 

Renee:
It is possible that the initial suggestion was made by Fudge; my
impression is that at some point there was a meeting between DD, Fudge
and Lupin in which DD convinced Fudge of Lupin's good intentions. It
is during this meeting that the Order of Merlin must have come up, or
Lupin wouldn't have known about it. Fudge was the one to witness
Snape's tantrum, and he may have drawn the wrong conclusion from it,
after which Lupin used Fudge's misinterpretation as an explanation to
provide Harry with. 

But I agree with you that Snape doesn't seem interested in the OoM.
The story about Snape envying James for his quidditch skills doesn't
strike me as very plausible either. I bet Lupin brought it up to avoid
discussing the real reasons for Snape's hatred: James's treatment of
Snape (though I don't blame Lupin for not wanting to speak ill of the
dead), and possibly the fact that James got the girl Snape wanted...

Renee
 


  







From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Tue Aug 15 10:47:57 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:47:57 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <000701c6c009$09cc9940$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <ebs8ot+mcvo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156947

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" <mros at ...> wrote:
>
><snippage>
Marion:
> And then there is the Wolfsbane. Is it just me, or do others on this
list also want to *kick* the werewolf for being so incredible cruel to
Snape with that potion? Snape once, as a boy, nearly died because of
an werewolf attack. An attack by Lupin, in fact. The only way he and
the children in his care are safe from Lupin is by brewing a difficult
potion. So he brings it and wants to see Lupin drink it. It's only
after Lupin drinks the stuff that he can feel safe. And Lupin *knows*
this. And then Lupin plays his little 'oh, just put it over there,
I'll drink it later' games.

<some more snippage>
Lupin sits there, smiling, knowing full well that Snape won't sleep,
won't feel *safe* if he doesn't know for sure that Lupin drank that
blasted potion.

Renee:
Are you suggesting Snape is *afraid* of Lupin until he's drunk his
Wolfsbane Potion? But if that's the case, then how do you explain
Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack? If making Lupin drink his
potion was so all-important to him, he wouldn't have wasted precious
time acting out his revenge game on Sirius in the Shack. 

What I see in the scene with Harry is a man trying to assert his hold
on someone who depends on his goodwill. But Lupin doesn't play along.
And I don't see why he should - it wasn't his fault that he nearly
killed Snape. I could see Lupin reason that if he meekly consents to
do what Snape tells him, it might leave Snape with the impression he's
admitting his guilt. And as he doesn't like Snape, he's not going to
please him. Also, if you're dependent on medicine, it both galling and
humiliating to have someone you don't like tell you to take it and
actually trying to supervise you doing so. Especially before a witness
who also happens to be a student of yours. 

Renee  

     






From random832 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 10:47:02 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:47:02 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dursleys and Harry (wasn Re: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book)
In-Reply-To: <ebq8eg+ujtq@eGroups.com>
References: <ebop82+109ed@eGroups.com> <ebq8eg+ujtq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608150347s1defae5ex76357ed599f85209@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156948

On 8/14/06, rlace2003 <rlace2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ashley <aslmiller at ...> wrote:
> > Am I the only one who thinks what the Dursleys did to him was abuse?
>
> Ryan:
>
> I think you'd have a difficult time finding someone who DOESN'T think
> that what the Dursleys did to Harry was abuse.

Lots of people, in claiming that he's not physically abused, tend to
argue the point so passionately as to appear to be saying that what
they did to him was not any kind of abuse.

-- 
Random832



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Tue Aug 15 11:30:14 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 11:30:14 -0000
Subject: What about Harry vs LV  was Re: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebrv7p+ah85@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebsb86+pvs8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156949

With regard to JKR's latest Q&A session, everyone seems to have 
focussed on Snape's allegiance and DD's death. However, I was most 
interested in the following passage;

Martha Hoover: Good evening. Thank you. It has been an honor. This 
evening my question for you is, what is the one question your fans have 
never asked you and should have? (Crowd laughs and applauds)

JK Rowling: Oh god. (Crowd laughs) How can I answer that? I can think 
of a couple of things that give away the ending of book seven. (Crowd 
laughs) Having got this far
.having got 16 years down the line, I kind 
of feel that would throw it away. (Crowd laughs) For me, anyway, having 
put the effort in. I think that I've been asked excellent questions, 
it's just that the final book contains a couple of pieces of 
information that I don't think you could guess at.

IMHO, this must concern how Harry is going to defeat LV. I think we all 
feel that Harry will defeat LV, and therefore exactly how the Horcruxes 
will be destroyed is a moot point! Snape's allegiance is a fascinating 
plot point, but when all is said and done, the final duel is between 
Harry & LV. And as DD put it, it will take exceptional skill to defeat 
LV even without his Horcruxes.

Therefore, how exactly will Harry defeat LV? Harry's scar/Lily's 
blood/Harry's ability to love/Can't be guessed at?

The only thing that I continually come up with is the Gryffindor v 
Slytherin link. Lily (no idea how) and Harry are the heirs of 
Gryffindor. Gryffindor & Slytherin were best of friends. There is some 
pact between them? Even as I write it down I see the flaws e.g. if 
there is a link, why could it not save Lily!

OK, I give up!

Brothergib








From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 13:22:25 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:22:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dursleys and Harry (wasn Re: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608150347s1defae5ex76357ed599f85209@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20060815132225.31159.qmail@web39504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156950



--- Jordan Abel <random832 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/14/06, rlace2003 <rlace2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Ashley <aslmiller at ...> wrote:
> > > Am I the only one who thinks what the Dursleys
> did to him was abuse?

Parisfan writes:

You are not the only one who thinks that what Harry
went through with his Aunt and Uncle was abusive. It
is not like they (his aunt and uncle) treated Harry
like a prince like Dudley was.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug 15 10:11:25 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:11:25 -0000
Subject: Dudley's friends
In-Reply-To: <ebrqsr+s41t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebs6kd+8fcn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156951

steve_savitsky:
Okay, I thought Dudley had a 2nd buddy, but I was rereading SS, and saw
only the name Piers Polkiss. Wasn't there a second friend to Dudley?

*Tinktonks says:

Dudley's gang are Piers, Malcolm, Dennis and Gordon. This is stated in
letters from no-one in PS/S.

Tinktonks










From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug 15 10:46:07 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:46:07 -0000
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book
In-Reply-To: <002501c6bfdd$2992ec10$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3>
Message-ID: <ebs8lf+7n81@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156952

Now Phil:
I do not think Jo will want to be known as the, "Life sucks and then
you die lady" Harry will live, but he will also have to defeat
Voldemort without killing him, for if he kills him Harry will split
his soul. After all the prophecy says Harry only needs to vanquish
Voldemort, not kill him.

Stacy:
I firmly believe Harry will live, but I don't really have any quotes
from  canon to back up my conviction. However, I hardly think JKR
wants to be known as "she-who-killed-off-the-boy-who-lived."  How
could she ever overcome such a  reputation?  Even if Harry vanquishes
Voldemort as he dies, readers could just place JKR in Voldemort's
vacated spot as the next dark lord for killing off such a beloved
character.
:) Stacy.

Tinktonks says:

I dont think Harry will become a murderer. I think JKR puts hints to
this in the books fairly regularly, firstly DD has stated clearly
that there are much worse things than death, I think that this is a
hint to LV's fate. He also says that he wouldn't need to kill him to
destroy him!!! There are also references from Harry in PoA that his
dad wouldn't have wanted his friends to become murderers for
Wormtail. I think these are all strong things that suggest that the
good guys have other options to killing.

Also I think that the constant references to divination being
a `woolly' subject and highly unreliable are important.

Yes Trelawney is usually an old fraud but has had genuine trances. But
even DD is not convinced that real prophecies have meaning. He tells
Harry that the prophecy is self fulfilling only because he and LV
make it so.

I say DD's right. It is our choices! Harry can chose not to fulfil
the prophecy in my opinion and I think his previous behaviour shows
this will be his choice.

He hated Sirius and felt like murdering him but did not, he was
revolted at Wormtail but spared him. He felt a rage like he had never
known at Bellatrix yet still could not crucio her. He does not truly
want to cause suffering even when it is righteous and even justified!

Tinktonks (who is keen to see LV's downfall at his own hands!)










From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 13:30:57 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:30:57 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebqprj+s4f5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebsiah+675g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156953

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...>
wrote:

> The time turner: it's the one place JKR *shouldn't* have gone.
>


Ryan:

Well. . . they've been destroyed now, anyway.

Ryan










From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 15 14:10:32 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 07:10:32 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dursleys and Harry (wasn Re: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608150347s1defae5ex76357ed599f85209@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1GCzcv-0003MG-R0@elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 156954

> Ashley 
> > Am I the only one who thinks what the Dursleys did to him was abuse?
>
> Ryan:
>
> I think you'd have a difficult time finding someone who DOESN'T think 
> that what the Dursleys did to Harry was abuse.


Random832
Lots of people, in claiming that he's not physically abused, tend to argue
the point so passionately as to appear to be saying that what they did to
him was not any kind of abuse.

--

Sherry now:

I consider locking a child in a cupboard, putting bars on his window and
starving him to be abuse, both physical and mental.  However, for more
evidence, in HBP, chapter three, when Harry is coming down the stairs to
meet Dumbledore, there is this juicy little throw away line,

"long experience had taught Harry to stay out of the reach of Uncle Vernon's
arm..."

I am not quoting that directly, going on memory, as my books are packed
away.  But my paraphrase is essentially correct, and I've quoted it verbatim
here before.  That line tells me, Harry had a reason to fear getting within
arm's reach of Vernon Dursley.

They also let Dudley beat him up regularly, and Vernon even tells Dudley to
hit Harry with his Smelting Stick.

That's why I love chapter three of HBP, because I love every minute of
seeing the Dursleys get even a tiny bit back of what they deserve after
treating any child as they did Harry.

Sherry




From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 15 15:23:00 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:23:00 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebsiah+675g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebsosk+10b44@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156955

> Ken H:
> > The time turner: it's the one place JKR *shouldn't* have gone.
> >
> Ryan:
> Well. . . they've been destroyed now, anyway.

Eddie:
Maybe.  Hermione (I believe) says all the time turners at the ministry
(!) were destroyed, but that doesn't mean all time turners in
existence were destroyed.  Notably, McGonagall had one at Hogwarts but
we don't know for sure that it was returned to the ministry before the
TT-destroying battle.

Despite all that, solving all the series' problems with a back-in-time
solution is just too cliche and I think Rowling will avoid that trap.

Eddie, who still fervently wants to believe that Dumbledore's "auburn
hair" is somehow related to the Weasley's red hair... maybe through
time travel?







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 16:40:28 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:40:28 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <001d01c6c005$617f9b00$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <ebstds+esrr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156956

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" <dontask2much at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Something's been bugging me - please note, I don't have answers but 
I do 
> have some intriguing questions. So, let's go waaa-aay back to the 
beginning, 
> shall we?  <snip>
> McGonagall goes on to express shock that Dumbledore would consider 
leaving 
> Harry with the Dursleys, *whom she has been watching all day.*  
Question: 
> Why has she been watching them *all day*? (She states she doesn't 
know what 
> Dumbledore's plan is, nor that the rumors about James, Lily and 
Harry were 
> true) While Hagrid told her that Dumbledore would be there, he 
evidently 
> didn't tell her why nor what time. Because McGonagall has been 
there *all 
> day* - what was so important that she had to to watch the Dursleys 
waiting 
> for Dumbledore to arrive for some unknown purpose to her?
> 
> Don't know about you folks, but it's intriguing to me.  Anyone with 
> thoughts, please share because it's driving me nuts! :)
> 
> 
> 
> Rebecca, who also noted that McGonagall is described as a "severe 
looking 
> woman" and wonders about relations to another "severe" 
individual....

>Carodave:
I wondered about this as well.  It only makes sense that amid all the 
rumors, McGonagall would want to hear confirmation directly from 
Dumbledore himself.  She wouldn't want to join in any feasts or 
celebrations until she hears for sure - from DD - that the rumors are 
true.  Maybe Hagrid was under orders of secrecy - we've seen before 
that he can't keep a secret - and let it accidentally slip that he 
would be meeting DD on Privet Drive - and then caught himself and 
refused to give any more info?  He's done that to HRH several times - 
let slip one piece of the puzzle and then refuse to say another 
word "it's more'n me job is worth" In that case, McGonagall would be 
forced to wait there until DD arrived.  Just my two knuts...

Carodave







From drcarole71 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 17:19:40 2006
From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:19:40 -0000
Subject: Snape at Grimmauld Place
Message-ID: <ebsvnc+mqgp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156957

On page 77 of OOP, in chapeter 5, Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place, Ron 
and Harry are about to go downstairs for dinner when they see Snape.  
Ron tells Harry, "Snape never eats here".  
Why doesn't Snape eat there?  Is he trying to avoid being given 
Veritaserum in his butterbeer?
Carole






From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 14:03:31 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:03:31 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <000701c6c009$09cc9940$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <ebsk7j+ertq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156958

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" <mros at ...> wrote:
> 
> And of course there is the fact that Lupin calls Snape 'Severus' in 
front of the pupils. I'm not sure I'm right about this, but I believe 
that none of the teachers ever call eachother by their first names in 
front of the students. Snape certainly doesn't. He might call 
McGonegal 'Minerva' in private, but he wouldn't do so in front of the 
students. It's professional courtesy in part, just like, and part of, 
the fact that the teachers will form a unity in front of the 
students. By denying that professional courtesy, by denying him his 
title of 'professor', Lupin is *very* passive-agressive.
>
Ryan:

Actually, Dumbledore addresses professors by first name in front of 
students (at least Harry's crew) fairly often.  Actually, Dumbledore 
is nearly unique among the professors in that he often addresses 
students by their first names, too. 

Ryan











From bear81999 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 16:06:32 2006
From: bear81999 at yahoo.com (bear81999)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:06:32 -0000
Subject: Two theories on Dumbledore...
Message-ID: <ebsre8+6r37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156959

I have two possible theories about Dumbledore being alive. The first
is not quite as probable as my second, but I shall mention it anyway.
I think Dumbledore transformed himself, or had someone else do it for
him, at his funeral into a Pheonix, causing him to come back to life
as the blue Pheonix that HP sees flying away. Could be.

Secondly, I think Dumbledore was never killed, but Snape hit him with
a fake spell and Dumbledore drank a time-released Draught of the
Living Dead, which would explain why his portrait in the Headmaster's
Room is asleep. :)


bear8199






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 17:48:58 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:48:58 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
Message-ID: <ebt1ea+udgh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156960

Amanda wrote: 
> I'm not much a talker on this group, actually not at all, but I was
reading a lot of theories where everyone thinks that Harry is a
Horcrux.  I personally don't think that is possible. From A Sluggish
Memory: where Slughorn is explaining how a Horcrux works.  Voldemort
has to kill someone and then split his soul to implant it into another
person.  Remember what Dumbledore explaining to Harry the number of
horcruxes created and that he didn't make the 6th Horcrux at Godric's
Hollow as he planned.  Dumbledore said, "Voldemort was still at least
one Horcrux short of his goal of six when he entered your parents'
house with intention to kill you.  He seems to have reserved the
process of making Horcruxes for particularly significant deaths.. I am
sure that he was intending to make his final Horcrux with your death".
 p 473 HBP (British Edition: hardcover).  He had planned to use
Harry's MURDER as his sixth Horcrux, not Harry as the Horcrux. 
Voldemort would have wanted Harry to survive in order to have Harry as
his Horcrux. Harry dead, would not help his case for immortality. 
Instead he made it with the Muggle Frank Bryce.  From this we can
conclude that he did not use Harry as a Horcrux.  He could not have
been; Voldy lost his powers before he could perform the powerful spell
to create the Horcrux.  Dumbledore also thinks that Nagini is the 6th
Horcrux, and how often is Dumbledore wrong?!!!!! <snip>

Carol responds:
Hi, Amanda. You're not the only one who thinks that Harry is not a
Horcrux. However, Dumbledore is only deducing, based on what he knows
of Horcruxes and Riddle/Voldemort, not stating facts, so he could be
wrong on more than one point. (He does seem to be wrong in stating
that Voldemort used Nagini to kill frank Bryce, but that could just be
a Flint.) I happen to think that Nagini *is* a Horcrux, but that she
was made one much earlier, and with a more significant murder than
Frank Bryce's. Also, Voldemort wsn't really in any condition to make a
Horcrux using Frank's murder--he was in fetal form (Baby!mort), barely
able to hold a wand and wholly dependent on Wormtail to feed him, etc.
Since creating Horcruxes seems to involve some sort of physical
transformation (smearing his features or making him more snakelike) I
don't think he would or could have done it then, if only because
Wormtail would be surprised by any change in his appearance and might
start arriving at his own conclusions about LV's immortality. Since LV
was already snakelike before Godric's Hollow (the DEs in the graveyard
recognize him and show no surprise or horror at his appearance), I
think Nagini was already a Horcrux before GH--which does not make
Dumbledore wrong about LV still being one Horcrux short at Godric's
Hollow--he would have the ring, the locket, the cup, something from
Ravenclaw, and Nagini. So he could still want to use Harry's murder to
create a Horcrux, but he certainly would not have intentionally made
Harry, the Prophecy Boy he wants to kill, into a Horcrux.

So, in essence I agree with you, and I agree that it's probably
impossible to create an accidental Horcrux. However, the procedure
seems to be killing a person, which automatically splits the soul,
then casting some sort of spell (I suspect that an elaborate ritual is
involved since this is magic of the Darkest sort). I agree that the
killing precedes the Horcrux creation--LV doesn't prepare a Horcrux
and bring it with him to the murder scene as some people have
suggested), but he wouldn't use Harry's murder *as* a Horcrux; he
would use it to *create* one--after the fact and in secrecy, without
Wormtail or anyone else being present to witness its creation.

What object he would have used, we don't know--perhaps he was still
hoping to obtain something from Gryffindor at a later time--but it
certainly would not have been Harry or the scar that did not exist
until the AK backfired (and actually, it was a cut, not a scar, at
that point).

I think that some of the powers that Voldemort lost when the AK
backfired went into Harry through that open cut. (How LV regained
them, we don't know, but it's canonical that he did, and it certainly
was not done by recovering lost soul bits.) I don't think that the
powers are in the soul. Magic seems to be in the blood, so maybe a bit
of LV's blood got into Harry's cut at GH. That makes more sense to me
than a soul bit getting in. IMO, when a soul bit escapes from a
destroyed Horcrux, it goes wherever the soul of a dead person goes
(beyond the Veil?). If LV had any loose soul bits--and he'd committed
a lot of murders that weren't used for Horcruxes--they would, IMO,
have floated off and been lost. But I don't think they were actually
loose, or he'd have considerably less than one seventh of a soul
(let's not look into the mechanics of soul-splitting and how
equal-sized parts could be removed, each one exactly one-seventh
regardless of how many murders he had committed!). I think that they
were split off through the act of murder but not actually detached or
removed from the main soul--the Horcrux-creating spell would be
required to detach the soul bit and encase it in something other than
the murderer's body--a complex bit of magic that can't be performed
accidentally.

It's much simpler and cleaner for Harry to have acquired some of LV's
powers without acquiring a bit of his tainted soul, which IMO his body
would reject in any case because of the love magic, just as love
forced Voldemort himself out of Harry when he attempted to possess him
physically. If Harry is a Horcrux, I see no way for him to destroy
Voldemort without dying at the exact same time. (How can he
kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is dead? And how can
he kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is still alive?
We'd be back to Vapormort, with no Chosen One to destroy him. If Harry
*isn't a Horcrux, then JKR doesn't have to deal wit this vicious
circle of unnecessary plot complications.)

In any case, Harry!Horcrux is *not* a given, and not everyone accepts
the theory. I am quite sure that DD would have thought of it and
mentioned it to Harry when he told him "everything." It has already
been established that Harry is not possessed or possessable. I'm
pretty sure that he's not "Horcruxable," either, and that Harry
acquired some of LV's *powers,* as DD has said at least twice, without
acquiring any of that filthy and contaminated soul.

Carol, who can provide links to her other "Harry is not a Horcrux"
posts if anybody wants them







From unix4evr at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 17:48:22 2006
From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:48:22 -0000
Subject: Snape at Slughorn's Party
Message-ID: <ebt1d6+oria@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156961

I'm re-reading HBP (actually reading it to my 7 year old at bedtime).  
We were just reading about Slughorn's party which Draco crashes.

Snape is angry and upset to see Draco crash the party.

Why?

Draco is nasty to Snape (he thinks Snape wants to steal his thunder) 
but there was something in the way JKR worded Snape's reaction that 
makes me think it is important.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?






From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 17:36:13 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:36:13 -0000
Subject: Snape at Grimmauld Place
In-Reply-To: <ebsvnc+mqgp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt0md+r897@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156962

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drcarole71" <drcarole71 at ...>
wrote:
>
> On page 77 of OOP, in chapeter 5, Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place, Ron
> and Harry are about to go downstairs for dinner when they see Snape.
> Ron tells Harry, "Snape never eats here".
> Why doesn't Snape eat there?  Is he trying to avoid being given
> Veritaserum in his butterbeer?

robertpatrickallen:
Snape doesn't eat there because he HATES Sirius and Lupin. He
obviously doesn't like being around Sirius. Let's not get overly
paranoid about little stuff. Snape not eating there is just a character
trait.











From mros at xs4all.nl  Tue Aug 15 08:36:39 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:36:39 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
References: <ebrel9+oe2u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001701c6c045$edc142e0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156963

Julie:
>>>I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
some vituperous commentary over that demand. Instead Dumbledore
recognizes his *own* error in expecting Snape and Harry get 
beyond their extreme animosity toward each other. (And, yes, 
he did lay it on Snape's wounds that are too deep to heal, but
I'm sure he knows Harry's unauthorized snooping in the pensieve
rubbed salt directly in those wounds. He just didn't feel it
necessary to kick Harry when he's down by pointing this out).<<<

Snow:

>>>Dumbledore made a mistake that he had trusted Snape too much. 
Dumbledore put too much faith in the fact that Snape could be trusted 
to do anything Dumbledore asked of him, it was a mistake but one that 
didn't scrap the plan, it just made it a bit harder. <<<


Marion
Snow, Julie (and Betsy) are talking about wether Dumbledore trusted Snape completely or not, they are not talking about wether Dumbledore was right or wrong to trust Snape completely. Wether Dumbledore was right or wrong to trust Snape is a matter of *opinion* and will only be resolved after book 7 has come out.
To say that Dumbledore didn't trust Snape completely because it would be wrong for him to do so is a logical fallacy. (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_fallacy )
You're basically saying "If Dumbledore trusted Snape completely, Snape would be trustworthy. Snape was not trustworthy, therefore Dumbledore did not trust Snape completely."
But you're also saying "Dumbledore admitted to making mistakes, therefore his trust of Snape was a mistake" and "Dumbledore said he trusted Snape, but since Snape can not be trusted, Dumbledore is lying."
There are actually several logical fallacies at work here, from ad hominem to affirming the consequent.
Your opinion on what a character in a book *should* feel has no influence to what that character *actually* feels. Dumbledore is not infallible. He's not in the habit of lying, though. If he says that he trusts Snape completely, we have no reason to believe otherwise. Wether Dumbledore was right or wrong about Snape does not in retrospect make him a liar. The fact that Dumbledore *can* be wrong does not automatically mean that he is wrong to have trusted Snape (we won't know that until book 7, until that time all speculation is based on opinion)
I won't even go into the whole can of worms about the black and white thinking which dictates that "if Snape was trustworthy, he wouldn't have killed Dumbledore". I'll just say that after the PoA every HP fan would be wary of 'open and shut cases'. ("Sirius Black is a traitor and a mass-murderer. He killed 13 muggles - we have witnesses! - and betrayed the Potters. In fact, because Black was untrustworthy, the Potters never trusted Black completely, even though they said so and made him Godfather of their son.")

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






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 15 18:05:15 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:05:15 -0000
Subject: Snape at Slughorn's Party
In-Reply-To: <ebt1d6+oria@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt2cr+m1sm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156964

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "UNIX4EVR" <unix4evr at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm re-reading HBP (actually reading it to my 7 year old at 
bedtime).  
> We were just reading about Slughorn's party which Draco crashes.
> 
> Snape is angry and upset to see Draco crash the party.
> 
> Why?

Magpie:
Well, remember Draco isn't crashing the party at all.  He was caught 
by Filch on his way to the Vanishing Cabinet and just gave going to 
the party as an invited guest as an excuse why he was out of bed. 
Once Filch actually drags him to the party to check he claims he was 
trying to crash.  The look of fear Harry sees on Snape's face is, I 
assume, because Snape knows Draco is working on killing Dumbledore 
in some way and he (Snape) is in the dark as to how, so can't stop 
him.

And Draco, of course, is trying to keep Snape from finding out.  
Given the Snape Draco thinks he knows, it's actually fairly 
reasonable for Draco to think this.  DE!Snape has no altruistic 
reason to do anything--DEs just try to win glory from Voldemort.  I 
like to also think Draco's having a breakdown in terms of all his 
previously trusted authority figures, and Snape is getting anger 
directed at him that's more properly directed at Draco's situation, 
atLucius, for everything.  Which Snape probably understands--but 
that still makes everything more risky, because Snape knows he's not 
in control of the situation.

-m






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 18:22:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:22:56 -0000
Subject: Lupin and "Severus" (Was: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading)
In-Reply-To: <ebs7cp+5fif@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt3e0+107gr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156965

Renee wrote:
<snip> (I, for one, don't believe
> Lupin when he says he neither likes nor dislikes Snape, Carol! He's
> just trying to be `politically correct', and because he doesn't mean
> it, he's not succeeding very well - his words have no discernible
> effect on Harry.)
<snip>
> 
> But I agree with you that Snape doesn't seem interested in the OoM.
> The story about Snape envying James for his quidditch skills doesn't
> strike me as very plausible either. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with the second point. Young Snape's envy of James, if that's
what it was, would IMO have had more to do with the recognition he
received for his talents than the talents themselves (Severus had
plenty of talents of his own) and Lupin was either guessing at a
motivation or trying to conceal the real one. And we know from PoA
that the Order of Merlin isn't the reason for Snape's anger and
disappointment. Your explanation that Lupin heard about the OoM from
Fudge is as plausible as any.

However, I still think that Lupin is genuinely grateful to Snape for
preparing the Wolfsbane potion that saved him so much pain in the year
that he (Lupin) taught DADA, and he still has some leftover guilt for
the Pensieve incident, when he knows he should have performed his
Prefect duties instead of letting James and Sirius get away with their
bullying behavior, which he knows was unprovoked or he would have said
so to Harry. He knows that Snape's continuing hatred of James and
Sirius is partly his own fault. And he knows that he could indeed have
killed Teen!Snape or turned him into a werewolf if James hadn't
rescued Severus. 

In OOP, he tells Harry that "Snape" (not "severus") is a "superb
Occlumens" and that it's important for Harry to overcome his dislike
of Snape and learn to protect himself (OoP am. ed. 527). Contrast his
attitude with that of Black, who gives Harry the two-way mirror in
case Snape gives him a hard time--a most unhelpful gesture since Harry
 already distrusts Snape, which interferes with the lessons almost as
much as Harry's desire to finish his dream does.

I think that Lupin really is attempting to be fair and objective, and
certainly he doesn't hate Snape the way Sirius Black does--with a
prejudice deepened by the knowledge that Snape was once a Death Eater.
Lupin, in contrast, accepts Dumbledore's assurance that Snape is on
their side--until the events on the tower, as reported by Harry, cause
him to lose his equanimity. But if anyone is going to figure out that
Snape acted for the general good as opposed to the individual good of
a dying old man, it will, IMO, be Lupin--perhaps with Hermione's help.

One more point before I forget--Harry's reaction (or nonreaction) to
Lupin's has no bearing on whether they're true or not. He already
wants to believe the worst of Snape. (I do wonder, though, whether
Lupin knew that Teen!Snape had invented Levicorpus and, if so, why he
concealed that information from Harry.)

Carol, who still thinks that Lupin really does "neither like nor
dislike Severus," but wonders about the change from "Snape" in OoP to
"Severus" in HBP






From farrahrani at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 02:35:27 2006
From: farrahrani at yahoo.com (farrah rani)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:35:27 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <001d01c6c005$617f9b00$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <ebrbtf+ivdu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156966

Rebecca <dontask2much at ...> wrote:
> <snip>
> McGonagall goes on to express shock that Dumbledore
> would consider leaving Harry with the Dursleys, *whom
> she has been watching all day.* Question: Why has she
> been watching them *all day*? (She states she doesn't
> know what Dumbledore's plan is, nor that the rumors
> about James, Lily and Harry were true.) While Hagrid
> told her that Dumbledore would be there, he evidently
> didn't tell her why nor what time. Because McGonagall
> has been there *all day* - what was so important that
> she had to to watch the Dursleys waiting for Dumbledore
> to arrive for some unknown purpose to her? <snip>

"farrah rani":
Good question...maybe as you said, she didn't know if the rumors
were true, and figured the best way of finding out, would be to
watch LILY'S SISTER and her family to see if there were any
reactions to go by. Maybe she didn't put much trust in the rumors
of the wizarding world, and thought to get a better gauge of the
truth by watching the next of kin?









From mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 02:39:53 2006
From: mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com (Lady Lawyer)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:39:53 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Will Harry really die in the 7 th book / The Veil
Message-ID: <20060815023953.82452.qmail@web55703.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156967

I agree with you.  I think Harry will have to take Voldemort through 
the Veil to kill him, and sacrifice himself. Probably because Harry 
can't find all the Horcruxes and can't "kill" Voldemort. If Harry 
can't kill Voldemort he has to take him out of circulation and the 
only way to do that to an immortal is take them through the veil to 
whatever lies beyond. The veil is one of those pervasive symbols of 
death and transformation present in many cultures.  It has to be 
really important.
   
  And what of the nature of what lies through the veil?  For want of 
a better name, it has to be the "afterlife" but sort of a Hitchiker's 
Guide to the Galaxy version of the Afterlife.  You can be alive when 
you go through the veil but you can't come back so you are dead once 
you go through it.  But it represents a thin membrane between this 
life and the next.

 Lady Lawyer 		





From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 14:09:07 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:09:07 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <001d01c6c005$617f9b00$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <ebski3+2ccu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156968

Rebecca <dontask2much at ...> wrote:
> <snip> While Hagrid told her that Dumbledore would be there,
> he evidently didn't tell her why nor what time. Because
> McGonagall has been there *all day* - what was so important
> that she had to to watch the Dursleys waiting for Dumbledore
> to arrive for some unknown purpose to her?


Ryan:

It could just be that Hagrid told her to wait for Dumbledore outside
Number 4 and she watched the Dursleys simply because they're the
residents of Number 4.

Not a very interesting hypothesis, but it seems the most likely
scenario to me.

Ryan









From foxmoth at qnet.com  Tue Aug 15 18:36:39 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:36:39 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebs7cp+5fif@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt47n+o7dv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156969


> > > > >>Renee:
> > > <snip>
> > > What if Lupin merely wants to avoid suggesting that Harry's rescue 
> > > of Sirius has played an indirect role in his resignation? Harry's 
> > > despondent enough at the time, thinking he has accomplished       
> > > nothing. Also, Lupin knows he deserves to leave anyway, whatever   
> > > Snape's motivation is. So he comes up with the - admittedly lame - 
> > > Order of Merlin explanation. Note that he doesn't present it as
> > > a fact, but as an opinion.
> >  If Lupin is lying here, it's a white lie.
> > 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > Yeeaahh... I tend to agree with you. Only...  It does make Snape out 
> > to be petty and childish doesn't it?  "Meh, he made me lose my 
> > precious reward so I'll snitch on him and make him lose his job. 
> > Nyah."  I see a bit of the classic passive-aggressive stuff Lupin is 
> > so very, very good at going on here.  
> 
> Renee:
> Sure, he's cultivating the idea that Snape is petty and childish, but
> I happen to agree with him: Snape can be very petty and childish at
> times. 

Pippin:
If it's Lupin's intention to smear Snape's character then it's hardly a
white lie. Lupin himself admits that that he did put children
in danger and the parents have a point about not wanting him to 
teach, but he imputes no such benign intention to Snape. There
is nothing in canon to say that Snape does not take his 
responsibilities as Head of House seriously. Why on earth
wouldn't he be concerned about his students with a werewolf
loose on the grounds?

All this duplicity has to be in the story for a reason. Why is it
there? So Harry can discover that (gasp!) Lupin is weak? That
Lupin doesn't actually like Snape very much? ::raises eyebrow::


Watching the BBC's version of Pride and Prejudice the other
day,  I noted that what the  characters say as they try
 to dismiss their concerns  about Wickham makes them sound
very much like some real life Lupin supporters I've heard. Yes,
he did a terrible thing, but he must have changed, he's such a 
nice person, and he's suffered so. 

Of course it turns out that they're kidding themselves -- the
P&P characters, that is. <g> Brooding, bitter Mr Darcy  is 
the one who is good, and Wickham, the likeable fellow with all 
the appearance of goodness, is the villain. Hmmmm.

> Betsy
> > I think Lupin lacks the sort of initiative required to 
> > become ESE. 

Pippin:
He says that he led his friends to become Animagi. He
easily took command of his class. Sirius does what Lupin says. 

> Renee:
> This lack of initiative is one of the three main reasons I don't
> believe in ESE!Lupin either, the other two being JKR's statements that
> she loves him, and the token-good-werewolf thing. 

Pippin:
She says she loves all her characters, including the bad guys. And
I don't believe that JKR approves of tokenism. It's a much stronger 
message if Harry still believes that werewolves should have the
same rights that wizards do even after he learns that
Lupin has betrayed him.

Pippin
who notes that Fenrir is in good physical shape and that
Lupin's deterioriation is similar to Draco's.







From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 15:15:26 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:15:26 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
Message-ID: <ebsoee+s3dq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156970

I originally thought that Harry was a Horcrux when I read HBP. Then I
went back and reread GOF and realized that it wasn't possible. The
reason Voldemort fell was because his spell rebounded off of Harry and
hit him. The spell he cast that rebounded was Avada Kadavera. Otherwise
nothing would have happened to him.

If Voldemort cast a spell to make Harry a Horcrux then he simply would
have bounced his own soul off of Harry and back into himself. What
caused him to fall was that he was hit with his own killing curse...but
we now know that since he had horcruzes he couldn't fully die. Not to
mention that Voldemort tries to kill Harry in GOF, which if for some
reason Harry was a Horcrux, would be very foolish.

Right now Harry can't fight Voldi because their wands share the same
core. That is why Voldi kidnapped Olivander so he could force him to
make a new wand so that Voldemort could finish Harry himself.

Robert







From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 18:13:08 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:13:08 -0000
Subject: Two theories on Dumbledore...
In-Reply-To: <ebsre8+6r37@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt2rk+ehsg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156971

bear81999 <bear81999 at ...> wrote:
>
> I have two possible theories about Dumbledore being alive.
> <snip>

Ryan:

The only problem is that about 2 weeks ago JKR stated firmly
that "Dumbledore is definitely dead."
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:eventreports/jkrnycnight2

Ryan









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 18:48:45 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:48:45 -0000
Subject: What about Harry vs LV?  was Re: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebsb86+pvs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt4ud+ql50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156972

Brothergib wrote:
<snip>
> The only thing that I continually come up with is the Gryffindor v 
> Slytherin link. Lily (no idea how) and Harry are the heirs of 
> Gryffindor. <snip>
>
Carol responds:
JKR has pretty much shot down the theory that Harry is 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.

MA: Another one bites the dust.

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm

Carol again:
However, there's still the theory that *Dumbledore* was the Heir of
Gryffindor, supported (IMO) by his owning Fawkes and the Sword of
Gryffindor, and perhaps by the griffin door (Gryffindor) knocker. (Was
the house at Godric's Hollow his? Is Aberforth the new Heir of
Gryffindor?)

Carol, noting that JKR remarked on Dumbledore's family as (IIRC) "a
profitable line of inquiry)







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 18:51:14 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:51:14 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebpd7b+10krd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt532+63pf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156973

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "raymond300659"
<raymonddavenport at ...> wrote:
>
> Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? Everyone 
> thinks Aberforth is the barman at the Hogs Head. What 
> if Albus and Aberforth are twins? JKR says look at 
> Dumbledore`s family and says Dumbledore is dead but
> does not use a forname so using this thought which died?
> 
> Raymond.
>


bboyminn:

This is certainly an interesting thought, but I don't 
see it as a productive line of inquiry.

Dumbledore is dead; that statement was made in a certain
context, and the context of the conversation is clear 
that JKR means ALBUS Dumbledore. She shouldn't have to
weigh every statement and spell things out with the 
precision of a lawyer.

Also, Harry saw Aberforth at Dumbledore's funeral and 
recognises him as such. Harry doesn't know that the 
barman is Dumbledore's brother, but he does know that 
he is the barman of The Hog's Head, and recognises him
as being so. 

I don't see any real plot reason for Aberforth and Albus
to change places other than a desperate hope of keeping 
Albus alive. Further, when Harry and Albus are together 
before the cave, in the cave, and after the cave, Albus 
is very much IN character. There is nothing inconsistent 
about the way he acts; he acts exactly as we would expect 
Albus Dumbledore to act.

If JKR were really going to make this switch, she would
have dropped some clues. Albus would have been acting odd
or out of character in a way that we could discount it in
the moment, but see it after the fact. I see no such hints.

It's an interesting thought, but just that and no more.

Steve/bboyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 19:04:58 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:04:58 -0000
Subject: Snape at Grimmauld Place
In-Reply-To: <ebt0md+r897@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt5sq+gbg6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156974

"drcarole71" wrote:
> >
> > On page 77 of OOP, in chapeter 5, Number Twelve, Grimmauld Place,
Ron and Harry are about to go downstairs for dinner when they see
Snape. Ron tells Harry, "Snape never eats here".
> > Why doesn't Snape eat there?  Is he trying to avoid being given
Veritaserum in his butterbeer?
> 
> robertpatrickallen:
> Snape doesn't eat there because he HATES Sirius and Lupin. He
> obviously doesn't like being around Sirius. Let's not get overly
> paranoid about little stuff. Snape not eating there is just a
character trait.
>
Carol (not drcarole) responds:
Drcarole isn't being paranoid. It's a legitimate question. Certainly,
Snape doesn't like Sirius Black and it's mutual. He wouldn't want to
eat with Black any more than Black would want his food served to snape
(not that he would prepare it himself). But Snape also has an image to
keep up for the DEs that he's spying on, and eating or socializing
with the Order members would spoil the effect. He has to remain aloof,
which happens to suit his preferences perfectly. I doubt that he eats
with the Weasleys, either. Too many Gryffindors, none of whom really
likes him (however interested they appear to be in his reports).

Carol, who used to be DrCarol but changed her ID because people
thought a PhD didn't make me "a real doctor"






From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 15:28:36 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:28:36 -0000
Subject: How and When (Re: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebrv7p+ah85@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebsp74+sn9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156975

> > <hickengruendler@> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > JK Rowling: Well, Salman, your opinion, I would say, is right.
> > But I see that I need to be a little more explicit and say that
> > Dumbledore is definitely dead.

maria8162001:

Hi, I've read all the transcripts and watched the video of the said
Reading and I've also read all the posts regarding this topic. I
have a theory of my own which I can't quite formulate as English is
not my mother tongue. But with all this questions whether Dumbledore
is dead or not, I remember that in one of JKR's interviews she
mentioned that what we should know is when and how DD died. I think
her answer didn't create much talks because everybody just assumed
they already know how and when DD died after reading the HBP. I do
not know if any of you read or remember that interview. I don't know
when it was but it was in one of the reading she'd been doing right
after the HBP. I will try look and read again all her interviews
from last year maybe I will find it.

Another thing, in the Radio city reading a child asked her if "we
have a chance to see DD in action once again since he is the most
powerful wizard of all time and Harry Potter is so loyal to him how
could he really be dead?" Her answer on this question is this "I
really can't answer that question because the answers are in book
7, but you shouldn't expect Dumbledore to do a Gandalf." What do you
think of her answer because to me her answer comes like we are still
going to see DD in book 7 even when he is already dead (maybe guiding
Harry) yet not in the way Ghandalf died and rose in the LOTR. The
one thing I would really like to know is when and how DD died (if I
remember JKR's words correctly). Any thought?
I'm off to search  all JKR's interviews from last year. Thanks.

maria8162001, who thinks DD time travel or time turned from the
future to change some events that might have lead to a disastrous
future/fight against LV, and one of the events that need changing is
that he needs to die in the past, one reason also why DD knows so
much about Harry outside Hogwarts, seconds or minutes after they
happen. ala DragonBallZ with trunks :-).










From mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 02:42:29 2006
From: mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com (Lady Lawyer)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Prefects
Message-ID: <20060815024229.46401.qmail@web55702.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156976

Carodave:
> Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th years 
> and 7th years)? That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of
> Indians.

Lady Lawyer:
I don't know how the prefect system works but it's only two people 
from each year, a girl and a boy, so 14 in all, plus head boy and 
head girl.  That's not too many I don't think.







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 19:14:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:14:24 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebqprj+s4f5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt6eg+ca8a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156977

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...>
wrote:
>
> > 
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > ...I think Lupin's aging is related to the tremendous
> > level of stress he endures in his daily life and in 
> > his werewolf transformations.
> > 
> > 
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > ... To age one extra year over the course of three normal
> > years, one would have to engage ... 2,920 hours per year.
> ... the average 40 hour work week ... 2080 hours per year.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> I agree that the stress of being a werewolf ....
> ...
>  But, it wouldn't be hard to age yourself an extra year, 
> just give that time turner one mighty spin and you'd go 
> back a year easily. 
> ...
> The time turner: it's the one place JKR *shouldn't* have
> gone.
> 
> Ken
>

bboyminn:

The only time turners we have seen work in one hour increments. There
could be others, but we've only seen 'hour' Time Turners.

So, assuming one turn per second of time, the time turner would have
to spin for 2.4 continuous hours to go back a year. Two spins per
second would mean 1.7 hours of spinning. Not impossible, but that is a
long time to sit and keep a time turner spinning. Then, to catch up
with yourself, you would have to live a whole year and be on the spot
to take over for your-about-to-time-travel-self when you disappear. 

I hestiate to get into this, but what if you died during your year of
time travel, there would be no you to take over for you at the instant
you time traveled. While I don't want to start another discussion on
the mechanic of time travel, I am trying to point out that the greater
the span of time in which you time travel, the greater the risk that
you will never come back.

I would also like to point out that while time traveling, you must be
very careful not to alter time/history in any significant way, or the
furture you were in when you time traveled may not be there when you
get back. (The Butterfly Effect)

These are just more reasons and more complications that confirm to me
that no one is doing any significant time travel in the books.

Time Turners could appear again, but, if they are used, the time frame
will be short and the consequences to time and history will be small.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Aug 15 19:25:52 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:25:52 -0000
Subject: Dudley's friends
In-Reply-To: <ebs6kd+8fcn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt740+s27s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156978

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

steve_savitsky:
> Okay, I thought Dudley had a 2nd buddy, but I was rereading SS, and saw
> only the name Piers Polkiss. Wasn't there a second friend to Dudley?
 
Tinktonks:
> Dudley's gang are Piers, Malcolm, Dennis and Gordon. This is stated in
> letters from no-one in PS/S.

Geoff:
Ah, I missed that one. That can be added to my little collection of canon in message 156944. 
The complete reference by the way is: PS "The Letters from No One" p.28 UK edition.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 19:33:25 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:33:25 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <20060815024229.46401.qmail@web55702.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebt7i5+dnd2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156979

Lady Lawyer wrote:
> I don't know how the prefect system works but it's only two people 
> from each year, a girl and a boy, so 14 in all, plus head boy and 
> head girl.  That's not too many I don't think.
>
Carol responds:
With two Prefects (a boy and a girl) from each House for three years,
that's eight per year times three (or six per House times four),
totalling 24. Granted, that seems like a lot of Prefects for 280
students (if Harry's year is typical), but as others have indicated,
Hogwarts probably had many more students before VWI greatly reduced
the population, so the number was less disproportionate in earlier
generations. Also, the students have *no* adult supervision in their
common rooms or dormitories, so six per House (and about seventy
students per House) doesn't seem like too many to me, especially since
so many Prefects appear to be ineffectual--afraid that the Weasley
Twins and other mischievous students will hex them, I suppose. (About
the only effective Prefects we've seen are Percy and Hermione. Remus
Lupin was a failure, and Ron, much as I hate to say it, abuses his
Prefect privileges, as when he confiscates the Fanged Frisbee for his
own use.

Carol, noting that JKR is inconsistent regarding whether Prefects can
deduct House points--Percy does it in CoS (IIRC), but Ernie says that
they can't do it in OoP






From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 19:36:06 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:36:06 -0000
Subject: What about Harry vs LV  was Re: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebsb86+pvs8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt7n6+d4ui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156980

> Brothergib said:
 
> Therefore, how exactly will Harry defeat LV? Harry's scar/Lily's 
> blood/Harry's ability to love/Can't be guessed at?
> 
> The only thing that I continually come up with is the Gryffindor v 
> Slytherin link. Lily (no idea how) and Harry are the heirs of 
> Gryffindor. Gryffindor & Slytherin were best of friends. There is 
some pact between them? Even as I write it down I see the flaws e.g. 
if there is a link, why could it not save Lily!
>>

Tonks:
First I agree with Carol that DD is the heir of Gryffindor, not 
Harry.

Gryffindor and Slytherin were the best of friends?  Remind me where 
it says that. Not that I doubt you, I just don't remember and it 
would be an important point if this is true. (Remember from an 
Alchemist POV the fire and water must come together. In HP these are 
the houses of Gryffindor and Slytherin. Now if Tonks is a Slytherin 
and she marries Lupin... well... maybe... but I think we need to see 
more than that.)

As to what we can not guess at.  Come on now Rowling! There are 
20,000 of us
 I am sure we can guess it if we try really, really 
hard, and with an open mind.

Here are some things that are still a mystery:

Lily's eyes.
Harry's scar
Any information about "ancient magic"
Any thing that happened before book 1, like the Devil and God making 
a pack to test Job sort of thing.
Snape, of course!
Riddle ? the name is Riddle for some reason.  We are to guess the 
answer to this "Riddle".. but what IS the Riddle?

Just to name a few. Perhaps we need to ponder the eyes again. And 
the Riddle.  Any thought?

Tonks_op












From mros at xs4all.nl  Tue Aug 15 14:38:15 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:38:15 +0200
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
References: <ebs8ot+mcvo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <000f01c6c078$71b31c90$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 156981

Renee:
>>>Are you suggesting Snape is *afraid* of Lupin until he's drunk his
Wolfsbane Potion? But if that's the case, then how do you explain
Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack? If making Lupin drink his
potion was so all-important to him, he wouldn't have wasted precious
time acting out his revenge game on Sirius in the Shack. <<<

Marion:
Well, *I'd* be terrified to be in the same building as a werewolf on the eve of a full moon even *without* having lived through the trauma of a werewolf attack. 
If I remember correctly, the whole Shrieking Shack episode, from Snape's end, looked like this: Snape enters Lupin's chambers with the potion. No Lupin. Lupin has left his rooms on the night of a full moon without his potion. On the desk there is a magical map, showing three children in at the Whomping Willow and Lupin speeding that way himself. Snape, in possession of a brain and memory, instantly knows that Black must be hiding in the Shrieking Shack. Snape was convinced for that whole year that Lupin was aiding the escaped convict, the convicted murderer Black, after all. Which Lupin did (or at least he held his mouth about Black being an animagus and about the Marauder's map, about this being the way Black used to enter Hogwarts and stand above Ron's bed with a knife etc.).
Snape could've whistled down a Dementor at that moment, point to the Shrieking Shack, say "they're in there, guv'nor" and get praise from the whole WW, but for one pesky thing: the three children are trapped between a mass-murder and his buddy, the manical, soon to transform, werewolf.
Snape legs it to the Shrieking Shack.

Now, he *could* perhaps run to the Shack, holding a goblet of potion, enter the Shack, give the accomplice of a murderer the goblet (hope it didn't spill on the way, well, he did slow down a bit so it wouldn't spill... hope the kids aren't killed yet) saying something like, "Here you are, Lupin, your wolfsbane. Please drink it so you won't turn into a snarling monster. You don't want to tear these kiddies to shreds, do you? Well, you're here as the aider and abetter of Black, who is here to kill off the last of the Potters, mad traitorous murderer that he is, so I suppose you're going to kill the kiddies and me in a spot anyway, but you *much* rather be killing us whilst looking human, hm?"
Or, he could leave the potion, leg it to the Shack, hold the murderer and his minion at wand-point, get the kids out of there and deal with the two dastardly villains when the kids are out of danger.

He does the last.

Alas, no good deed ever goes unpunished. Whilst trying to get Harry Potter to safety, Harry, being Harry (i.e. stubborn, disobedient and stoopid) won't budge (doesn't know how dangerous Lupin is. Doesn't know how dangerous Black is. Does know he resents his ugly, strict, sarcastic teacher and likes to disobey him on principle alone). 

Now, if *I* were Snape, I would've AK-ed both Black and Lupin in a second. I'd probably get a reward for Black ('dead or alive', wasn't it?) and bagging his werewolf helper on a night of a full moon can't be seen as murder, surely. But Snape has but one priority: getting the kids out of there and subdueing Black and Lupin.
Now maybe Snape thought that death was too good for them. Snape nurses a grudge against them after all, and people who hold a grudge are concerned with *justice*. They've got to *pay* for their crimes. Killing them would be too easy. 
Perhaps.
Perhaps Snape is just too civilised to just come in and start killing people, no matter how heinous. Maybe he needs a little more justification ("don't make me do it, Black!") before he starts blasting two men in front of the kiddies.
Maybe.
But we do know that Snape wants the kids *out* of there. Fast.

Harry and his friends then do the unthinkable. Instead of obeying their rescuer, they *attack* him!



Renee:
>>>What I see in the scene with Harry is a man trying to assert his hold on someone who depends on his goodwill. But Lupin doesn't play along.  And I don't see why he should - it wasn't his fault that he nearly killed Snape. I could see Lupin reason that if he meekly consents to do what Snape tells him, it might leave Snape with the impression he's admitting his guilt. And as he doesn't like Snape, he's not going to please him. Also, if you're dependent on medicine, it both galling and humiliating to have someone you don't like tell you to take it and actually trying to supervise you doing so. Especially before a witness who also happens to be a student of yours. <<<


Marion:
I see a man who is dangerous getting a job as a teacher on the stict condition that he takes his medicine. He would be too much of a danger to the children otherwise. Wanna bet that Dumbledore gave Snape the order "You will brew his this potion, Severus, and you will see to it that he *drinks* it. I won't endanger the children, but that means he *must* take it. You above all others know how dangerous Lupin can be, dear boy.."
Wouldn't surprise me if the reason to hire Lupin in the first place was so Dumbledore could lure the escaped convict Black to the school, either. Harry was already there. With Lupin added, Hogwarts would've been irresistable for Black.

People in the fandom tend to see werewolves as AIDS patients: shunned, harmless, misunderstood.
Red Hen likenes Lupin to a schizophrenic, who doesn't want to take his medicine because it makes him feel unlike himself.
I tend to liken them to pedophiles. 

Yes, that's a nasty thing to say, but I'm saying it to make a point. I'll explain further on. And no, I'm not in any way claiming that Lupin abuses children. He *does* endanger them, however. But it's the 'victim' status that I want to tackle, and pedophilia is a good way to go at it because pedophilia is seen as a disease and yet at the same time the public has no compassion for a pedophile.

They say pedophilia is a disease which makes men (and women, but we hear less of them) prey on children. There are drugs that can suppress sexual excitement. It won't 'cure' pedophiles of their hunger for children, but it 'lulls the beast'.
Now suppose a young boy got accosted at school once by one of those beasts. It was hushed up, of course, the school didn't need the bad publicity. Twenty years later, the boy has become a teacher and lo and behold, his one time accoster turns up as an interim teacher as well. The head of the school, knowing of the new teacher's 'affiction', agrees to hire him on the condition that he takes drugs to 'curb his urges'. The one to administer them to him is his one-time victim, because a) he makes the stuff and b) the matter was hushed up; not many know of the man's affliction.
Now, picture the whole scene again, with this in mind.

One-time victim of pedophile teacher comes to bring him drugs to render him temporarily safe for the children he has to teach.
Pedophile teacher gives 'special lessons' to a boy, who's there when one-time victim enters with the medicine.
Pedophile teacher looks his one-time victim in the face, smiles, and says, "Oh, just put it there. I will take it when you're gone."

Doesn't sound *half* as nice anymore, does it?

No, I'm not saying Lupin is a pedophile, nor that he wants to do anything with Harry. I'm just trying to look at what *really* happens without letting preconceived notions cloud my eyes.

There have been studies which prove that how a person is introduced matters to how that person continues to be perceived. If a person is introduced as 'Tom Brown, who murdered his father when he was 17, is very kind to his aged, silver-haired mother and who is an active member of the Association for Protection of Helpless Kittens', we tend to think Tom Brown a filthy fathermurder, a youthful delinquent who is possibly pulling the wool over our eyes with that silver-haired mother and those kittens. The hypocrite!
If he is introduced as 'Tom Brown, who is very kind to his aged, silver-haired mother and who is an active member of the Association for Protection of Helpless Kittens, and who murdered his father when he was 17', we tend to see him as a kind man who probably had good reasons to kill his father. Probably the father was a drunk and abused the poor mother (that's why her hair is prematurely grey, of course!)

Lupin is introduced to us as a kind, patient softspoken man who takes frights away from children and who deals out chocolates, but who turns out to be a werewolf.
Snape is introduced as and ugly man with a hooked nose, who is strict and sarcastic and who has no patience for fools. A man dressed in black, who looks scary and acts scary. And he rescues and protects the children in his care.

No matter what he does, how many self-serving lies he tells, no matter how neglectful he is (both in his potiontaking as in his care for Harry: how often does he send Harry, the son of his dear good friend, a letter or some sort of message when Harry is all alone at the Dursleys or at school, fretting about things? Never? Well, whadayaknow), no matter what, we still tend to see Lupin as a kind man, a victim of his affliction. Persecuted for being 'different'. Being the only werewolf we have seen, he become the yardstick for all werewolves. All werewolves, we think, must be kind, and maltreated, and suffering from abuse, persecution and misconception.

And then Fenrir Greyback homed into view.

That was a shock!

And then it turned out that werewolves tended to take after Fenrir more than after Lupin.
And really, was Lupin ever *really* concerned about the possible death and injury he could inflict? He seems rather flippant in PoA when he reminisces about his schooldays, roaming around with his animagus friends, laughing in retrospect about how *dangerous* it was to break his promise to Dumbledore and run free as a werewolf ("there were a few narrow escapes").
And *still* people see Lupin as a kind, patient softspoken man who wouldn't hurt a fly.

Personally, I'd prefer the crabby, nasty, ugly man who protects my children instead of endangers them. Who tells the cold hard unpopular truth instead of lying to make himself look better. But hey! That's just me :-)





From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 15 19:48:48 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:48:48 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <001701c6c045$edc142e0$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F2683AEA74BB00983F35EAE914F0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 156982


Marion:
>Snow, Julie (and Betsy) are talking about wether Dumbledore trusted Snape 
>completely or not, >they are not talking about wether Dumbledore was right 
>or wrong to trust Snape completely. >Wether Dumbledore was right or wrong 
>to trust Snape is a matter of *opinion* and will only be >resolved after 
>book 7 has come out.

PJ:
Sorry, but every time I hear that phrase "Dumbledore trusted Snape 
completely" I can't help but think that, while accurate, it's still an 
incomplete thought...

For example, he doesn't hesitate for a minute to say he trusts Hagrid *with 
his life* but he's never once said that about Snape and DD's usually very 
precise and careful with the words he uses.  I think he's the type who 
would've said it if he actually felt that way about Snape. Thing is, saying 
you trust someone completely isn't at all the same thing as trusting someone 
with your life.  Especially when he feels the need to slowly stop and 
*consider* the question as he did with Harry in HBP.   His answer felt more 
like a "I completely trust Severus to _____" if you know what I mean?

I think Dumbledore found out that Snape had an obsession which turned out to 
be an important part of DD's plan and the two of them have been working 
together on that one thing.  He trusts Snape completely to accomplish it 
because Snape's like a dog with a bone when he wants something badly.   
However, I don't think DD considers Snape a good guy on the side of the 
light.  No where does Dumbledore "tweak" McG or Flitwick or any of the other 
teachers but he's *always* doing it to Snape.  The House Cup Banquet, the 
flying car incident, the PoA ending, the "Granny Hat" in the cracker... I 
don't honestly think Dumbledore *likes* Snape!

PJ





From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Aug 15 19:47:20 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:47:20 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebsoee+s3dq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt8c8+eqjh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156983

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "robertpatrickallen" <robertpatrickallen at ...> 
wrote:
 
> Right now Harry can't fight Voldi because their wands share the same
> core. That is why Voldi kidnapped Olivander so he could force him to
> make a new wand so that Voldemort could finish Harry himself.

Geoff:
I don't think that statement is strictly true.

First, two snippets of canon:
'Before Voldemort could stick his snake-like face around the 
headstone, Harry had stood up... he gripped his wand tightly 
in his hand, thrust it out in front of him and threw himself 
around the headstone, facing Voldemort.
Voldemort was ready. As Harry shouted "Expelliarmus!", 
Voldemort cried "Avada Kedavra!"
A jet of green light issued from Voldemort's wand just as a jet 
of red light blasted from Harry's -'
(GOF "Priori Incantatem" p.575 UK edition)

'"So what happens if a wand meets its brother?" said Sirius.
"They will not work properly against each other," said Dumbledore. 
"If, however, the owners of the wands force the wands to do battle... 
a very rare effect will take place. One of the wands will force the 
other to regurgitate spells it has performed - in reverse. The 
most recent first... and then those which preceded it..."'
(GOF "The Parting of the Ways" p.605 UK edition)

And then two observations:
The 'rare effect' is that when the two wands connect, the spells 
which they are casting are replaced by the Priori Incantatem spell. 
This spell, in itself, seems not to be rare - Amos Diggory uses 
what I think is the singular version of it in GOF - "The Dark Mark" 
p.121 UK edition -for reference.

Second, the 'rare effect' only occurs when the wands connect and, 
presumably in some way, sense when they are both instantaneously 
in contact. My reading of this is that if Harry or Voldemort had been 
a second or so later in casting, Voldemort would have been disarmed 
or Harry might have been dead, It was the simultaneous timing 
which triggered events.






From random832 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 19:51:40 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 15:51:40 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Two theories on Dumbledore...
In-Reply-To: <ebt2rk+ehsg@eGroups.com>
References: <ebsre8+6r37@eGroups.com> <ebt2rk+ehsg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608151251y392f6123gb1484b9dcb820752@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156984

On 8/15/06, rlace2003 <rlace2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> bear81999 <bear81999 at ...> wrote:
> >
> > I have two possible theories about Dumbledore being alive.
> > <snip>
>
> Ryan:
>
> The only problem is that about 2 weeks ago JKR stated firmly
> that "Dumbledore is definitely dead."
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#static:eventreports/jkrnycnight2

JKR is sneaky, though. We have to separate what she said from what she
did not say.

She did not say any of the following:

That Albus is dead.
That the victim is dead.
That the victim is Albus, or indeed either Dumbledore
That Dumbledore died concurrently with the tower scene (That is, that
he wasn't dead before, or alive after, for some amount of time)

In the above, "Albus" means Albus Dumbledore.
"Dumbledore" means whichever of Albus or Aberforth she meant.
"The victim" means whoever got "killed" in the tower scene.



From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 19:33:12 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:33:12 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <20060815024229.46401.qmail@web55702.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebt7ho+2tmo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156985

Carodave:
> > Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th years
> > and 7th years)? That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of
> > Indians.

Lady Lawyer:
> I don't know how the prefect system works but it's only two people
> from each year, a girl and a boy, so 14 in all, plus head boy and
> head girl.  That's not too many I don't think.

Ryan:

Based on canon, prefects are all 5th year or above.  And I suspect
there's only 2 (1 boy, 1 girl) for each house.  That's 8 prefects,
not including the head boy and head girl.

Ryan











From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Aug 15 20:02:18 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:02:18 -0000
Subject: Lupin and "Severus" (Was: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading)
In-Reply-To: <ebt3e0+107gr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt98a+9fsr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156986

Carol:

> Lupin, in contrast, accepts Dumbledore's assurance that 
> Snape is on their side--until the events on the tower, as 
> reported by Harry, cause him to lose his equanimity.

houyhnhnm:

But Lupin loses his equanimity *before* he learns anything 
about the events on the tower, before Harry has said anything.  
All he knows is that Dumbledore is dead.

*************
"Ron--Dumbledore's dead," said Ginny.
"No!" Lupin looked wildly from Ginny to Harry, as 
though hoping the latter might contradict her, but 
when Harry did not, Lupin collasped into a chair 
beside Bill's bed, his hands over his face.  Harry 
had never seen Lupin lose control; he felt as though 
he was intruding upon something private, indecent.
*************

Then Harry tells his story and the next we hear from 
Lupin, he seems to be back in control:
"Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens," said Lupin, 
his voice uncharacteristically harsh.  "We always knew that."

This seems strange to me.  There is no shock, no outraged 
disbelief, no demand to know what happened.  Then when he 
does learn what happened and that the blame is all on Snape, 
it is almost as if he is relieved.

What suggests itself to my mind (and I know it is all just my
intuitive response; we will not know for sure until book 7) 
is that Lupin was expecting it (news of Dumbledore's death), 
for reasons of his own.

It was Lupin's job to spy on the werewolves.  The presence 
of Fenrir Grayback was a surprise even to Draco, but was it 
a complete surprise to Lupin?

Although there is definitely Something About Lupin, I have 
difficulty seeing him as ever so evil (whatever that means).  
For one thing, he seems to be so genuinely distraught over 
DD's death.  That is hard to reconcile with his being a 
cold-blooded Voldemort supporter.

But what if he had found out something about Fenrir's 
involvement in the plot, but failed to pass the information 
on to the Order because to do so he would have to have 
revealed some minor pecadillo or dereliction of duty for 
which he was ashamed? That would be classic Lupin. 







From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug 15 20:12:46 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:12:46 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F2683AEA74BB00983F35EAE914F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebt9ru+i837@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156987

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" <midnightowl6 at ...> wrote:
 >  .  No where does Dumbledore "tweak" McG or Flitwick or any of the 
other 
> teachers but he's *always* doing it to Snape.  The House Cup Banquet, 
the 
> flying car incident, the PoA ending, the "Granny Hat" in the 
cracker... I 
> don't honestly think Dumbledore *likes* Snape!
> 
 

colebiancardi here:  hmmmm, I see your point, but....DD knows Snape - 
has known him since he was a little boy, watched him grow up to be a 
man and knows Snape's faults and quirks.  I think DD teases Snape, 
because he knows that Snape has chosen to live his life in an unhappy 
manner and that he is trying to Snape to lighten up, to not dwell on 
the small stuff.  I think DD likes Snape, but he also knows what 
buttons to push - not that he pushes too many of them with Snape.

McG and Flitwick have never come out "strong" in their opinions to DD 
like Snape has.  Nor are they "hardliners" like Snape - McG puts on a 
good show, but she is fair.  Flitwick is a pushover.  Maybe that is why 
DD never tweaks them like he does Snape.  

cole









From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 15 20:19:24 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:19:24 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F2683AEA74BB00983F35EAE914F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebta8c+9jss@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156988


> PJ:
> Sorry, but every time I hear that phrase "Dumbledore trusted Snape 
> completely" I can't help but think that, while accurate, it's 
still an 
> incomplete thought...
> 
> For example, he doesn't hesitate for a minute to say he trusts 
Hagrid *with 
> his life* but he's never once said that about Snape and DD's 
usually very 
> precise and careful with the words he uses.  I think he's the type 
who 
> would've said it if he actually felt that way about Snape. Thing 
is, saying 
> you trust someone completely isn't at all the same thing as 
trusting someone 
> with your life.  

Magpie:
I think it's a much greater trust in this context.  DD trusts Hagrid 
with his life because that's the right kind of trust to have in 
Hagrid.  It doesn't depend on his judgment.  (And even there DD 
sends Hagrid to guard Harry while shopping in HBP and Hagrid does a 
bad job.  He trusts that Hagrid's heart is always on the side of 
protecting him (DD) and Harry.  Trusting Snape "completely" is a 
much bigger deal, imo, particularly in the context that Harry's 
asking about. Hagrid is a guy he trusts to protect him in a fight to 
the death.  Snape's the guy he trusts to go into Voldemort's camp as 
a spy and use his own judgment and not get seduced by the DA again.

PJ:
Especially when he feels the need to slowly stop and 
> *consider* the question as he did with Harry in HBP.   His answer 
felt more 
> like a "I completely trust Severus to _____" if you know what I 
mean?

Magpie:
It felt like the exact opposite to me--and it is a complete 
thought.  To me it read, iirc, that DD considered telling Harry the 
story, then just left it at the fact that he trusted him completely.

PJ: 
> I think Dumbledore found out that Snape had an obsession which 
turned out to 
> be an important part of DD's plan and the two of them have been 
working 
> together on that one thing.  He trusts Snape completely to 
accomplish it 
> because Snape's like a dog with a bone when he wants something 
badly.   
> However, I don't think DD considers Snape a good guy on the side 
of the 
> light.  No where does Dumbledore "tweak" McG or Flitwick or any of 
the other 
> teachers but he's *always* doing it to Snape.  The House Cup 
Banquet, the 
> flying car incident, the PoA ending, the "Granny Hat" in the 
cracker... I 
> don't honestly think Dumbledore *likes* Snape!


Magpie:
I actually think the "tweaking" bit does indicate some affection--
and trust, actually.  If he really doesn't think Snape is good he'd 
be a fool to tempt him to lash out, wouldn't he?  

But even more so I just don't see JKR writing the story of DD who 
kept a bad guy on a leash when DD seems to be all about second 
chances.  I thought DD's last scene in the Tower revealed what he 
was all about, especially to a person like Snape.

-m







From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 20:06:31 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:06:31 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebt8c8+eqjh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebt9g7+2er5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156989

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "robertpatrickallen"
<robertpatrickallen@> wrote:
>
> > Right now Harry can't fight Voldi because their wands share the same
> > core. That is why Voldi kidnapped Olivander so he could force him to
> > make a new wand so that Voldemort could finish Harry himself.
>

Ryan:

I don't have my books at hand.  Do we actually know for sure that Mr.
Ollivander was kidnapped by Voldemort?

Ryan











From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Aug 15 20:37:40 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:37:40 -0000
Subject: How and When (Re: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebsp74+sn9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtbak+jac4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156990

maria8162001:
 
> But with all this questions whether Dumbledore is dead or 
> not, I remember that in one of JKR's interviews she mentioned 
> that what we should know is when and how DD died. I think her 
> answer didn't create much talks because everybody just assumed 
> they already know how and when DD died after reading the HBP. 

houyhnhnm:

It was in the third installment of the Mugglenet/Leaky 
Cauldron interview.
http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview3.shtml

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.

It sounds as if she is speaking in generalities, but I had 
the same reaction as you:  What if she is telling us straight 
out that, yes, DD is dead, but the question in HBP is when and how?

I especially thought that after reading her roundabout 
answer to the nine-year-old boy.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 20:40:00 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:40:00 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <ebt7ho+2tmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtbf0+jvfm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156991

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" wrote:
>
> > > Carodave:
> > > Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th years
> > > and 7th years)? That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of
> > > Indians.
> 
> > Carol responds:
> > With two Prefects (a boy and a girl) from each House for three  
> > years, that's eight per year times three (or six per House times 
> > four), totalling 24. <snip>
> 
> Ryan:
> 
> Based on canon, prefects are all 5th year or above.  And I suspect
> there's only 2 (1 boy, 1 girl) for each house.  That's 8 prefects,
> not including the head boy and head girl.
> 
> Ryan
>
Mike:

I take it you are thinking that each house gets only two prefects 
that are only replaced after they graduate. But Percy was a 
Gryffindor prefect who graduated at the end of PoA. There wouldn't 
be a prefect position available for Ron if a new prefect was 
selected the year before. Besides, at the beginning of OotP Hermione 
recites all eight of the new fifth year prefects. Heck of a 
coincidence that every house lost both of their prefects last year 
wasn't it (especially since one of them had to be killed in the 
graveyard). 

I think Carol has the correct formula. Moreover, I also agree with 
Carol's reasoning regarding the ratio of prefects to student 
population and have nothing to add to it. <g>








From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug 15 20:43:28 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:43:28 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebt9g7+2er5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtblg+pdar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156992

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" <rlace2003 at ...> wrote:
>
 > 
> I don't have my books at hand.  Do we actually know for sure that Mr.
> Ollivander was kidnapped by Voldemort?
> 

no.  we don't - personally, I think Ollivander has been hidden by 
Dumbledore or that Ollivander is a DE.

take yer pick :D

colebiancardi







From random832 at gmail.com  Tue Aug 15 20:43:47 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:43:47 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebt6eg+ca8a@eGroups.com>
References: <ebqprj+s4f5@eGroups.com> <ebt6eg+ca8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608151343h387068c9r7fa4d346bce967e5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156993

Steve/bboyminn:
> I hestiate to get into this, but what if you died during your year of
> time travel, there would be no you to take over for you at the instant
> you time traveled. While I don't want to start another discussion on
> the mechanic of time travel, I am trying to point out that the greater
> the span of time in which you time travel, the greater the risk that
> you will never come back.

I can't see any basis for a requirement to take over for yourself at
the end like you're describing. It may be "compulsory" to do so
according to the regulations governing time turners, but failing to do
so does not actually cause a paradox.

> I would also like to point out that while time traveling, you must be
> very careful not to alter time/history in any significant way, or the
> furture you were in when you time traveled may not be there when you
> get back. (The Butterfly Effect)

You can't really cite an unrelated movie for stuff about how time
travel works because there are so many ways of writing it. TBE in
particular seems to use a branching-timeline (i.e. "many worlds
hypothesis") mechanic which doesn't appear to be present for HP.

The events of POA, for example seem more like they follow the Novikov
self-consistency principle (qv wikipedia article of that name)

See also the list of types in the wikipedia article on Time travel.

One problem is that people will often assume one of these views is
"how it works" and no others are considered

-- 
Random832



From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 15 20:44:46 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:44:46 -0000
Subject: Lupin and "Severus" (Was: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading)
In-Reply-To: <ebt98a+9fsr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtbnu+9j98@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156994


> houyhnhnm:
> 
> But Lupin loses his equanimity *before* he learns anything 
> about the events on the tower, before Harry has said anything.  
> All he knows is that Dumbledore is dead.
> 
> *************
> "Ron--Dumbledore's dead," said Ginny.
> "No!" Lupin looked wildly from Ginny to Harry, as 
> though hoping the latter might contradict her, but 
> when Harry did not, Lupin collasped into a chair 
> beside Bill's bed, his hands over his face.  Harry 
> had never seen Lupin lose control; he felt as though 
> he was intruding upon something private, indecent.
> *************

wynnleaf
This, I think (no book here) is the greatest emotion that we see 
anyone exhibit over DD's death, and Lupin doesn't even know at that 
point how it happened.   

> Then Harry tells his story and the next we hear from 
> Lupin, he seems to be back in control:
> "Snape was a highly accomplished Occlumens," said Lupin, 
> his voice uncharacteristically harsh.  "We always knew that."
> 
> This seems strange to me.  There is no shock, no outraged 
> disbelief, no demand to know what happened.  

wynnleaf
Even more strange considering that since Lupin had been 
participating in the fight, he'd have likely been aware that DD was 
no where in sight around the location where most of the fighting 
occurred. 

Also interesting that unlike others, who find DD's being dead almost 
unbelievable, Lupin believes it right away, without any details.

houyhnhnm
Then when he 
> does learn what happened and that the blame is all on Snape, 
> it is almost as if he is relieved.
> 
> What suggests itself to my mind (and I know it is all just my
> intuitive response; we will not know for sure until book 7) 
> is that Lupin was expecting it (news of Dumbledore's death), 
> for reasons of his own.
> 
> It was Lupin's job to spy on the werewolves.  The presence 
> of Fenrir Grayback was a surprise even to Draco, but was it 
> a complete surprise to Lupin?
> 
> Although there is definitely Something About Lupin, I have 
> difficulty seeing him as ever so evil (whatever that means).  
> For one thing, he seems to be so genuinely distraught over 
> DD's death.  That is hard to reconcile with his being a 
> cold-blooded Voldemort supporter.
> 
> But what if he had found out something about Fenrir's 
> involvement in the plot, but failed to pass the information 
> on to the Order because to do so he would have to have 
> revealed some minor pecadillo or dereliction of duty for 
> which he was ashamed? That would be classic Lupin.
>
wynnleaf
I don't necessarily think we're going to find out that Lupin 
is "ever so evil" in the classic sense of "evil."  But I wouldn't be 
surprised if Lupin's propensity to allow his friends too much 
latitude, and being a sort of enabler to his friends bad behavior in 
school, has gradually put him in the position of becoming caught up 
in the activities of werewolves on LV's side of the war.  I would 
guess that Lupin (if he's guilty of something), is a weak character 
who, although "caring" about his friends in the Order, can't bring 
himself to stop helping his friends on LV's side -- the werewolves.  
Not that Lupin likes Fenrir.  I think his dislike of Fenrir at 
Christmas was genuine.  But I wouldn't be surprised if his primary 
weakness of allowing too much for his friends, already described by 
JKR, has led him to betraying the Order.

I wonder if Lupins great grief is due not solely to pure sorrow, but 
also to great guilt.

wynnleaf, who wonders if Lupin is not "ever so evil," but is 
instead "ever so weak."  Remember Snape's evaluation of Tonk's 
patronus?  The one that looked like a werewolf?  Weak.







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 15 20:58:34 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:58:34 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebt9ru+i837@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F183C0C5869309D37101B35914F0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 156995


>colebiancardi:  hmmmm, I see your point, but....DD knows Snape -
>has known him since he was a little boy, watched him grow up to be a
>man and knows Snape's faults and quirks.  I think DD teases Snape,
>because he knows that Snape has chosen to live his life in an unhappy
>manner and that he is trying to Snape to lighten up, to not dwell on
>the small stuff.  I think DD likes Snape, but he also knows what
>buttons to push - not that he pushes too many of them with Snape.

>McG and Flitwick have never come out "strong" in their opinions to DD
>like Snape has.  Nor are they "hardliners" like Snape - McG puts on a
>good show, but she is fair.  Flitwick is a pushover.  Maybe that is why
>DD never tweaks them like he does Snape.


PJ:
Yes, that's all true.  However, somehow I don't think Snape will "lighten 
up" if he feels he is being laughed at and made a fool of (it would actually 
have the opposite effect!) and Dumbledore is smart enough to realize this.

Reading the scene in PoA where Snape goes off the deep end, it seems like 
Dumbledore is purposely goading him by asking him if he honestly thought 
Harry could be in two places at once.  And then once Snape loses control 
Dumbledore is shown to be *amused* by Snape's distress!  "Snape stood there, 
seething, staring from Fudge, who looked thoroughly shocked at his behavior, 
to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind his glasses."  (PoA pg 420 
Scholastic)

Before that we have Snape talking to Dumbledore in the Great Hall after the 
fat lady was attacked.  Dumbledore brushes Snape's concerns aside with 
"something like a warning in his voice".  After that we have the passage 
"Snape stood for a moment, watching the headmaster with an expression of 
deep resentment on his face, then he too left".  (PoA pg 166 Scholastic)

That's just one book but there are many more passages in the canon to 
suggest that Dumbledore and Snape aren't at all on friendly terms.   In PoA 
we have an expression of deep resentment which escalates in HBP to "Snape 
gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched 
in the harsh lines of his face" (HBP pg 395 Scholastic)

No, I don't think they're teasing at all......

PJ





From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 15 21:13:41 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:13:41 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F183C0C5869309D37101B35914F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebtde5+38iv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156996


> 
> PJ:
> Yes, that's all true.  However, somehow I don't think Snape 
will "lighten 
> up" if he feels he is being laughed at and made a fool of (it 
would actually 
> have the opposite effect!) and Dumbledore is smart enough to 
realize this.
> 
> Reading the scene in PoA where Snape goes off the deep end, it 
seems like 
> Dumbledore is purposely goading him by asking him if he honestly 
thought 
> Harry could be in two places at once.  And then once Snape loses 
control 
> Dumbledore is shown to be *amused* by Snape's distress!  "Snape 
stood there, 
> seething, staring from Fudge, who looked thoroughly shocked at his 
behavior, 
> to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind his glasses."  
(PoA pg 420 
> Scholastic)
> 
> Before that we have Snape talking to Dumbledore in the Great Hall 
after the 
> fat lady was attacked.  Dumbledore brushes Snape's concerns aside 
with 
> "something like a warning in his voice".  After that we have the 
passage 
> "Snape stood for a moment, watching the headmaster with an 
expression of 
> deep resentment on his face, then he too left".  (PoA pg 166 
Scholastic)
> 
> That's just one book but there are many more passages in the canon 
to 
> suggest that Dumbledore and Snape aren't at all on friendly 
terms.   In PoA 
> we have an expression of deep resentment which escalates in HBP 
to "Snape 
> gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and 
hatred etched 
> in the harsh lines of his face" (HBP pg 395 Scholastic)
> 
> No, I don't think they're teasing at all......
> 
> PJ
>
wynnleaf
While it's possible that you're correct, I have also seen very 
similar behavior play out in real life between fathers and sons -- 
where the father understands his son quite thoroughly and the son 
knows it.  The father teases him gently, the son gets resentful 
about it and wants to push back, and the father gently, but firmly 
won't let him get away with pushing back too hard -- the father 
basically reminding the son that he's getting too upset about a 
situation.  I've seen that play out often among both family and 
friends, between fathers and sons who actually care about each other 
quite a lot.  

Just as Dumbledore knows Snape very well, Snape also knows 
Dumbledore.  They've worked together now for many years.  Remember, 
if Snape is DDM, then he's been willing to go through practically 
any degree of danger on Dumbledore's word.  That doesn't sound to me 
like someone who dislikes Dumbledore.  

Yes, I think Dumbledore may tease Snape sometimes a little too 
much.  But I think that Snape's resentment of it is not too great, 
even if he's angry at the time.

wynnleaf







From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug 15 21:31:01 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:31:01 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F183C0C5869309D37101B35914F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebteel+s097@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156997

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" <midnightowl6 at ...> wrote:
>
 
> 
> That's just one book but there are many more passages in the canon to 
> suggest that Dumbledore and Snape aren't at all on friendly terms.   
In PoA 
> we have an expression of deep resentment which escalates in HBP 
to "Snape 
> gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred 
etched 
> in the harsh lines of his face" (HBP pg 395 Scholastic)
> 
> No, I don't think they're teasing at all......
> 
 
ah, don't you have times where you just *hate* your best friend or a 
loved one, because they don't agree with an issue that you feel 
passionate about?  Snape's so-called "resentment" was not towards DD, 
but the fact that Black got off....again...

The revulsion & hatred in Snape's faced are echoed earlier in the same 
chapter with Harry's feelings - he hated himself & was repulsed by 
force feeding DD the green poison liquid.

We cannot *see* Harry's face, just as we cannot *see* our own faces 
(unless we have a mirror in front of faces at all times).  I am sure 
Harry's expressions on his face mirrored his own feelings.

My own personal feeling with Snape is that he(Snape) was hating himself 
for doing what he had to do - just as Harry did.  

I think DD is teasing Snape;  I never stated Snape teased DD - I doubt 
Snape knows how to tease.  

I am a type A personality and my friends tease me quite a bit when I 
get too serious & jump up on my soapbox.  I don't hate them for it - 
quite the opposite.  They know me & accept me & because of that, they 
can get away with the teasing.  

colebiancardi







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 15 21:52:14 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 17:52:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebta8c+9jss@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F371C3EE6A1DEEB4C4273BE914F0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 156998



Magpie:
>But even more so I just don't see JKR writing the story of DD who
>kept a bad guy on a leash when DD seems to be all about second
>chances.  I thought DD's last scene in the Tower revealed what he
>was all about, especially to a person like Snape.

PJ:
No leash.  I see it as two people who realize they have no choice but to 
work together in order to accomplish a shared goal.  They may not 
particularly like it but neither can manage on their own. Being an OFH!Snape 
person (putting on Kevlar vest in case Sydney still has that gun <g>) it 
makes perfect sense that this would be my take on what has been written. 
There's certainly enough canon to make it possible.

DD's last scene on the Tower....  Snape came in after all the talk with 
Draco so he doesn't know what went on.  I'm sure he'll find out from Draco 
or the DE's but we won't know his reaction to it all until book 7 is 
released.

PJ





From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 15 22:11:45 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:11:45 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebtblg+pdar@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtgr1+gttv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 156999

> > rlace2003:
> > Do we actually know for sure that Mr.
> > Ollivander was kidnapped by Voldemort?
> > 
> colebiancardi: 
> no.  we don't - personally, I think Ollivander has been hidden by 
> Dumbledore or that Ollivander is a DE.
> 
> take yer pick :D

Eddie:
Well, I don't pick DE: recall that Ollivander immediately notified
Dumbledore that Harry's wand was the brother of Voldemort's.  That
doesn't sound like the act of a DE.

Ollivander seems much too wise to be kidnapped by Voldemort.  Anybody
who has inherited (or personally run) a shop that has existed since
300-something B.C. (viz "Philosopher's Stone", chapter "Diagon Alley")
probably has very good survival instincts.  My guess is Mr. O. is in
hiding somewhere safe until everything blows over.  But I further
guess he will help the good side if he can safely.

Eddie







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 15 23:49:45 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 23:49:45 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebt5sq+gbg6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtmip+oquh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157000

CH3ed:
I agree with Carole and Carol on this one. JKR is notorious for hiding 
stuff in 'simple' statements like the one Ron made there, IMO. 

I think Carol made good points about Snape not getting on with the 
remaining Marauders, and his need to remain detached. Well.... he's 
gotta eat at some point (can't really have been doing without dinner 
all that time, ay? So I'd venture a guess that he already had a 
standing dinner arrangement with somebody else? Maybe the Other Side 
where he pass selected info about the Order(he was a double agent, 
after all)?

CH3ed :O)






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 02:17:44 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:17:44 -0000
Subject: Lupin and Snape WAS: Re: OFH SNAPE
In-Reply-To: <ebt47n+o7dv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebtv88+jibn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157001

> Pippin:
<snip>
> There
> is nothing in canon to say that Snape does not take his 
> responsibilities as Head of House seriously. Why on earth
> wouldn't he be concerned about his students with a werewolf
> loose on the grounds?

Alla:

I think that if Snape's primary consideration was students' safety 
and 
not petty revenge, JKR would have characterised what he had done to 
Lupin in much more sympathetic terms than she did on her website.

But that is just me of course. 

Was he concerned about his students? Who knows, maybe that was one 
of 
the very secondary considerations, but I am betting that revenge was 
the primary consideration. IMO of course.

Alla, 

who so wants to see Remus and Tonks happily married at the end and 
Remus having a good respectful job and Snape, well  you know :-)






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 02:30:40 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (Kathy King)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:30:40 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebt1ea+udgh@eGroups.com>
References: <ebt1ea+udgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <a1ee8d580608151930q2d67dd5at961bd7d01f610c1c@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157002

  Snow:
>
>
>
> I'm going to respond to segments without snipping.
>
>
>
> Carol responds:
> Hi, Amanda. You're not the only one who thinks that Harry is not a
> Horcrux. However, Dumbledore is only deducing, based on what he knows
> of Horcruxes and Riddle/Voldemort, not stating facts, so he could be
> wrong on more than one point. (He does seem to be wrong in stating
> that Voldemort used Nagini to kill frank Bryce, but that could just be
> a Flint.) I happen to think that Nagini *is* a Horcrux, but that she
> was made one much earlier, and with a more significant murder than
> Frank Bryce's. Also, Voldemort wsn't really in any condition to make a
> Horcrux using Frank's murder--he was in fetal form (Baby!mort), barely
> able to hold a wand and wholly dependent on Wormtail to feed him, etc.
> Since creating Horcruxes seems to involve some sort of physical
> transformation (smearing his features or making him more snakelike) I
> don't think he would or could have done it then, if only because
> Wormtail would be surprised by any change in his appearance and might
> start arriving at his own conclusions about LV's immortality. Since LV
> was already snakelike before Godric's Hollow (the DEs in the graveyard
> recognize him and show no surprise or horror at his appearance), I
> think Nagini was already a Horcrux before GH--which does not make
> Dumbledore wrong about LV still being one Horcrux short at Godric's
> Hollow--he would have the ring, the locket, the cup, something from
> Ravenclaw, and Nagini. So he could still want to use Harry's murder to
> create a Horcrux, but he certainly would not have intentionally made
> Harry, the Prophecy Boy he wants to kill, into a Horcrux.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> I do agree that If Nagini was one of the Horcruxes it would have been
> before Godric's Hollow because Riddle started to transform with snakelike
> features early on. However, this is not conclusive to Nagini since his
> family has an adept inbreed aptitude toward snakes. I would not be soooo
> surprised that he would not physically resemble one.  I do agree that
> Voldemort did not intentionally even consider Harry as a Horcrux container.
>
>
>
> Carol:
> So, in essence I agree with you, and I agree that it's probably
> impossible to create an accidental Horcrux.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Now here is where we disagree. Why would it be impossible to create an
> accidental Horcrux? I'll let you continue?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> However, the procedure seems to be killing a person, which automatically
> splits the soul, then casting some sort of spell (I suspect that an
> elaborate ritual is
> involved since this is magic of the Darkest sort). I agree that the
> killing precedes the Horcrux creation--LV doesn't prepare a Horcrux
> and bring it with him to the murder scene as some people have
> suggested), but he wouldn't use Harry's murder *as* a Horcrux; he
> would use it to *create* one--after the fact and in secrecy, without
> Wormtail or anyone else being present to witness its creation.
>
> What object he would have used, we don't know--perhaps he was still
> hoping to obtain something from Gryffindor at a later time--but it
> certainly would not have been Harry or the scar that did not exist
> until the AK backfired (and actually, it was a cut, not a scar, at
> that point).
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Herein lies the problem since we are very unaware of what happens to
> create the Horcrux and how involved the process is, If this wouldn't be
> enough we have the old magic that Lily evoked to save Harry, how might this
> old magic have affected the intended victim or any curse that was used on
> him?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
> I think that some of the powers that Voldemort lost when the AK
> backfired went into Harry through that open cut.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Voldemort claims that he lost all of his powers except the one to possess
> creatures or humans.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> (How LV regained them, we don't know, but it's canonical that he did, and
> it certainly was not done by recovering lost soul bits.)
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Satellite!Harry still lives
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121617
>
> Anyone interested in knowing how Voldemort could still use his powers even
> though he was babymort should probably check this out.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> I don't think that the powers are in the soul. Magic seems to be in the
> blood, so maybe a bit of LV's blood got into Harry's cut at GH. That makes
> more sense to me than a soul bit getting in.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Interesting, I always thought that the soul was the person. We could be
> getting into a can of worms here but I will try to divert that avenue and
> simply reiterate that Voldemort knew that he lost his powers?all but one.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> IMO, when a soul bit escapes from a destroyed Horcrux, it goes wherever
> the soul of a dead person goes (beyond the Veil?). If LV had any loose soul
> bits--and he'd committed a lot of murders that weren't used for Horcruxes
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Sorry for the abrupt pause again but where does it state that Voldemort
> committed a lot of murders? I'm sincerely not trying to nitpick. I am
> however referring to Sirius' statement that Voldemort didn't kill anyone
> himself unless it was someone important (paraphrased badly, but same meaning
> [reference Regulus death as seen by Sirius]). I truthfully feel that
> Voldemort only killed someone himself in preparation of making a Horcrux.
> Really look at this one. Then again it would all come down to what type of
> death could be used as a Horcrux, I suppose. I submit that only the death of
> someone who is innocent or unarmed could be used as a Horcrux. I think that
> all of Riddle's victims that we are aware of have been thus.
>
>
>
> Carol continued:
>
>
>
> --they would, IMO, have floated off and been lost. But I don't think they
> were actually loose, or he'd have considerably less than one seventh of a
> soul
> (let's not look into the mechanics of soul-splitting and how
> equal-sized parts could be removed, each one exactly one-seventh
> regardless of how many murders he had committed!). I think that they
> were split off through the act of murder but not actually detached or
> removed from the main soul--the Horcrux-creating spell would be
> required to detach the soul bit and encase it in something other than
> the murderer's body--a complex bit of magic that can't be performed
> accidentally.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> But you need to accept an exception here since we are dealing with a
> person (Harry) who was protected by old magic and we don't know how that can
> act anymore than how it did act. How do we know how this attempted killing
> would act under an old magic protection? If Voldemort is prepared to kill
> Harry to make his final Horcrux (surmised by Dumbledore), but is vanquished
> (which he was) by old magic why couldn't this same magic have caused the
> Horcrux action to react? We don't know, do we?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
> It's much simpler and cleaner for Harry to have acquired some of LV's
> powers without acquiring a bit of his tainted soul, which IMO his body
> would reject in any case because of the love magic, just as love
> forced Voldemort himself out of Harry when he attempted to possess him
> physically.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> First off we don't know how long it took before Harry's body could not
> sustain being possessed by Voldemort. This was a very young child who did
> have repercussion from the first attack but it was not a lengthy possession,
> was it? We don't know, but my guess is that it was not, which is why Harry
> lives. Dumbledore claimed in the first book that the attack from
> Quirrell/Voldemort nearly killed him. Yet, the fifth book Voldemort resides
> within Harry longer and would have remained if it was not for Harry saying
> that he would die rather than (a) allow the pain to continue (b) allow
> Voldemort to control him. The conclusion might be that, the older Harry
> becomes the more he can resist the control of possession.
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> If Harry is a Horcrux, I see no way for him to destroy
> Voldemort without dying at the exact same time. (How can he
> kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is dead? And how can
> he kill/destroy Voldemort if he, the last Horcrux, is still alive?
> We'd be back to Vapormort, with no Chosen One to destroy him. If Harry
> *isn't a Horcrux, then JKR doesn't have to deal wit this vicious
> circle of unnecessary plot complications.)
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> You're probably not going to enjoy or accept my answer to this one anymore
> than my other attempts but?Harry is being made into a living Philosopher's
> Stone. It is the only way that Harry can survive the final destruction of
> Voldemort!
>
> Harry is a Horcrux intentional or otherwise (I think otherwise) and I do
> believe that Dumbledore long ago suspected such a link was possible but not
> probable but he still kept it in mind. Dumbledore evoked all manners of
> protection but the ultimate would be what he learned from dear Nicholas
> Flammel. This would ensure (and be the last stitch effort) Harry's safety if
> everything else failed. If it came down to (what Dumbledore feared was the
> truth, Harry was an unintentional Horcrux) Harry's seventh year and
> Voldemort was still not vanquished, all the Horcruxes were not found and
> destroyed then the inevitable must happen and Albus must die in sacrifice to
> ensure the alchemy of the living stone.
>
> I knew you wouldn't like it Carol but I just had to say it ;)
>
> Carol:
>
>
> In any case, Harry!Horcrux is *not* a given, and not everyone accepts
> the theory. I am quite sure that DD would have thought of it and
> mentioned it to Harry when he told him "everything." It has already
> been established that Harry is not possessed or possessable.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> First, Harry is possessable if Voldemort wants to live there, which he
> could not at the point that he attempted it, but to say that Harry could not
> be possessed is an assumption I think. And secondly I truly believe that
> Dumbledore was quite aware of the possibility that Harry was a Horcrux from
> the very beginning. Dumbledore said that he had conclusive proof with the
> Diary that a Horcrux had been made but that does not mean that he had not
> considered that possibility long ago.
>
> As far as Dumbledore mentioning the possibility, why would you scare the
> kid?if Harry knew that He was a Horcrux, wouldn't Harry have thought like
> you and figured that he was dead before he had a chance?
>
>
>
> Carol:
>
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that he's not "Horcruxable," either, and that Harry
> acquired some of LV's *powers,* as DD has said at least twice, without
> acquiring any of that filthy and contaminated soul.
>
>
>
> Snow:
>
>
>
> Again, Voldemort claimed in the graveyard that he lost his powers all but
> the one of Possession.
>
> Carol, who can provide links to her other "Harry is not a Horcrux"
> posts if anybody wants them
>
>
>
> Always open-minded
>
> Snow
>


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




From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 16 02:58:43 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:58:43 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebt6eg+ca8a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebu1l3+fvj5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157003


> bboyminn:
> 
> The only time turners we have seen work in one hour increments. There
> could be others, but we've only seen 'hour' Time Turners.
> 
> So, assuming one turn per second of time, the time turner would have
> to spin for 2.4 continuous hours to go back a year. Two spins per
> second would mean 1.7 hours of spinning. Not impossible, but that is a
> long time to sit and keep a time turner spinning. Then, to catch up
> with yourself, you would have to live a whole year and be on the spot
> to take over for your-about-to-time-travel-self when you disappear. 

Ken:

If the MoM had a cabinet full of time turners surely some of them were
calibrated at more than one hour per turn. It doesn't really matter though.
Hand me that time turner will you? Thanks. Let's see are the bearings free?:

Yes they are! No sweat, I just give the gizmo a flick with the end of my 
finger and wheeeee! we've gone back a day and a half in a few seconds.
Now I will just pull this can of compressed air for cleaning lenses out of 
my desk drawer, aim the stream at the time turner,  and hang onto your 
hat, we're going BAAAAAaaaaack!!!

--OR--

Drat! The bearings are stiff. Ok, we'll just tape this little strip of plastic
carefully around the hourglass so it makes a little wheel. Now I get out
my battery powered Dremel tool, tighten the rubber mandrel that usually
holds a sanding drum into the chuck, crank it up to 20 krpm, hold the 
mandrel against our makeshift wheel and Captain we're moving at warp
10 in reverse NOOOooooowwww!!!

Ok, either way we're back. It was Krum to get the Snitch and Ireland
to win, right? Just be sure not to place the bet with Bagman and we've
got a few years to plan how to use the winnings. Or, do you suppose
that if we spun this thing the other way that we would go forward??

I don't think that is too hard. Sometimes if you want to solve a problem
you have to think like a Muggle. Canon may not support anything 
other than hour time turners and maybe you can't go forward, only
back. Who cares? We cleaned up big time on the World Cup. Be 
patient and enjoy life.

> bboyminn:
> I hestiate to get into this, but what if you died during your year of
> time travel, there would be no you to take over for you at the instant
> you time traveled. While I don't want to start another discussion on
> the mechanic of time travel, I am trying to point out that the greater
> the span of time in which you time travel, the greater the risk that
> you will never come back.
> 

Ken:

I don't see the problem. If you take a journey by boat and the boat
goes down, you drown. Your friends mourn you, the universe yawns.
And why would time travel be any different? No one needs to take over
for you if you are dead. Your life ended, you are now living in the 
bosom of Abraham. It's even better than winning big on the World
Cup.

> bboyminn:
> I would also like to point out that while time traveling, you must be
> very careful not to alter time/history in any significant way, or the
> furture you were in when you time traveled may not be there when you
> get back. (The Butterfly Effect)

Ken:

I would argue that your whole reason for going back was to alter
time/history. If you did not intend to alter time and history you had
no real reason to go back. Going backwards and living your life is
no more dangerous to the universe than going forward from any 
point in your life. Your actions may have unintended consequences
in either case. You live your entire life taking actions that you hope 
will positively influence your future. That is what humans and all 
other life forms we know of do.

The butterfly effect was coined by a weather researcher who played a 
key role in starting the study of nonlinear systems or chaos theory.
He noted that in chaotic mathematical systems small changes in 
the assumed initial conditions could produce large diversions in
results a relatively short time later. He termed this the butterfly 
effect, joking that if a butterfly in St. Louis did or did not flap its
wings at a given moment a hurricane would or would not hit 
the Bahamas a month later. He may have been thinking of the same
science fiction story I read as a boy that involved a time machine
and a dead butterfly.

The butterfly effect has been Hollywoodized all out of proportion.
Whether you time travel or not you need not fear it. World War I
would not have been averted if some butterfly had decided not 
to flap its wings at a critical moment. It would not have been 
averted if a group of Serbian nationalists had decided to have 
a lie in one critical morning either. It happened because Europe 
was an armed camp with a hair trigger. Someone or something
was going to set it off, it was only a matter of time. There are 
far too many butterfilies in our world and the Potterverse for 
a single one to have any real effect.

Large intentional changes directed at key events are another matter.
Rescuing a hippogriff or casting a Patronus at the right moment
can have a real impact on the future as you remember it. But these
things have the same impact as they would have had if you had thought
to do them the first time through. You don't know that impact
completely in advance either way. It is a risk you take when you go
back to change things. If all you do is save the Archduke you leave
the ticking bomb in place and only delay the explosion. If you go
back far enough and work long enough to change the diplomatic
and military culture of Europe you stand a chance of saving 
millions of lives and dooming Adolf to a career as a third rate
painter.

 
> bboyminn:
> These are just more reasons and more complications that confirm to me
> that no one is doing any significant time travel in the books.
> 

Ken:

I don't agree with your reasons but I too hope that this technology does
not reappear in the final book. Time travel is a deadly trap that few 
writers escape from alive. In my opinion JKR is among those who died.
Time travel storys are best when they are only about time travel and 
even then they usually leave me unconvinced. HP is far too complex a 
story to have time travel thrown in as a "hey look everyone, we 
have time turners too" sort of element. It was an unneccessary and silly
intrusion into the plot. Hopefully someone managed to convince 
Rowling of this and *that* is why the blasted things were destroyed
in OotP. My only real HP related fear is that a few of them survived.

The only time travel stories I have enjoyed are those that are played
for comedy. Douglas Adams did it right. The two time travel episodes
of the Red Dwarf that I recall left me in stitches. Rowan Atkinson had 
a brilliant one too. Hmm, the British Isles may harbor a gene for good
time travel authors but I think it skipped Rowling.

Ken






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 03:13:45 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 22:13:45 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebu1l3+fvj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F49F7905844AB9E03897F9DD4C0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157004


>Ken:
>
>If the MoM had a cabinet full of time turners surely some of them were
>calibrated at more than one hour per turn. It doesn't really matter though.
>Hand me that time turner will you? Thanks. Let's see are the bearings 
>free?:
>
>Yes they are! No sweat, I just give the gizmo a flick with the end of my
>finger and wheeeee! we've gone back a day and a half in a few seconds.
>Now I will just pull this can of compressed air for cleaning lenses out of
>my desk drawer, aim the stream at the time turner,  and hang onto your
>hat, we're going BAAAAAaaaaack!!!
>
>--OR--
>
>Drat! The bearings are stiff. Ok, we'll just tape this little strip of 
>plastic
>carefully around the hourglass so it makes a little wheel. Now I get out
>my battery powered Dremel tool, tighten the rubber mandrel that usually
>holds a sanding drum into the chuck, crank it up to 20 krpm, hold the
>mandrel against our makeshift wheel and Captain we're moving at warp
>10 in reverse NOOOooooowwww!!!
>
>Ok, either way we're back. It was Krum to get the Snitch and Ireland
>to win, right? Just be sure not to place the bet with Bagman and we've
>got a few years to plan how to use the winnings. Or, do you suppose
>that if we spun this thing the other way that we would go forward??
>
>I don't think that is too hard. Sometimes if you want to solve a problem
>you have to think like a Muggle. Canon may not support anything
>other than hour time turners and maybe you can't go forward, only
>back. Who cares? We cleaned up big time on the World Cup. Be
>patient and enjoy life.

>Ken:
>
>I don't see the problem. If you take a journey by boat and the boat
>goes down, you drown. Your friends mourn you, the universe yawns.
>And why would time travel be any different? No one needs to take over
>for you if you are dead. Your life ended, you are now living in the
>bosom of Abraham. It's even better than winning big on the World
>Cup.

wynnleaf
Ken, these have got to be some of the funniest comments I've read in a long 
time.  Thanks for the laughs!



>Ken:
>
>I don't agree with your reasons but I too hope that this technology does
>not reappear in the final book. Time travel is a deadly trap that few
>writers escape from alive.

wynnleaf
I agree.  I think that's why JKR had OOTP reveal that the time-turners were 
gone.  Not so she could bring out a few later.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 06:44:54 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 06:44:54 -0000
Subject: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <ebt7ho+2tmo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebuet6+4rib@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157005

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" <rlace2003 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carodave:
> > > Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years,
> > > 6th years and 7th years)? That seems like alot of 
> > > chiefs for not alot of Indians.
> 
> Lady Lawyer:
> > I don't know how the prefect system works but it's only 
> > two peoplefrom each year, a girl and a boy, so 14 in all,
> > plus head boy and head girl.  That's not too many I don't
> > think.
> 
> Ryan:
> 
> Based on canon, prefects are all 5th year or above.  And 
> I suspect there's only 2 (1 boy, 1 girl) for each house.  
> That's 8 prefects, not including the head boy and head girl.
> 
> Ryan
>


bboyminn:

I think there is evidence in the books that support 
Carodave's position. Ron and Hermione as well as Percy 
were all Prefects beyond 5th year. I suspect the are 
two 5th year, two 6th year, two 7th year Prefects, but 
the senior Prefects for all the routine work onto the 
junior Prefects.

So, that is 6 Prefects per House times four Houses for 
a total of 24 plus a Head Boy and Head Girl which would 
make 26 total.

I suspect the reason we don't see other Prefects is two 
fold. First, they are not relevant to the story. Second, 
they are lazy and as long as students are not getting 
too rowdy, they stay out of it. As other have suggested 
they may stay out of it to avoid being labeled or 
ridiculed by the likes of Fred and George. 

Remember there is a lot going on at Hogwarts that we 
don't see simply because it doesn't have anything to do 
with the immediate story, but the fact that we aren't 
shown the inconsequential details doesn't mean they 
don't exist. Take for example things like going to the 
bathroom, brushing your teeth, taking showers or baths. 
Were rarely see these things, but reasonably they do 
exist. Either that or we have a lot of smelly clogged up 
people with bad teeth.

As far as the number of students governed by these 
Prefects, I think a population estimate of 280 is 
misguided. It is unreasonable to think that Harry's 
class mirrors every other class and grade at the school. 
At the small school I attended class size range from 15 
to 30 with 20 to 25 being the typical size. 

I also speculate that House sizes are not even. It makes
 sense that there are more Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs 
than Slytherins and Gryffindors.

Given all this, I think 400 is a more reasonable estimate
 of Hogwarts size. (I've done the calculation but won't 
bore you with them again.)

Now we have 6 students trying to control 100 other students. 
I personally think that would be a hand full. Student of 
that age are not the most reasonable or cooperative. This 
would be especially true when most of the Prefects seem to 
do a half-hearted job of it. Considering all this, I think 
the Commons Room and general student mischief is suprisingly
well controlled.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 07:33:02 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:33:02 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608151343h387068c9r7fa4d346bce967e5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebuhne+mscr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157006

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> Steve/bboyminn:
> > I hestiate to get into this, but what if you died 
> > during your year of time travel, there would be no
> > you to take over for you at the instant you time 
> > traveled. You will never come back.

> Jordan/Random832:
> 
> I can't see any basis for a requirement to take over 
> for yourself at the end like you're describing. It 
> may be "compulsory" to do so according to the 
> regulations governing time turners, but failing to do
> so does not actually cause a paradox.
> 

bboyminn:

You seem to have missed my point, which admittedly was 
a small point. When you travel back in time, you vanish 
from the present as Harry and Hermione did in PoA. Three 
time traveled hours later, Harry and Hermione arrive 
back at the hospital at roughly the instant they time 
traveled. If they hadn't come back, then they simply 
would have vanished from the present and that would be 
the end of them. If they intend on having a future then 
they must return and take over for their earlier time 
traveling selves, or assuming they don't die, come up 
with some excuse to explain why they vanished from 
Hogwarts and never returned.

True, dying while time traveling in and of itself does 
not create a paradox, but it is the end of your life 
and that is not a good thing. Again, if you want to 
have a future, then you have to come back from the past, 
and that is all I was saying. That and the fact that the 
longer the time, the greater the risk.

> > bboyminn originally said:
> > 
> > I would also like to point out that while time 
> > traveling, you must be very careful not to alter 
> > time/history in any significant way, or the furture 
> > you were in when you time traveled may not be there 
> > when you get back. (The Butterfly Effect)


> Jordan/Random832:
> 
> You can't really cite an unrelated movie for stuff 
> about how time travel works because there are so many 
> ways of writing it. ...
> 

bboyminn:

I used 'Butterfly Effect' to illustrate the dangers of 
altering history. The books very clearly through Hermione 
warn us of the danger of making changes to history and 
creating time-paradoxes. So, I'm not using an obscure movie 
to define time travel in JKR's books, I am using it to 
illustrate a point that was very clearly made in the books.

> Jordan/Random832:
>
> The events of POA, ... follow the Novikov self-consistency 
> principle ...
> 
> ...
> 
> One problem is that people will often assume one of these views is
> "how it works" and no others are considered
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

bboyminn:

I think the principles are very clear in the books. There is a danger
of substantially altering history. There is a danger of killing your
future or past self, which could create a huge paradox. Further, the
events in PoA are consistent with these precautions. Nothing was
really changed, once we see ALL the facts, we see that things happen
the same both times. It's just that when we see it the second time
from a different perspective, we are given details that we didn't
originally know. But, it is our knowledge of events, not the events
themselves, that changed. I think JKR has create a very consistent
account of time travel.

Though I tend to agree with others, that card has been played, and I
don't see it being played again in any significant way. I generally
reject all time travel or polyjuice solutions to the story. They seem
like cheating. If that is the best JKR can do, then I will be
disappointed. I trust her to come up with twists and turns that I
never could or would have imagined. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 07:54:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:54:24 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebu1l3+fvj5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebuivg+2uig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157007

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...>
wrote:

> > ...edited....
> > bboyminn:
> > ... what if you died during your year of time travel, 
> > there would be no you to take over for you at the 
> > instant you time traveled. ... the greater the span 
> > of time in which you time travel, the greater the 
> > risk that you will never come back.
> > 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> I don't see the problem. If you take a journey by boat 
> and the boat goes down, you drown. ... And why would 
> time travel be any different? ...
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > ... while time traveling, you must be very careful 
> > not to alter time/history in any significant way, 
> > or the furture you were in when you time traveled 
> > may not be there when you get back. (The Butterfly 
> > Effect)
> 
> Ken:
> 
> I would argue that your whole reason for going back 
> was to alter time/history. If you did not intend to 
> alter time and history you had no real reason to go 
> back. Going backwards and living your life is no more 
> dangerous to the universe than going forward from any 
> point in your life. ...edited...
> 
>  

bboyminn:

But there is a very BIG difference, the present and the 
future are unknown, the past is known, history has 
already been written. 

You may get the bright idea to go back and kill Hitler, 
but you can't know that that would make the future better. 
Hitler made some very irrational decisions. If he were 
killed someone more intelligent might have taken his place 
and caused Germany to win the war. If that happened, the 
present from which you time traveled would no longer exist. 

True the time and date at which you time traveled would 
exist again, but the circumstance under which you made 
your decision and the circumstances of the world that 
you left when you time traveled would no longer exist. It
is conceivable that if you went back in time and killed 
Hitler, you might have set of a chain reaction that would 
mean you were never born. Now you have a very substantial 
paradox.

The present and the future are infinitely variable. They 
are filled with endless possibilities. The past however 
is generally fix, it is known. To change it, is to take 
far greater risk, than making decisions to change the 
present and the future. 

Again, the farther back in time you go, the greater the risk
you take. If you change something very locally just an hour 
or two ago, the consequences to the present are much much 
smaller that going back a year or years and making a major 
change to history.

I simply can't agree that changing the present and the 
future are in the same class as changing the past.

> > bboyminn:
> > These are just more reasons and more complications that
> > confirm to me that no one is doing any significant time 
> > travel in the books.
> > 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> ... Time travel is a deadly trap that few writers escape 
> from alive. In my opinion JKR is among those who died.
> ...
> 
> Ken
>

bboyminn:

I've generally found from discussion in this group that people who see
problems with JKR's time travel are people who refuse to actually see
what happened. Generally, they insist that time happened twice; one
time with and one time without (with and without whatever).

If you take the approach that time happened only once, but Harry and
Hermione happened twice, it gets much easier. If you view it right,
JKR's account of time travel is as reasonable and consistent as is
possible for time travel. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug 16 08:59:26 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:59:26 -0000
Subject: What about Harry vs LV  was Re: Script from JKR's reading
In-Reply-To: <ebt7n6+d4ui@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebumpe+dkcb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157008

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

> Tonks asked:

> 
> Gryffindor and Slytherin were the best of friends?  Remind me where 
> it says that. Not that I doubt you, I just don't remember and it 
> would be an important point if this is true. (Remember from an 
> Alchemist POV the fire and water must come together. 

Brothergib:
The Sorting Hat sings about it in OOTP. Something along the lines 
of 'were there ever such friends as Gryffindor & Slytherin'

Thankyou also to Carol for reminding me of JKR's comments about the 
heir of Gryffindor. You will forgive me for clutching at straws, but 
JKR did actually pause before answering that particular question. I 
think the reason I find it difficult to let go of that particular 
avenue of possibility is the fact that DD claimed that only a true 
Gryffindor could have pulled his sword from the sorting hat. The 
other fact is that the theory in question concerned Harry being heir 
of Gryffindor through his father's line - but not necessarily his 
mother's.
Yes, even as I write this, I can hear you thinking 'Why can't these 
poor deluded souls give up on their favourite theories when presented 
with overwhelming evidence against them'. Perhaps I should stand 
down!!!

Tonks again;
> 
> As to what we can not guess at.  Come on now Rowling! There are 
> 20,000 of us
 I am sure we can guess it if we try really, really 
> hard, and with an open mind.
> 
> Here are some things that are still a mystery:
> 
> Lily's eyes.
> Harry's scar
> Any information about "ancient magic"
> Any thing that happened before book 1, like the Devil and God 
making  a pack to test Job sort of thing.
> Snape, of course!
> Riddle ? the name is Riddle for some reason.  We are to guess the 
> answer to this "Riddle".. but what IS the Riddle?
> 
> Just to name a few. Perhaps we need to ponder the eyes again. And 
> the Riddle.  Any thought?
> 


Brothergib again:
Lily's eyes - Same colour as Gryffindor's; OK i'll stop now. At the 
right moment Snape suddenley sees Lily in Harry due to their shared 
green eyes?
Harry's scar - We've had the Scar-Horcrux theory before. Maybe LV 
tried to make Harry a Horcrux. Lily's protection ejected the 
potential spell, which left Harry's body and the scar is somehow the 
Horcrux - bit dodgy isn't it! Have just thought of something - will 
post elsewhere!
'Ancient Magic' - ???Love????
Before book 1 - Is the defeat of Grindlewald important? Does LV 
actually possess 6 Horcruxes - and therefore possess the magical '7' 
pieces of soul!
Snape - Horcrux destroyer. Lily lover.
Riddle - She probably started with the name Voldemort. Riddle simply 
was the best she could generate from the subsequent anagram.

Brothergib






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug 16 09:21:11 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:21:11 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
Message-ID: <ebuo27+dt1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157009

If I could ask JKR a question it would be 'How could a rebounded AK 
destroy a house?'.
Surely it should kill the person it rebounded upon (in this case LV) 
and that should be it!
If LV wasn't attempting to AK Harry, then the obvious alternative would 
be he was trying to make Harry a Horcrux. 
When you look at events, there is a certain logical flow to this 
theory. LV kills James - presumably this encounter is 'duel-like'. He 
has committed the murder to make the Horcrux. He goes to Harry. He 
dismisses Lily (her death isn't important to create the Horcrux), but 
her constant attempts to stop him cause him to kill Lily. Now it is her 
death that is being used to create the Horcrux.
What happens if you attempt to make a Horcrux using a sacrificial death?
Perhaps attempting to merge the ultimate act of evil with the ultimate 
act of love is not possible. The spell is violently ejected from Harry, 
and this destroys Godric's Hollow and 'kills' LV in the process. The 
scar is the remnant of the Horcrux spell that was ejected from Harry. 
It is NOT necessarily a Horcrux, but some residual part of LV's soul 
may have been retained.

This also leaves the possibility that LV remains one Horcrux short! As 
I have stated before, the fact that LV was snake-like on the back of 
Quirrel's head suggests that Nagini may have been a Horcrux before LV 
entered Godric's hollow i.e. still one short at GH. I have also 
suggested before that LV would have liked the idea of using Harry's 
death to create a Prophecy Horcrux (important death tied in with 
important object)! If this is the case, LV may still really want 
Harry's death to create the final Horcrux - it also sets up the 
possibility of Harry facing LV thinking there is a Horcrux left, when 
in fact there isn't!

A final duel at Hogwarts with LV intending to make Gryffindor's sword a 
Horcrux with Harry's death (maybe)!!!

Brothergib






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 11:03:15 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:03:15 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ebuo27+dt1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebuu1j+20od@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157010

Brothergib:

> If I could ask JKR a question it would be 'How could a rebounded AK 
> destroy a house?'.
> Surely it should kill the person it rebounded upon (in this case LV) 
> and that should be it!

AD:
Jo's been pretty good about showing us that botched magic can have
serious side effects--from Seamus' burnt feather, to Neville's melted
cauldrons, to the toilet that Harry shattered when he missed Draco
with a Leg-Locker.

Even a magical dud like Lockhart managed to collapse a stone ceiling
when his Obliviate backfired.  Why should we be surprised that the
misfire of a powerful wizard's AK was similarly destructive? 

Hmmmm... Hey Peter!  Want to pay off that Life Debt?  All you have to
do is swap his wand with this one.  Don't mind the spellotape.

Amiable Dorsai








From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 11:04:41 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 07:04:41 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Time Turners and Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebuhne+mscr@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608151343h387068c9r7fa4d346bce967e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ebuhne+mscr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608160404n2febb30ekdb0f669882554597@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157011

> bboyminn:
> If they intend on having a future then
> they must return and take over for their earlier time
> traveling selves, or assuming they don't die, come up
> with some excuse to explain why they vanished from
> Hogwarts and never returned.

Whether or not they "intend" on having a future, clearly they can't
act on that intention if they're _DEAD_. As for an excuse, "Traveled
to the past and died" is a perfectly good excuse, and doesn't cause
any further problems beyond, you know, being dead.

> True, dying while time traveling in and of itself does
> not create a paradox, but it is the end of your life
> and that is not a good thing.

But it's no worse than dying in any other circumstance.

> Again, if you want to
> have a future, then you have to come back from the past,
> and that is all I was saying. That and the fact that the
> longer the time, the greater the risk.
>
> > > bboyminn originally said:
> > >
> > > I would also like to point out that while time
> > > traveling, you must be very careful not to alter
> > > time/history in any significant way, or the furture
> > > you were in when you time traveled may not be there
> > > when you get back. (The Butterfly Effect)
>
>
> > Jordan/Random832:
> >
> > You can't really cite an unrelated movie for stuff
> > about how time travel works because there are so many
> > ways of writing it. ...
> >
>
> bboyminn:
>
> I used 'Butterfly Effect' to illustrate the dangers of
> altering history. The books very clearly through Hermione
> warn us of the danger of making changes to history and
> creating time-paradoxes.

That shows things about how wizards, and/or how Hermione in
particular, _believe_ that time travel works, not how it actually
does. The contortions that the book goes through to show that there
were no changes at all could just as well mean that there could never
have been any changes. Hermione is _not_ always right. It could be
that all such "precautions" are superstition, and there is in fact a
guarantee that everything will work out.

> So, I'm not using an obscure movie
> to define time travel in JKR's books, I am using it to
> illustrate a point that was very clearly made in the books.

You're using a point from a movie in which history can be and is
altered to illustrate a point that _you_ perceive to be made in a book
in which history is never altered. Do you even realize how contrived
that is?

> > Jordan/Random832:
> >
> > The events of POA, ... follow the Novikov self-consistency
> > principle ...
> >
> > ...
> >
> > One problem is that people will often assume one of these views is
> > "how it works" and no others are considered

OK, smart-ass. What I was trying to say is that the events shown are
perfectly consistent with it, and in no way support any view that
history can be altered. The idea that history _can_ be altered and
they just got insanely lucky fails occam's razor in the face of a
hypothesis that such things simply cannot happen.

> bboyminn:
>
> I think the principles are very clear in the books. There is a danger
> of substantially altering history. There is a danger of killing your
> future or past self, which could create a huge paradox.

That danger is not illustrated at all. The only evidence we see is
that _Hermione_ believes it is so, possibly influenced as much or more
by cheesy SF movies than by any solid knowledge of how things really
work. She is only 14.

> Further, the
> events in PoA are consistent with these precautions. Nothing was
> really changed, once we see ALL the facts,

Which is perfectly consistent with my statement that there is a
mechanism by which it can be _impossible_ for anything to be really
changed.

> we see that things happen
> the same both times. It's just that when we see it the second time
> from a different perspective, we are given details that we didn't
> originally know. But, it is our knowledge of events, not the events
> themselves, that changed. I think JKR has create a very consistent
> account of time travel.

How is that in any way an argument against the Novikov
self-consistency principle? It's a perfect illustration of it, much
_unlike_ The Butterfly Effect.

-- 
Random832



From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 08:01:37 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:01:37 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: How and When  WAS:(Re: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebsp74+sn9c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060816080137.71264.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157012

--- Maria Vaerewyck <maria8162001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> What do you
> think of her answer because to me her answer comes
> like we are still
> going to see DD in book 7 even when he is already
> dead (maybe guiding
> Harry) yet not in the way Ghandalf died and rose in
> the LOTR. 

Cassy:
Well, the most simple way for us to see DD again would
be in some pensieve or, perhaps, just in some
flashback, probably in the form of a tale told by an
old Order member. After all, we saw so much of LV "in
action" in HPB, yet in fact he never appeared in person.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 






From katbofaye at aol.com  Tue Aug 15 20:19:48 2006
From: katbofaye at aol.com (katssirius)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:19:48 -0000
Subject: RE prefects
Message-ID: <ebta94+c2ol@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157013

"Carodave:
> > Are there three years worth of prefects (5th years, 6th years
> > and 7th years)? That seems like alot of chiefs for not alot of
> > Indians.

Lady Lawyer:
> I don't know how the prefect system works but it's only two people
> from each year, a girl and a boy, so 14 in all, plus head boy and
> head girl. That's not too many I don't think.

Ryan:

>Based on canon, prefects are all 5th year or above. And I suspect
>there's only 2 (1 boy, 1 girl) for each house. That's 8 prefects,
>not including the head boy and head girl."


Percy's tenure as a prefect as well as Ron's and Hermione's tells us
that there are two prefects in each fifth year class that remain
prefects until the end of seventh year.  In addition each year a new
Head Boy and Head Girl are chosen.  Their former position as prefect
may be replaced.  We do not have canon for this and the only example
of a non prefect Head Boy is James Potter.  So 2 perfects for fifth,
sixth year, and seventh year in each house and Head Boy and Head
Girl.  Makes 26 leaders which is not alot since JKR tells us that
Hogwarts has 1000 students.  I do not know where the other students
are hiding but I think of them of having their own storyline.
Anyways, I have always wondered why Ron and Hermione had the job of
disciplining the twins.  Where were the prefects from their year who
would have had a peer relationship with them at least?

katssirius












From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 08:24:35 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:24:35 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: How many students WAS: Re: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <ebuet6+4rib@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060816082435.80282.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157014

--- Steve <bboyminn at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think 400 is a more reasonable
> estimate
>  of Hogwarts size. (I've done the calculation but
> won't 
> bore you with them again.)

Cassy:

I think Rowling stated somewhere that there's around a
1000 student in Hogwarts, but she herself admits that
her calculations are not always correct. Then again,
she has to cut down the number of secondary characters
and we can't estimate number of nameless extras from
the books only, seeing as they are not mentioned.
Perhaps in Harry's year, which we get to know best,
there's simply less then average number of students.
After all those children were born in the middle of
first Voldemort war, there should have been quite a
low birth rate.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 





From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Wed Aug 16 11:41:25 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:41:25 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ebuu1j+20od@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebv095+tu27@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157015

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" 
<amiabledorsai at ...> wrote:
>
> Brothergib:
> 
> > If I could ask JKR a question it would be 'How could a rebounded 
AK 
> > destroy a house?'.
> > Surely it should kill the person it rebounded upon (in this case 
LV) 
> > and that should be it!
> 
> AD:
> Jo's been pretty good about showing us that botched magic can have
> serious side effects--from Seamus' burnt feather, to Neville's 
melted
> cauldrons, to the toilet that Harry shattered when he missed Draco
> with a Leg-Locker.
> 
> Even a magical dud like Lockhart managed to collapse a stone ceiling
> when his Obliviate backfired.  Why should we be surprised that the
> misfire of a powerful wizard's AK was similarly destructive? 
>
 
Brothergib:
That is certainly a good point! However, the first two examples are 
due to badly performed spells - something I doubt LV would be capable 
of. The final example is a spell that missed its target and hit 
something else. I'm sure the AK would be incredibly destructive if it 
missed it's target. However, in this case we know the AK struck Harry 
and then LV (if it is an AK at all!). 

As for old Lockhart, I'll need to check if it actually was the 
Obliviate charm that caused the damage. If it was, then that would 
make your argument incredibly strong since that rebounded spell did 
actually hit Lockhart as well!

Brothergib







From Eyemlynn at aol.com  Wed Aug 16 01:25:49 2006
From: Eyemlynn at aol.com (Eyemlynn at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:25:49 EDT
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
Message-ID: <c09.15c49fd.3213ce1d@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157016

I kind of think that the only point to that was for her to say that the Dursleys were the worst sort of muggles. Just a way of introducing them as bad people.

Eyemlynn



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







From mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 07:36:00 2006
From: mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com (Lady Lawyer)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
Message-ID: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157017

I can't for the life of me figure out how Harry could "defeat" Voldemort without killing him.  And by the way I don't think that killing someone in pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that will split your soul.  I think the soul splitting murder has to  be with extreme cruelty.  Else every soldier would have a split soul.
 
Logically, "defeat" would be that state of being 180 degrees from Voldemort's present state, pure evil, i.e., pure good.  So Harry would have to do something to Voldemort that makes him "good"?  What about Harry vanquishes him in battle and spares his life?  Then Voldemort is beholden to Harry and bound by allegiance to protect Harry (or whatever happens when one wizard saves another wizard's life) so he can't be bad any more or else he would, what, die or something?  What do people think of this?
 
This is why I think he will vanquish him by taking him alive through the veil.  It must be weird to be in the afterlife and not be actually dead, although you appear dead to those left behind in th Potterverse.
 
Mouthpiece49






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug 16 15:26:02 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:26:02 -0000
Subject: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebvdea+und2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157018

Mouthpiece49

I can't for the life of me figure out how Harry could "defeat"
Voldemort without killing him.  And by the way I don't think that
killing someone in pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
will split your soul.  I think the soul splitting murder has to  be
with extreme cruelty.  Else every soldier would have a split soul.

Logically, "defeat" would be that state of being 180 degrees from
Voldemort's present state, pure evil, i.e., pure good.  So Harry
would have to do something to Voldemort that makes him "good"?  What
about Harry vanquishes him in battle and spares his life?  Then
Voldemort is beholden to Harry and bound by allegiance to protect
Harry (or whatever happens when one wizard saves another wizard's
life) so he can't be bad any more or else he would, what, die or
something?  What do people think of this?

This is why I think he will vanquish him by taking him alive through
the veil.  It must be weird to be in the afterlife and not be
actually dead, although you appear dead to those left behind in th
Potterverse.


Tinktonks responds:

Dumbledore says time and again that there are worse things than
death. And I agree. The Longbottoms for instance. I would rather be
AK'd than tortured into insanity unable to recognise the people whom
you once loved?

Personally I think love will be the key. The ministry has the power
of love in one of the rooms, more powerful, more wonderful and more
terrible than any other. I think this will be LV's downfall. He will
be subject to all the love that his victims families felt for their
murdered loved ones. He will be destroyed inside by the pain that
love has brought. When this hits him Harry will have the choice,
fulfil the prophecy or walk away. He will walk away, Voldemort's
parting shot is an AK before he dies of the pain from so much love
and hurt, Wormtail takes the fall.










From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 15:56:19 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (PJ)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:56:19 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebtde5+38iv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvf73+u7et@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157019

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...> 
wrote:
>
> wynnleaf
> While it's possible that you're correct, I have also seen very 
> similar behavior play out in real life between fathers and sons -- 
> where the father understands his son quite thoroughly and the son 
> knows it.  

PJ:
When did Dumbledore and Snape become as close as father and son 
though?  We have absolutely *nothing* in canon to suggest there is 
such a bond between them, or even that they "understand each other 
quite thoroughly".  What canon says is that Dumbledore is Snape's 
boss and before that, his headmaster... They're co-workers.

Seen in that light would you consider a co-worker laughing at you 
during a highly stressful and emotional time to be nothing more 
than "gentle teasing" or would it upset you even further?  Canon 
shows that Snape finds it upsetting. 

wynnleaf: 
>  
> if Snape is DDM, then he's been willing to go through practically 
> any degree of danger on Dumbledore's word.  That doesn't sound to 
>me like someone who dislikes Dumbledore.  

PJ:
I don't see why it would follow at all.  (DDM=Liking Dumbledore)  
You can agree with someone's platform/goals without liking the 
person himself.  

I also don't see any reason why it would in any way diminish Snape's 
roll in the story  if he were to dislike Dumbledore.  After all, 
being willing to work closely with someone you don't particularly 
like takes maturity and wisdom because it shows you realize that the 
goal is more important than the personalities involved.  It would, 
imo, be more of a feather in Snape's cap for them *not* to be 
buddies!


PJ







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 17:12:55 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:12:55 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <a1ee8d580608151930q2d67dd5at961bd7d01f610c1c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebvjmn+nsih@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157020


> > Snow:
> > Herein lies the problem since we are very unaware of what happens
to create the Horcrux and how involved the process is, If this
wouldn't be enough we have the old magic that Lily evoked to save
Harry, how might this old magic have affected the intended victim or
any curse that was used on him?

Carol responds:
We're told that the Fidelius Charm, which hides a secret within a
Secret Keeper, is highly complex. (Geoff, do you happen to know where
that quote is?) It seems likely that the Darkest spell known to
wizardkind, in which a soul bit (already split off from the main soul
through the act of murder) is removed from the murderer and encased in
an object, would be equally complex. 

Carol earlier:
> >
> > I think that some of the powers that Voldemort lost when the AK
> > backfired went into Harry through that open cut.
> >

Snow:
> >
> > Voldemort claims that he lost all of his powers except the one to
possess creatures or humans.

Carol responds:
Exactly. And where did they go? Into Harry, apparently. Or at least
some of them did. We know that he acquired the power to speak
Parseltongue in this way. If he acquired the powers through, say, a
drop of blood entering his cut, he could have acquired the power of
possession, too. (The only reason that Voldemort retained that
particular power was that it didn't require a wand.) And the prophecy
says that Harry is "marked . . . as [Voldemort's] equal, so maybe he
acquired *all* of Voldemort's powers (not necessarily via a soul bit).
Let's hope that, like Dumbledore, he's too noble to use some of them.
(The power of possession would come in handy, though!)

> >
> > Carol earlier:
> > I don't think that the powers are in the soul. Magic seems to be
in the blood, so maybe a bit of LV's blood got into Harry's cut at GH.
That makes more sense to me than a soul bit getting in.
> >
> > Snow:
> > Interesting, I always thought that the soul was the person. We
could be getting into a can of worms here but I will try to divert
that avenue and simply reiterate that Voldemort knew that he lost his
powers
all but one.
> >
Carol responds:
I don't see the point you're making with the lost powers, and I've
already noted that Harry acquired at least one power from Voldemort
(Parseltongue)--DD says "powers" plural--twice, IIRC. And we're told
repeatedly that magic is in the blood--"not a drop of magical blood"
in the Dursleys, purebloods, Half-bloods, and "Mudbloods," the blood
protection, Harry's blood in the potion that restores Voldemort to his
body, etc., etc. We're never told that powers reside in the soul. If
they did, how could Voldemort have lost his powers?

> > Snow:

> > Sorry for the abrupt pause again but where does it state that
Voldemort committed a lot of murders? I'm sincerely not trying to
nitpick. I am however referring to Sirius' statement that Voldemort
didn't kill anyone> himself unless it was someone important
(paraphrased badly, but same meaning [reference Regulus death as seen
by Sirius]). I truthfully feel that Voldemort only killed someone
himself in preparation of making a Horcrux.

Carol responds:
We have, first, the killing of the unimportant little "Mudblood,"
Myrtle, to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Then we have the
three Riddles, two of whom did nothing to deserve their deaths. Then
Hepzibah Smith, killed to acquire her valuable possessions to make
into Horcruxes. We know that Voldemort personally killed an Order
member, Dorcas Meadowes. And then we have the Potters at GH--all
personally killed by Voldemort before the AK rebounded. There may be
more people--note DD's statement regarding the Inferi, which seems to
suggest that DD killed a lot more people than the ones we can name,
and I don't trust Sirius Black's word regarding his brother, either.
he doesn't *know* what happened and is only guessing that LV regarded
his brother as unimportant because he, Sirius, regards him as a little
idiot. Since GH, Voldemort has personally killed the unimportant
witch, Bertha Jorkins, the still less important Muggle, Frank Bryce,
and the very important witch, Madam Bones. That's eleven people that
we know of, and there are almost certainly more (possibly Salazaar
Slytherin)--more than are needed to create Horcruxes. And note that DD
tells Harry that LV would have reserved the *important* killings for
Horcruxes (another reason I don't think he used Frank Bryce), which
implies that LV also committed *unimportant* murders. Obviously, he
didn't kill *only* to create Horcruxes.

Snow:
> > Really look at this one. Then again it would all come down to what
type of death could be used as a Horcrux, I suppose. I submit that
only the death of someone who is innocent or unarmed could be used as
a Horcrux. I think that all of Riddle's victims that we are aware of
have been thus.

Carol responds:
You may be correct about the deaths he used for Horcruxes being those
of innocent people, but he certainly didn't kill only unarmed victims,
as we know from James. Madam Bones and Dorcas Meadowes may have been
armed--we don't know. And he challenged Harry to a duel, so if Harry
had died, he would have been innocent but armed. Dumbledore says that
LV preferred *important* victims--important to him, personally. Myrtle
(probably used for the diary Horcrux) would be important as his first
victim. Tom Riddle (ring Horcrux?) would be important as the father
who deserted him and his witch mother. The senior Riddles, especially
his grandfather, would have been important *to him* as wiping out the
Riddle line. Hepzibah Smith would have been important as a descendant
of Helga Hufflepuff. If, and I'm only guessing here, he killed
Grindelwald after DD destroyed his Horcrux (see earlier posts for my
reasoning here), that would certainly have qualified as an important
death even though Grindelwald as a Dark wizard must have been far from
innocent. There's no evidence that only an innocent victim can be used
for a Horcrux and DD's word that "Tom" would have preferred important
victims. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I go with DD.
> >
> >

> > Snow:

> > But you need to accept an exception here since we are dealing with
a person (Harry) who was protected by old magic and we don't know how
that can act anymore than how it did act. How do we know how this
attempted killing would act under an old magic protection? If
Voldemort is prepared to kill Harry to make his final Horcrux
(surmised by Dumbledore), but is vanquished (which he was) by old
magic why couldn't this same magic have caused the Horcrux action to
react? We don't know, do we?

Carol responds:
What "Horcrux action"? He tried to kill Harry to thwart the Prophecy.
That's canon. And you've already conceded that he wouldn't
deliberately make Harry into a Horcrux. I'm arguing that the soul bits
from Lily's and James's murders (and any others that hadn't been used
for Horcruxes) would most likely have floated off beyond the Veil, as
the soul bit in a Horcrux must also do or there would be no point in
destroying the Horcrux. And I'm arguing that based on the murders LV
apparently used to make the Horcruxes, four of them committed before
he even knew the procedure for making one, the murder occurs before
the Horcrux. He would have killed Harry and then gone to some secluded
place to prepare the Horcrux--assuming that he had even acquired the
object he intended to use. Lily's accidental magic protected Harry
from the AK. Surely it would also have protected him from being
invaded by a soul bit.

> > Snow:

> > First off we don't know how long it took before Harry's body could
not sustain being possessed by Voldemort. This was a very young child
who did have repercussion from the first attack but it was not a
lengthy possession, was it? We don't know, but my guess is that it was
not, which is why Harry lives. 

Carol responds:
You're mistaking my meaning. I'm not arguing that LV possessed or
attempted to possess Baby!Harry. He wanted to kill the Chosen One,
period. I'm talking about the failed possession attempt in the MoM.
Lily's magic protects him from possession then. It would, IMO, have
protected him from the invasion of a soul bit at GH as well.

Snow:
> > You're probably not going to enjoy or accept my answer to this one
anymore than my other attempts but
Harry is being made into a living
Philosopher's Stone. It is the only way that Harry can survive the
final destruction of Voldemort!

Carol responds:
Interesting theory, but I wouldn't claim that *anything* is the "only
way" that Harry can survive. And I repeat that his chances for
survival or even of defeating Voldemort are much greater if he is
*not* an accidental Horcrux. See upthread for the complications that
would ensue if he really is one, which you have not answered with your
Philosopher's Stone hypothesis.

Carol, still voting for possession as the power Harry will use to
defeat LV







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 17:14:07 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:14:07 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebvf73+u7et@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvjov+ikon@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157021

> > wynnleaf
> > While it's possible that you're correct, I have also seen very 
> > similar behavior play out in real life between fathers and sons -
- 
> > where the father understands his son quite thoroughly and the 
son 
> > knows it.  
> 
> PJ:
> When did Dumbledore and Snape become as close as father and son 
> though?  We have absolutely *nothing* in canon to suggest there is 
> such a bond between them, or even that they "understand each other 
> quite thoroughly".  What canon says is that Dumbledore is Snape's 
> boss and before that, his headmaster... They're co-workers.

wynnleaf
I would not see Dumbledore and Snape in any kind of normal co-worker 
light.  First, Dumbledore has known Snape to one extent or another 
for over 20 years -- first as a child, then an adolescent, then as 
an adult.  He has figured in Snape's life as headmaster, spy-master, 
and employer.  But he has evidently also been Snape's confidant as 
regards why he left Voldemort.  Apparently, he was Snape's only 
confidant regarding that.  Snape was willing to voice whatever 
personal stresses and concerns he felt in the forest conversation 
that Hagrid overheard.  Despite others characterizing Snape's hatred 
of James as some sort of schoolboy grudge, Dumbledore speaks of it 
as a "wound too deep for healing."  Dumbledore is not just an 
employer; he seems to know personal things about Snape that no one 
else knows.

Dumbledore offered Snape a lot more than forgiveness and a "second 
chance."  He placed great trust in Snape and gave the ex-Death Eater 
a position of honor (teacher and Head of House) at a very young 
age.  This is not something you do for someone you don't know very 
well.  

Dumbledore is the person Snape went to when he wanted to leave 
Voldemort.  Snape was willing to reveal things to Dumbledore that no 
one else knows.  Lupin may think Snape hates James over petty 
issues, but Dumbledore knows something more about the true nature of 
those "wounds," enough to characterize them as much more serious 
than even James friends realize.  Snape is the only staff member we 
get to see actually disagreeing with or arguing with Dumbledore.  He 
seems to feel comfortable to do this, and Dumbledore certainly puts 
up with a lot from Snape -- both in his willingness to argue with 
Dumbledore, and in his treatment of his students.  

We can see in his response to fake-Moody's taunts during the night 
conversation in GOF, that Dumbledore's trust is very important to 
Snape.  

And then there's the teasing.  At the beginning of COS, Dumbledore 
actually agrees with Snape that Harry and Ron's actions with the car 
could merit expulsion, but Dumbledore gives them another chance 
saying if it happens *again* they'd risk being expelled.  Then he 
draws Snape away to taste the custard...  At the Christmas feast, 
Snape's cracker has a vulture hat in it, but as I recall (I'll have 
to look this up later) Snape doesn't *hand* it to Dumbledore or 
throw it out, or even just put it down, but gently pushes it toward 
Dumbledore, who gives him his own hat.  When I picture it, that just 
doesn't have the "feel" of Snape disliking Dumbledore.  

At the end of POA, I actually don't think that Dumbledore is simply 
teasing Snape about Harry and Hermione not being able to be in two 
places at once.  I think he *was* teasing some, but I have a feeling 
that the teachers knew about Hermione having the time-turner 
(wouldn't they have to, as she was using it for her classes?) and if 
I recall correctly, time-turners come via the Ministry.  I think 
Dumbledore was trying to subtly say, "Severus, think what you're 
saying right here in front of Fudge.  We can't have this discussion 
right now in front of him, because I've let these students use a 
time-turner to rescue Sirius."  I think that's why Snape backs down, 
because he realizes that Dumbledore (who he already suspected was 
believing Black's story) had authorized Harry and Hermione to use 
the time-turner to get Sirius out.  Snape is loyal to DD, regardless 
of what he thought of Sirius, and wouldn't continue to press the 
issue in front of Fudge, once he clued into what had happened.

Anyway, that's always been my read on that comment, primarily 
because I was always fairly sure that all of her teachers would have 
been aware of Hermione having a time-turner.

And then there's Dumbledore's comment to Fudge that Snape had just 
suffered a severe disappointment.  DD is amused.  Why?  I think 
because he's quite used to Snape's periodic explosions and knows how 
to weather them.

> Seen in that light would you consider a co-worker laughing at you 
> during a highly stressful and emotional time to be nothing more 
> than "gentle teasing" or would it upset you even further?  Canon 
> shows that Snape finds it upsetting. 

wynnleaf
Oh, I agree that Snape was upset by it.  But actually Dumbledore is 
like that to lots of people, not just Snape.  Other characters get 
upset around Dumbledore and he makes humorous little comments.  
Snape may find it upsetting, but it doesn't stop him from going to 
Dumbledore when he needs the right person to share problems and 
concerns, or make a confession.

> PJ:
> I don't see why it would follow at all.  (DDM=Liking Dumbledore)  
> You can agree with someone's platform/goals without liking the 
> person himself.  

wynnleaf
If Snape is DDM, the commitment that he has shown to following 
Dumbledore's direction goes far, far beyond agreeing with his 
platform and goals.  Wow, so far beyond it hardly bears the 
comparison.  Snape risks his life continually based on what 
Dumbledore thinks is the right move to make.  Dumbledore thought 
Snape should return to Voldemort as a spy and Snape did it, no 
questions asked.  If Snape AK'd Dumbledore against his own wishes 
(what was the "please" for, unless Snape didn't want to do it? -- 
assuming DDM of course), then he was once again taking on a huge 
amount of risk, etc. based on Dumbledore's assessment of what needed 
to be done.  But consider this, if Snape is DDM, then the "please, 
Severus" means that Snape *didn't* want to AK Dumbledore.  And that 
means he was willing to die in order to not AK him.  That's so, so 
much more than agreeing with Dumbledore's "platform/goals."  That 
speaks much more of *personal* motivation -- commitment to a person.

wynnleaf, who didn't mean, by the way, that the Dumbledore and Snape 
relationship is a father/son type, but simply that close 
relationships often allow for gentle teasing when someone is very 
well trusted.







From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Wed Aug 16 17:18:08 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:18:08 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebt3e0+107gr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvk0g+u4aq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157022

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
>
>Carol:
> > In OOP, he [=Lupin] tells Harry that "Snape" (not "severus") is a
"superb
> Occlumens" and that it's important for Harry to overcome his dislike
> of Snape and learn to protect himself (OoP am. ed. 527). Contrast his
> attitude with that of Black, who gives Harry the two-way mirror in
> case Snape gives him a hard time--a most unhelpful gesture since Harry
>  already distrusts Snape, which interferes with the lessons almost as
> much as Harry's desire to finish his dream does.
> 
> I think that Lupin really is attempting to be fair and objective, and
> certainly he doesn't hate Snape the way Sirius Black does--with a
> prejudice deepened by the knowledge that Snape was once a Death Eater.

Renee:
Yes, it could be Lupin tries to be objective, especially when he's
discussing Snape with Harry (and when it's in Harry's best interest
not to let his dislike of Snape get the better of him), but IMO you
can try to be objective about someone while still disliking them on a
personal level. For someone as distanced and detached as Lupin often
shows himself to be, this wouldn't be impossible (as it would be for
Sirius). 

> > > > >>Renee:
> > > <snip>
> > > What if Lupin merely wants to avoid suggesting that Harry's rescue
> > > of Sirius has played an indirect role in his resignation? Harry's
> > If Lupin is lying here, it's a white lie.     

Pippin:
If it's Lupin's intention to smear Snape's character then it's hardly
a white lie. Lupin himself admits that that he did put children
in danger and the parents have a point about not wanting him to
teach, but he imputes no such benign intention to Snape. 


Renee:
My point was, that replacing one of Snape's motivations (getting back
at the one Marauder who he can hurt at that point) by another,
probably fake one (being hit hard by the loss of the OoM), in order to
avoid bringing up Sirius, was the white lie. Leaving out Snape's other
possible motivation (protecting the students) could be seen as lying
by omission - but only if Lupin genuinely believes that Snape is
acting out of responsibility. It's very well possible Lupin doesn't
believe anything of the kind and only sees the revenge part. 

Though even if he does, he's not smearing Snape's character if revenge
*was* Snape's primary motive - as I personally believe, and as I'm
convinced Lupin believes as well. It's only when you believe revenge
played no role for Snape that Lupin's words turn into smearing Snape's
character. More or less, that is. His actual wording is quite mild.
Nor does Harry seize the opportunity to vent his anger at Snape, which
to me suggests that Lupin's remark does not invite such a reaction.

There's another possibility yet: Lupin has managed to convince himself
Snape was only out for revenge. Lupin's very good at self-deception.
He told himself Sirius was getting into Hogwarts using Dark Magic, and
no doubt he also convinced himself it was better for Tonks to break up
with her. 

Pippin:
Watching the BBC's version of Pride and Prejudice the other
day, I noted that what the characters say as they try
to dismiss their concerns about Wickham makes them sound
very much like some real life Lupin supporters I've heard.  

Renee:
Austens characters, notably Elizabeth Bennett - though not Lydia, of
course - have doubts about Wickham even before they find out what kind
of man he really is; the situation in the HP series is different. The
only person who voices any concerns about Lupin's personality *in the
series* is Snape (I refuse to count Umbridge) - and once he knows
Lupin wasn't helping Sirius to get into Hogwarts, all he does is
calling Tonks's werewolf!Lupin Patronus weak. And I wouldn't call
Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about the
Marauders. Any other doubts about Lupin are voiced by *readers*, not
by the HP characters. So the situation can't really be compared to the
one in Pride and Prejudice.  

I can't help noticing that the doubts seem to come predominantly from
readers who strongly favour Snape (though, to be fair, not all of them
have doubts about Lupin) and seem to resent the fact that Lupin subtly
needles him on several occasion, makes fun of him in the Boggart
lesson, calls him a fool in the Shrieking Shack and speaks harshly of
him when he hears Snape has killed Dumbledore. But Snape himself is
still not above suspicion at this point. We may yet find out in Book 7
that Lupin hasn't been nearly harsh enough about Snape. 


> Renee:
> This lack of initiative is one of the three main reasons I don't
> believe in ESE!Lupin either, the other two being JKR's statements that
> she loves him, and the token-good-werewolf thing.

Pippin:
She says she loves all her characters, including the bad guys.   

Renee:
She's mentioned him more than once when asked who were her favourites.
He was right there with the Trio, Gred&Forge, Dumbledore and Hagrid.

Pippin:
And
I don't believe that JKR approves of tokenism. It's a much stronger
message if Harry still believes that werewolves should have the
same rights that wizards do even after he learns that
Lupin has betrayed him.

Renee:
This looks like a typical case of `She doesn't' vs. `She does, too'.
And you may consider it a stronger message, but I would consider it a
rather implausible conclusion if Harry did, let alone people like
Molly, whose attitude represents that of the witch in the street. It's
not just Harry who needs to be convinced.






 


 









From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 17:44:43 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060816174443.60378.qmail@web39513.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157023



--- Lady Lawyer <mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com> wrote:
 
> Logically, "defeat" would be that state of being 180
> degrees from Voldemort's present state, pure evil,
> i.e., pure good.  So Harry would have to do
> something to Voldemort that makes him "good"?  What
> about Harry vanquishes him in battle and spares his
> life?  Then Voldemort is beholden to Harry and bound
> by allegiance to protect Harry (or whatever happens
> when one wizard saves another wizard's life) so he
> can't be bad any more or else he would, what, die or
> something?  What do people think of this?
 
> Mouthpiece49

parisfan writes:

I am one of those people who believe in moral
ambiguity when it comes to good over evil. I don't
think that snape will be turned to 'good' to be
defeated. I am more inclined to think that there might
be something attached to destroying the horcrux and
then Lord V (kind of like you got to destroy A then go
find B and us B to off C because A is no longer a back
up). I am also inclined to think that the process will
be messy and it will do more harm to the side of light
then dark.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 17:45:01 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:45:01 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ebuu1j+20od@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvlit+pmuq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157024

Brothergib wrote:
> 
> > If I could ask JKR a question it would be 'How could a rebounded
AK  destroy a house?'.
> > Surely it should kill the person it rebounded upon (in this case
LV) and that should be it!
> 
> Amiable Dorsai responded:
> Jo's been pretty good about showing us that botched magic can have
> serious side effects--from Seamus' burnt feather, to Neville's
melted cauldrons, to the toilet that Harry shattered when he missed
Draco with a Leg-Locker.
> 
> Even a magical dud like Lockhart managed to collapse a stone ceiling
> when his Obliviate backfired.  Why should we be surprised that the
> misfire of a powerful wizard's AK was similarly destructive? 
<sniP

Carol responds:
Or, to put it another way, if a rebounded Horcrux spell could destroy
a house, as Brothergib postulated in the portion of his post that AD
snipped, then certainly a rebounded AK could do so. And we know from
interviews (and, IIRC, JKR's website) that the spell that hit Harry
and rebounded on Voldemort was indeed a killing curse:

"JKR: The first question that I have never been asked?it has probably
been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why didn't
Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't Voldemort
die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why didn't he?"

http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0804-ebf.htm

Aside from logical reasons for not deliberately making the boy
destined to destroy you into a Horcrux (it makes much more sense from
a Dark Lord's perspective to kill him--and, as a side benefit, to use
his death as the first step in creating your last Horcrux), it's
pretty clear from that quotation that the rebounded curse was what
it's presented as in the books, an AK.

I agree with Brothergib, however, that the cut that later became a
scar was probably created by the spell bursting out of Harry with
sufficient force both to rip Voldemort from his body and destroy the
house. (If it had been anything other than an AK, it probably would
have done no damage to Voldemort. Imagine himself encasing his own
soul bit back in himself!) We know that an AK entering a victim
doesn't make a mark, but a rejected AK exploding outward would no
doubt create devastation.

Carol, still wondering what happened to Voldemort's body and why
people thought he was dead if it wasn't there










From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug 16 18:07:43 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:07:43 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvk0g+u4aq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvmtf+o2nr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157025

Renee:

> Austens characters, notably Elizabeth Bennett - though 
> not Lydia, of course - have doubts about Wickham even before 
> they find out what kind of man he really is;

houyhnhnm:

Since you are the second person to make this claim, I would 
really like to know what you base it on, even though the 
question is somewhat OT. Quotes and page numbers, please.

I have read _Pride and Prejudice_ many times and I can't 
remember any character other than Mr. Bennet (and Darcy's 
friends, whose opinions Elizabeth dismisses) who voices 
criticism of Wickham, and he only implies that Wickham is 
indiscrete.  Even Aunt Gardiner's caution to Elizabeth is 
based on Wickham's lack of fortune rather than doubts about 
his integrity.

As far as I recall, Elizabeth never doubts Wickham, even 
after he has jilted her for a young woman with ten thousand 
pounds, *until* she reads Darcy's letter.






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 18:12:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:12:13 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <c09.15c49fd.3213ce1d@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ebvn5t+kj0g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157026

Eyemlynn wrote:

> I kind of think that the only point to that [having McGonagall wait
all day for DD} was for her to say that the Dursleys were the worst
sort of muggles. Just a way of introducing them as bad people.

Carol responds:
I agree that having her present at the scene was primarily a narrative
device, but it served several purposes other than introducing the
Dursleys as bad people, which could have been done without McGonagall.
It introduces McGonagall and establishes her ability to transform into
a cat (the motif of the Animagus, which will become important later)
and provides a person for Dumbledore to talk to while they're waiting
for Hagrid--exposition through dialogue. We learn through them about
the murder of Lily and James, for example, rather than witnessing what
really happened at GH--just enough to set up the mystery.). Meanwhile,
while she waits on the wall, we get to see through Vernon Dursley's
eyes for a day--magic occurring all around him and he's determinedly
oblivious even to the cat reading the map. The scene also establishes
the reality of the WW, contrasting it with mundane Muggledom, and
introduces two other important characters, DD and Hagrid, years before
Harry meets them. We see Baby!Harry placed on the doorstep, along with
a letter that the reader is not allowed to read. We're even introduced
to Sirius Black and his flying motorcycle, a seemingly fly-by
reference. IOW, the whole chapter serves as a prologue in story form.
It's necessary to the structure and content of this prologue for
McGonagall to be on the wall all day watching the Muggles on their
last normal (pre-Harry) day and for her to be in the dark with regard
to Dumbledore's plans for Harry, knowing only that Dumbledore will be
coming to 4 Privet Drive and that James and Lily are rumored to be dead. 

What we still don't know is what Dumbledore and Hagrid were doing
during those missing twenty-four hours. I think and hope that we're
supposed to wonder about that. If JKR isn't aware of that gap in her
story, then her math is even more abysmal than she realizes.

Carol, permanently annoyed by "the legendary Charlie Weasley" never
having won the Quidditch Cup in his entire seven years at Hogwarts
(or, rather, the last six since he wouldn't have played as a first-year)









From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 18:20:08 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:20:08 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and Dumbledore
Message-ID: <BAY101-F291A5814437E46D4AE4AB0914C0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157027



wynnleaf:
>If Snape is DDM, the commitment that he has shown to following
>Dumbledore's direction goes far, far beyond agreeing with his
>>platform and goals.  Wow, so far beyond it hardly bears the
>comparison.  Snape risks his life continually based on what
>Dumbledore thinks is the right move to make.  Dumbledore thought
>Snape should return to Voldemort as a spy and Snape did it, no
>questions asked.


PJ:

It almost feels like we're reading two different stories....

Don't you think your point of view sweeps Snape's importance to the 
storyline under the rug?  I mean, to do everything that Dumbledore tells him 
without any input gives Snape no credit for the intelligence and cunning 
we're shown he possesses over and over again!  Why would JKR bother to show 
us this if he was nothing more than Dumbledore's lackey?   No, rather than 
just doing Dumbledore's bidding, I think he is deeply involved in 
*formulating* those plans - working in tandem rather than just doing what 
he's told.

I don't like Snape and I don't think Snape is DDM! but I see him as much 
more actively involved than you do.  It's only logical that if you're 
expected to do the dirty, dangerous work then you'd insist on hashing that 
plan out *in depth* before sticking your neck out in any way.  You wouldn't 
simply follow someone else blindly - not unless you were suicidal....  In 
some ways he knows LV/DE's better than Dumbledore does and his input would 
certainly be necessary for any plan to work.

He's no one's puppet which is really the whole *point* of OFH!Snape.

PJ





From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 18:38:47 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:38:47 -0000
Subject: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ebvonn+p9mb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157028

Lady Lawyer wrote:
>
> I can't for the life of me figure out how Harry could "defeat"
Voldemort without killing him.  And by the way I don't think that
killing someone in pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
will split your soul.  I think the soul splitting murder has to  be
with extreme cruelty.  Else every soldier would have a split soul.
>  
> Logically, "defeat" would be that state of being 180 degrees from
Voldemort's present state, pure evil, i.e., pure good.  So Harry would
have to do something to Voldemort that makes him "good"?  What about
Harry vanquishes him in battle and spares his life?  Then Voldemort is
beholden to Harry and bound by allegiance to protect Harry (or
whatever happens when one wizard saves another wizard's life) so he
can't be bad any more or else he would, what, die or something?  What
do people think of this?
>  
> This is why I think he will vanquish him by taking him alive through
the veil.  It must be weird to be in the afterlife and not be actually
dead, although you appear dead to those left behind in th Potterverse.
>  

>

Carol responds:
I agree with your first and third paragraphs, more or less. I don't
think that Harry will use Avada Kedavra, the weapon of his enemy that
killed his parents and is universally regarded in the WW as
Unforgiveable. It's inconsistent with the Love that DD insists is
Harry's greatest strength. I don't however, think it's possible to
make Voldemort "good," nor do I think that even returning him to his
pre-murder state as eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, if that were somehow
possible, could accomplish that miracle. But sparing Voldemort's life
would be even more wrong than AKing him since it would relaease him
into the world again to do evil. Azkaban wouldn't hold him. (As an
aside, I hope we'll see something of that sort from *Neville,* showing
mercy to the merciless Bellatrix, but by no means letting her go
unpunished. She'd be sent to Azkaban where she belongs. I don't think
that any of the main kid characters will perform an AK. Draco
couldn't, and he's the closest thing to an evil kid character that we
have.) So we're left with killing/permanently destroying him without
using an Unforgiveable Curse or other Dark weapon, such as poison (to
which he's probably immune anyway, even without the Horcruxes).

I think, and have argued at length elsewhere, that Harry will possess
Voldemort, who will be as unable to endure the Love in Harry just as
he was when he tried to possess Harry in OoP (foreshadowing, anyone?)
and will force him to go through the Veil to escape the agony. I also
think that Harry will come out again using Sirius Black's body, so
that Black will be truly dead and can at last have a funeral that will
enable his few close friends to say good-bye and move on, and that
Harry will return to his own body. (None of this can happen, IMO,
until Harry gets over his desire for revenge against Snape and plays
to his strength, the Love that Lily's death created in him.) 

Carol, wondering if being trapped behind the Veil with only a
fragmentary soul could be the fate worse than death (dead in the sense
of never being able to come back to the world) that DD mentioned to LV
when he fought him in the DoM







From sherriola at earthlink.net  Wed Aug 16 18:42:48 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 11:42:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <ebvn5t+kj0g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GDQLq-0006go-E6@elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157029

Eyemlynn wrote:

> I kind of think that the only point to that [having McGonagall wait
all day for DD} was for her to say that the Dursleys were the worst sort of
muggles. Just a way of introducing them as bad people.



Sherry:

Actually, I've just been rereading SS/PS for another group's read through.
Minerva never said, in the books, that the Dursleys are the "worst sort of
Muggles".  That is movie contamination.  She said something about them being
as unlike the WW as it is possible to be.  I'm going by the audio book as
read by Jim dale, so it is the American edition.

Just clarifying.
Sherry




From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 14:38:34 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:38:34 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebtmip+oquh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvala+ru6i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157030

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "h2so3f" <h2so3f at ...> wrote:
> CH3ed:
> I agree with Carole and Carol on this one. JKR is notorious for
> hiding stuff in 'simple' statements like the one Ron made there,
> IMO.
>
> I think Carol made good points about Snape not getting on with the
> remaining Marauders, and his need to remain detached. Well.... he's
> gotta eat at some point (can't really have been doing without
> dinner all that time, ay? So I'd venture a guess that he already
> had a standing dinner arrangement with somebody else? Maybe the
> Other Side where he pass selected info about the Order(he was a
> double agent, after all)?


Robert:
For the comment to have an impact on the story from here on out, you
have to consider the current situation. If anything was intended by
JKR with this comment made by Ron, it was just to call Snape's
character into question. This is something she has done throughout
the books. What result can we gather if this was a direct clue to
something? That Snape is bad. Well we're supposed to believe he is,
aren't we? So the result is one of two things. 1) He is really a DE
and that is why he didn't want to eat there or 2) He isn't a DE and
he is just a jerk and doesn't like Sirius and Lupin and a lot of the
people hanging out there so he'd rather eat somewhere else. In case
you haven't noticed, Snape isn't much for conversation and fellowship.

Robert







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 17:32:29 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 10:32:29 -0700
Subject: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <ebvdea+und2@eGroups.com>
References: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	 <ebvdea+und2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608161032ub7333d4h3de7c4e93a43f621@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157031

Mouthpiece 49:
I can't for the life of me figure out how Harry could "defeat"
Voldemort without killing him. And by the way I don't think that
killing someone in pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
will split your soul. I think the soul splitting murder has to be
with extreme cruelty. Else every soldier would have a split soul.


Lynda:

I think that Harry is going to have to kill Voldemort to defeat him, if only because V is so committed to not dying.  For him it is the ultimate horror simply because of the emptiness of his soul.  That is the reason he has to die.  As for the idea that by killing Voldemort Harry will create a horcrux, I think that horcruxes have to be made intentionally, with that purpose in mind.  Also, not all killing is murder.  Some killings are done to protect either self or others from an act of extreme violence or evil, and the killing of Voldemort would certainly fit into the latter category, and since he is intent on killing Harry the former one as well.

Lynda





From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:11:39 2006
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:11:39 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ebvlit+pmuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvqlb+enpo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157033


> Carol writes:
<BIG SNIP > 
> I agree with Brothergib, however, that the cut that later became a
> scar was probably created by the spell bursting out of Harry with
> sufficient force both to rip Voldemort from his body and destroy the
> house. (If it had been anything other than an AK, it probably would
> have done no damage to Voldemort. Imagine himself encasing his own
> soul bit back in himself!) We know that an AK entering a victim
> doesn't make a mark, but a rejected AK exploding outward would no
> doubt create devastation.
> 
hpfan_mom now:

Also agree that the scar was created by the spell exploding out of 
Harry.  Why is the scar lightning-shaped?  A by-product of the 
particular spell?  The caster?  I don't think it's unique to the 
recipient bc JKR has said that if Neville had been chosen by Voldemort, 
he would have "been the one who survived with a lightning scar."

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=84

Or does the shape of the scar have no meaing whatsoever:  

"I chose the lightning bolt because it was the most plausible shape for 
a distinctive scar."  JKR in Houston Chronicle interview, March 20, 
2001.

But what about DD's scar of the London Underground?  That's a pretty 
distinctive shape.  Was it also caused by a spell exploding out of 
him?  DD does know a bit about scars and their magical 
connections . . . from personal experience?

hpfan_mom








From manawydan at ntlworld.com  Wed Aug 16 19:15:11 2006
From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (Ffred Clegg)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:15:11 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
References: <1155609950.1816.75128.m22@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <001601c6c168$4d0dd6f0$cc0b6bd5@Billie>

No: HPFGUIDX 157034

Rebecca wrote:
>Something's been bugging me - please note, I don't have answers but I do
>have some intriguing questions. So, let's go waaa-aay back to the 
>beginning,
>shall we?  First the passage below from PS/SS:

>McGonagall goes on to express shock that Dumbledore would consider leaving
>Harry with the Dursleys, *whom she has been watching all day.*  Question:
>Why has she been watching them *all day*? (She states she doesn't know what
>Dumbledore's plan is, nor that the rumors about James, Lily and Harry were
>true) While Hagrid told her that Dumbledore would be there, he evidently
>didn't tell her why nor what time. Because McGonagall has been there *all
>day* - what was so important that she had to to watch the Dursleys waiting
>for Dumbledore to arrive for some unknown purpose to her?

Let's try to get inside Dumbledore's head as that day started. The Death 
Eaters have lost their leader but the rest of the organisation is still 
intact and could be extremely dangerous. Harry has been rescued and taken to 
a safe place (Hogwarts would be my theory, which would explain how and where 
Hagrid and McGonagall met). The chief task for the Order and the Ministry is 
now to hunt down the remnants of Voldemort's organisation and sift out which 
ones were under imperio and which were genuine. But suppose the DEs had 
tried a counterattack and had taken the Dursleys hostage or even killed 
them - Dumbledore's plans would have been under sever threat. I think that 
McGonagall was there to protect the Dursley house as Harry's place of safety 
while he was growing up - she may not have got the full message about why 
she was there but then Dumbledore was never the world's best at 
communicating!

cheers

Ffred

O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon
Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion
Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri 




From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:19:16 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:19:16 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvk0g+u4aq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvr3k+n3me@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157035

 
> Renee:
> Austens characters, notably Elizabeth Bennett - though not Lydia, of
> course - have doubts about Wickham even before they find out what kind
> of man he really is;

Sydney:

Okay, this is reducing me to netspeak but OMG NO THEY DONT!!  I had to
correct someone on this off-site because it seemed off-topic, but it
seems the error has been allowed to spread. 

The ONLY person who expresses any doubt at all at Wickham's story is
Jane, who only does so because she wants to make everyone come out
good and so proposes some sort of misunderstanding. Every single other
person not personally involved with Darcy's circle-- INCLUDING
Elizabeth-- 100% takes Wickham's side and thinks he's a fabulous guy.   

Quotage:

"The whole of what Elizabeth had already heard, his claims on Mr.
Darcy, and all that he had suffered from him, was now openly
acknowledged and publicly canvassed; and every body was pleased to
think how much they had always disliked Mr. Darcy before they had
known any thing of the matter.

Miss Bennet was the only creature who could suppose there might be any
extenuating circumstances in the case, unknown to the society of
Hertfordshire; her mild and steady candour always pleaded for
allowances, and urged the possibility of mistakes -- but by everybody
else Mr. Darcy was condemned as the worst of men."


Elizabeth continues to hold a very high opinion of Wickham, and her
first emotional reaction on finding out the truth is:

Jane Austen:

"But when this subject was succeeded by his account of Mr. Wickham,
when she read, with somewhat clearer attention, a relation of events,
which, if true, must overthrow every cherished opinion of his worth,
and which bore so alarming an affinity to his own history of himself,
her feelings were yet more acutely painful and more difficult of
definition. Astonishment, apprehension, and even horror, oppressed
her. She wished to discredit it entirely, repeatedly exclaiming,
``This must be false! This cannot be! This must be the grossest
falsehood!''"

Sydney:

"Every cherished opinion of his worth" is what is being overthrown. 
There is not one line before this that Elizabeth expresses the
smallest doubt about Wickham's character.  She is sorry that she
cannot marry him because he has no money.  What finally decides her on
Darcy's story being true and Wickham's false has NOTHING to do with
her judgement of their characters and everything to do with a logical
alalysis of what is likely, logical, reasonable, and supported by the
evidence:

Jane Austen:

"...collecting herself as well as she could, she again began the
mortifying perusal of all that related to Wickham, and commanded
herself so far as to examine the meaning of every sentence.... What
Wickham had said of the living was fresh in her memory, and as she
recalled his very words, it was impossible not to feel that there was
gross duplicity on one side or the other; and, for a few moments, she
flattered herself that her wishes did not err...

.... again was she forced to hesitate. She put down the letter,
weighed every circumstance with what she meant to be impartiality --
deliberated on the probability of each statement -- but with little
success. On both sides it was only assertion. Again she read on. But
every line proved more clearly that the affair, which she had believed
it impossible that any contrivance could so represent as to render Mr.
Darcy's conduct in it less than infamous, was capable of a turn which
must make him entirely blameless throughout the whole....

.... After pausing on this point a considerable while, she once more
continued to read. But, alas! the story which followed, of his designs
on Miss Darcy, received some confirmation from what had passed between
Colonel Fitzwilliam and herself only the morning before; and at last
she was referred for the truth of every particular to Colonel
Fitzwilliam himself -- from whom she had previously received the
information of his near concern in all his cousin's affairs, and whose
character she had no reason to question. At one time she had almost
resolved on applying to him, but the idea was checked by the
awkwardness of the application, and at length wholly banished by the
conviction that Mr. Darcy would never have hazarded such a proposal if
he had not been well assured of his cousin's corroboration."

Sydney:

I'm sorry both for the massive quotage and the massive snippage, but
if people are going to use Pride and Prejudice to support their
arguments-- and you know who you are-- they should probably read the
book.  And stop accusing those of us who have-- who in fact have
practically memorized it-- of being influenced by external sources.  


Renee:

>the situation in the HP series is different. The
> only person who voices any concerns about Lupin's personality *in the
> series* is Snape (I refuse to count Umbridge) - and once he knows
> Lupin wasn't helping Sirius to get into Hogwarts, all he does is
> calling Tonks's werewolf!Lupin Patronus weak. And I wouldn't call
> Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about the
> Marauders.


Sydney:

Really?  As it turns out, Snape was right about James being arrogant
and strutting around the school.  He was right about Lupin being weak
as well-- as Lupin himself agrees.  And while Lupin wasn't actively
helping Sirius, he was (oh-so-Lupin!) passively helping, by
withholding the information about the Animagus transformation and,
even worse, the secret passages they both knew about.

Incidentally, having dislikable characters voice doubts about likable
ones that turn out to be accurate is a favorite strategy of Wilkie
Collins--- has JKR ever referred to him?  As a Victorian
mystery-and-melodrama writer he seems like he'd be right up her street!

Renee:

> Any other doubts about Lupin are voiced by *readers*, not
> by the HP characters. So the situation can't really be compared to the
> one in Pride and Prejudice.  

Sydney:

See above.. uh, yes it can.  It totally can. 

 
Renee:
 
> I can't help noticing that the doubts seem to come predominantly from
> readers who strongly favour Snape (though, to be fair, not all of them
> have doubts about Lupin)


Sydney:

Hee!  Guilty as charged... although I like both Snape and Lupin!  I do
see why the ESE! theories about him arise, because much more than the
Austen parallel, if Lupin was a character in an Agatha Christie story
I would be all over him as the prime suspect.  The Nice Young Man who
is so helpful and hangs around the periphery of the story!  It's
almost too obvious!

I don't think I can jump on that bandwagon, mostly, I have to admit,
on account of the Alchemical theory of the series' structure, which  I
don't even really understand.  But it WAS used to predict Lupin and
Tonks getting together, which for me came from Outer Space, so I have
a lot of respect for it.  Under that scheme, Lupin stands for worldly
niceness, or something like that, in which case his
passive-nice-but-ineffectual thing fits perfectly.


 
-- Sydney, who wonders if the "Elizabeth liked Darcy and was
suspicious of Wickham all along" thing comes from the fine Laurence
Olivier/Greer Garson movie, which does take some liberties...







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:27:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:27:59 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F291A5814437E46D4AE4AB0914C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebvrjv+6aor@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157036

PJ wrote:
<snip> 
> Don't you think your point of view sweeps Snape's importance to the 
> storyline under the rug?  I mean, to do everything that Dumbledore
tells him without any input gives Snape no credit for the intelligence
and cunning we're shown he possesses over and over again!  Why would
JKR bother to show us this if he was nothing more than Dumbledore's
lackey?   No, rather than just doing Dumbledore's bidding, I think he
is deeply involved in *formulating* those plans - working in tandem
rather than just doing what he's told.
> 
> I don't like Snape and I don't think Snape is DDM! but I see him as
much more actively involved than you do.  It's only logical that if
you're expected to do the dirty, dangerous work then you'd insist on
hashing that plan out *in depth* before sticking your neck out in any
way.  You wouldn't simply follow someone else blindly - not unless you
were suicidal....  In some ways he knows LV/DE's better than
Dumbledore does and his input would certainly be necessary for any
plan to work.
> 
> He's no one's puppet which is really the whole *point* of OFH!Snape.

Carol responds:
I don't think wynnleaf is suggesting that Snape follows DD blindly
(she points out that he's the only staff member who argues with
Dumbledore), only that he risks his life and does the dangerous dirty
work at least in part out of genuine loyalty to Dumbledore (which is
what we mean by calling him DDM, as I'm sure you know). And, as
wynnleaf pointed out, we *know* that Dumbledore's trust in him is
important to Snape from the scene with Crouch!Moody, as Wynnleaf
pointed out. That the bond between DD and Snape (great-grandfather/
great-grandson might describe it better than father/son, given the
immense difference in their ages) is mutual is indicated by
Dumbledore's inability to talk for several minutes after he sends
Snape off on the dangerous mission to pretend to return to Voldemort
(and by the deep understanding of Snape's "wound" that wynnleaf
cites). "If you are ready. . . if you are prepared" indicates that the
action is part of Dumbledore's plan but that DD trusts Snape to work
out the details for himself. IOW, he trusts him completely, as he says
in HBP, and allows him to use his own intelligence and initiative to
do what needs to be done. He also trusts him to report the
proceedings, to "find out what Voldemort is telling his Death Eaters,"
as Snape puts it in OoP. ("That's your job, isn't it?" "Yes, Potter,
that is my job.") DD trusts Snape to spy for him "at great personal
risk," but he is also concerned for his safety--and not, IMO, just
because his work is important and no one else could do it. That moment
of silence as he watches Snape go off into great danger, armed only
with the lies and half-truths he has worked out to explain his
opposition to Quirrell and his absence from the graveyard, indicates
to me that there is a deep bond between them that goes beyond
trust--affection or even love and DD's part and deep loyalty on
Snape's part. Just sharing an agenda would not explain Snape's
continued willingness to risk his life to spy on Voldemort. 

Carol, thinking that a bond between Snape and DD makes Snape's actions
on the tower all the more tragic (for Snape) and in no way diminishes
his importance to the story








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:01:16 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:01:16 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebrcgh+oknt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvq1s+uhjr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157037

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "juli17ptf" <juli17 at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> > 
> 
> Julie:
> I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
> after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
> doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
> could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
> feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
> some vituperous commentary over that demand. 

I agree that the ending of Snape's involvement in Occlumency is not 
a matter of trust (i.e. it isn't an indication, per se, that DD no 
longer trusts Snape to continue the lessons).  But how do we know 
that Dumbledore didn't demand that Snape continue the lessons?  We 
have, I think, no evidence on that at all -- and if Lupin's 
expectation about DD's reaction was accurate, Dumbledore could 
certainly be expected to make such a demand if he isn't an absolute 
idiot.  Nor do we know that Snape did not simply refuse point 
blank.  It would absolutely be within his character to do so, bitter 
and childish as he is.

Actually, though, it seems that DD was, for whatever reason, 
absolutely cut off from what was going on at Hogwarts during that 
period.  At this point DD, as so often in the Potter saga, ceases to 
be a character and simply becomes a plot device.  It doesn't suit 
the needs of the plot for DD to have any access to Hogwarts, so he 
doesn't.


Lupinlore










From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:33:24 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:33:24 -0000
Subject: Does DD "like" Snape: Re: OFH SNAPE
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F2683AEA74BB00983F35EAE914F0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebvru4+k932@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157038

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "P J" <midnightowl6 at ...> wrote:

> 
> I think Dumbledore found out that Snape had an obsession which 
turned out to 
> be an important part of DD's plan and the two of them have been 
working 
> together on that one thing.  He trusts Snape completely to 
accomplish it 
> because Snape's like a dog with a bone when he wants something 
badly.   
> However, I don't think DD considers Snape a good guy on the side 
of the 
> light.  No where does Dumbledore "tweak" McG or Flitwick or any of 
the other 
> teachers but he's *always* doing it to Snape.  The House Cup 
Banquet, the 
> flying car incident, the PoA ending, the "Granny Hat" in the 
cracker... I 
> don't honestly think Dumbledore *likes* Snape!
> 
> PJ
>


Hmmmm.  Does Dumbledore like Snape?  It would certainly, I think, be 
contemptible if he did, once again, IMO, proving that the epitome of 
goodness approves of and supports a reprehensible and indefensible 
abuser of children.  But then, does Dumbledore "like" anyone?

I really rather doubt that he does -- not in the ordinary sense of 
the word.  I don't know what the dictionary definiton of "like" is, 
and I don't care in the least, but certainly in ordinary discourse 
to "like" someone indicates an enjoyment of a person's presence, a 
trust in that person, and a level of intimacy and openness with that 
person, all of which can range in degree from relatively mild to 
relatively intense (i.e. you can like someone okay, like them to a 
fair extent, like them pretty well, like them quite a lot, and 
really like them).  This is all, I think, to be distinguished from 
love, which is a separate emotion and not simply "liking" to a great 
degree.  Nor is hate simply a matter of "disliking" to a great 
degree.  

The problem of course is that "liking" and "loving" bear some 
superficial resemblance as do "disliking" and "hating."  It's easy 
to get the states confused.  Teenagers do it all the time, and 
adults do it almost as often (just ask any divorce lawyer about that 
one).

DD seems to love at least Harry and probably Fawkes.  I don't know 
that we have much evidence for him loving anyone else, although his 
reaction after drinking the potion is suggestive.  He seems to 
dislike Scrimgeour, Fudge, and the Dursleys.  His feelings for Tom 
Riddle are not shown in detail, but if he hates anyone (and I'm not 
saying he does) I'd say Tommy Boy is the prime candidate.  

But does he really "like" anyone?  I don't really think so, because 
he doesn't have enough intimacy and openness with anyone to be able 
to say that. He for instance seems to love Harry, but he doesn't 
seem to like him in the ordinary sense -- i.e. his relationship 
doesn't show all the characteristics.  He certainly enjoys Harry's 
company, but his level of trust is wanting, and intimacy is, at 
best, only superficial.  The same with McGonnagall.   

So does DD "like" anyone?  No, I don't think he really does, or at 
least I think it's questionable.  I don't subscribe to Pippin's idea 
that DD has the same emotional defect as Voldy -- i.e. inability to 
love.  I think, in fact, we have pretty hard evidence to the 
contrary.  But I also think DD may well have his own problems.  JKR 
herself has said he is isolated, and that bespeaks an absence of 
true friendship -- which is the social manifestation of 
mutual "liking" between people.  And that may well be a tragic side 
of the character.  He has people who will die for him, but doesn't 
know who to call if he has a spare ticket for the quidditch finals.


Lupinlore










From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:48:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:48:30 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebvala+ru6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvsqe+ot0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157039

Robert wrote:
> For the comment to have an impact on the story from here on out, you
> have to consider the current situation. If anything was intended by
> JKR with this comment made by Ron, it was just to call Snape's
> character into question. This is something she has done throughout
> the books. What result can we gather if this was a direct clue to
> something? That Snape is bad. Well we're supposed to believe he is,
> aren't we? So the result is one of two things. 1) He is really a DE
> and that is why he didn't want to eat there or 2) He isn't a DE and
> he is just a jerk and doesn't like Sirius and Lupin and a lot of the
> people hanging out there so he'd rather eat somewhere else. In case
> you haven't noticed, Snape isn't much for conversation and fellowship.

Carol responds:
Yes, I made the point that Snape doesn't like Sirius Black and that
the feeling is mutual, and the point that he isn't much for
conversation and fellowship, in the post that CH3ed was agreeing with.
But, surely, if Snape were evil, he would pretend to overcome that
dislike and remain with the Order at mealtimes to spy on them. (It's
possible to "smile and smile and be a villain," as Hamlet puts it.) As
it is, Snape stays only to perform his duty (e.g., make his report or
tell Harry about Occlumency lessons) and then leaves. If he socializes
with anyone, it's Lucius Malfoy--the better to find out what Lucius
and the other DEs are up to without actually facing Voldemort (unless
that's unavoidable, as in his staged return to LV at the end of GoF).
Note that Malfoy tells Snape that he saw Sirius Black in Animagus form
on Platform 9 3/4 and that Snape provides that information to Black,
in typical Snarky!Snape fashion, in response to Black's "lapdog" sneer.

BTW, not liking Sirius Black, who in Snape's view tried to murder him
when they were both sixteen, is entirely understandable. And it's
difficult to forgive someone who still addresses you with schoolboy
insults ("Snivellus") at 35 or 36. As far as snape is concerned,
Sirius Black is still the arrogant little bully who helped James
Potter waylay and attack him in the Pensieve scene. Why would he
*want* to stay for dinner there, unless some purpose could be served?

Carol, who thinks that Snape's not eating with the Order is both in
character for Snape and perfectly appropriate in terms of loyalty to
Dumbledore







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 19:49:24 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:49:24 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <BAY101-F291A5814437E46D4AE4AB0914C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ebvss4+fvsn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157040


> wynnleaf:
  Dumbledore thought
> >Snape should return to Voldemort as a spy and Snape did it, no
> >questions asked.

> 
> PJ:
> 
> It almost feels like we're reading two different stories....
> 
> Don't you think your point of view sweeps Snape's importance to 
the 
> storyline under the rug?  I mean, to do everything that Dumbledore 
tells him 
> without any input gives Snape no credit for the intelligence and 
cunning 
> we're shown he possesses over and over again! 

wynnleaf,
No, I don't think we were reading different books -- maybe just 
different posts.  I was concerned at first that perhaps I had 
actually said that Snape did everything DD told him to without input 
or question.  I was sure I remembered saying that Snape was the only 
staff member who we see openly disagree with DD, and I felt certain 
that I the only thing I said Snape did without question was going 
back to spy on LV.  Fortunately, I looked back on my post and was 
gratified to find I was correct.  That's what I said.  I never said 
Snape gives no input.

PJ
 Why would JKR bother to show 
> us this if he was nothing more than Dumbledore's lackey?   No, 
rather than 
> just doing Dumbledore's bidding, I think he is deeply involved in 
> *formulating* those plans - working in tandem rather than just 
doing what 
> he's told.

wynnleaf
Yep, that's what I think, too.  However, on going back to spy on LV 
at the end of GOF -- they may have discussed it previously, and 
probably did, but when they knew LV had actually come back and the 
time of action was upon them, Snape just said he was ready and went 
without question.  It is, after all, there in canon.

PJ
> I don't like Snape and I don't think Snape is DDM! but I see him 
as much 
> more actively involved than you do. 

wynnleaf
Probably not.  You just didn't read my post well enough.  Remember, 
I pointed out that he disagrees openly with DD far more than other 
staff members, and perhaps (although I didn't say this in my last 
post) more than the Order members apparently.  So he's definitely 
giving input.  Plus we know he brings back reports to the Order.

PJ
 It's only logical that if you're 
> expected to do the dirty, dangerous work then you'd insist on 
hashing that 
> plan out *in depth* before sticking your neck out in any way.  You 
wouldn't 
> simply follow someone else blindly - not unless you were 
suicidal....  In 
> some ways he knows LV/DE's better than Dumbledore does and his 
input would 
> certainly be necessary for any plan to work.

wynnleaf
Agreed

PJ
> He's no one's puppet which is really the whole *point* of OFH!
Snape.

wynnleaf,
Once again, please remember that it was only about DD telling him 
that he needed him to go back as a spy at the end of GOF where I 
said he did it without question.  Perhaps it would be even more 
correct to say that he apparently did it without hesitation.

By the way, I note that you don't comment on the disposition of 
Snape toward DD that he would seem to rather die than AK 
Dumbledore.  As I said at the end of my last post, this, more than 
even the other actions which indicate great commitment, seems to 
indicate a strong commitment to Dumbledore personally.  After all, 
it seems odd that Snape would actually argue with Dumbledore over 
Snape not wanting to AK Dumbledore, which would result in Snape's 
death, if Snape actually disliked Dumbledore.  And even if the 
forest conversation was not about that, if DD's "please Severus" was 
having to plead with Snape to AK him, that clearly indicates that 
Snape didn't want to AK DD.  And *that* means that Snape would 
rather choose to die than kill DD, even with DD telling him to do 
it.  That's really hard for me to believe if Snape dislikes 
Dumbledore.

wynnleaf








From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug 16 19:52:30 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:52:30 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebvala+ru6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvt1u+hin2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157041

Robert:

> 2) He isn't a DE and he is just a jerk and doesn't like 
> Sirius and Lupin 

houyhnhnm:

Not to mention a shrewdness of little wand apes who stuff 
food in with both hands, talk with their mouths full, and 
put their elbows on the table.  But I think it has something 
to do with Occlumency, too.  The less time Snape spends with 
Order members, the fewer memories to manipulate when he is 
being Legilimenced by Voldemort. 









From mros at xs4all.nl  Wed Aug 16 19:40:40 2006
From: mros at xs4all.nl (Marion Ros)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:40:40 +0200
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
References: <ebvala+ru6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <001901c6c16b$db77f0d0$63fe54d5@Marion>

No: HPFGUIDX 157042

Marion:

I've read in a fanfic that the reason that Snape didn't eat at Grimmauld Place was because in order to be able to eat in a wizard's house, you'd have to have 'guest rights' (ie: the owner of the house must have invited you in and/or given you something to eat or drink)
It was just a fanfic, but it sounded reasonable to me. I know that in some old cultures (including British?) you were given bread and salt when entering a house. This would give you 'guest rights', which means that no one could harm you under your host's roof without his concent. It offered protection to the guest and the assurance of a place to sleep and food to eat.

see: http://www.houseofukraine.com/BREAD.HTML   and http://members.tripod.com/nicolaa5/articles/Hector/soc/HSalt.htm

Sirius is the Head of the House of Black and the Master of Grimmauld Place. If he did not offer any food, maybe it's physically impossible for Snape to eat any under his roof.

It's pure speculation, of course, but one that appealed to me. It would be a classic Ronnism to mouth off to Snape about his 'refusal to eat with us' while Snape was simply unable to because Sirius refused to give him any food or drink in his own house. It would be very in character too for Sirius to delight in having old Snivellus hungry and thirsty under his roof, knowing that if he wants to eat, drink or sleep he'd have to *leave*. For a man whose control over his own life has been largely removed, such pettiness must give great satisfaction.

But, as I say, it's pure speculation. Perhaps Snape simply didn't want to take any food and/or drink under Black's roof, perhaps for the same reason. Still, a society where 'lifedebts' exists, 'guestright' might not be altogether farfetched.







From h2so3f at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 19:59:10 2006
From: h2so3f at yahoo.com (h2so3f)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:59:10 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebvala+ru6i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvtee+jahc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157043

Robert wrote:
"For the comment to have an impact on the story from here on out, 
you have to consider the current situation. If anything was intended 
by JKR with this comment made by Ron, it was just to call Snape's 
character into question. This is something she has done throughout 
the books. What result can we gather if this was a direct clue to 
something? That Snape is bad." <snip>


CH3ed:
I'm a bit slow so I'm not getting how we can conclusively say that 
that comment Ron made about Snape never eating at the HQ is JUST 
made to imply that Snape is bad/untrustworthy. It just means he 
eats 'elsewhere'. And not eating with a group that is hardly 
friendly to you doesn't necessarily make you a bad guy, IMO.

If that 'elsewhere' happened to be with the DEs, that still doesn't 
present a conclusive evidence that he is bad because we don't know 
exactly what he told the other side during those dinners, do we? I 
think it makes just as much sense for her to put that comment there 
to remind us the OotP members weren't the only people Snape hung 
with and to drop us a hint of when Snape hung with the other people.


Robert wrote:
"Well we're supposed to believe he is (bad), aren't we? So the 
result is one of two things. 1) He is really a DE and that is why he 
didn't want to eat there or 2) He isn't a DE and he is just a jerk 
and doesn't like Sirius and Lupin and a lot of the people hanging 
out there so he'd rather eat somewhere else. In case you haven't 
noticed, Snape isn't much for conversation and fellowship." 

CH3ed:
I've noticed that Snape isn't much for conversation and fellowship 
(except when he wants to squeeze something out of you like he did 
Narcissa at Spinner's End). But have you considered the possibility 
that Snape eating... say... with the DEs may have been pre-arranged 
and pre-approved by Dumbledore as the setting where he spied on the 
DEs for the OotP while passing them false or incomplete info? In 
which case Snape wouldn't be a bad guy at all.

As a side note, you haven't seen me posted for a long time now 
precisely because I'm not into making big deal out of things (and if 
that's what you think that's being done here, it's probably 
understandable considering the way this forum has been going with 
all the abuse/not-abuse, ESE-everybody-in-sight, etc, that move us 
nowhere in the story). 

I'd say tho, IMHO, this quiet little clue sounds more like she is 
hinting something at us a lot more than many other 'clues' that have 
been brought up the past few months. If JKR wanted to have Ron make 
a remark casting Snape in a bad light, she could have done it better 
by having Ron comment that Snape made some disparaging remarks about 
the cooking or the state of the HQ, etc.... instead of noting his 
absence at dinner time. That was leading somewhere. Snape wasn't at 
HQ when they ate, where was he?

CH3ed  :O)







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 20:00:03 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:00:03 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvr3k+n3me@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ebvtg3+q6e3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157044

> Renee:
<SNIP>
 And I wouldn't call
> > Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about the
> > Marauders.
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Really?  As it turns out, Snape was right about James being arrogant
> and strutting around the school.  He was right about Lupin being weak
> as well-- as Lupin himself agrees.  And while Lupin wasn't actively
> helping Sirius, he was (oh-so-Lupin!) passively helping, by
> withholding the information about the Animagus transformation and,
> even worse, the secret passages they both knew about.

Alla:

But but... doesn't the fact that Lupin was **passively** helping an 
innocent man shows that Snape is indeed extremely unreliable when it 
comes to Marauders?

I mean, I am not sure I accept that Lupin not telling Dumbledore 
translates into him **helping** Sirius, but say I accept it for the 
sake of the argument.

It is **good** that Lupin is helping an innocent then, no?

Snape maybe right sometimes about guessing the actions, but he is oh 
ever so **wrong** about the motivations IMO.

It is the same thing with Harry, IMO. Yeah, Snape often knows when 
Harry is in trouble (probably by Legilimency), but is he often right 
about Harry's motivations, about **why** he breaks the rules?

Not in my book, ( Harry's Hogmead trip being an exception of course).

Snape is sure to jump to the worst conclusions and sometimes he happens 
to guess correct, but does he figure Harry's heroic motivations, noble 
thoughts? I'd say, not ever. IMO of course.

So, yes, I consider Snape to be **unreliable** witness about Marauders 
and Harry.

The very good example of course is " have you forgotten that Sirius 
Black tried to kill me" ( paraphrase) and Dumbledore's "my memory is as 
good as ever" AND JKR promise that we **will** find out more about 
Prank.

Would you accept a bet that the right answer is :

No, he did not? :)

JMO

Alla,

who always has that crow handy to cook and eat, but who hopes that the 
others do too. :)







From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Wed Aug 16 20:15:29 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:15:29 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs. Snape (Was: OFH SNAPE)
In-Reply-To: <000f01c6c078$71b31c90$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <ebvud1+kvs5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157045

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Marion Ros" <mros at ...> wrote:
>
> Renee:
> >>>Are you suggesting Snape is *afraid* of Lupin until he's drunk his
> Wolfsbane Potion? But if that's the case, then how do you explain
> Snape's actions in the Shrieking Shack? If making Lupin drink his
> potion was so all-important to him, he wouldn't have wasted precious
> time acting out his revenge game on Sirius in the Shack. <<<
> 

<Sorry for the huge snippage, but as I've been called to account
recently by one of the Elves for not snipping enough, I'll strip the
reply down to the essentials.>      

Marion:
if *I* were Snape, I would've AK-ed both Black and Lupin in a second.
I'd probably get a reward for Black ('dead or alive', wasn't it?) and
bagging his werewolf helper on a night of a full moon can't be seen as
murder, surely. But Snape has but one priority: getting the kids out
of there and subdueing Black and Lupin.

Renee:
An AK is an Unforgivable, and even the Aurors needed special
permission during the first Voldemort War to use those curses, so I'm
far from sure Snape would have gotten away with using one without 
authorisation. But I guess he could have used Sectumsempra; this looks
pretty effective in HBP.    

Marion:
> Perhaps Snape is just too civilised to just come in and start
killing people, no matter how heinous. Maybe he needs a little more
justification ("don't make me do it, Black!") before he starts
blasting two men in front of the kiddies.
> Maybe.
> But we do know that Snape wants the kids *out* of there. Fast.
> 
Renee:
Fast? Really? Not a good idea then to start engaging in altercations
with everyone present except Ron. He talks quite a lot in that scene
for someone who's in a hurry, sharing a room with an unsafe werewolf
who's going to transform soon. He could at least have pointed out the
danger to cut the others short, yet he does nothing of the kind. I
just don't get the impression fear is the overriding emotion for Snape
here. Snape is not a very fearful person, IMO.    
  
 
> Renee, previously:
> >>>What I see in the scene with Harry is a man trying to assert his
hold on someone who depends on his goodwill. But Lupin doesn't play
along.  And I don't see why he should - it wasn't his fault that he
nearly killed Snape. I could see Lupin reason that if he meekly
consents to do what Snape tells him, it might leave Snape with the
impression he's admitting his guilt. And as he doesn't like Snape,
he's not going to please him. Also, if you're dependent on medicine,
it both galling and humiliating to have someone you don't like tell
you to take it and actually trying to supervise you doing so.
Especially before a witness who also happens to be a student of yours. <<<
> 
> 
> Marion:
 I see a man who is dangerous getting a job as a teacher on the stict
condition that he takes his medicine. He would be too much of a danger
to the children otherwise. Wanna bet that Dumbledore gave Snape the
order "You will brew his this potion, Severus, and you will see to it
that he *drinks* it. I won't endanger the children, but that means he
*must* take it. You above all others know how dangerous Lupin can be,
dear boy.."

Renee:
You know, this reminds me of the picture that can represent either an
antelope or a pelican, depending on the viewer. Actually, if I try, I
can see Snape's viewpoint; so maybe you could do the same for Lupin. 

What is too hard to imagine for me, is that Dumbledore has told Snape
to supervise Lupin. This seems completely OOC for the Headmaster with
his laissez-faire attitude. Not to mention that it would hardly be a
workable situation for Snape if DD hadn't communicated these orders to
 Lupin - but that would boil down to saying: Lupin, I don't trust you
to be responsible and take the potion of your own accord. 
Can you truly see DD doing so? I can't.  


Marion: 
> People in the fandom tend to see werewolves as AIDS patients:
shunned, harmless, misunderstood.
> Red Hen likenes Lupin to a schizophrenic, who doesn't want to take
his medicine because it makes him feel unlike himself.
> I tend to liken them to pedophiles. 

Renee:
JKR has said Lupin represents people's attitude towards illness, but
she's actually muddied these waters in HBP by turning Greyback into a
metaphor for pedophiles. So I can see where you're coming from. And
the chocolate joke at the beginning of PoA has a certain effect, too -
doesn't it, Pippin? ;)  

Marion:
pedophilia is a good way to go at it because pedophilia is seen as a
disease and yet at the same time the public has no compassion for a
pedophile.

Renee:
Hm... Maybe JKR is trying to create a bit more compassion then?  


Marion
> Now suppose a young boy got accosted at school once by one of those
beasts. It was hushed up, of course, the school didn't need the bad
publicity. Twenty years later, the boy has become a teacher and lo and
behold, his one time accoster turns up as an interim teacher as well.
The head of the school, knowing of the new teacher's 'affiction',
agrees to hire him on the condition that he takes drugs to 'curb his
urges'. The one to administer them to him is his one-time victim,
because a) he makes the stuff and b) the matter was hushed up; not
many know of the man's affliction.
> Now, picture the whole scene again, with this in mind.

Renee:
Sorry, I can't, because this is not a good comparison. 
a) Lupin and Snape were peers at school and are still peers in PoA,
and a pedophile is never his victim's peer. There's a power difference
that doesn't exist in the Lupin - Snape relationship.  
b) Lupin didn't take the initiative. Snape sought out Lupin, not the
other way around. That he didn't know what he was in for, doesn't
change this.
c) JKR has said we haven't got all the information concerning the
Prank. New information may shed an entirely new light on this
particular episode. DD's reply `My memory is as good as it ever was'
when Snape points out Sirius tried to murder him, sounds rather
ominous to me in this respect. 

Marion: 
> One-time victim of pedophile teacher comes to bring him drugs to
render him temporarily safe for the children he has to teach.
> Pedophile teacher gives 'special lessons' to a boy, who's there when
one-time victim enters with the medicine.
> Pedophile teacher looks his one-time victim in the face, smiles, and
says, "Oh, just put it there. I will take it when you're gone."
> 
> Doesn't sound *half* as nice anymore, does it?

Renee:
Doesn't sound like the same thing at all. Harry was in no immediate
danger from Lupin, unless the moon was full that night, but we're not
told it was. 

Also, don't you think pedophiles who aven't actually harmed anyone
should be allowed to retain their dignity when it comes to taking
medicine? It's Snape's right not to trust Lupin, but it's Lupin's
right not to give in to pressure *as long as he hasn't slipped*. 

Marion: 
> There have been studies which prove that how a person is introduced
matters to how that person continues to be perceived. If a person is
introduced as 'Tom Brown, who murdered his father when he was 17, is
very kind to his aged, silver-haired mother and who is an active
member of the Association for Protection of Helpless Kittens', we tend
to think Tom Brown a filthy fathermurder, a youthful delinquent who is
possibly pulling the wool over our eyes with that silver-haired mother
and those kittens. The hypocrite!
> If he is introduced as 'Tom Brown, who is very kind to his aged,
silver-haired mother and who is an active member of the Association
for Protection of Helpless Kittens, and who murdered his father when
he was 17', we tend to see him as a kind man who probably had good
reasons to kill his father. Probably the father was a drunk and abused
the poor mother (that's why her hair is prematurely grey, of course!)

 
> Lupin is introduced to us as a kind, patient softspoken man who
takes frights away from children and who deals out chocolates, but who
turns out to be a werewolf.
> Snape is introduced as and ugly man with a hooked nose, who is
strict and sarcastic and who has no patience for fools. A man dressed
in black, who looks scary and acts scary. And he rescues and protects
the children in his care.


Renee:
I'd be more inclined to agree with the applicability of of this
example - nice idea to name the boy `Tom' :) - if Lupin had actually
committed a murder at some point. Which we don't know that he has. 
Snape, though, has voluntarily become a member of a racist & terrorist
organisation in his youth. That he's changed his ways (and ESE!Snape
is the one possibility I have trouble believing in) does not undo his
past. And we find out about this pastt *after* discovering he was not
the villain in any of the previous books and actually tried to protect
the Hogwarts students. 
Wait a minute - maybe that's the reason he's so popular? If I've not
miscounted, there are more Snape-apologists on this list than
defenders of Lupin.      

Marion: 
> And then it turned out that werewolves tended to take after Fenrir
more than after Lupin.

Renee:
Are you arguing werewolves are no good after all?

Marion:
> And really, was Lupin ever *really* concerned about the possible
death and injury he could inflict? He seems rather flippant in PoA
when he reminisces about his schooldays, roaming around with his
animagus friends, laughing in retrospect about how *dangerous* it was
to break his promise to Dumbledore and run free as a werewolf ("there
were a few narrow escapes").

Renee:
He's not flippant about it in PoA. He laughed *at the time*. But in
the Shrieking Shack scene, he says `heavily' that the thought that he
could have bitten somebody `still haunts' him, and he's quite critical
about his behaviour as a student. So Lupin did develop a conscience in
the mean time, even though, unfortunately, he doesn't succeed in
acting on it when he's under strain. He remains a flawed character.
But there's no need to talk about him/treat him as if he's a criminal
with a bad record. 

Renee
(who fevently hopes she snipped enough to escape the wrath of the Elves)

 













From sydpad at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 20:43:36 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:43:36 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvtg3+q6e3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec001o+pll1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157046


> Alla:
> 
> But but... doesn't the fact that Lupin was **passively** helping an 
> innocent man shows that Snape is indeed extremely unreliable when it 
> comes to Marauders?

Sydney:

Well, but Lupin thought Sirius was guilty as well.  As we're going to
Lupin's character here, it's his frame of mind that's important.  So,
yes, Lupin was okay with witholding information that allowed a
mass-murderer to go into the castle.  


> Snape maybe right sometimes about guessing the actions, but he is oh 
> ever so **wrong** about the motivations IMO.

Sydney:

No he's not.  Lupin thought Sirius was guilty. This is not a
glossable-over factor.

Alla:

> It is the same thing with Harry, IMO. Yeah, Snape often knows when 
> Harry is in trouble (probably by Legilimency), but is he often right 
> about Harry's motivations, about **why** he breaks the rules?
> 
> Not in my book, ( Harry's Hogmead trip being an exception of course).


Sydney:

And when Harry lies about the HBP potions book.  I'm trying to think,
when was Harry breaking the rules for noble reasons?  I'm sure there
are instances, but it's not like that's all he ever does.  He often
breaks rules because he wants to have fun, be allowed to play
Quiddich, and do his own thing.  All common goals but not really noble
ones!


Sydney:

> The very good example of course is " have you forgotten that Sirius 
> Black tried to kill me" ( paraphrase) and Dumbledore's "my memory is as 
> good as ever" AND JKR promise that we **will** find out more about 
> Prank.
> 
> Would you accept a bet that the right answer is :
> 
> No, he did not? :)


You're on. ;)  I'd say Dumbledore's line is saying, 'yeah, and I also
remember the bit where you joined a neo-Nazi organization, so maybe
casting stones isn't a great thing for you to be doing.'.

-- Sydney








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 20:48:00 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:48:00 -0000
Subject: How many students WAS: Re: Prefects
In-Reply-To: <20060816082435.80282.qmail@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ec00a0+mihj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157047

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cassy Ferris <cassy_ferris at ...>
wrote:
>
> --- Steve <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
> > I think 400 is a more reasonable
> > estimate
> >  of Hogwarts size. (I've done the calculation but
> > won't 
> > bore you with them again.)
> 
> Cassy:
> 
> I think Rowling stated somewhere that there's around a
> 1000 student in Hogwarts, but she herself admits that
> her calculations are not always correct. Then again,...
> we can't estimate number of nameless extras from
> the books only, seeing as they are not mentioned.
> ...
> 


bboyminn:

Cassy, don't disagree with anything you said, but, as long as you
brought it up, I'll inject my theory on '1,000 students in Hogwarts'.

First, this was probably a mistake or miscalculation by JKR. She
freely admits that anything having to do with Math is not likely to
add up. 

But this is how I explain it. When JKR said '1,000 student at
Hogwarts' she wasn't giving the current enrollement, she was giving
the capacity of the school. We see many sections of the castle and
many classrooms that are unused, that strongly implies that Hogwarts
is NOT at maximum capacity. So, both 1,000 and some other number like
400 or 280 can be right without contradiction. The school can have a
capacity of 1,000 and a current enrollment of 400.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn








From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 16 20:53:54 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:53:54 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebvss4+fvsn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F14B88D04844CC3605BD74A914C0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157048



wynnleaf,
>No, I don't think we were reading different books -- maybe just
>different posts.  I was concerned at first that perhaps I had
>actually said that Snape did everything DD told him to without input
>or question.

PJ:

My mistake.  The "without hesitation" cleared that part up for me nicely.  
It was the without question that I've heard more than once which rankled. 
<shrug>



wynnleaf:
>By the way, I note that you don't comment on the disposition of
>Snape toward DD that he would seem to rather die than AK
>Dumbledore.  As I said at the end of my last post, this, more than
>even the other actions which indicate great commitment, seems to
>indicate a strong commitment to Dumbledore personally.  After all,
>it seems odd that Snape would actually argue with Dumbledore over
>Snape not wanting to AK Dumbledore, which would result in Snape's
>death, if Snape actually disliked Dumbledore.

PJ:
I didn't comment on it because I don't believe it for a minute but it's 
pretty difficult to prove a negative.


Wynnleaf:
>And even if the
>forest conversation was not about that, if DD's "please Severus" was
>having to plead with Snape to AK him, that clearly indicates that
>Snape didn't want to AK DD.  And *that* means that Snape would
>rather choose to die than kill DD, even with DD telling him to do
>it.  That's really hard for me to believe if Snape dislikes
>Dumbledore.

PJ:
IF, IF, IF.... Sorry but I see nothing in canon that "clearly indicates" 
anything of the kind. The whole thing from start to finish won't be fully 
explained to anyone's satisfaction until the next book and until then *any* 
meaning we attribute to that scene is pure supposition... On my part as 
well!

All that canon gives us about Snape in that scene are the dry facts.  Snape 
strides onto the tower, pushes Draco roughly aside, faces Dumbledore with a 
face full of hate and loathing and then AK's him.  *Seemingly* with no more 
thought than when he was shooting flies in his bedroom...

Where is the momentary look of regret for having to kill the greatest 
wizard?  The torment and indecision for having to kill his protector?  The 
ANGST that *should* be mentioned, should be *seen* even if  only briefly if 
Snape truly didn't think AKing DD was a great idea?  I find none...  What I 
see is that Snape is alive and well but Dumbledore isn't...

Is it possible that Snape no longer needed Dumbledore's assistance with his 
plan?  Is it even possible that Dumbledore had become more of a liabliity 
with his sudden interest in Horcruxes than helper in the "great plot"?  I 
think it should be considered...

PJ







Wondering what to do this summer?  Go to Patronus 2006
(http://www.patronus.dk/2006) or, if you're already registered for Lumos 
(http://www.hp2006.org), meet up with other HPfGU members there!

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








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 20:57:57 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:57:57 -0000
Subject: Snape as unreliable witness WAS: Re: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec001o+pll1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec00sl+qkka@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157049

> Sydney:
> 
> And when Harry lies about the HBP potions book.

Alla: 
Yes.

Sydney:
  I'm trying to think,
> when was Harry breaking the rules for noble reasons?  I'm sure there
> are instances, but it's not like that's all he ever does.  

Alla:

No it is not like that's all he ever does, but my point is that *when 
* he does, Snape can't be more clueless IMO.
As to the instances, let's see.

Going after the stone, going in the Chamber, going to save Sirius in 
PoA ( with Dumbledore's blessing, but still rule breaking , no? )


> Alla:
> 
> > The very good example of course is " have you forgotten that 
Sirius 
> > Black tried to kill me" ( paraphrase) and Dumbledore's "my memory 
is as 
> > good as ever" AND JKR promise that we **will** find out more 
about 
> > Prank.
> > 
> > Would you accept a bet that the right answer is :
> > 
> > No, he did not? :)
> 
Sydney: 
> You're on. ;)  I'd say Dumbledore's line is saying, 'yeah, and I 
also
> remember the bit where you joined a neo-Nazi organization, so maybe
> casting stones isn't a great thing for you to be doing.'.

Alla:

Oh, most definitely and whoever loses, owes ten bottles of butterbear.

But let's be clear about the conditions - that was not me proposing 
the deciphering of the Dumbledore's line.

That was me betting that prank was **not** an attempted murder as in  
Sirius was **not* wanting to kill Snape.

So, I am only betting on that. I cannot offer what Dumbledore's line 
really means. It may indeed meant what you said OR it also can mean 
that DD remembers what **really** occurred between Snape and 
Marauders and that Snape was not completely innocent party in that 
war and that is why DD indeed may have been saying that casting 
stones - Snape better not to IMO.

My bet is *trying to **kill me* is unreliable.

Are you still on? :-)

JMO,

Alla







From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Wed Aug 16 21:12:41 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:12:41 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvr3k+n3me@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec01o9+3gqi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157050

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>
>  
> > Renee:
> > Austens characters, notably Elizabeth Bennett - though not Lydia, of
> > course - have doubts about Wickham even before they find out what kind
> > of man he really is;
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Okay, this is reducing me to netspeak but OMG NO THEY DONT!!  I had to
> correct someone on this off-site because it seemed off-topic, but it
> seems the error has been allowed to spread. 
> 
> The ONLY person who expresses any doubt at all at Wickham's story is
> Jane, who only does so because she wants to make everyone come out
> good and so proposes some sort of misunderstanding. Every single other
> person not personally involved with Darcy's circle-- INCLUDING
> Elizabeth-- 100% takes Wickham's side and thinks he's a fabulous guy.   
> 

Renee:
Okay. I plead guilty to not consulting the book, only my - apparently
failing - memory of several dramatisations, and of one person on this
list who also wrote Elizabeth had her doubts. Furthermore, I thought
Pippins remark about "what the characters say as they try to dismiss
their concerns about Wickham" confirmed that more than one person
voiced such concerns.

So I was wrong about Elizabeth. But even if it's only Jane (and to a
very mild degree mr. Bennett, as Houynhnhm writes), this is still one
more person than in the HP series - for if Darcy and his friends are
dismissed, Snape should be dismissed too - both parties are `the
enemy'. What's more, Snape's most serious accusation against Lupin
turns out to be incorrect, which can't be said of Darcy's accusation
against Wickham.

Unless nobody except Darcy & friends ever has doubts about Wickham,
the general argument still holds, I think. 


> Sydney:
> 
> I'm sorry both for the massive quotage and the massive snippage, but
> if people are going to use Pride and Prejudice to support their
> arguments-- and you know who you are-- they should probably read the
> book.  And stop accusing those of us who have-- who in fact have
> practically memorized it-- of being influenced by external sources. 

Renee:
Eh, are you still addressing me? I can't remember having done so (but
see above concerning my memory).  
> 
> 
> Renee, previously:
> 
> >the situation in the HP series is different. The
> > only person who voices any concerns about Lupin's personality *in the
> > series* is Snape (I refuse to count Umbridge) - and once he knows
> > Lupin wasn't helping Sirius to get into Hogwarts, all he does is
> > calling Tonks's werewolf!Lupin Patronus weak. And I wouldn't call
> > Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about the
> > Marauders.
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Really?  As it turns out, Snape was right about James being arrogant
> and strutting around the school.  He was right about Lupin being 
> weak as well-- as Lupin himself agrees. And while Lupin wasn't
actively > helping Sirius, he was (oh-so-Lupin!) passively helping, by
> withholding the information about the Animagus transformation and,
> even worse, the secret passages they both knew about.

Renee:
But he was wrong about Lupin's motives and his reasons for going to
the Shrieking Shack, he was wrong about Sirius, he was wrong about
James using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper. His tendency to judge without
having all the facts also makes him an unreliable witness (a bit like
Harry, actually). In addition to that, if a witness is known to hate
the accused, he will not be considered impartial and his evidence will
be weighed accordingly. In short, he's a much more unreliable witness
than Darcy turns ot to be. 

> 
> Renee, previously:
> 
> > Any other doubts about Lupin are voiced by *readers*, not
> > by the HP characters. So the situation can't really be compared to
the one in Pride and Prejudice.  
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> See above.. uh, yes it can.  It totally can. 

Renee:
I still don't think so (also, see above). 
> 
>  
> Sydney:
> 
> 
> I don't think I can jump on that [=ESE!LupIn] bandwagon, mostly, I
have to admit,
> on account of the Alchemical theory of the series' structure, which  I
> don't even really understand.  But it WAS used to predict Lupin and
> Tonks getting together, which for me came from Outer Space, so I have
> a lot of respect for it.  Under that scheme, Lupin stands for worldly
> niceness, or something like that, in which case his
> passive-nice-but-ineffectual thing fits perfectly.

Renee:
Ha! Someone who doesn't dismiss the alchemy theory. But according to
this theory, Lupin/Tonks requires Snape to be married to an old woman,
and I still wonder who that might be. Especially as JKR has said that
information about teachers' mariages is restricted.  
  
> -- Sydney, who wonders if the "Elizabeth liked Darcy and was
> suspicious of Wickham all along" thing comes from the fine Laurence
> Olivier/Greer Garson movie, which does take some liberties...

Renee:
Are you very surprised if I tell you I saw that one, too, once upon a
time?










From k.coble at comcast.net  Wed Aug 16 21:11:02 2006
From: k.coble at comcast.net (Katherine Coble)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:11:02 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ebvqik+9tgb@eGroups.com>
References: <ebvqik+9tgb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157051

Perhaps the elfly reminder should have gone to the individual in  
question and not the whole list.

I've been on this group for YEARS--sometimes I post frequently,  
mostly I just lurk.   I appreciate all the work the list-elves do.    
But I have to say that this group IS HPforGrownups, and sometimes I  
feel that with all the monitoring,  the group loses sight of that  
little "grownups" part of the name.

Grownups sometimes say "smart-ass".  Grown-ups also have vigorous  
exchanges.   This group, although ostensibly for "Grownups" seems to  
be given over to treating all the Grown-ups as though they are 12.

Sorry.  Just my opinion.

Katherine


On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Ceridwen wrote:

> Hi, Random!
>
> This is Vexxy Elf. I was surprised to see the term 'smart-ass' in
> your recent post:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157011
>
> Even in an exhuberant exchange, we would rather that people not refer
> to each other in this way. Some people might be all right with it
> and take it as a joke, but others might take it the wrong way. This
> can lead to hurt feelings and, at worst, flames.
>
> One other point: you did not attribute your responses to yourself.
> In shorter posts, it is easy to keep track of who is 'speaking'. But
> in longer posts, it can get confusing, especially for our members who
> use screen readers. Even with the chevrons! *g* If you could just
> write your name above the responses which do not come immediately
> before your signature line, we would appreciate it.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Vexxy Elf for the list elves.
>
>
> 



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




From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 16 21:25:03 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:25:03 -0000
Subject: Time Turners and  Lupin's apparent premature ageing
In-Reply-To: <ebuivg+2uig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec02ff+e55o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157052

> bboyminn:
> 

> The present and the future are infinitely variable. They 
> are filled with endless possibilities. The past however 
> is generally fix, it is known. To change it, is to take 
> far greater risk, than making decisions to change the 
> present and the future. 
> 
> Again, the farther back in time you go, the greater the risk
> you take. If you change something very locally just an hour 
> or two ago, the consequences to the present are much much 
> smaller that going back a year or years and making a major 
> change to history.
> 
> I simply can't agree that changing the present and the 
> future are in the same class as changing the past.
> 

Ken:

We will just have to disagree then. The only difference I see between
the two is that if you go back in time and kill Hitler during WW I
(good grief, *not* during WW II, why bother if you are going to wait
that long?) you *know* that the future will be changed profoundly. If
today you decide to father a child you have no idea what effect you
are having on the future. Your great grandchild descended from that
child may turn out to be the most important human who ever lived, for
good or evil. You will never know. I have no more effect on history by
luring Adolf to the precise spot where I know a 75 mm shell is about
to land than his greatgrandfather did that night he got a little
horny. The only difference is that I understand *some* of the
consequences of the action I am about to take.

> bboyminn:
> 
> I've generally found from discussion in this group that people who see
> problems with JKR's time travel are people who refuse to actually see
> what happened. Generally, they insist that time happened twice; one
> time with and one time without (with and without whatever).
> 
> If you take the approach that time happened only once, but Harry and
> Hermione happened twice, it gets much easier. If you view it right,
> JKR's account of time travel is as reasonable and consistent as is
> possible for time travel. 
> 
> Just one man's opinion.
> 

Ken:

In "The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy" Zaphod Beeblebrox claims to
be his own grandfather due to an accident with a time machine and a
condom. This is a causality loop, the conception of Zaphod's father
depends on Zaphod already existing and that is impossible. But that is
OK, absurdity is the lifeblood of Hitchhiker. Much the same thing 
happens in PoA when Harry saves himself from the dementors. There is
no future Harry to come back and cast the Patronus if the dementor
attack succeeds. Harry's survival of the attack depends on itself to
be possible. I don't find that either reasonable or consistent. 

Of course book 7 could reveal to us that the Patronus was irrelevant
and someone else actually drove off the dementors before Harry2 could
cast it. Snape, who was nearby and is known to have a different means
of dealing with dementors, is a possibility even though he disavows
any knowledge of the cause of the dementor's retreat and claims it
happened before he came to. So is this an enormous mistake on
Rowling's part or a clue to ...? My crystal ball just went cloudy
again, I don't know what it is a clue to, just that it could come up
again in book 7.

I could go on and on about the holes in the time-turner device. In
fact I did in an earlier reply to you that seems to have fallen into a
space-time vortex. Instead this time I will cut this short and just
say that these are, after all, novels intended for children. They
don't have to meet an adult science fiction fan's standards for
plausibility (if one can use that word about a topic he finds totally
implausible from the git-go) in order to statisfy the target audience.
It is self evident that they do satisfy that audience in a way that is
quite wonderful to behold. So I will try to enjoy them as a child
would and not worry so much about the silliness of this plot device.

I will still hope that it *does not* reappear and if I somehow found
myself back in northern France in 1915 I would hunt that bug down and
squash him without one moment's concern about what I was doing to the
future.

Ken








From rarpsl at optonline.net  Wed Aug 16 22:07:08 2006
From: rarpsl at optonline.net (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:07:08 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <ebvdea+und2@eGroups.com>
References: <ebvdea+und2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p06240400c109432c4764@[192.168.1.11]>

No: HPFGUIDX 157053

At 15:26 +0000 on 08/16/2006, spookedook wrote about [HPforGrownups] 
Re: Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldem:

>Mouthpiece49
>
>I can't for the life of me figure out how Harry could "defeat"
>Voldemort without killing him. And by the way I don't think that
>killing someone in pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
>will split your soul. I think the soul splitting murder has to be
>with extreme cruelty. Else every soldier would have a split soul.
>
>Logically, "defeat" would be that state of being 180 degrees from
>Voldemort's present state, pure evil, i.e., pure good. So Harry
>would have to do something to Voldemort that makes him "good"? What
>about Harry vanquishes him in battle and spares his life? Then
>Voldemort is beholden to Harry and bound by allegiance to protect
>Harry (or whatever happens when one wizard saves another wizard's
>life) so he can't be bad any more or else he would, what, die or
>something? What do people think of this?
>
>This is why I think he will vanquish him by taking him alive through
>the veil. It must be weird to be in the afterlife and not be
>actually dead, although you appear dead to those left behind in th
>Potterverse.
>
>Tinktonks responds:
>
>Dumbledore says time and again that there are worse things than
>death. And I agree. The Longbottoms for instance. I would rather be
>AK'd than tortured into insanity unable to recognise the people whom
>you once loved?
>
>Personally I think love will be the key. The ministry has the power
>of love in one of the rooms, more powerful, more wonderful and more
>terrible than any other. I think this will be LV's downfall. He will
>be subject to all the love that his victims families felt for their
>murdered loved ones. He will be destroyed inside by the pain that
>love has brought. When this hits him Harry will have the choice,
>fulfil the prophecy or walk away. He will walk away, Voldemort's
>parting shot is an AK before he dies of the pain from so much love
>and hurt, Wormtail takes the fall.

I think that the question of if Harry must die to defeat LV (or can 
survive after defeating him) is based on which Mythos you want to 
apply to the H vs LV conflict. If you choose the "Cosmic Balance" 
Mythos, you have a situation where the existence of Pure Evil will 
trigger the rise of an opposing Pure Good force to balance the 
equation (and vice versa where an Pure Evil can arise to oppose an 
already existent Pure Good). This means that a Pure Good will be 
required to Kamikaze/Suicide as a "Final Attack" to defeat the Pure 
Evil (or either "Burn Out" so as to no longer be an active "Pure Good 
Force" or die as the result of the final battle) or risk triggering a 
newer (and probably even stronger) "Pure Evil". Of course a different 
mythos may be at work in the Potterverse that will not require Harry 
to die or lose his powers but the "Cosmic Balance" (or a variant) is 
the usual way these Archetypal Situations work out.



From kking0731 at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 22:30:04 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:30:04 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ebvjmn+nsih@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec069c+4snk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157054



Carol:
Interesting theory, but I wouldn't claim that *anything* is the "only
way" that Harry can survive. And I repeat that his chances for
survival or even of defeating Voldemort are much greater if he is
*not* an accidental Horcrux. See upthread for the complications that
would ensue if he really is one, which you have not answered with your
Philosopher's Stone hypothesis.

Snow:

I could definitely give you this one since I don't care completely 
for the unintentional Horcrux but more so that Harry received that 
portion of Voldemort's split soul. Harry would then contain 
Voldemort's soul minus the complex spell that creates the Horcrux. 
Harry is still a container for Voldemort's bit of soul but without 
the spell so
would that cause Harry to have to commit suicide to 
vanquish it? 

Carol:
Exactly. And where did they go? Into Harry, apparently. Or at least
some of them did. We know that he acquired the power to speak
Parseltongue in this way. If he acquired the powers through, say, a
drop of blood entering his cut, he could have acquired the power of
possession, too. (The only reason that Voldemort retained that
particular power was that it didn't require a wand.) And the prophecy
says that Harry is "marked . . . as [Voldemort's] equal, so maybe he
acquired *all* of Voldemort's powers (not necessarily via a soul bit).
Let's hope that, like Dumbledore, he's too noble to use some of them.
(The power of possession would come in handy, though!)

Snow:

You know it's the one power that I don't think that Harry has access 
to only because Voldemort took that one with him. You never know 
though.

Carol:
I don't see the point you're making with the lost powers, and I've
already noted that Harry acquired at least one power from Voldemort
(Parseltongue)--DD says "powers" plural--twice, IIRC. And we're told
repeatedly that magic is in the blood--"not a drop of magical blood"
in the Dursleys, purebloods, Half-bloods, and "Mudbloods," the blood
protection, Harry's blood in the potion that restores Voldemort to his
body, etc., etc. We're never told that powers reside in the soul. If
they did, how could Voldemort have lost his powers?

Snow:

Religiously, when you die all that is you goes to Heaven the blood 
however stays with the body until the vampire sucks it out and 
replaces it with embalming fluid. 

I suppose it comes down to what you think about the Horcrux ability. 
Does a Horcrux have the capability of performing magic? We know one 
did
but that one had a bit extra in it. So let's move on to if a 
Horcrux can defend itself through magic, well we do know that 
Dumbledore had a blackened hand as the result of destroying one (and 
Harry didn't) but then again we don't know whether the protection 
lies within or was protected outwardly when it was hidden. I tend to 
think that because Harry could destroy a Horcrux without harm to 
himself that the magic lies within. 

I personally feel the Horcruxes that have been created all have magic 
ability from their master, which is why Harry has his capabilities. 
If Harry has [and he does :) ] Voldemort's capabilities of magic 
(like a Horcrux would have) and Harry denied Voldemort the use of any 
of his magic (because Harry can think for himself) then Dumbledore's 
suspicion that making a living object a Horcrux would be unwise. This 
could be why Voldemort was denied his powers for some time. Voldemort 
did not make Harry a Horcrux with the complex spell (like sharing 
himself with objects under his control) but left a bit of himself in 
Harry all the same so he couldn't access these powers since the child 
was too young. 

Carol:
We have, first, the killing of the unimportant little "Mudblood,"
Myrtle, to "carry on Salazar Slytherin's noble work." Then we have the
three Riddles, two of whom did nothing to deserve their deaths. Then
Hepzibah Smith, killed to acquire her valuable possessions to make
into Horcruxes. We know that Voldemort personally killed an Order
member, Dorcas Meadowes. And then we have the Potters at GH--all
personally killed by Voldemort before the AK rebounded. There may be
more people--note DD's statement regarding the Inferi, which seems to
suggest that DD killed a lot more people than the ones we can name,
and I don't trust Sirius Black's word regarding his brother, either.
he doesn't *know* what happened and is only guessing that LV regarded
his brother as unimportant because he, Sirius, regards him as a little
idiot. Since GH, Voldemort has personally killed the unimportant
witch, Bertha Jorkins, the still less important Muggle, Frank Bryce,
and the very important witch, Madam Bones. That's eleven people that
we know of, and there are almost certainly more (possibly Salazaar
Slytherin)--more than are needed to create Horcruxes. And note that DD
tells Harry that LV would have reserved the *important* killings for
Horcruxes (another reason I don't think he used Frank Bryce), which
implies that LV also committed *unimportant* murders. Obviously, he
didn't kill *only* to create Horcruxes.

>Snipped a bit<

You may be correct about the deaths he used for Horcruxes being those
of innocent people, but he certainly didn't kill only unarmed victims,
as we know from James. Madam Bones and Dorcas Meadowes may have been
armed--we don't know. And he challenged Harry to a duel, so if Harry
had died, he would have been innocent but armed. Dumbledore says that
LV preferred *important* victims--important to him, personally. Myrtle
(probably used for the diary Horcrux) would be important as his first
victim. Tom Riddle (ring Horcrux?) would be important as the father
who deserted him and his witch mother. The senior Riddles, especially
his grandfather, would have been important *to him* as wiping out the
Riddle line. Hepzibah Smith would have been important as a descendant
of Helga Hufflepuff. If, and I'm only guessing here, he killed
Grindelwald after DD destroyed his Horcrux (see earlier posts for my
reasoning here), that would certainly have qualified as an important
death even though Grindelwald as a Dark wizard must have been far from
innocent. There's no evidence that only an innocent victim can be used
for a Horcrux and DD's word that "Tom" would have preferred important
victims. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I go with DD.


Snow:

Voldemort did not directly kill Myrtle the basilisk killed her. 
Bertha Jorkins is questionable whether or not Voldy disposed of her 
or had Wormtail do it. Madam Bones may or may not have been killed by 
Voldemort himself even though she is suspected of such a killing. 
That would leave; Grandma Riddle, Grandpap Riddle, Daddy Riddle, 
Hepzibah Smith, Dorcas Meadows, James Potter, Lily Potter and Frank 
Bryce. The very interesting note to this group of people is that the 
majority of them have the same thing in common; they were unarmed at 
the time of the attack. It appears that this is one of the conditions 
for splitting the soul; the person attacked can't fight back. 
There're only two people in this list that could have possibly been 
fighting back which would have been James and Dorcas, neither of 
which has been confirmed in the how-they-died-department
well unless 
you want to take Voldemort's word for James death. 

I suppose it isn't so much that Voldemort didn't kill many people as 
much as the fact that those who were killed by him, for the most 
part, were unarmed. This is what first alerted me to the assumption 
that Voldemort was carefully choosing his victims and using them for 
his Horcruxes and not doing the majority of the killings that 
occurred in the Voldy war in case he accidentally killed someone who 
could cause his soul to split. It makes Voldemort's words to Lily 
(step aside) much more meaningful. If this theory is true that you 
must kill an unarmed victim in order for it to split the soul then 
Voldemort was aware that by killing Lily it would split his soul and 
his intentions were to use Harry as his final victim. By killing an 
unarmed Lily Voldemort did split his soul and then turned to Harry

the rest is the possibility that Harry unintentionally became a type 
of Horcrux. 

Harry may not be a Horcrux because the spell, as you would assume, 
was not likely issued. This wouldn't negate Harry receiving a piece 
of Voldemort soul would it? We know that Harry does have a bit of 
Voldemort in him, Harry asks Dumbledore straight out and Dumbledore 
confirms that it certainly appears so. Dumbledore reiterates this 
fact again in OOP. So we know that Harry was inflicted with a bit of 
Voldemort
like maybe 1/7th of a bit.  

Harry fighting Voldemort in the graveyard is a perfect example for my 
theory. Voldemort does not simply kill the unarmed Harry
no; he gave 
him back his wand. You see, again Voldemort is assuring that he does 
not split his soul with this death because Harry is now armed. 

> Snow:

> > But you need to accept an exception here since we are dealing with
a person (Harry) who was protected by old magic and we don't know how
that can act anymore than how it did act. How do we know how this
attempted killing would act under an old magic protection? If
Voldemort is prepared to kill Harry to make his final Horcrux
(surmised by Dumbledore), but is vanquished (which he was) by old
magic why couldn't this same magic have caused the Horcrux action to
react? We don't know, do we?

Carol:
What "Horcrux action"? He tried to kill Harry to thwart the Prophecy.
That's canon. And you've already conceded that he wouldn't
deliberately make Harry into a Horcrux. I'm arguing that the soul bits
from Lily's and James's murders (and any others that hadn't been used
for Horcruxes) would most likely have floated off beyond the Veil, as
the soul bit in a Horcrux must also do or there would be no point in
destroying the Horcrux. And I'm arguing that based on the murders LV
apparently used to make the Horcruxes, four of them committed before
he even knew the procedure for making one, the murder occurs before
the Horcrux. He would have killed Harry and then gone to some secluded
place to prepare the Horcrux--assuming that he had even acquired the
object he intended to use. Lily's accidental magic protected Harry
from the AK. Surely it would also have protected him from being
invaded by a soul bit.

Snow:

Or did Lily's protection, which involved her standing defenseless, 
actually cause the bit of soul to enter Harry? 

Carol:
You're mistaking my meaning. I'm not arguing that LV possessed or
attempted to possess Baby!Harry. He wanted to kill the Chosen One,
period. I'm talking about the failed possession attempt in the MoM.
Lily's magic protects him from possession then. It would, IMO, have
protected him from the invasion of a soul bit at GH as well.
 
Snow:

I thought it was simply Harry's ability to love that kicked the old 
boy out of his body. Furthermore I thought that Voldemort's renewal 
using Harry's blood dissolved Lily's protection. 

Carol:
Interesting theory, but I wouldn't claim that *anything* is the "only
way" that Harry can survive. And I repeat that his chances for
survival or even of defeating Voldemort are much greater if he is
*not* an accidental Horcrux. See upthread for the complications that
would ensue if he really is one, which you have not answered with your
Philosopher's Stone hypothesis.

Snow:

Surprise! I'm going to agree with you here that Harry is not simply 
an accidental Horcrux. He does however contain that piece of 
Voldemort soul that was accidentally created by Lily's death. Do you 
like that one a bit better since Harry is not a Horcrux persay? 

I do still feel that the Alchemy theory should not be readily 
dismissed; there is much evidence for it. Dumbledore would want to 
cover all the possible bases that he could in order to protect the 
only source of Voldemort's destruction. Whether Harry needs this 
action or not is not totally dependant to this theory. It is however 
an option. 

Snow with many apologies for the last post with all the chevrons, all 
I can say is that it was a glitch from G Mail. 








From random832 at gmail.com  Wed Aug 16 23:05:21 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 19:05:21 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
References: <ebvqik+9tgb@eGroups.com>
	 <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608161605q3265c788h5a59e7bb369b7406@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157055

On 8/16/06, Katherine Coble <k.coble at comcast.net> wrote:
> Perhaps the elfly reminder should have gone to the individual in
> question and not the whole list.
>
> I've been on this group for YEARS--sometimes I post frequently,
> mostly I just lurk.   I appreciate all the work the list-elves do.
> But I have to say that this group IS HPforGrownups, and sometimes I
> feel that with all the monitoring,  the group loses sight of that
> little "grownups" part of the name.
>
> Grownups sometimes say "smart-ass".  Grown-ups also have vigorous
> exchanges.   This group, although ostensibly for "Grownups" seems to
> be given over to treating all the Grown-ups as though they are 12.
>
> Sorry.  Just my opinion.

I agree. I toned it down a lot in my own reply to the reminder, since
I replied publicly to the other issue raised (see OTChatter) and
didn't want to offend people. But to be honest, I do object to us
being treated like children. The moment that becomes policy (I'm
hoping that right now it's just a few overzealous moderators) we may
as well disband entirely.

And, truth be told, he _was_ being one. He didn't just point out what
he perceived to be a flaw in my argument, he snipped things
selectively and removed vital context to make it look like I was
directly contradicting myself.



From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Wed Aug 16 23:24:07 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 16:24:07 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608161605q3265c788h5a59e7bb369b7406@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ebvqik+9tgb@eGroups.com>	 <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net> <7b9f25e50608161605q3265c788h5a59e7bb369b7406@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <44E3A917.80507@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157056

Remember, you can only call someone a smartass IF their animagus is a 
donkey.

And you can only call them a wiseass IF their animagus is a donkey and 
they are a professor... ;)

And you can only say something is kickass if it involved being kicked by 
a donkey..

However, if you are digging a hole to bury a donkey, just don't talk 
about it.......

Jazmyn  (who hopes noone finds this offensive as it refers to animals, 
not nether-regions)




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Aug 16 23:52:52 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:52:52 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ebvr3k+n3me@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0b4k+5295@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157057

> Renee:
> 
> >the situation in the HP series is different. The
> > only person who voices any concerns about Lupin's personality *in the
> > series* is Snape (I refuse to count Umbridge) - and once he knows
> > Lupin wasn't helping Sirius to get into Hogwarts, all he does is
> > calling Tonks's werewolf!Lupin Patronus weak. And I wouldn't call
> > Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about the
> > Marauders.
> 

Pippin:
So much for the theory that Snape outed Lupin because he wanted
revenge. <g> Isn't the underlying reason for Snape's hatred supposed
to be his belief  that Lupin was in on the attempt to murder Snape?
 
<snip>
> Sydney:
> 
> Hee!  Guilty as charged... although I like both Snape and Lupin!  I do
> see why the ESE! theories about him arise, because much more than the
> Austen parallel, if Lupin was a character in an Agatha Christie story
> I would be all over him as the prime suspect.  The Nice Young Man who
> is so helpful and hangs around the periphery of the story!  It's
> almost too obvious!
> 
> I don't think I can jump on that bandwagon, mostly, I have to admit,
> on account of the Alchemical theory of the series' structure, which  I
> don't even really understand.  But it WAS used to predict Lupin and
> Tonks getting together, which for me came from Outer Space, so I have
> a lot of respect for it.  Under that scheme, Lupin stands for worldly
> niceness, or something like that, in which case his
> passive-nice-but-ineffectual thing fits perfectly.

Pippin:
I think Christie would have put Lupin and Tonks together too. I mean,
once Sirius was gone, who else is there? And as JKR points out, it makes
a  lovely red herring. 

But alas, those who think ESE!Lupin is plausible don't like it, and those
who like it don't think it's plausible. I don't really like it myself -- I've
got no desire to see Lupin brought down --but it fits the evidence, IMO.

 Lupin is, IMO, even more repressed than Snape. His subconscious
desire for payback shows itself as passive aggression and the anger
he subconsciously wishes he could express to others projects itself
and becomes the fear of what his friends would do if they discovered
what he was really like.  Would that fear drive him to murder? 
We know he was ready to kill Pettigrew.

That in itself ought to be a great big bouncing ferret of a clue. 
A murderer in full possession of his faculties has to be called
something worse than 'weak', IMO.

The thing is, left to his own devices, Lupin might well be only
weak rather than evil. But he's not likely to be left alone. Voldemort 
would not let such a weakness remain unexploited, and we know he 
was capable of tricking normally shrewd and wary people such as 
Slughorn and Hepzibah, so why not Lupin? 

If Lupin found himself helping the werewolves more than he 
should out of a desire to be liked, Voldemort would find out. Then
what? Would Lupin have the courage to throw himself on Dumbledore's 
mercy? I don't think so. 

I must point out that the ESE! prefix has morphed away from its original 
meaning. It used to mean 'secretly a servant of Voldemort' but is now
used by some to mean 'a whole-hearted servant of Voldemort' which 
probably doesn't fit Lupin.

I could see that if the choice were starkly between supporting Voldemort 
and certain death, Lupin would die rather than betray his friends. But 
Voldemort is far too clever to put things that way.

 I think Lupin's grief for Dumbledore was real. But nobody thought 
Draco could succeed, so Lupin could have been involved in the attack 
on the school and still have expected Dumbledore to survive. 

Pippin
placing a side bet that the prank was a real attempt at murder
but Sirius was not the culprit
 






From a_svirn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 16 23:55:37 2006
From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:55:37 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <eboj9r+7h2k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0b9p+b304@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157058

> Tina:
> 
> Maybe Snape was calculating a bigger risk ? Voldemort being 
informed 
> of their conversation. Especially after Snape interrupted Narcissa 
> saying he knew about the plan, if he didn't (or even if he did, 
but 
> wasn't supposed to). It doesn't seem to be very ooc for Bella to 
ask 
> Voldemort why he trusted Snape with that information.

a_svirn:
Actually, I'd say it would be rather awkward for Bellatrix to bring 
up the subject. Because it would mean a) that she (not just 
Narcissa) did discuss with Snape something that shouldn't have been 
discussed, and b) that she was insolent enough to demand 
explanations from her Lord. 

> Tina:
> By agreeing with the Unbreakable Vow, Snape is making sure their 
> conversation never reaches Voldemort, since Bella seems to love 
her 
> sister enough not to want to put her in trouble. 

a_svirn:
If he was banking on Bellatrix's love to anybody, but Voldemort he 
was taking insane risk.

> Tina:
Before the Vow, 
> Bella wouldn't have a strong motive to hide Narcissa's motivations 
> to go to Spinner's End ? she was desperate, and she wanted Snape 
to 
> help her protect her son, but she didn't *do* anything. If Snape 
had 
> refused, nothing serious would have happened and no one could be 
> accused of interfering in the big plan, therefore the conversation 
> wouldn't necessarily have to remain a secret between the three. 
With 
> the Unbreakable Vow, everything changes. Now Narcissa *is* 
> interfering in the plan, and Voldemort could punish her for that.

a_svirn:
Wait a minute, so you think that Snape anticipated the third 
provision? Because just by agreeing to protect Draco, he did not 
interfere with the big plan. 

> Tina:
> So, yes, the Vow is too great of a risk for a DDM Snape, but it 
> could seem at the time a better alternative. 

a_svirn:
A better alternative ... to what? Earning Voldemort's displeasure? 
There was a better solution for that ? sending Narcissa packing 
without promising her anything. This would make the most perfect 
sense especially if he knew about the plan. This way he would have 
nothing to explain to Voldemort. 







From orgone9 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 00:03:47 2006
From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <44E3A917.80507@pacificpuma.com>
Message-ID: <20060817000347.86628.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157059


It's the elve's list. Not ours.

Don't call anybody a smart-ass, poopy-head, or muggle
loving son of a squib.

If the elves take a dislike to you, thay block your
posts, ban your access, or drop a big pudding on your
wife.

If you don't like how they've defined the tone and
tenor of their discussion, or redifined the internet's
convention for reply attribution, or the way they ball
your socks instead of folding them in thirds, then
remedy is easy.

As for me, I'll be a knight.

L.




Leonard A. Jaffe     lenjaffe at jaffesystems.com
Leonard Jaffe Computer Systems Consulting Ltd.
Columbus, OH, USA 614-404-4214 F: 530-380-7423

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From orgone9 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 00:15:51 2006
From: orgone9 at yahoo.com (Len Jaffe)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape at Grimmauld Place
In-Reply-To: <ebt5sq+gbg6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060817001551.8573.qmail@web80608.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157060



--- justcarol67 <justcarol67 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Carol, who used to be DrCarol but changed her ID
> because people
> thought a PhD didn't make me "a real doctor"

Unless your PhD provides you with the opportunity to
defraud Medicare, you're not a real doctor :-)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 00:59:17 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:59:17 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ec0f15+vjfo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157061

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Katherine Coble <k.coble at ...> wrote:
> Katherine:
>
> Perhaps the elfly reminder should have gone to the 
> individual in question and not the whole list.
> 
> ...
> 
> Grownups sometimes say "smart-ass".  ...
> 
> Sorry.  Just my opinion.
> 
> Katherine
> 
> 
> On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:10 PM, Ceridwen wrote:
> 
> > Hi, Random!
> >
> > This is Vexxy Elf. I was surprised to see the term 
> > 'smart-ass' in your recent post:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157011
> >
> > Even in an exhuberant exchange, we would rather that
> > people not refer to each other in this way. ...
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Vexxy Elf for the list elves.


bboyminn:

I believe the 'smart ass' comment was directed at me, 
and I took no offense, but I've seen much more minor 
comments start nasty flame wars here.

There are strict standards for posting in this group. 
What usenet or other forums do or what is standard 
for the Internet in general is irrelevant. THIS GROUP 
HAS STRICT STANDARDS. Yes, they can be frustrating, 
but they make for orderly, comprehendible, and coherent 
discussions, which is especially true when you consider 
how long and deep some of the threads get here.

Trust me, I've had may share of frustration with the 
'strict' standards, I even accused an Elf of being 
anally retentive about it. Yet after many many years 
in this group, I see the positive and organizing 
effects of these standards, and I support them.

For example, as I pointed out in detail in the OTChatter 
group, every time a new person speaks whether it is you 
or the person you are replying to, their or your statement 
should be signed at the top even if you have to cut and 
paste their name there. See examples in OTChatter.

Your response should alway be BELOW the person you are 
responding too. One lash with a wet noodle to Kathrine 
for posting her response at the top.

Also, more a tip than a rule, PARAGRAPHS and lots of them. 
On the Internet discussion is much easier to read if it 
is in small digestible bites. Use far more paragraphs than 
your high school English teacher would have thought proper. 
Posting your thoughts in one huge paragraph makes it very 
difficult to read, even if from a 'English teacher' 
perspective, one paragraph is correct. 

By the way, every new member should have read these 
posting standards and reasonably adhered to them in 
order to get off of moderated status.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn 






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Thu Aug 17 01:26:26 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:26:26 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebvt1u+hin2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0gk2+mjr3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157062

> Robert:
> 
> > 2) He isn't a DE and he is just a jerk and doesn't like 
> > Sirius and Lupin 
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> Not to mention a shrewdness of little wand apes who stuff 
> food in with both hands, talk with their mouths full, and 
> put their elbows on the table.  But I think it has something 
> to do with Occlumency, too.  The less time Snape spends with 
> Order members, the fewer memories to manipulate when he is 
> being Legilimenced by Voldemort.
>
aussie writes:
So, we now know Snape isn't "really evil" from the interview .... he 
may be just "mildly evil".

It is true that strong experiences may be harder to hide in 
Legilimencing. And mashed parsley hitting you in the face (like 
Percy at Christmas time) is a strong possibility for Snape too.

The way DD invited himself into the Dursley's house and shared a 
drink there would suggest eating in another's house is a 
demonstration of not being rude. Snape didn't mind being rude and 
that is why Ron could remember Snape never having eaten there.

I have been in discussion groups where Christians, Moslems, and Jews 
were invited. Some joined in freely, while others were barely 
tolerating the others being there. Food that was presented was 
clearly separated onto Halal and Koshers plates, but some 
participants suddenly decided to start a religious fast.

My point is, TOLERATING someone that has been an historical rival is 
a good starting point, but not enough to trust the other. Real 
effort needs to be taken to overcome resentment, and Snape has 
always been more comfortable keeping resentments fresh and alive.

Believe that Snape is good if you like ... but never turn your back 
on him. 







From kjones at telus.net  Thu Aug 17 01:29:04 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:29:04 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
References: <ebvqik+9tgb@eGroups.com> <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <44E3C660.50205@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157063

Katherine Coble wrote:
> Perhaps the elfly reminder should have gone to the individual in  
> question and not the whole list.
> 
> I've been on this group for YEARS--sometimes I post frequently,  
> mostly I just lurk.   I appreciate all the work the list-elves do.    
> But I have to say that this group IS HPforGrownups, and sometimes I  
> feel that with all the monitoring,  the group loses sight of that  
> little "grownups" part of the name.
> 
> Grownups sometimes say "smart-ass".  Grown-ups also have vigorous  
> exchanges.   This group, although ostensibly for "Grownups" seems to  
> be given over to treating all the Grown-ups as though they are 12.
> 
> Sorry.  Just my opinion.
> 
> Katherine

   KJ writes:

      While you are correct in saying that the matter should have been 
dealt with privately, I find this group very comfortable. I have been in 
groups where the language and most of the comments were appalling in 
their rudeness and bad taste, as well as groups which seemed to be 
started for the sole purpose of allowing the Mistress to pontificate 
endlessly.  I am endlessly impressed with the quality of posting from 
this group, and if it takes monitoring so be it. With several thousand 
people on the list, it can deteriorate very quickly.

      Having had a great deal to do with the list elves when I first 
started posting, I don't have enough good things to say about all of 
those folks who volunteer to keep the list civilized. They were very 
kind when I hit the wrong switch, we should be as well.

KJ






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 01:40:32 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:40:32 -0000
Subject: HpfGU educating was  An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec0f15+vjfo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0heg+h20u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157064





Steve snipped:

Also, more a tip than a rule, PARAGRAPHS and lots of them. 
On the Internet discussion is much easier to read if it 
is in small digestible bites. Use far more paragraphs than 
your high school English teacher would have thought proper. 
Posting your thoughts in one huge paragraph makes it very 
difficult to read, even if from a 'English teacher' 
perspective, one paragraph is correct.

Snow:

Touch?' I figured this one out just from reading others posts. I do 
try to attempt to indent whenever possible so that my meaning will 
have the most effect, if possible. 

I recently had an encounter with chevrons that should not have 
appeared in my post and they did. I may not have even noticed if it 
were not for a kind elf politely notifying me that there was a 
problem with my post. 
The elves do attempt to keep some type of order to our posting so 
that we can better understand the post we are reading and not feel 
violated by its context when that becomes apparent. 

There are times, I am sure, when the elf makes a mistake (by allowing 
their private notice to be viewed, but we all make mistakes) but that 
should not be seen as an opportunity to dismiss the help that they 
give.

Just my thoughts
Snow








From kjones at telus.net  Thu Aug 17 01:53:54 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:53:54 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ebvq1s+uhjr@eGroups.com>
References: <ebvq1s+uhjr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44E3CC32.70209@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157065



>> Julie:
>> I don't see how Snape refusing to give Harry Occlumency lessons 
>> after the pensieve incident is an indication that Dumbledore
>> doesn't trust him. Or that Snape can't be trusted. Dumbledore
>> could very well have demanded Snape resume the lessons, and I
>> feel certain Snape would have done so even if he delivered
>> some vituperous commentary over that demand. 


    KJ writes:

      One of the things that I liked most about this scene is that it 
ended something that was uncomfortable and dangerous for both Snape and 
Harry.

      In PS/SS Dumbledore gave Harry an Invisibility cloak. Snape was 
forced to try and keep Harry out of trouble in spite of it.

      In CoS Dumbledore protects Harry and allows him to go his own way, 
always making sure that Harry "has his chance". Snape tries to limit his 
freedom, or get him confined by way of detentions, or even expelled.

      In PoA Dumbledore gave them a time-turner, decided on his own that 
Sirius was innocent, failed to determinedly question Lupin, and failed 
to properly restrict Harry to the safety of the castle.

      In GoF Dumbledore convinces us that there is nothing he can do to 
prevent Harry from participating in the tournament, fails to notice that 
Moody is not quite himself, and yet is right there at the end to follow 
Moody back to the castle with Harry.

      I feel that this scene has Snape trying to protect himself from 
exposure through Harry to Voldemort, trying to prevent Harry from 
becoming more open to Voldemort's penetration, and yet trying to obey 
Dumbledore. Harry felt that Voldemort's access was improved by the 
Occlumency work, and in that case, he was probably correct.  It gave me 
the feeling that Snape did the only thing he could do, he set Harry up 
with the penseive, threw a horrendous fit, and made it look like he 
might murder Harry. The Occlumency lessons came to a complete halt, no 
questions asked. I think that Snape got what he wanted but it was too 
late to prevent the following events.

  KJ




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 17 01:52:54 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:52:54 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ec0gk2+mjr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0i5m+bjtm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157066


> aussie writes:
> The way DD invited himself into the Dursley's house and shared a 
> drink there would suggest eating in another's house is a 
> demonstration of not being rude. Snape didn't mind being rude and 
> that is why Ron could remember Snape never having eaten there.

wynnleaf
What was more than simply "suggested," but what DD actually *said* was
that the Dursley's should have invited Dumbledore to have some
refreshment.  *They* were being rude not to offer him anything.  Of
course, at Grimmauld Place we don't know whether Snape refused an
invitation to eat or not, but it seems quite a stretch of the
imagination to think of Sirius inviting him to stay for dinner.  And
if Sirius didn't invite him, *that* would be rude and a completely
understandable reason for Snape not to eat there.

aussie
> My point is, TOLERATING someone that has been an historical rival is 
> a good starting point, but not enough to trust the other. Real 
> effort needs to be taken to overcome resentment, and Snape has 
> always been more comfortable keeping resentments fresh and alive.

wynnleaf
You seem to be assuming Sirius invited Snape to stay for dinner, but
was refused.  What is your canon evidence for Sirius inviting Snape to
stay?  The fact that people who Sirius *liked* were at dinner is no
evidence that he invited anyone he didn't like.

Without evidence that Sirius invited Snape to dinner, I don't see how
you can fault Snape for leaving.  As a matter of fact, it would be
very rude to stay for dinner without an invitation.  Isn't it nice
that our only canon evidence on the subject is that Snape didn't
rudely stay without an invitation?







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug 17 02:06:03 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:06:03 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
References: <ec0gk2+mjr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005101c6c1a1$d3d7f9c0$069e400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157067

Hagrid:

> The way DD invited himself into the Dursley's house and shared a
> drink there would suggest eating in another's house is a
> demonstration of not being rude. Snape didn't mind being rude and
> that is why Ron could remember Snape never having eaten there.

The main reason I think he doesn't eat there is that JKR doesn't want him 
there at dinner.  I don't mean that to sound flip--obviously there's a 
chraracter moment as well.  But I honestly think the biggest reason for 
Ron's line is to tell us that Snape does come to the house but that he will 
not have to be in the next scene--Snape in a dinner scene would have of 
course been really different.

So I tend to think it's just saying that Snape always makes it clear this 
isn't a social call, and that we're free to add other things like his not 
wanting to fraternize too much with the Order given his position as a spy. 
I just doubt it's a plot point in itself that has a big meaning.  Why would 
Snape ever agree to these people?  But I see no reason to think it's rude of 
Snape to pass on dinner.  Doesn't Ron just say, "He never stays for dinner?" 
That's not rude, it just means he doesn't usually stay for dinner when he's 
at the house.  He leaves quickly.

Dumbledore's eating with the Dursleys is a parody of politeness that's 
intentionally rude.

-m 





From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 17 02:26:13 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:26:13 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder / From The Miscreant Elf
In-Reply-To: <993FE176-CE00-4BF2-A509-0C1A79DD1BC3@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ec0k45+3ot7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157068

Hello from Hexquarters, list members!   As some of you are aware, a 
bit of elfy correspondence accidentally found  its way to the main 
list today, and we apologize to Jordan, or as he is better known 
here, Random - every now and then,  we're human and make mistakes 
too. We hope you understand it wasn't intentional,  and after our 
hands heal, we'll iron them again just for good measure.

We have read this thread with great interest, and appreciate all 
your  comments.  For future discussion of this issue, we invite you 
join our feedback  list at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-
Feedback/ .   We do read it, and we occassionally re-arrange the 
furniture in the lobby as a  result of your opinions (which means we 
hear you and take action.)  Rather than  replying to this e-mail or 
responding at the main HPfGU list , however, please  provide your 
input either by posting at the Feedback list or by sending an  e-mail 
to the owner 
address:  mailto:HPforGrownups-owner at yahoogroups.com. 

Just a reminder that naturally, comments regarding personal  opinions 
of individual members of this list are not appropriate and should 
not  be posted publicly. Step away from the keyboard, far, far away,  
in those  instances. 

Thank you all for your cooperation!
Vexxy Elf for the List Elves.






From bobhawkins at rcn.com  Wed Aug 16 23:57:05 2006
From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:57:05 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <001d01c6c005$617f9b00$6601a8c0@MITRE.ORG>
Message-ID: <ec0bch+v2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157069

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rebecca" <dontask2much at ...> wrote:
>
> Something's been bugging me 
 ...

> What can we deduce from this passage? Well for one, McGonagall asks 
> Dumbledore how he *knew* it was her, implying that's she's surprised he 
> recognized her. Does this mean that Dumbledore didn't know what
McGonagall 
> looks like when in her Animagus form? Odd, because you'd think he
would know 
> that about his transfiguration professor?

    Perhaps she's surprised simply because it's so dark. After all,
Dumbledore has put out all the streetlights.

 
> Why has she been watching them *all day*? 

    I think it's reasonable that, when you turn into your Animagus
form, you take on the characteristics of that animal -- behavioral as
well as physical. Cats are well-known for patiently watching a
mousehole for long periods. So it may not have been very difficult for
her.
    And she must have been very anxious to find out the truth about
James, Lily and You Know Who.

    I have a couple of questions from later in the same book.

    o When the heck does Filch sleep?

    o While taking 50 points each from Harry, Hermione and Neville,
Professor McGonagall says "Four students out of bed in one night! I
never heard of such a thing!"  But we now know that she was familiar
with the Marauders. Is it plausible that she never even *heard* about
*them* being out of bed together?

                                       Zero Irregardless










From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 02:43:08 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:43:08 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <20060817000347.86628.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com>
References: <44E3A917.80507@pacificpuma.com>
	 <20060817000347.86628.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608161943v23ed0a83oa9074d5b52342fd2@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157070

On 8/16/06, Len Jaffe <orgone9 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's the elve's list. Not ours.

Random832:
Tell me, how was I supposed to have known in advance that "smart-ass"
overstepped this list's 'standards'? What specific rule does it
unambiguously violate? There's no "master list of forbidden words", is
there? The HBF doesn't even contain a "watch your language" rule that
could be _interpreted_ to cover this. I know that I only got a
warning, but it was public (yes, a mistake, but still) so I think I
deserve a better explanation of what rule I have supposedly broken.

> If you don't like how they've defined the tone and
> tenor of their discussion, or redifined the internet's
> convention for reply attribution,

Forget about the attribution thing. Regardless of my having issues
with it (most of all the inconsistent things i've been told about
what's needed), that thread is over there *points*, not here.

I think the important question here is, why does this list exist? If I
can't call someone a smart-ass here, where can I? There's nothing
wrong with being a smart-ass. I consider myself one sometimes.

And let's be honest. Had I called him a "smart-aleck", the
non-four-letter alternative to what I said, would we really be having
this discussion? This is clearly about language, and there is NO rule
about language in the HBF. Maybe if you want to set the "tone" of the
list such that it's appropriate for children, you ought to add one.
And rename it to HPforKids while you're at it.



From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 17 02:47:04 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 22:47:04 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608161943v23ed0a83oa9074d5b52342fd2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <44E3A917.80507@pacificpuma.com>
	 <20060817000347.86628.qmail@web80601.mail.yahoo.com>
	 <7b9f25e50608161943v23ed0a83oa9074d5b52342fd2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608161947u4861d33cg58a14b08267b1709@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157071

Random832:
I would like to formally apologize for failing to self-attribute in
the preceding post.

I was stressed, and when I'm stressed I tend to type fast, bang on the
keyboard, and forget about details like that until the second after I
hit send. This experience only serves to point out that this is a
mailing list, not a forum, and as such I can't re-edit my post after
it's gone out. If I could, I would have almost certainly received a
lot fewer warnings (sorry, "reminders") about quoting, attribution,
etc. I really have been trying. I wish you'd all make up your mind
about exactly _what_ i'm to try and do, but I do try.

-- 
Random832



From ramona_lorraine at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 03:12:36 2006
From: ramona_lorraine at yahoo.com (ramona_lorraine)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:12:36 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
Message-ID: <ec0mr4+566v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157072

Vexxy Elf wrote:
> I was surprised to see the term 'smart-ass' in
> your recent post:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157011
>
> Even in an exhuberant exchange, we would rather that people not 
refer
> to each other in this way. Some people might be all right with it
> and take it as a joke, but others might take it the wrong way. This
> can lead to hurt feelings and, at worst, flames.



Katherine Coble wrote:
> Grownups sometimes say "smart-ass". Grown-ups also have vigorous
> exchanges. This group, although ostensibly for "Grownups" seems to
> be given over to treating all the Grown-ups as though they are 12.
>
> Sorry. Just my opinion.



Jordan Abel wrote:
I agree. I toned it down a lot in my own reply to the reminder, since
I replied publicly to the other issue raised (see OTChatter) and
didn't want to offend people. But to be honest, I do object to us
being treated like children. 

And, truth be told, he _was_ being one. 


Ramona Lorraine now writes:

I have to agree with Vexxy Elf. Expecting politeness is not being 
treated like a child - it is being treated with respect. 

I don't appreciate reading this kind of language in public posts. I 
just don't think it's appropriate. Growing up is no reason to abandon 
good manners, like NOT calling people derogatory names, whatever they 
are saying or doing. Grown ups should be able to make a point without 
resorting to these measures. Be exhuberant. Be vigorous. But be 
respectful. 

Thank you Vexxy Elf, for trying to keep the list polite and 
respectful!

Ramona Lorraine










From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 03:20:15 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:20:15 -0000
Subject: Harry as a horcrux
In-Reply-To: <ec069c+4snk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0n9f+gh3v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157073

> Snow:
> 
> I could definitely give you this one since I don't care completely 
> for the unintentional Horcrux but more so that Harry received that 
> portion of Voldemort's split soul. Harry would then contain 
> Voldemort's soul minus the complex spell that creates the Horcrux. 

Neri:
I'd say this is the most likely solution. It rids us even of the
objection regarding the Horcrux spell not performed in GH. Now
everything fits perfectly. We know that Voldemort's soul was ripped in
GH because he murdered Harry's parents. This fragment was likely
released when Voldemort was hit by the rebounded AK. We know that it's
possible for Voldemort's soul fragments to possess people since the
fragment in the diary did it to Ginny. Most likely the fragment in GH
possessed Harry, the last person alive in that house. This accounts
for Harry having Voldemort's powers, for the brother wand choosing him
and for what the sorting hat saw in his head. 

So poor baby Harry became an orphan and was delivered to his wicked
relatives, and he was very lonely and miserable there, but he
discovered that he had a secret friend inside his head, just like
Ginny discovered Tom: 

"No one's ever understood me like you, Tom 
 I'm so glad I've got this
diary to confide in 
 It's like having a friend I can carry around in
my pocket 
"

Of course, the soul fragment would want to take over Harry, just as
his brother took over Ginny. But Harry was protected, he had his
mother's love in his blood, and maybe in time this love also affected
the soul fragment. It too was lonely, after all, and it remembered its
own miserable childhood when it too was an orphan among muggles. So in
time the soul fragment fused itself into Harry's soul, hidden itself
very well, so even Harry wouldn't remember him. We know these soul
fragments are very good at making you forget things. Only Harry didn't
forget completely:

"And while Harry was sure he had never heard the name T. M. Riddle
before, it still seemed to mean something to him, almost as though
Riddle was a friend he'd had when he was very small, and had
half-forgotten. But this was absurd. He'd never had friends before
Hogwarts, Dudley had made sure of that".

No, it's not absurd. It fits perfectly.

And I still think Voldemort is aware of that, or at least he suspects
it. He wants his lost soul fragment back, so he can encase it inside
Nagini as his last Horcrux. Dumbledore never said Nagini is a Horcrux
*now*. He said "it occurred to Voldemort to make her his last
Horcrux". I say Nagini is slated to suck the soul fragment out of
Harry, and Dumbledore had been suspecting it for some time.

So in OotP, when Dumbledore heard that Harry possessed Nagini, he
panicked and quickly conducted one of his alchemical experiments: "but
in essence divided?" The smoke serpent split itself into two serpents,
and Dumbledore had a look of grim satisfaction - the soul fragment
inside Harry is still separated from Voldy. Good, because Harry will
need it, to remember where all the Horcruxes are hidden, and to use
Voldemort's powers against him.

And I suspect Voldemort ordered Snape to find out if the soul fragment
is still in there. This explains why Snape was digging so dip for all
those early painful memories. Never did strike me like the proper way
to teach Occlumency. But the soul fragment had hidden itself very
well, and unlike Harry it *is* a superb Occlumens, so the earliest
Snape ever got was Dudley making Harry stand in the toilet. No wonder
Snape was angry <veg> . I don't think this soul fragment wants home to
papa. I think it likes its new home just fine.

Now, why does this theory feel familiar? Oh yes, I came up with
something like it more than two years ago, when I tried to invent the
most dreadful conspiracy theory I could think of ? ESE!Harry:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/99072

> Snow:
> Harry is still a container for Voldemort's bit of soul but without 
> the spell so
would that cause Harry to have to commit suicide to 
> vanquish it? 
> 

Neri:
This is the question, innit? I don't think it would. But maybe the
soul fragment would commit suicide itself? 


Neri








From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug 17 03:27:19 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:27:19 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <005101c6c1a1$d3d7f9c0$069e400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ec0nmn+m47q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157074

 "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
 
> The main reason I think he doesn't eat there is that JKR doesn't 
want him 
> there at dinner. 

Potioncat:
LOL, I recall an interview in which JKR said Snape was one of her 
favorite characters, but she wouldn't want to have dinner with him.

Magpie:
 Doesn't Ron just say, "He never stays for dinner?" 
> That's not rude, it just means he doesn't usually stay for dinner 
when he's 
> at the house.  He leaves quickly.

Potioncat:
It seems an odd thing for Ron to say, but maybe it's Ron's way of 
assuring Harry that Snape is only at 12 GP for meetings. If you think 
about it, a lot of the Order members don't stay for dinner. Isn't it 
pretty much just the Weasleys, Lupin, Tonks, Black, and Mundungus?

Molly will correct Harry later when he says "Snape" by reminding him 
that it's "Professor Snape." So I don't think Molly has any ill will 
toward the professor.








From celizwh at intergate.com  Thu Aug 17 03:48:48 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 03:48:48 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ec0gk2+mjr3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0ov0+rqq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157075

aussie writes:

> The way DD invited himself into the Dursley's house 
> and shared a drink there would suggest eating in another's 
> house is a demonstration of not being rude. Snape didn't 
> mind being rude and that is why Ron could remember Snape 
> never having eaten there.
 
> My point is, TOLERATING someone that has been an 
> historical rival is a good starting point, but not 
> enough to trust the other. Real effort needs to be 
> taken to overcome resentment, and Snape has always 
> been more comfortable keeping resentments fresh and alive.

houyhnhnm:

I can't argue that Snape would choose to be convivial if he 
were free to do so.  There is no way to tell.  Maybe he would 
not.  He is happy in his misanthropy, perhaps.  But the fact 
is that he is constrained from doing so by his role as a spy 
(his life and the Order's success are dependent on his ability 
to fool the greatest Legilimens that ever lived). 

I have always felt that the really sad thing about Snape is 
the fact that the very nature of his chosen path of atonement 
keeps him from evolving beyond the bad emotional habits that 
led him astray in the first place.

aussie:

> I have been in discussion groups where Christians, Moslems, 
> and Jews were invited. Some joined in freely, while others 
> were barely tolerating the others being there. Food that was 
> presented was clearly separated onto Halal and Koshers plates, 
> but some participants suddenly decided to start a religious fast.

houyhnhnm:

Wow!  Well, I only have dial-up, so I can't even imagine such a thing.







From everybodysdeaddave at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 01:30:29 2006
From: everybodysdeaddave at yahoo.com (jonny)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:30:29 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ebvsqe+ot0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec0grl+1k4q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157076

> Robert wrote:
> > <snip> If anything was intended by JKR with this comment made
> > by Ron, it was just to call Snape's character into question.
> > <snip> What result can we gather if this was a direct clue to
> > something? That Snape is bad. Well we're supposed to believe
> > he is, aren't we? So the result is one of two things. 1) He is
> > really a DE and that is why he didn't want to eat there or 2)
> > He isn't a DE and he is just a jerk and doesn't like Sirius and
> > Lupin and a lot of the people hanging out there so he'd rather
> > eat somewhere else.
>
> Carol responds:
> <snip> BTW, not liking Sirius Black, who in Snape's view tried to
> murder him when they were both sixteen, is entirely understandable.
> <snip> As far as snape is concerned, Sirius Black is still the
> arrogant little bully who helped James Potter waylay and attack
> him in the Pensieve scene. Why would he *want* to stay for dinner
> there, unless some purpose could be served?


Jonny:
Should it be considered that Snape is a Vampire? You never see him
eat, only drink. I will check the books for exactly where, but at one
point Ron makes a joke about Snape drinking blood. When Lupin begins
teaching at Hogwarts, one of Snapes first assignments is to get the
kids to read about werewolves. In hind-sight, this is a hint from JKR
about Lupin's secret. Was it a smilar clue when Lupin has the kids
read about vampires as a homework assignment? He would have to have a
potion similar to Lupin's that keeps the more obvious vampire traits
at bay, but mostly you never see him out in the sun and he always
seems rather active and alert at night. What do you kids think?







From mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 04:54:39 2006
From: mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com (Lady Lawyer)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 21:54:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Prefects
Message-ID: <20060817045439.64733.qmail@web55701.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157077


Carol responds:
> With two Prefects (a boy and a girl) from each House for three
> years, that's eight per year times three (or six per House times
> four), totalling 24.

Lady Lawyer:
I can't believe I made such a dumb math error! saying there were
only eight prefects!  Sorry, but you are right about there being 26.








From juli17 at aol.com  Thu Aug 17 05:18:44 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 01:18:44 EDT
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and
Message-ID: <334.5cfbcda1.32155634@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157078

 


Wynnleaf:
>And even if the
>forest conversation was not  about that, if DD's "please Severus" was
>having to plead with Snape to  AK him, that clearly indicates that
>Snape didn't want to AK DD.   And *that* means that Snape would
>rather choose to die than kill DD,  even with DD telling him to do
>it.  That's really hard for me to  believe if Snape dislikes
>Dumbledore.

PJ:
IF, IF, IF....  Sorry but I see nothing in canon that "clearly indicates" 
anything of the  kind. The whole thing from start to finish won't be fully 
explained to  anyone's satisfaction until the next book and until then *any* 
meaning we  attribute to that scene is pure supposition... On my part as  
well!

All that canon gives us about Snape in that scene are the dry  facts.  Snape 
strides onto the tower, pushes Draco roughly aside,  faces Dumbledore with a 
face full of hate and loathing and then AK's  him.  *Seemingly* with no more 
thought than when he was shooting  flies in his bedroom...

Where is the momentary look of regret for  having to kill the greatest 
wizard?  The torment and indecision for  having to kill his protector?  The 
ANGST that *should* be mentioned,  should be *seen* even if  only briefly if 
Snape truly didn't think  AKing DD was a great idea?  I find none...  What I 
see is that  Snape is alive and well but Dumbledore isn't...

Is it possible that  Snape no longer needed Dumbledore's assistance with his 
plan?  Is it  even possible that Dumbledore had become more of a liabliity 
with his  sudden interest in Horcruxes than helper in the "great plot"?  I  
think it should be considered...

PJ


Julie:
I agree that canon doesn't *clearly* indicate Snape didn't want to kill  DD.
(Heck, when does canon clearly indicate ANYTHING about Snape?!) But
canon does give us some clues which clearly indicate a *reasonable  basis*
for believing that Snape didn't want to kill DD. (Of course, you can  see 
other reasonable explanations for these canon points, but that doesn't 
and can't exclude the "Snape didn't want to kill DD" possibility.)
 
Firstly, you said Snape AK DD with seemingly no more thought than
swatting flies. In fact Snape stood looking at DD for a long moment,
thinking we don't know what (not yet anyway). Given that DD said 
"Severus...please..." and only then did Snape AK him, it's a valid
argument that perhaps Snape was experiencing indecision, and DD's
words forced the decision. 
 
Secondly, you ask where is the angst and torment in Snape at 
having to kill his protector. And you mention the regret that we 
should have been *seen*--even briefly. But we DID see torment,
angst, and quite possibly regret on Snape's face briefly. Harry
saw it too, right after he called Snape a coward. Snape's face was
described as contorted "as if he was as in as much pain as the
yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them."
We don't know why Snape felt such deep pain, but again, it is
a valid possibility that he felt that pain over having to kill DD. 
 
Thirdly, if Snape doesn't care about DD, and is getting rid of the
old man with no hesitation or regret whatsoever, then why isn't
Snape congratulating himself on a job well done? Why isn't he
telling DD just what a liability the old man has become? We know
Snape has NO compunction about pointing out the faults and
weaknesses of others. Why miss this opportunity?
 
And why does he care at all if Harry calls him a coward the
second time (he certainly didn't care the first time), when he
was just getting rid of an annoying hindrance? Why pain at 
that? Maybe because killing DD took more courage than
anything Snape had ever done? Because DD was the closest
thing to a friend--and perhaps a father--that he had? Because
it hurt to lose him, and it hurt that much more to be the one who
killed him? The facts as presented in canon can easily support
this interpretation.
 
Again, you don't have to believe any of this. There are no doubt
several plausible explanations for Snape's actions and apparent 
emotions during this scene. DDM!Snape who cared deeply for
DD and only killed DD because he had promised to do so (and
because DD added that "please" at the final moment) is one of
those plausible explanations. That's all I ask you to accept :-)
 
Julie 


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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 06:06:08 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:06:08 -0000
Subject: HpfGU educating was  An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <ec0heg+h20u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec110g+3ihq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157079

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:

> Steve snipped:
> 
> Also, more a tip than a rule, PARAGRAPHS and lots of them. 
> On the Internet discussion is much easier to read if it 
> is in small digestible bites. Use far more paragraphs than 
> your high school English teacher would have thought proper. 
> Posting your thoughts in one huge paragraph makes it very 
> difficult to read, even if from a 'English teacher' 
> perspective, one paragraph is correct.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Touch?' I figured this one out just from reading others 
> posts. I do try to attempt to indent whenever possible 
> so that my meaning will have the most effect, if possible. 
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Just my thoughts
> Snow
>

bboyminn:

Not being critical of you but you mentioned something 
else that reminded me of another very good tip for 
posting anything on the Internet.

INDENTS - don't use them.

They may work if you receive your posts by email, but 
when reading posts using the web interface, all leading 
zeros are suppressed. So, if you make several neatly 
indented paragraph lead-ins, it comes out as one huge 
paragraph on the web.

The proper way to do paragraph breaks on the web is with 
a full blank line between paragraphs. 

NOTE: that you, in this post I am responding to, did use 
'blank line' paragraph breaks. 

It's just that you mentioned 'indents' and that reminded 
me of this tip. So, please, don't take it as a personal 
criticism.

To some extent, when posting on the web, we have to abondon
or modify those neat tidy little rules our English teacher 
taught us. The classic 5-space paragraph intent that server 
the world for over a century is no longer valid in
electronic writing. 

Just another tip.

Steve/bboyminn

PS: I'm pretty sure everything I have mentioned can be found in the
rules for posting in the various HP groups.







From lanval1015 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 06:18:16 2006
From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:18:16 -0000
Subject: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape and Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <000f01c6c078$71b31c90$63fe54d5@Marion>
Message-ID: <ec11n8+g3bh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157080

>Marion:

> Snape could've whistled down a Dementor at that moment, point to 
the Shrieking Shack, say "they're in there, guv'nor" and get praise 
from the whole WW, but for one pesky thing: the three children are 
trapped between a mass-murder and his buddy, the manical, soon to 
transform, werewolf.
> Snape legs it to the Shrieking Shack.

Lanval:
Wrong. I made the same mistake in a post once, and it was kindly 
pointed out to me that Snape only sees Lupin running down the 
passage. The Shack itself is not on the Map. Once Snape got to the 
Willow, he found the Invisibility Cloak and figured out that Harry 
must be around as well. Sorry, your Hero!Snape, Fearless Savior of 
Bratty Stoopid Children, does not hold up.

(By the way, how do you suggest Snape 'whistle down' a Dementor? Why 
would a Dementor listen to him?)  



>Marion:
> Now, he *could* perhaps run to the Shack, holding a goblet of 
potion, enter the Shack, give the accomplice of a murderer the goblet 
(hope it didn't spill on the way, well, he did slow down a bit so it 
wouldn't spill... hope the kids aren't killed yet) saying something 
like, "Here you are, Lupin, your wolfsbane. Please drink it so you 
won't turn into a snarling monster. You don't want to tear these 
kiddies to shreds, do you? Well, you're here as the aider and abetter 
of Black, who is here to kill off the last of the Potters, mad 
traitorous murderer that he is, so I suppose you're going to kill the 
kiddies and me in a spot anyway, but you *much* rather be killing us 
whilst looking human, hm?"
> Or, he could leave the potion, leg it to the Shack, hold the 
murderer and his minion at wand-point, get the kids out of there and 
deal with the two dastardly villains when the kids are out of danger.
> 
> He does the last.


Lanval:
Indeed he does not. At least not quite. He runs to the Shack, 
gleefully aware that he's going to catch Lupin doing a Bad Thing. And 
most likely his old nemesis Black will be there as well. Vengeance, I 
believe, is the word here.

Snape says as much once he gets to the Shack. Please show me one 
shred of canon evidence that the children's welfare was first and 
foremost on Snape's mind when he set out for the Willow.

"'Two more for Azkaban tonight,' said Snape, his eyes now gleaming 
fanatically."

PoA, Scholastic, p.359   Quite self-explanatory, really.


>Marion:
> Alas, no good deed ever goes unpunished. Whilst trying to get Harry 
Potter to safety, Harry, being Harry (i.e. stubborn, disobedient and 
stoopid) won't budge (doesn't know how dangerous Lupin is. Doesn't 
know how dangerous Black is. Does know he resents his ugly, strict, 
sarcastic teacher and likes to disobey him on principle alone). 
> 

Lanval:
Funny, isn't it? Especially since Stoopid!Harry is RIGHT. Black IS 
innocent. Let me repeat that: Sirius Black is innocent.

And Snape is WRONG.


>Marion:
> Now, if *I* were Snape, I would've AK-ed both Black and Lupin in a 
second.

Lanval:
Let me get this straight: you're thoroughly disgusted because a kid 
disrespects his teacher, but this teacher (or should I say this 
former Death Eater?) killing two men in cold blood (by means of an 
Unforgivable Curse no less) is fine and dandy with you?


>Marion
 I'd probably get a reward for Black ('dead or alive', wasn't it?)

Lanval:
Maybe you can point us to that particular part in the book? I've 
asked his before; does it ever say that the civilian population of 
the WW was authorized to use an AK on Sirius Black?

>Marion:
 and bagging his werewolf helper on a night of a full moon can't be 
seen as murder, surely. But Snape has but one priority: getting the 
kids out of there and subdueing Black and Lupin.

Lanval:
Sure it was. That's why he told the kids to get out *immediately* 
upon entering the Shack (and far be it from him to stand there 
listening for what, six pages of dialogue?), and why he seemed so 
honestly concerned for their welfare, avoiding any sort of silly 
delay, such as gloating over having finally caught Lupin and Black in 
the act... oh, right.


> Marion:
> I see a man who is dangerous getting a job as a teacher on the 
stict condition that he takes his medicine. He would be too much of a 
danger to the children otherwise. Wanna bet that Dumbledore gave 
Snape the order "You will brew his this potion, Severus, and you will 
see to it that he *drinks* it. I won't endanger the children, but 
that means he *must* take it. You above all others know how dangerous 
Lupin can be, dear boy.."

Lanval:
Since neither you nor I have ever been inside JKR's brain, bets are 
hardly a good idea. That's very much *your* Dumbledore speaking here, 
and he bears no relation to canon!DD.

>Marion:
> People in the fandom tend to see werewolves as AIDS patients: 
shunned, harmless, misunderstood.
> Red Hen likenes Lupin to a schizophrenic, who doesn't want to take 
his medicine because it makes him feel unlike himself.

Lanval:
Really? Well, I guess one CAN decide to disregard canon entirely.


>Marion:
> I tend to liken them to pedophiles. 
> 
> Yes, that's a nasty thing to say, but I'm saying it to make a 
point. I'll explain further on. And no, I'm not in any way claiming 
that Lupin abuses children. 

Lanval:
Then what is your point, beside the obvious (Lupin/Sirius = bad, 
Snape = good, Harry = STOOPID)? It hasn't escaped too many readers 
over the age of twelve that Greyback has all the hallmarks of a Pedo; 
that's hardly an original point to make.

Hence if you're not claiming that *Lupin* is a pedophile, doing 
pedophiliac things, then why liken him to one? 

Oh, and one more thing: it's no accident that Fandom has made the 
AIDS/infectious disease comparison, because the author herself has 
done so.


>Marion:
> Now suppose a young boy got accosted at school once by one of those 
beasts. It was hushed up, of course, the school didn't need the bad 
publicity. Twenty years later, the boy has become a teacher and lo 
and behold, his one time accoster turns up as an interim teacher as 
well. The head of the school, knowing of the new 
teacher's 'affiction', agrees to hire him on the condition that he 
takes drugs to 'curb his urges'. The one to administer them to him is 
his one-time victim, because a) he makes the stuff and b) the matter 
was hushed up; not many know of the man's affliction.
> Now, picture the whole scene again, with this in mind.
> 
> One-time victim of pedophile teacher comes to bring him drugs to 
render him temporarily safe for the children he has to teach.
> Pedophile teacher gives 'special lessons' to a boy, who's there 
when one-time victim enters with the medicine.
> Pedophile teacher looks his one-time victim in the face, smiles, 
and says, "Oh, just put it there. I will take it when you're gone."
> 
> Doesn't sound *half* as nice anymore, does it?

Lanval:
Doesn't even have anything to do with HP. Lupin has never shown any 
tendency to target children, Snape and Lupin are the same age, and it 
was Snape who 'accosted' Lupin, trying to find out his secret. Read 
the book.

>Marion: 
> No, I'm not saying Lupin is a pedophile, nor that he wants to do 
anything with Harry. I'm just trying to look at what *really* happens 
without letting preconceived notions cloud my eyes.

Lanval:
As opposed to those of us whose eyes have been clouded by the 
author's cunning plan to force us to like Lupin, that beast? Woes!
Canon, by the way, is your friend when it comes to trying to look at 
what 'really happens'.

I also suppose Rowling's remark (sorry, can't find the exact quote 
right now) that she'd like Lupin as a teacher(both for herself as a 
child, and for her daughter) means very little to you?

> Marion:
> Lupin is introduced to us as a kind, patient softspoken man who 
takes frights away from children and who deals out chocolates, but 
who turns out to be a werewolf.

> Snape is introduced as and ugly man with a hooked nose, who is 
strict and sarcastic and who has no patience for fools. A man dressed 
in black, who looks scary and acts scary. And he rescues and protects 
the children in his care.

Lanval:
And they lived happily, or not so happily, ever after. The End. Good 
thing nothing of significance has happened, plot- or characterwise, 
since Lupin was exposed as a big bad werewolf, and Snape rescued and 
protected some children at some point... yep, Lupin has been shown to 
be Bad and Snape has been shown to be Good, and golly, what a fine 
Moral Fairy Tale we have here. Hope all the children have learned the 
lesson: don't judge a book by its cover! And of course that's SO not 
a cliche...

The books Rowling wrote are a bit more complex, thank God.


>Marion:

> Personally, I'd prefer the crabby, nasty, ugly man who protects my 
children instead of endangers them. Who tells the cold hard unpopular 
truth instead of lying to make himself look better. 

Lanval:
Oh, the (ex?) racist with the terrorist background?








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 06:38:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:38:24 -0000
Subject: An Elfly Reminder
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608161947u4861d33cg58a14b08267b1709@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec12t0+v2cf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157081

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> Random832:
> I would like to formally apologize for failing to 
> self-attribute in the preceding post.
> 
> I was stressed, and when I'm stressed I tend to type 
> fast, ... I really have been trying. I wish you'd all 
> make up your mind about exactly _what_ i'm to try and 
> do, but I do try.
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

bboyminn:

This is my last post on the subject since it is getting
off subject.

If you go to this groups Home page, and read the first 
paragraph, you will see a link to "Posting Rules" and 
to group "FAQ"s.

The very first thing in the Posting Rules list is...

http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/Posting_Rules_09_Mar_06.html

"2.1 Be Courteous

Do not flame, send obscenities or spam, engage in other
discourteous, disrespectful or illegal behavior or 
discuss list policy onlist (...). We welcome debate, 
but do not attack or insult other list members."

Now, like I said, I'm not fussed about being called a 
'smart ass'. While I'm not sure it is true, I think 
there was sufficient context to indicate it was not 
intended as a blatant insult. 

But, the Elves were justified in sending you a reminder 
because of it. Unfortunately, the reminder when to the 
group rather than directly to you. That's OK, we all 
need a reminder periodically; not harm, no foul. 

You seem to be implying that the rules are somewhat 
unclear and perhaps arbitrary, but the heart of those 
rules is spelled out very clearly, what isn't spelled 
out, is easily gained from experience. 

Like I said, I think I took the 'smart ass' comment in 
context, but I assure you again, that I have seen much 
more minor personal comments turn into the equivalent 
of an on-line argument; heated and nasty. The elves 
usually nip these in the bud very quickly, but they do 
allow some brief time to see if we 'adults' will come 
to our senses and move on.

Please don't feel as if you are being personally jumped 
on by the Elves, it was just a friendly reminder. I still 
get them on occassion even after years in the group. In 
fact, I'll probably get one after this post reminding me
to stay on topic. Again, the elves are just doing their
job, it's nothing personal.

So, for me at least, that's the end of that.

Steve/bboyminn






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 06:59:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:59:50 -0000
Subject: Trains and Hogwarts express
In-Reply-To: <9oj7r8+ej2n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1456+39f1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157082

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, pengolodh_sc at ... wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., vheggie at y... wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> > In older Britrail trains ..., some carriages are
> > divided up into 'compartments' (like the first-class 
> > carriages in some trains, or on the Eurostar).  ... 
> > 'compartments' which would hold 6 - 8 people.

>  Christian Stub?:
> 
> That is most certainly the type. The carriages indicated 
> by the books seem to be from the steam-era on British 
> railroads, where open-seating coaches were all but unhear 
> of on British railways, ...
>
> I also have another theory:
> 
> As i believe has been established, the carriages of 
> the Hogwarts Express have a row of compartments, 
> each seating six-eight persons, connected with a corridor 
> along one side of the coach.  This is a typical layout 
> for many European types of coaches up to ca. the 70s.  
> My theory refers to a specific British breed of such 
> coaches, not  commonly seen in other countries.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> Best regards
> Christian Stub?
>

bboyminn:

Just a few thoughts. I think you are both very accurately
describing the likely types of compartments found on the 
Hogwarts Express, and the train we see in the movies 
further confirms this image.

As far as the Prefects compartment, I will make two points. 
First, we know that in the wizard world, outside dimensions 
are not alway an indicator of inside dimensions. The Weasley 
and Ministry cars are a good example. 

So the Prefect compartment could first be a Deluxe First 
Class compartment of larger proportions that the 'common' 
compartments. It could also be magically enchanted with 
larger interior space to accommodate the necessary number 
of people.

My second points is my suspicion that the Prefect don't 
all stay in the compartments. I suspect the junior Prefect 
are quickly informed of any necessary information like 
passwords, then are sent off to patrol that hallways, 
while the Senior Prefect sit back and relax. So, all 
the Prefects would only need to be in the compartment 
briefly, consequently, a normal size compartment might 
be sufficient. After performing their duties, we see 
Ron and Hermione finish the journey in the compartment 
with Harry; not proof, but an indicator.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 08:11:35 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:11:35 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ec0grl+1k4q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec18bn+jkpt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157083


> Jonny:
> Should it be considered that Snape is a Vampire? 


Sydney:

I think JKR shot down the "Snape is a Vampire" theory.  I have to say
(as you detail in your post), there was so much evidence for it that I
was really reluctantly starting to believe it-- and I think I remember
my heart sinking when I read that "he never eats here" line!

Horses mouth:

Megan: Is there a link between Snape and vampires?
JK Rowling replies -> Erm... I don't think so.
2004 world book day chat


I can't tell you how relieved I was to read that... not that I have
anything against vampires, but I think it would have taken Snape over
the Goth point of no return.   I just don't think I could have taken
someone with long black hair and a dark past and long black robes and
a mezmerizing voice who was also half-vampire.  It like, "so he has
the black eyeliner, pouffy silk shirt, and giant silver chain... what
the heck, put him in torn fishnet stockings while we're at it!" 

--Sydney (not that I have anything against Goths either.  But EITHER
the fishnets OR the pirate shirt, please.)








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 08:18:28 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:18:28 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec01o9+3gqi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec18ok+3oh6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157084

Renne:

> So I was wrong about Elizabeth. But even if it's only Jane (and to a
> very mild degree mr. Bennett, as Houynhnhm writes), this is still one
> more person than in the HP series - for if Darcy and his friends are
> dismissed, Snape should be dismissed too - both parties are `the
> enemy'. What's more, Snape's most serious accusation against Lupin
> turns out to be incorrect, which can't be said of Darcy's accusation
> against Wickham.
>
> Unless nobody except Darcy & friends ever has doubts about Wickham,
> the general argument still holds, I think.

Sydney:

Jane does not have 'doubts' about Wickham.  Jane wants to think
everyone in the world is good and nice.  What she proposes is not that
Wickham is suspect, but that somehow he had an innocent
misunderstanding with Darcy (a view she persists in for a while even
after hearing the truth!).  Mr. Bennet gets one line which suggests
that Wickham dwells a bit too much on his misfortunes, but he does not
actively doubt them, and as he's presented as the 'cynic' character
who thinks the worst of everyone I would class him with Peeves calling
Lupin 'loony'.

How does the 'general argument still stand'?  It's wrong on facts. It
does not stand.  It falls.  Of course you can still argue that the
analogy does not apply for other reasons-- because you don't see Lupin
fulfilling the same role in the book as Wickham, perhaps-- but based
on the state of play of people's perceptions, I think the comparison
is valid.

As for whether Snape's most serious accusation about Lupin is
mistaken.. well, obviously the ESE argument relies on us not actually
knowing YET what Lupin's motives and actions are!   


> > Sydney:
> >
> > I'm sorry both for the massive quotage and the massive snippage, but
> > if people are going to use Pride and Prejudice to support their
> > arguments-- and you know who you are-- they should probably read the
> > book.  And stop accusing those of us who have-- who in fact have
> > practically memorized it-- of being influenced by external sources.
>
> Renee:
> Eh, are you still addressing me? I can't remember having done so   


Sydney:

No, I wasn't addressing you!  :)  I was addressing Neri, who is the
source of the orignal mistake, and who most unwisely insinuated that
those of us who had the plot right were getting it from the movies. 
Several times.  *humph*!


> Renee:
> But he was wrong about Lupin's motives and his reasons for going to
> the Shrieking Shack, he was wrong about Sirius, he was wrong about
> James using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper.


Sydney:

Actually, James did use Sirius as his SK.  He switched to Peter, but
Sirius was the original one.  See above for Lupin's motives-- he could
still be lying.


Renee:

 His tendency to judge without
> having all the facts also makes him an unreliable witness (a bit like
> Harry, actually). In addition to that, if a witness is known to hate
> the accused, he will not be considered impartial and his evidence will
> be weighed accordingly. In short, he's a much more unreliable witness
> than Darcy turns ot to be.

Sydney:

I think Snape is a LOT like Harry, something that the book brings up
repeatedly.  I don't think Lupin is ESE and Snape is wrong on this
point (as Darcy is wrong about Jane's feelings for Bingley, a
situation about which he is biased).  So I'm only correcting the stuff
about Wickham because, well, I really love that book and hate seeing
the plot mangled!

I DO think there is a strong structural similarity between the
Darcy/Elizabeth situation and the Snape/Harry situation (NOT, lord
help us, on a romantic level!)  Critics often remark that in a way,
the story of P&P is over when the book is halfway through-- when
Elizabeth reads Darcy's letter and corrects her perceptions.  The rest
of the plot is the melodrama necessary to bring them together as a
couple.  If you remove the second half there's a lot of similarities,
as I detailed in poast no. 155571.  Hey, I wonder if Harry will visit
Spinner's End in book VII, like Elizabeth went to Pemberley!  *fantasizes*


> Renee:
> Ha! Someone who doesn't dismiss the alchemy theory. But according to
> this theory, Lupin/Tonks requires Snape to be married to an old woman,
> and I still wonder who that might be. Especially as JKR has said that
> information about teachers' mariages is restricted.  

Sydney:

See, I wonder if the 'old woman' paired with Snape isn't McGonnegal? 
They're not married (as far as I know! *eyes them suspiciously*), but
they often appear paired and she seems like one of the few people
Snape is comfortable with.  So it could work symbolically.

 
> > -- Sydney, who wonders if the "Elizabeth liked Darcy and was
> > suspicious of Wickham all along" thing comes from the fine Laurence
> > Olivier/Greer Garson movie, which does take some liberties...
>
> Renee:
> Are you very surprised if I tell you I saw that one, too, once upon a
> time?

Sydney:

Still a great film!  I think most adaptions salt in some early
attraction to Darcy to amp up the romance, and have insufficient
respect for their audiences to let the Wickham thing go without more
anvil-sized hints.  

-- Sydney






From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Aug 17 08:44:47 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:44:47 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ebvlit+pmuq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1a9v+fc05@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157085

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Brothergib wrote:
> > 
> > > If I could ask JKR a question it would be 'How could a rebounded
> AK  destroy a house?'

> Carol responds:
> Or, to put it another way, if a rebounded Horcrux spell could 
destroy
> a house, as Brothergib postulated in the portion of his post that AD
> snipped, then certainly a rebounded AK could do so. And we know from
> interviews (and, IIRC, JKR's website) that the spell that hit Harry
> and rebounded on Voldemort was indeed a killing curse:
> 
> "JKR: The first question that I have never been asked?it has 
probably
> been asked in a chatroom but no one has ever asked me?is, "Why 
didn't
> Voldemort die?" Not, "Why did Harry live?" but, "Why didn't 
Voldemort
> die?" The killing curse rebounded, so he should have died. Why 
didn't he?"
> 
Brothergib again:
Thank you to Carol and Amiable Dorsai for putting me straight. Very 
frustrating, since I have read all these transcripts before, but had 
just forgotten about them. I guess that leaves us with the question 
of whether LV has the full complement of Horcruxes or not. I have 
already given several reasons why I think LV is still 1 short, but 1 
additional bit of potential evidence is that DD is unsure about the 
final 2 Horcruxes. This is one of the few occasions where DD has 
absolutely no proof as to what the final Horcruxes are. He is 
guessing. I don't think we would think too badly of him if this guess 
turns out to be incorrect.







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 09:59:51 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 09:59:51 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec1a9v+fc05@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1emn+aj20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157086


> Brothergib again:
> Thank you to Carol and Amiable Dorsai for putting me straight. Very 
> frustrating, since I have read all these transcripts before, but had 
> just forgotten about them. I guess that leaves us with the question 
> of whether LV has the full complement of Horcruxes or not. I have 
> already given several reasons why I think LV is still 1 short, but 1 
> additional bit of potential evidence is that DD is unsure about the 
> final 2 Horcruxes. This is one of the few occasions where DD has 
> absolutely no proof as to what the final Horcruxes are. He is 
> guessing. I don't think we would think too badly of him if this guess 
> turns out to be incorrect.


AD:
What if he was (mostly) right?  That is, what if Riddle really did set
out to make 6 Horcruxes, with Nagini getting the final slice, but
Harry (or his scar) was accidentally made into a seventh, unbeknownst
to Tommy-boy or Dumbledore?

Splitting his soul into exactly seven pieces seems to have been very
important to Riddle--after all, if Dumbledore's speculation is
correct, he not only stooped to using a Muggle's  murder to create the
necessary tear, but he put his final serving of soul into Nagini,
which Dumbledore thought was dangerous move.

So, the "most powerfully magical number", seven, must have been
important to Riddle, he must have seen some benefit that outweighed
the ignominy of using a random Muggle for the murder, and the "very
risky business" of entrusting "a part of (his) soul to something that
can think and move for itself".

But if Harry is also a Horcrux, Riddle has split his soul into eight
pieces, not seven; his calculations have gone awry--and one of Harry's
best friends is an Arithmancy wiz....

I wonder if Hermione will be able to find a way to use Riddle's little
counting error against him in the final book?

Amiable Dorsai







From midnightowl6 at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 17 09:59:18 2006
From: midnightowl6 at hotmail.com (P J)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 05:59:18 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH SNAPE was: Script from JKR's reading/ About Snape
 and
In-Reply-To: <334.5cfbcda1.32155634@aol.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-F2066AA3B85ADB85E10ABB6914D0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157087



Julie:
>Again, you don't have to believe any of this. There are no doubt
>several plausible explanations for Snape's actions and apparent
>emotions during this scene. DDM!Snape who cared deeply for
>DD and only killed DD because he had promised to do so (and
>because DD added that "please" at the final moment) is one of
>those plausible explanations. That's all I ask you to accept :-)

PJ:
Naturally I accept the *possibility* as almost any way of looking at the 
Snape/Dumbledore connection is as valid as the next with the information we 
have - or should I say, don't have.  I just can't for the life of me read 
Snape as DDM! with a straight face....  I just can't...

In readiness for book 7's release I've got a nice, big, fat crow in the 
freezer with an interesting recipe all picked out.  All I have left to do 
now is choose which "whine" to serve with it.  lol!  I don't think I'll need 
it but it's always best to be prepared.

PJ





From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Aug 17 11:14:22 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:14:22 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec1emn+aj20@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1j2e+1fj2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157089

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" 
<amiabledorsai at ...> wrote:
> What if he was (mostly) right?  That is, what if Riddle really did 
set
> out to make 6 Horcruxes, with Nagini getting the final slice, but
> Harry (or his scar) was accidentally made into a seventh, 
unbeknownst
> to Tommy-boy or Dumbledore?

Brothergib now:
I still think that LV's snakelike appearance on the back of Quirrel's 
head indicates that Nagini was a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow. LV 
doesn't look at all snakelike in the chapter 'Lord Voldemort's 
request' in HBP, even though the evidence suggests that he has 
already made 3 or 4 Horcruxes. So why is he snakelike on Quirrel?

Amiable Dorsai again: 
> Splitting his soul into exactly seven pieces seems to have been very
> important to Riddle--after all, if Dumbledore's speculation is
> correct, he not only stooped to using a Muggle's  murder to create 
the
> necessary tear, but he put his final serving of soul into Nagini,
> which Dumbledore thought was dangerous move.
> 
> So, the "most powerfully magical number", seven, must have been
> important to Riddle, he must have seen some benefit that outweighed
> the ignominy of using a random Muggle for the murder, and the "very
> risky business" of entrusting "a part of (his) soul to something 
that
> can think and move for itself".

Brothergib again:
DD states that the reason he thinks that Nagini is a Horcrux is 
because LV has an unnatural control over the snake. However, LV seems 
to have considerable control over Nagini before LV even kills Frank 
Bryce. Interestingly, we know this because of Harry's dream at the 
beginning of GOF. But is DD aware of this piece of information? Also, 
would LV use a piece of soul split when he is a considerably weakened 
state to make a Horcrux!

Amiable Dorsai again:
> But if Harry is also a Horcrux, Riddle has split his soul into eight
> pieces, not seven; 

Brothergib again:
As you yourself pointed out, LV definitely attempted to AK Harry. If 
LV was attempting to use Harry's death to create a Horcrux, then he 
never actually got the chance. It seems obvious to me that some form 
of spell needs to be used to create a Horcrux - otherwise you would 
have the following scenario; all the murderers of the world on 
finally meeting their maker would find that all the split parts of 
their soul would leap into the nearest objects and create Horcruxes!!

I'm afraid I remain more convinced that LV has 1 less than seven 
rather than 1 more!








From kjones at telus.net  Thu Aug 17 15:01:13 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 08:01:13 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec1tt9+10v4v@eGroups.com>
References: <ec1tt9+10v4v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44E484B9.2060604@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157090



> Brothergib again:
> If LV used Frank Bryce to create the Nagini Horcrux, why is LV 
> snakelike on the back of Quirrel's head. In the chapter 'Lord 
> Voldemort's Request' in HBP, LV does not look at all snakelike even 
> though we know he has created 3-4 Horcruxes. Surely his snakelike 
> appearance is due to his merging a piece of soul with Nagini.

   KJ writes:

    I find this very confusing, and I question this every time I see it. 
  Why, if Voldemort put a piece of his soul into a snake, would he then 
take on the appearance of a snake? Would the snake not start to look 
like Voldemort? I think that being snake-like may play an important part 
in the book because we see so many snakes throughout the series, but I 
don't think it has anything to do with where he put his soul pieces. I 
think it is more of a statement about loss of humanity, and as a 
Slytherin Parseltongue what else could he look like?  Maybe Harry will 
turn him into a common garden variety garter snake and the end of the book.
KJ




From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 08:21:41 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 20:21:41 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Will Harry Die? Or just "defeat" Voldemort?
In-Reply-To: <20060816073600.62927.qmail@web55705.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20060817082141.127.qmail@web38313.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157091


--- Lady Lawyer <mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>
> by the way I don't think that killing someone in
> pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
> will split your soul.  I think the soul splitting
> murder has to  be with extreme cruelty.  Else every
> soldier would have a split soul.
<snip>  

Cassy:

Well, there's this nice thing called "Vietnam syndrom"
(or "Afgan syndrom", etc, depending on the country and
time period). I think that qualifies as split soul in
a certain way. 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com 






From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 17 07:36:50 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 07:36:50 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ec0nmn+m47q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec16ai+vln9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157092

>Potioncat:
> It seems an odd thing for Ron to say, but maybe it's Ron's way of
> assuring Harry that Snape is only at 12 GP for meetings. If you
think
> about it, a lot of the Order members don't stay for dinner. Isn't it
> pretty much just the Weasleys, Lupin, Tonks, Black, and Mundungus?
>
Sally

To be honest I think that Snape doesn't stay because he wouldn't want
to be exposed as having his double agent alliegences towards the
OotP.  Also I think that Kingsley Shacklebolt also stays for dinner,
at least Arthur invites him for Molly's meatballs on the day of Harry's
hearing.








From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Thu Aug 17 10:48:08 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:48:08 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec18ok+3oh6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1hh8+me52@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157093

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:
>
>
>Sidney: 
> As for whether Snape's most serious accusation about Lupin is
> mistaken.. well, obviously the ESE argument relies on us not
actually > knowing YET what Lupin's motives and actions are!   


Renee:
But what *is* Snape's most serious accusation against Lupin? That he's
the accomplice of a murderer, actively helping him gain access to his
prospective victim. But Sirius is not a murderer and Lupin wasn't his
accomplice. So the answer would be: yes, Snape was mistaken when he
made this particular accusation. 

Otherwise, Snape makes a derogatory remark about Tonks's Patronus,
calling it weak. This suggests he considers Lupin weak, though he
doesn't even say it in so many words. IMO, this is rather flimsy
evidence, and the content is open to debate. Lupin is weak in certain
areas, but not in others. He has some strengths that Snape lacks (and
vice versa). And being weak doesn't make them evil per se, neither
Lupin nor Snape.    

I've tried to remember other accusations Snape makes against Lupin,
but my memory fails me. Compared to his rants about James and Sirius
and his altercation with the latter in OotP (kitchen scene), what he
*says* about Lupin is actually rather mild, coming from him. 

Snape mostly shows his suspicions by actions - the way he backs out of
Lupin's office, tying Lupin up at the Shack, outing him to the
students. That is what suggests us he's wary of Lupin. His remark
about not knowing the way a werewolf's mind works, also fits in here.
But all these instances are related to Lupin's status as a werewolf,
and IIRC the ESE!theory hinges on Lupin's flaws as a human being. 


> 
> 
> > Renee:
> > But he was wrong about Lupin's motives and his reasons for going to
> > the Shrieking Shack, he was wrong about Sirius, he was wrong about
> > James using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper.
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
Actually, James did use Sirius as his SK. He switched to Peter, but
Sirius was the original one. See above for Lupin's motives-- he could
still be lying.

Renee:
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant to say Snape's claim that James died
because he used Sirius as his SK was wrong. James did not use Sirius.
That was only the original plan, but they changed to Peter in the last
moment. Though I don't suppose this was because James actually
believed Snape...
As for Lupin still lying, could you be more specific? You mean he
could be lying about his reasons for not telling DD about Padfoot? 

 
> > Renee, previously:
> > Ha! Someone who doesn't dismiss the alchemy theory. But according to
> > this theory, Lupin/Tonks requires Snape to be married to an old woman,
> > and I still wonder who that might be. Especially as JKR has said that
> > information about teachers' mariages is restricted.  
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> See, I wonder if the 'old woman' paired with Snape isn't McGonnegal? 
> They're not married (as far as I know! *eyes them suspiciously*), but
> they often appear paired and she seems like one of the few people
> Snape is comfortable with.  So it could work symbolically.
> 

Renee:
Hey, I was thinking about McGonagall, too!

  








From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Thu Aug 17 16:11:28 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:11:28 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <44E484B9.2060604@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ec24fg+adco@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157094

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> 
wrote:

>    KJ writes:
> 
>     I find this very confusing, and I question this every time I 
see it. 
>   Why, if Voldemort put a piece of his soul into a snake, would he 
then 
> take on the appearance of a snake? Would the snake not start to 
look 
> like Voldemort? I think that being snake-like may play an important 
part 
> in the book because we see so many snakes throughout the series, 
but I 
> don't think it has anything to do with where he put his soul 
pieces. I 
> think it is more of a statement about loss of humanity, and as a 
> Slytherin Parseltongue what else could he look like?  Maybe Harry 
will 
> turn him into a common garden variety garter snake and the end of 
the book.
> KJ

Brothergib:
How many Horcruxes do we think LV has made when he appears at 
Hogwarts to request a job. The diary. The ring. The locket. The cup.
The evidence certainly suggests that these Horcruxes were probably 
made by this point. And yet LV does not resemble a snake at all. 
However, he is snakelike on the back of Quirrel. Is it because he has 
merged his soul with Nagini? Even though he has removed part of his 
soul and placed it in Nagini, it is still a part of HIM! The fact 
that it does not appeat that anyone has ever tried to make a Horcrux 
from a living object, might explain why LV takes on some of the 
attributes of Nagini.

Why would it be that his loss of humanity after creating 3-4 
horcruxes does not make him snake like, but after 4-5 it might??


>







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 17:25:26 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:25:26 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec18ok+3oh6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec28q6+p1s0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157095

Renee wrote:
> > But he [Snape] was wrong about Lupin's motives and his reasons for
going to the Shrieking Shack, he was wrong about Sirius, he was wrong
about James using Sirius as a Secret-Keeper.
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> Actually, James did use Sirius as his SK.  He switched to Peter, but
Sirius was the original one.  See above for Lupin's motives-- he could
still be lying.

Carol responds:
Sorry for the massive snipping, but I don't want to get sidetracked on
P and P--interesting that even a seemingly omniscient narrator who can
get into several character's minds is still unreliable, as I would
hope that any reader would understand immediately from the deliciously
comic-ironic opening line). 

Ahem. To return to the WW: Snape's mistake is entirely understandable.
*Dumbledore* was also wrong about Sirius Black being the SK who
betrayed the Potters, and he was almost certainly the source of
snape's information. (DD was also wrong about Black intending to
murder Harry: after all, as DD says, "Sirius did not behave like an
innocent man," what with sneaking into the castle twice, slashing up
portraits and bed curtains, and seeming to threaten a
thirteen-year-old boy with a twelve-inch knife). So Snape had every
reason to believe, along with the rest of the WW (who had read about
the events at GH in the Daily Prophet) that Black was the Secret
Keeper and that he had escaped from Azkaban to kill Harry. Also,
knowing that Lupin had been Black's friend during their school days
and that someone (who turns out to be Crookshanks) is helping him get
into the castle, even providing him with the password to enter
Gryffindor tower, it's entirely understandable that Snape's suspicions
fall on Lupin--the Dark creature (so classified in the DADA textbook)
helping the murderer on a night when he's about to transform. Of
course, Snape suspects them both.

But do we *know* that Black was the original SK and that there was a
switch-over, or is it possible that Black immediately suggested
Pettigrew and was never the SK himself? The only evidence I can think
of, if it can be called evidence, for Black ever having been SK is
that one week before Godric's Hollow seems very late to put the
Fidelius Charm in place. Having Black as SK for a few months to a year
previously would explain the Potters' survival up to that point, but
if the charm was working, why change SKs?
> 

Renee:
> > Ha! Someone who doesn't dismiss the alchemy theory. But according
to this theory, Lupin/Tonks requires Snape to be married to an old
woman, and I still wonder who that might be. Especially as JKR has
said that information about teachers' mariages is restricted.  
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> See, I wonder if the 'old woman' paired with Snape isn't McGonnegal? 
> They're not married (as far as I know! *eyes them suspiciously*),
but they often appear paired and she seems like one of the few people
Snape is comfortable with.  So it could work symbolically.

Carol responds:
If there's any validity to the alchemical theory, I agree that it will
work symbolically. But on a practical level, I think we can rule out a
marriage of any kind between seventy-something McGonagall and Snape, a
man half her age, especially given her reaction to his killing of
Dumbledore.

To me, the Christmas dinner scene in PoA seems to indicate who is
married and who isn't. Lupin is absent because he's "ill" (his
transformation shouldn't occur on Christmas Day because it's only 55
days after the November 1 transformation, but, oh, well). The only
teachers present are Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Flitwick,
and, belatedly, Trelawney. Binns wouldn't be there, of course, but
where are Sinistra, Hooch, Madam Pomfrey, and all the other teachers
and staff? If any staff members are married, they must be among the
absentees. (Filch and Pince? Oh, no!)

Carol, who hopes that the alchemical elements are kept to a minimum as
they'll pass over the heads of most child readers and many adults







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 17:53:39 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 17:53:39 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec1j2e+1fj2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec2af3+31ap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157096

Brothergib wrote:
> I still think that LV's snakelike appearance on the back of
Quirrel's head indicates that Nagini was a Horcrux before Godric's
Hollow. LV doesn't look at all snakelike in the chapter 'Lord
Voldemort's request' in HBP, even though the evidence suggests that he
has already made 3 or 4 Horcruxes. So why is he snakelike on Quirrel?

Carol responds:
I agree completely that the explanation must be that Nagini was a
Horcrux before Godric's Hollow--and the lack of reaction by the DEs in
the graveyard to his snakelike appearance indicates that he looks the
way they expected him to look. The previous Horcruxes merely blur his
features almost beyond recognition and make his eyes red. Why would
the next Horcrux make him look snakelike--*un*blurred--unless it was
Nagini?
> 
Brothergib:
> DD states that the reason he thinks that Nagini is a Horcrux is 
because LV has an unnatural control over the snake. However, LV seems
to have considerable control over Nagini before LV even kills Frank 
Bryce. Interestingly, we know this because of Harry's dream at the
beginning of GOF. But is DD aware of this piece of information? Also,
would LV use a piece of soul split when he is a considerably weakened
 state to make a Horcrux!

Carol responds:
Again, I agree completely. Not only is Baby!mort in no condition to
make a Horcrux, but Wormtail, on whom he's completely dependent, would
notice any change in his face or form if he (uncharacteristically)
used the murder or an unimportant Muggle to make one. LV can't take
that risk. And you're right about his control over Nagini preceding
Bryce's murder. DD (who is wrong about LV using Nagini to kill Frank
Bryce) doesn't know about the dream. Harry never tells him about it
because Dumbledore is avoiding eye contact with him and Harry resents
it, not having been told the reason. So, IMO, DD is right about Nagini
being a Horcrux (which will make Harry's inevitable battle with her
all the more interesting), but wrong about the timing because he
doesn't have all the evidence.

Carol, who thinks that LV has all his Horcruxes except the two that
have been destroyed (diary and ring) and that they're as Harry lists
them in HBP: "The locket, the cup, the snake, something of
Gryffindor's or Ravenclaw's" (HBP Am. ed. 636)






From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Thu Aug 17 11:39:18 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:39:18 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec0b4k+5295@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec1kh6+bp75@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157097

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > Renee:
> > 
> > And I wouldn't call
> > > Snape a reliable witness when it comes to giving testimony about
the Marauders.
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> So much for the theory that Snape outed Lupin because he wanted
> revenge. <g> Isn't the underlying reason for Snape's hatred supposed
> to be his belief  that Lupin was in on the attempt to murder Snape?

Renee:
Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting this, as I'm not sure I follow your
argument here. You can very well want revenge because of a perceived
wrong; Snape's conviction that Lupin was in on the attempt, however
mistaken, would be more than enough to want it (Lupin's
non-intervention in the Pensieve scene and similar episodes would be
another motive). But I fail to see how that would make Snape a
reliable witness. His grudge against the Marauders makes him biased. 

> Pippin:

> But alas, those who think ESE!Lupin is plausible don't like it, and
those
> who like it don't think it's plausible. I don't really like it
myself -- I've
> got no desire to see Lupin brought down --but it fits the evidence, IMO.

Renee:
If those who like it are the people who don't like Lupin, this could
have something to do with his perceived weakness. If you see Lupin as
a week, passive wimp without initiative, the ESE!Lupin theory doesn't
sound plausible, because it requires a rather different personality.
If, OTOH, you see Lupin as a flawed yet sympathetic character, you'll
do your utmost to marshall arguments that counter the theory. (And the
more effort both sides put into formulating and defending their
arguments, the more attached they become to their own convictions, I
guess.) 

As for fitting the evidence, in Eco's Name of the Rose, all the
evidence fits William of Baskerville's theory about they abbey murders
and yet he turns out to be wrong. People have been convicted based on
evidence that fit the accuser's theory - but in some cases, this later
turned out to be a judicial error. 


>  Lupin is, IMO, even more repressed than Snape. His subconscious
> desire for payback shows itself as passive aggression and the anger
> he subconsciously wishes he could express to others projects itself
> and becomes the fear of what his friends would do if they discovered
> what he was really like.  Would that fear drive him to murder? 
> We know he was ready to kill Pettigrew.
> 
> That in itself ought to be a great big bouncing ferret of a clue. 
> A murderer in full possession of his faculties has to be called
> something worse than 'weak', IMO.

Renee:
Okay, I can see how your analysis of Lupin's fear could work. Would it
drive him to murder? 

We know that Harry was ready to crucio Bellatrix, but his Crucio
wasn't successful. We don't know whether Sirius and Lupin would have
succeeded in killing Wormtail, so whether they were `ready' to kill
him remains an unanswered question. As it is, they never even got
around to trying, because JKR needed Harry to show his noble side. So
I'd say neither Lupin nor Sirius deserve the name of murderer. 

The `in full possession of his faculties' is also debatable, given the
stressful situation and Lupin's imminent transformation. But I'm
willing to assume it wasn't that bad, given the fact that he does seem
to be mostly in charge in the Shack. 

Turning the antelope into a pelican, I see a man who has been robbed
of all his friends - who made an unbearable condition bearable to him.
A man who is also rightfully angry because of Sirius's suffering
(probably also angry at himself for not doubting Sirius's guilt). And
last but not least, a man facing a traitor who caused the death of a
helpless child's parents and would have caused the death of the child
itself if things hadn't gone differently. That wouldn't have made the
murder of Wormtail right, but it rather changes the motivation from
fear of other people's opinions to something else.

Only, I'm afraid that the ESE!Lupin theory effectively obscures the
image of the pelican.      


Pippin: 
> If Lupin found himself helping the werewolves more than he 
> should out of a desire to be liked, Voldemort would find out. Then
> what? Would Lupin have the courage to throw himself on Dumbledore's 
> mercy? I don't think so. 

Renee:
But Lupin isn't helping the werewolves, he's trying to change their
mind despite the fact that he has very little to offer them. Which
makes him unpopular with them - so much for the desire to be liked.
And if Voldemort found out what he was doing, Lupin wouldn't throw
himself on Dumbledore's mercy, because he'd be dead.


 








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 19:25:02 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:25:02 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec24fg+adco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec2fqe+4fof@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157098

 
> Brothergib:
> How many Horcruxes do we think LV has made when he appears at 
> Hogwarts to request a job. The diary. The ring. The locket. The cup.
> The evidence certainly suggests that these Horcruxes were probably 
> made by this point. And yet LV does not resemble a snake at all. 

Neri:
I think you may be over-interpreting the canon here. Here is the 
relevant paragraph from HBP, Ch. 20:

*********************************************************
Harry let out a hastily stifled gasp. Voldemort had entered the room. 
His features were not those Harry had seen emerge from the great 
stone cauldron almost two years ago: They were not as snake-like, the 
eyes were not yet scarlet, the face not yet masklike, and yet he was 
no longer handsome Tom Riddle. It was as though his features had been 
burned and blurred; they were waxy and oddly distorted, and the 
whites of the eyes now had a permanently bloody look, though the 
pupils were not yet the slits that Harry knew they would become.
*********************************************************

"His features were not as snake-like" is not the same as "his 
features were not snake-like at all". In fact "not as" suggests to me 
that they were slightly snake-like, only not *as much as* they were 
at the graveyard. And indeed shortly after the paragraph above we are 
also told:

*********************************************************
Harry could tell that Voldemort had not expected Dumbledore to know 
this name; he saw Voldemort's eyes flash red again and the slit-like 
nostrils flare.
*********************************************************

It seems to me that slit-like nostrils are snake-like features. I 
also agree with KJ upthread ? there isn't much sense in Voldemort 
acquiring the look of his Horcrux. We don't see him becoming diary-
like or cup-like, anyway <g>. It seems both more logical and more 
canonical that Voldemort's features becoming snake-like was a gradual 
process that was already starting during the job interview.


Neri







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 19:54:27 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:54:27 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec24fg+adco@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec2hhj+uv04@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157099

> 
> > KJ writes:
> > 
> > I find this very confusing, and I question this every time I   
> > see it. Why, if Voldemort put a piece of his soul into a snake, 
> > would he then take on the appearance of a snake? Would the snake 
> > not start to look like Voldemort?
<snip>  
> > I think it is more of a statement about loss of humanity, and as 
> > a Slytherin Parseltongue what else could he look like?

Mike here:

I'm with you KJ. I, too, don't see how adding something *to* the 
snake would make LV get something *from* the snake. Wouldn't it be 
far more likely that in LV's experimenting years he used snake venom 
in some experiment. We know he uses Nagini's venom to make his Baby!
Mort body, did he use snake venom before this to see if this would 
work? LV seems the type to have tried a lot of weird things and he 
definitely has an affinity for snakes. I have no problem believing 
snake venom is used in a lot of dark magic potions. LV, if nothing 
else, has got to be the most knowledgable potion maker in the WW, 
dark potions yes, yet who but a potions whiz could have whipped 
himself up a *NEW* body.

Besides, like KJ said, what else would he transform into. What do 
you want to bet LV as an animagus would be a Basilisk or some other 
huge venemous snake. I don't no the term here (reversing the logic?) 
but mabe LV uses snake venom as sustinance is because he has snake 
qualities inherant to his make-up.

> 
> Brothergib:
>
> How many Horcruxes do we think LV has made when he appears at 
> Hogwarts to request a job.
<snip>
> The evidence certainly suggests that these Horcruxes were probably 
> made by this point. And yet LV does not resemble a snake at all. 

Mike again:

Sorry to cut you off here but I beg to differ. This is the passage 
in HBP, page 441, US:

****************************************************************

Voldemort had entered the room. His features were not those Harry 
had seen emerge from the great stone cauldron almost two years ago: 
They were not *as* snakelike, the eyes were not yet scarlet, the 
face not yet masklike, and yet he was no longer handsome Tom Riddle.

****************************************************************

It's my emphasis on the *as*. LV may not look like he does in GoF 
but is there any other way to read this than to admit that LV had 
already started to look snakelike, just not *as* much as he will be 
in the future? And considering all LV goes through between this 
meeting and the GoF rebirth, it seems perfectly logical that the 
difference in appearance would be stark.

> Brothergib again:
> However, he is snakelike on the back of Quirrel.

Mike again:
Actually, Harry only comments on his nostrils being slits, like a 
snake. I know, nitpick.:-) Cause Harry is so shocked to find LV on 
the back of Quirrell's head that we can't really tell how snakelike 
he looks. Besides, he has *probably* made all his Horcruxes by this 
time.
 
> Brothergib again:
> Is it because he has merged his soul with Nagini? Even though he 
> has removed part of his soul and placed it in Nagini, it is still  
> a part of HIM!

Mike again:
DD told us that LV can't feel when a Horcrux is destroyed. Didn't 
know the Diary!Horcrux was gone until Lucius admitted as much. 

Yet, you want this *supposed* Nagini!Horcrux to somehow be 
transmitting the physical appearance of the body it is inhabiting 
back to the *mother ship* causing the body the *mother ship* is 
inhabiting to change it's appearance. Strikes me as improbable. 

Far more likely, IMO, that a satelite soul piece wants out of 
whereever it's currently lodged so it can rejoin the *mother ship*. 
IMO, that is why LV hides his Horcruxes or generally puts space 
between himself and these satelite soul bits. He doesn't want these 
guys to reform with his home base, that would be counter to his 
purpose of creating them in the first place.


> Brothergib again:
> The fact that it does not appear that anyone has ever tried to 
> make a Horcrux from a living object, might explain why LV takes on 
> some of the attributes of Nagini.

Mike again:
Or maybe it's like DD says, it is inadvisable to do so because it is 
risky making a Horcrux of something that can think and move for 
itself.(paraphrase from HBP - Horcruxes) I didn't hear DD 
speculating on the appearance of either LV nor Nagini.


> Brothergib again:
> Why would it be that his loss of humanity after creating 3-4 
> horcruxes does not make him snake like, but after 4-5 it might??

Mike again:
See above, he was snakelike just not to the degree he is now.

Carol thinks LV made Nagini a Horcrux before Godric's Hollow. He was 
in no state to do so at the Riddle house and I agree with that 
assessment. Brothergib, you also seem to agree with Carol, at least 
with Nagini!Horcrux. But now we seem to have a logical disconnect. 
It was DD's *speculation* that Nagini could be a Horcrux. It was 
DD's firm belief that LV was trying to collect 4 founder's objects 
to make Horcruxes. He had 2 objects. He had also used the diary and 
the ring. So he has 4 of 6 Horcruxes made but only used 2 founder's 
objects.

Why would LV have abandoned his plan, what DD was adamant he was 
attempting (4 founder object!Horcruxes), just to make Nagini a 
Horcrux? Especially *before* his downfall at GH! I'm sorry, but it 
seems ooc, illogical, and unwarranted for LV to do this.

Mike, wondering where Nagini came from in the first place and what 
kind of a snake she is.








From pegdigrazia at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 17 19:57:52 2006
From: pegdigrazia at yahoo.com (Peg DiGrazia)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec2fqe+4fof@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060817195752.77778.qmail@web42207.mail.scd.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157100

Neri:
>It seems to me that slit-like nostrils are snake-like features. I 
>also agree with KJ upthread ? there isn't much sense in Voldemort 
>acquiring the look of his Horcrux. We don't see him becoming diary-
>like or cup-like, anyway <g>. It seems both more logical and more 
>canonical that Voldemort's features becoming snake-like was a gradual 
>process that was already starting during the job interview.

Peg:
  Agreed.  I've always interpreted these passages to mean that the more horcruxes you create, the more inhuman you become.  And the snake-like appearance to me represents the serpent in the Garden of Eden, the Evil One.



My goal in life is to be as good of a person my dog already thinks I am.
 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.

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




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 17 20:03:43 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:03:43 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec1kh6+bp75@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F399F9375590F4AEDD654E0DD4D0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157101


> > Pippin:
> > So much for the theory that Snape outed Lupin because he wanted
> > revenge. <g> Isn't the underlying reason for Snape's hatred supposed
> > to be his belief  that Lupin was in on the attempt to murder Snape?

wynnleaf
It is, of course, perfectly possible for Snape to have multiple reasons.

>Renee:
. But I fail to see how that would make Snape a
>reliable witness. His grudge against the Marauders makes him biased.

wynnleaf
Most of Snape's observations about the Marauders have received some 
collaborative evidence in the books.  His opinions about Lupin's involvement 
in POA are understandable, even if they were somewhat incorrect.  However, 
we do see at least one definite instance of Snape's bias causing him to 
exaggerate (where in HBP he says the Marauders always attacked him 4 to 1).  
So we know that bias *can* affect Snape's observations, therefore we do have 
to take his reports and opinions as with at least a few grains of salt -- at 
least until we have some other evidence.  However, for many of his comments, 
we *do* have other evidence in canon that backs up what he says.

>
> > Pippin:
>
> > But alas, those who think ESE!Lupin is plausible don't like it, and
>those
> > who like it don't think it's plausible. I don't really like it
>myself -- I've
> > got no desire to see Lupin brought down --but it fits the evidence, IMO.

wynnleaf
I find myself leaning more and more toward what I call traitor!Lupin -- 
whether he's weak, or evil or whatever.  But I actually *lik* Lupin, so this 
is a hard one for me.  I think part of what is influencing me is that JKR 
almost certainly has another surprise character twist for us in Book 7.

I think she's placed a lot of reader attention onto Snape's loyalties, who's 
going to die, is DD alive or how did he die?  and similar questions in order 
to, like a magician, keep our eyes elsewhere while she sets up her really 
Big Surprise.  Of course, that surprise could be something other than a 
character shock, but JKR tends to use mostly character shocks as her big 
twists.  So I'm thinking we're almost certainly going to see some character 
other than Snape shock us with either being good when we thought he/she was 
evil or a traitor when we thought he/she was good.

Lupin really fits the type, more than any other.  Especially if Snape is 
good.  Because if Snape is good, it makes the most sense for the other big 
reversal to be somehow connected to Snape, especially through a longish 
chain of events through the story and its background.

By the way, I'm so surprised that on both sides of the issue, so many people 
are trying to show how the Lupin question does or does not mirror Jane 
Austens Pride and Prejudice.  What in heaven's name does it matter??  If JKR 
likes Austen and wants to use similar plot devices, I would certainly hope 
that she wouldn't feel some ridiculous need to copy Austen's.  The general 
notion of having a character who is trusted by all the good guys, considered 
really nice, someone who doesn't deserve for anyone to think badly of them, 
someone who the good guys turn to for support and encouragement -- and have 
that person turn out to be the ethically weak person, or villian.  That's 
the basics of what Austen did with her surprise bad guys.  Why would JKR 
have to copy her exactly to use that basic device?  And if she didn't copy 
that exactly, so what?  It's certainly not proof that she isn't using the 
basic device.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/




From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 17 21:29:37 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:29:37 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec2af3+31ap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec2n41+t2mj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157102

>
> Brothergib wrote:
> > I still think that LV's snakelike appearance on the back of
> Quirrel's head indicates that Nagini was a Horcrux before Godric's
> Hollow. LV doesn't look at all snakelike in the chapter 'Lord
> Voldemort's request' in HBP, even though the evidence suggests that he
> has already made 3 or 4 Horcruxes. So why is he snakelike on Quirrel?
> 
> Carol responds:
> I agree completely that the explanation must be that Nagini was a
> Horcrux before Godric's Hollow--and the lack of reaction by the DEs in
> the graveyard to his snakelike appearance indicates that he looks the
> way they expected him to look. The previous Horcruxes merely blur his
> features almost beyond recognition and make his eyes red. Why would
> the next Horcrux make him look snakelike--*un*blurred--unless it was
> Nagini?
> > 

Ken:

I am going to join forces with those who reject the Nagini horcrux
makes LV look snakelike hypothesis. I see no evidence for it, other
than a coincidence that one horcrux *might* be a snake. As others have
mentioned the snakelike trend seemed to start early. Also as others
have mentioned I doubt that the diary horcrux made hime look bookish
or that he had a ring, cup, or locket phase in his devolution.

I think it is more reasonable to assume that he is literally
undergoing a devolution as he makes horcruxes. What does evolution
say? In the beginning was the fish, the fish begat the amphibian, the
amphibian begat the reptile, the reptile begat the dinosaur and the
mammal. If a human, a mammal, were to devolve it would devolve towards
the reptile. There are many reptiles to choose from but a snake is
certainly one and if LV's nature has any influence in the matter a
snake is where he would go. I don't think that the snakelike
appearance says anything about when Nagini became a horcrux, or that
Nagini became a horcrux at all.

The only thing I can recall that *suggests* that Nagini could have had
a connection to LV as far back as GH is that the DE are not surprised
to see her in the graveyard. Of course it could just as well be that
LV was in the habit of keeping snakes about for years. In that case
Nagini would cause no surprise whether she were a new snake or an old
one. 


> Brothergib:
> > DD states that the reason he thinks that Nagini is a Horcrux is 
> because LV has an unnatural control over the snake. However, LV seems
> to have considerable control over Nagini before LV even kills Frank 
> Bryce. Interestingly, we know this because of Harry's dream at the
> beginning of GOF. But is DD aware of this piece of information? Also,
> would LV use a piece of soul split when he is a considerably weakened
>  state to make a Horcrux!
> 
> Carol responds:
> Again, I agree completely. Not only is Baby!mort in no condition to
> make a Horcrux, but Wormtail, on whom he's completely dependent, would
> notice any change in his face or form if he (uncharacteristically)
> used the murder or an unimportant Muggle to make one. LV can't take
> that risk. And you're right about his control over Nagini preceding
> Bryce's murder. DD (who is wrong about LV using Nagini to kill Frank
> Bryce) doesn't know about the dream. Harry never tells him about it
> because Dumbledore is avoiding eye contact with him and Harry resents
> it, not having been told the reason. So, IMO, DD is right about Nagini
> being a Horcrux (which will make Harry's inevitable battle with her
> all the more interesting), but wrong about the timing because he
> doesn't have all the evidence.
> 

Ken:

I'm not sure that I buy the theory that LV looks the same now as just
before GH. His pals are used to his changes in appearance. It isn't
clear if any or how many of them know the reason behind it. LV's
graveyard speach implies that they might, but maybe he's told them
lies about what he is really doing to keep his horcruxes a secret. His
near death and return to physical form is certainly a wrenching
experience. Neither they nor he would necessarily be surprised if LV2
looked a bit different from LV1 on the night of GH.

As Carol points out above we *know* that DD is wrong about LV using
Nagini to kill Frank Bryce. If DD is wrong about the mechanics of
Frank's death he could be wrong about Nagini/horcrux and he may be
stating a falsehood intentionally. Is this a clue he is sending Harry?
 I think it possible that whether Harry is a horcrux or not, Nagini
may not be a horcrux. LV may *still* be intending to make a horcrux
from Harry's death, that would be a partial motivation for telling the
DE to save Harry for him. Another motivation is the desire to
personally vanquish the Chosen One. 

IF you believe that Nagini was made a horcrux *before* GH and if you
also believe that Harry is *not* a horcrux then you are forced to
believe that either LV has only 5 horcruxes now because he intended to
make a horcrux from Harry's death that night at GH or that he has made
one since his rebirth in the graveyard.

Ken






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Fri Aug 18 02:04:02 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:04:02 -0000
Subject: Searching for Riddle's Horcruxes in 1997
Message-ID: <ec376i+f37o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157103

aussie writes:
WOW! I just realized an historical event that would help Harry find 
those Horcruxes back in 1997.

SETTING: Snape has already shown us in the obsticles to get past in 
PS that non-magical things can slow down a wizard or witch. In that 
book, Snape used a logic game with bottles to go forward to the 
PS/SS.

Then, in HBP, Kararoff evaded detection from the wizarding world for 
over a year ... 1996 to 1997. If he had any inside information about 
Voldemort or Younger Riddle, he may have wanted to hide it away from 
DE as insurance,  but was AK-ed anyway.

One of the best hiding spots from Wizards is among muggles and 
their "great ideas to get along without magic".

Ever heard of Windows 95? That means a lot more muggles got into 
computers then.

Yahoo started around 1996 making the Internet easiser (even having 
Idiots' guides to surf the net). Early Yahoo users may have included:
- Kararoff
- Riddle's victims from the orphanage (they would have been in their 
50's)
- Muggles that pretend to be witches by dancing at Stonehenge or 
whatever ... but repeat stories of Dark Wizard Grindelwald and the 
way he advised young boys, like a kid called Tommy Riddle.

Now Harry needs someone to introduce him to Yahoo. Not only does 
Harry have Hermione, and her Dentist parents, trying to work out 
accounting software. He also has Dudley and his 37 birthday gifts a 
year. (Dudley even got a Nintendo 2 years before they were 
released ... he should be able to get a 386 PC.

"I know something you don't know. You know that Voldemort guy you 
are scared of? I know something about him and Grindelwald. Nah! And 
I shan't tell you." Dudley would like to do that.

That would make Horcruxes easier to find. ... Just do a Yahoo search 
back in 1997.

aussie (Stranger things have been known to happen)







From sior_glas at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 17 23:42:47 2006
From: sior_glas at yahoo.co.uk (sior_glas)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:42:47 -0000
Subject: Why Did McGonagall Wait For DD *All Day?*
In-Reply-To: <ec0bch+v2o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec2utn+gs85@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157104

Zero Irregardless:
> While taking 50 points each from Harry, Hermione and Neville,
> Professor McGonagall says "Four students out of bed in one night! I
> never heard of such a thing!"  But we now know that she was familiar
> with the Marauders. Is it plausible that she never even *heard* about
> *them* being out of bed together?
>
>

In fairness, McGonagall is prone to exaggeration. She does the same
thing after she catches Harry flying unsupervised in PS ('Never ? in
all my time at Hogwarts ?'), and in OotP after the fisticuffs incident
('I have never seen such a disgraceful exhibition')

She uses another 'never'sentence in the scene you're talking about,
even.(I've never been more ashamed of Gryffindor students.)

I think really hyperbole is just Minerva's way when she's angry.

sior_glas.








From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Fri Aug 18 02:41:51 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 02:41:51 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimmauld Place)
In-Reply-To: <ec0i5m+bjtm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec39df+u3c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157105

> > aussie writes:
> > Snape didn't mind being rude and that is why Ron could 
> > remember Snape never having eaten there.
> 
> wynnleaf
> Of course, at Grimmauld Place we don't know whether Snape refused 
> an invitation to eat or not, but it seems quite a stretch of the
> imagination to think of Sirius inviting him for dinner.  And
> if Sirius didn't invite him, *that* would be rude and a completely
> understandable reason for Snape not to eat there.
> 
> aussie
> > TOLERATING someone that has been an historical rival is 
> > a good starting point, but not enough to trust the other. Real 
> > effort needs to be taken to overcome resentment, and Snape has 
> > always been more comfortable keeping resentments fresh and alive.
> 
> wynnleaf
> You seem to be assuming Sirius invited Snape to stay for dinner, 
> but was refused.  What is your canon evidence for Sirius inviting 
> Snape to stay?  The fact that people who Sirius *liked* were at 
> dinner is no evidence that he invited anyone he didn't like.
> 
> Without evidence that Sirius invited Snape to dinner, I don't see 
> how you can fault Snape for leaving.  

Aussie:
Point taken. 
Sirius didn't invite Snape to eat. 
Snape didn't look to be invited.

So which occation are we talking about here? About the time Snape is 
in the meeting and everyone goes to the dining room excpt Snape (and 
McGonagall to visit Figgy)?

Or the time Snape confronts Sirius prodding him to do something with 
brains 2nd, but testosterone first. That seems to be Snape's 
weakness too ("DON'T ... call me a coward" - last line Snape says to 
anyone)

I won't hide it. I have always trusted Harry, Neville and Sirius's 
gut feelings over the other OOTP members who only put up with Snape 
because DD said so. I have yet to see any "cannon evidence" that 
Snape did anything with DD or the OOTP as his motive. 

Almost, but not quite, evidence may be: 
- Occlemancy classes for Harry (but they failed)
- Snape stopping the curse on DD's hand (but not 100% cured)

Non-evidence is:
- disappearing into the Forbidden Forest for hours while DA went to 
fight in MOM

Damning evidence:
- He is alive after DE's and LV quiz him
- Trying to kick Harry out of school in POA
- Stopping Lupin and Black from revealing pettigrew after all he saw 
and heard in the Shreiking Shack

I am not completely closed to the idea Snape could be good. But JKR 
may have to give him a hero's death to convince readers now.

aussie: (wondering if wynleaf is really Alan Rickman, since most of 
his quotes defend Snape)






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 18 04:19:27 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 23:19:27 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:long laundry list of reasons for ESE!Snape
In-Reply-To: <ec39df+u3c2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F22C67B0CBE9026226D1C3DDD420@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157106


>
>Aussie:
>Point taken.
>Sirius didn't invite Snape to eat.

>Snape didn't look to be invited.

wynnleaf
Your point being?  It would have been sooo rude to invite himself for 
dinner.

>So which occation are we talking about here? About the time Snape is
>in the meeting and everyone goes to the dining room excpt Snape (and
>McGonagall to visit Figgy)?

wynnleaf
It doesn't make any difference which occasion.  There's no occasion where 
Sirius invites him, or Snape refuses an invitation.  Oh, I get it.  This is 
a segue into "list of reasons Snape is evil," right?

aussie
I have yet to see any "cannon evidence" that
>Snape did anything with DD or the OOTP as his motive.

wynnleaf,
At which point you follow with a long laundry list of your reasons.  Just 
exactly what do you want?  An individual discussion on each point?  Or a 
mega-argument?  Or is this just an "I don't like him - so *there*!" kind of 
list?

The group here has recently discussed the MOM battle and we've already gone 
over the "why it's so incredibly obvious that Snape should have been at the 
battle" argument -- which just leaves us with an incredibly dim-witted DD, 
who seemed to think Snape's decisions made sense.  Honestly, if DD is this 
dense, I don't know why Harry is going to bother searching for horcruxes 
just on DD's word.

And then there's the ever-popular "how Snape heard so much more at the 
Shrieking Shack than we thought, because he hung out in the hall and 
listened before he came in."  Yep, seen that one, too.  Makes you wonder why 
Snape risked anyone noticing him and entered the room when he did.  Could 
have just stayed outside the door until he was ready to reveal himself -- 
after all, according to this theory, he'd already been there awhile.

aussie
>Almost, but not quite, evidence may be:
>- Occlemancy classes for Harry (but they failed)
>- Snape stopping the curse on DD's hand (but not 100% cured)

wynnleaf
Notice how there's zero mention of Snape saving Harry in PS/SS, his sending 
the Order to the MOM in OOTP, his risking his life to return to LV, his 
showing the Dark Mark to Fudge, etc..  Oh, and stopping the curse on DD is 
"almost, but not quite evidence."  Hm, save the life of the leader of the 
opposition when you could just apparate away and let him die -- a great 
strategic move, isn't it?

aussie
>Damning evidence:
>- He is alive after DE's and LV quiz him

wynnleaf
Another "idiot Dumbledore" theory, since DD obviously thought that Snape 
*could* make it back alive, in spite of thinking Snape was on the side of 
the Order.  Since JKR is pretty clear that DD isn't an idiot, that's enough 
for me (not that there isn't more, of course).

aussie
>- Trying to kick Harry out of school in POA

wynnleaf
Now we've moved on to simply incorrect "evidence."  If you do a re-read, 
you'll see that Snape only ever actually made a move toward expelling Harry 
at the beginning of COS, after the flying car incident.  This is the only 
time we know when he actually suggested it to the headmaster. (In most 
schools individual teachers almost certainly couldn't expell a student 
without administrative approval.)  Even DD thought the offense could deserve 
expulsion and told Harry and Ron that if they did something like that again 
he'd have to expell them.  Other than that, Snape threatens Harry in PS/SS 
when Harry's been in the restricted section at night, and Snape (COS) 
threatens expulsion if he ever finds out (with proof) who intentionally 
started an explosion in his classroom resulting in injuries to other 
students (sounds worthy of expulsion to me, too).  Following that, including 
in POA, Snape only mentions *suspension* which is nothing nearly so major as 
expulsion, usually meaning missing 1 or more days of classes depending on 
the severity of the offense.  The notion that Snape is always trying to get 
Harry expelled is a fan/reader myth.

aussie
>I am not completely closed to the idea Snape could be good. But JKR
>may have to give him a hero's death to convince readers now.

wynnleaf
Yes, I've seen ESE!Snape readers with this opinion many times.  But 
personally, I don't think that such readers want Snape to die to convince 
them of his loyalty.  They just want him to die -- and if he disappoints 
them enough to be on the good side, they *really* want him to die.  Just my 
take on it.  JKR's managed -- without even trying -- to convince a large 
portion of her readership that Snape is on the good side.  I imagine with 
effort she could convince *almost* everyone else.

>aussie: (wondering if wynleaf is really Alan Rickman, since most of
>his quotes defend Snape)

wynnleaf
What silliness! :)  Actually, the Snape question is the most fun.  I dislike 
theorizing about Book 7 since I expect JKR to surprise all the theorists.  I 
could care less about ships.  I love to discuss Dumbledore, the Prince/Pince 
theory, Harry, and Lupin (especially whether he's good or bad -- ESELupin is 
a great theory even if I like Lupin).  Voldemort is just boring (in my 
opinion of course).

_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Fri Aug 18 05:30:57 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 05:30:57 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
In-Reply-To: <ebo11h+c6iu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec3jah+v5ll@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157107

Eggplant wrote:
> Sherlock Holmes, a man not noted for his modesty, admitted that his
> older brother Mycroft was even smarter than he was, the only reason
> few had heard of Mycroft was that he was very lazy and extremely
> strange. I was wondering if JKR could have something similar in mind
> for Aberforth. 

Abergoat writes:
I really loved this post but didn't have a chance to respond until
now. I 'm disappointed that there wasn't more interest. I'm sure the
reason is that everyone is taking Dumbledore's quote at face value:

Dumbledore (GoF):
"It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not!
He held his head up high and went about his business as usual! Of
course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
bravery..."

But we already know it can be a mistake to take Dumbledore's
implication as fact:

Dumbledore (PoA):
"Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in
two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them
further"

But Dumbledore's quote fits perfectly with your idea of Aberforth
being even smarter than Dumbledore, provided that Aberforth is now a
goat courtesy of Voldemort's desire to obtain prophecy and Aberforth's
resistance to his persuasions...

And a goat most certainly holds its head high. And probably cannot
read a newspaper even if the goat could in human form. As for the
busincess as usual? If Aberforth spent his time kicking people out of
bars he may still be at it...Mundungus might have to dress as a witch
to fool a goat with a good memory.

Eggplant wrote:
> a "strange chap". And I don't even want to talk about the goats.

Abergoat writes:
That's too bad! I'm all about the goats... (*evil*)

Abergoat







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Aug 18 05:38:06 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:38:06 -0700
Subject: Killing Dumbledore
Message-ID: <700201d40608172238w31c0cdb4vac941a22e425f904@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157108

Kemper:

I've been out for a few weeks.  Since then my brother and I had been
discussing the JKR interview.  He made an interesting suggestion based
on Snape being good (Rushdie's opinion being correct) and that
Dumbledore is dead.

Assumtion: Dumbledore is dead because Snape had to kill him.

If that's so: Snape now has the potential to make a Horcrux, if he
hasn't already.

This leaves leads to new outcomes for previously expressed scenarios:
LV 'kills' Snape for seeking/destroying LV's Horcruxes, or Snape
'sacrifices' self for Harry.

Other questions:
Does one become evil if he separates his soul?
Is there a spell that can reunite separated soul pieces?
If so, and if a person is evil for separating his soul, does person
revert back to his previous 'goodness' (or 'not-as-badness').


Sorry for any randomness.

Kemper, accepting that Dumbledore is dead



From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Fri Aug 18 08:41:48 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:41:48 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again!
In-Reply-To: <ec2n41+t2mj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec3ugc+odoj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157109

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> 
wrote:
> IF you believe that Nagini was made a horcrux *before* GH and if you
> also believe that Harry is *not* a horcrux then you are forced to
> believe that either LV has only 5 horcruxes now because he intended to
> make a horcrux from Harry's death that night at GH or that he has made
> one since his rebirth in the graveyard.
> 
> Ken
>

I believe he only has 5 horcruxes. LV wants Harry's death to be 
involved in creating the final Horcrux. The only sense I could ever 
make out of the Prophecy-Weapon was that LV wanted it to be a Horcrux 
i.e. a Horcrux that only he or Harry could touch - and Harry would be 
dead! (of course that does rather depend on whether if the prophecy was 
placed back in the 'Hall of Prophecies', the same limlitations on who 
could touch it would remain).

We also know that Gryffindor's sword remains at Hogwarts. IMO, this is 
probably what LV was after in offering to teach at Hogwarts. DD is also 
no longer around to protect it. Therefore, I can imagine that LV would 
be salivating at the prospect of using Harry to create a Gryffindor 
Horcrux.

As for where Nagini came from, I have heard it said that she could be 
LV's split Patronus. Not sure I believe that though!

Brothergib







From c.john at imperial.ac.uk  Fri Aug 18 08:57:34 2006
From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 08:57:34 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
In-Reply-To: <ec3jah+v5ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec3vdu+fupp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157110

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> Eggplant wrote:
> > Sherlock Holmes, a man not noted for his modesty, admitted that 
his
> > older brother Mycroft was even smarter than he was, the only 
reason
> > few had heard of Mycroft was that he was very lazy and extremely
> > strange. I was wondering if JKR could have something similar in 
mind
> > for Aberforth. 
> 
> Abergoat writes:
> I really loved this post but didn't have a chance to respond until
> now. I 'm disappointed that there wasn't more interest. I'm sure the
> reason is that everyone is taking Dumbledore's quote at face value:
> 
> Dumbledore (GoF):
> "It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide? No, he did not!
> He held his head up high and went about his business as usual! Of
> course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
> bravery..."
> 
> But we already know it can be a mistake to take Dumbledore's
> implication as fact:
> 
> Dumbledore (PoA):
> "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in
> two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling 
them
> further"
> 

Brothergib:
I always wondered about any parallels between DD/Aberforth and 
Sherlock/Mycroft Holmes. I'm sure that the initial idea probably came 
from the Holmes books, but there is probably no more to it than that.
However it is interesting to note that Sherlock Holmes once described 
his brother thus;
"Occasionally he is the British government [...] the most 
indispensable man in the country." 
So maybe, just maybe, Mycroft is the key to the whole series!!!!!!

Brothergib - who absolutely loves the Holmes stories!







From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 15:04:02 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:04:02 -0000
Subject: Searching for Riddle's Horcruxes in 1997
In-Reply-To: <ec376i+f37o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec4kt2+l7jl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157111

LOL, I really hope you are joking. That is crazy. If Harry uses yahoo 
to hunt down Horcruxes I will burn all my books. And eat my hat. 
Although I am not wearing a hat...but I will put one on. Then eat it. 

Cheers,
Robert
>










From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 15:10:05 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (robertpatrickallen)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:10:05 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
In-Reply-To: <ec3vdu+fupp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec4l8d+jqm4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157112

I think this is a great point. Aberforth obviously has a part to play.
At the very least he is going to provide Harry with the locket he
bought from Mundungus. (probably spelled that wrong)

Here is my question for all of you. Do you think Aberforth knew he was
buying a Horcrux from Fletcher? My guess is probably no because if he
did I am sure he would have told DD that he had it if he knew.

I think it will come as a great shock to Aberforth when Harry shows up
looking for the locket.

What do you think?

Robert










From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug 18 17:21:38 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 17:21:38 -0000
Subject: Searching for Riddle's Horcruxes in 1997
In-Reply-To: <ec4kt2+l7jl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec4sv2+9cm3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157113

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "robertpatrickallen" 
<robertpatrickallen at ...> wrote:
>
> LOL, I really hope you are joking. That is crazy. If Harry uses yahoo 
> to hunt down Horcruxes I will burn all my books. And eat my hat. 
> Although I am not wearing a hat...but I will put one on. Then eat it. 
> 
 

hahaha...especially if Harry uses the YahooGroup Search function!!!

I doubt that the internet will be used to defeat Voldy ;)

colebiancardi







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 18:04:08 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:04:08 -0000
Subject: What is Nagini?
Message-ID: <ec4veo+ho40@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157114

I still think that Nagini is a Horcrux, but suppose that she isn't. Is
she just some unusually large snake that Voldemort the Parselmouth
developed a close relationship with? Why didn't she die like the other
snakes when he possessed her, and why does she stay around him like a
pet? Could she be a familiar spirit? I don't mean in the Old Testament
sense: "A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a
wizard, shall surely be put to death" or any literal connection with
Satan since that's not the mythos of the HP books but a spirit or
demon in animal form that serves a wizard. She's clearly magical and
her venom has magical properties that somehow sustain Baby!mort--in
fact, help create him (along with the equally magical unicorn blood).

I also think that one of the challenges facing Harry in Book 7 will be
fighting Nagini (foreshadowed by the battle with the Basilisk in CoS)
and that she'll be more wily than the Basilisk, actually talking to
Harry as the "worms" (dragons) taunt their intended victims in
Tolkien's works. But what would be his reason for killing her if she's
not a Horcrux? What if he kills her thinking she's a Horcrux and
there's really another Horcrux left that he doesn't know about?

Carol, imagining Harry destroying Nagini with the Sword of Gryffindor
and really hoping that she's a Horcrux because it would greatly
simplify matters for Harry, the reader and JKR








From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 18 18:43:43 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:43:43 -0000
Subject: Searching for Riddle's Horcruxes in 1997
In-Reply-To: <ec4sv2+9cm3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec51ov+rk9s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157115

> colebiancardi:
> I doubt that the internet will be used to defeat Voldy ;)

Eddie:
What a fun thread!  My guess is Harry will send Voldy a free PC
*without* virus protection and Voldemort will die in a flood of spam.

Remember, "there are worse things than death, Harry."

-Eddie








From muellem at bc.edu  Fri Aug 18 18:54:47 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:54:47 -0000
Subject: Searching for Riddle's Horcruxes in 1997
In-Reply-To: <ec51ov+rk9s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec52dn+8a11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157116

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ecaplan_52556" <harryp at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > colebiancardi:
> > I doubt that the internet will be used to defeat Voldy ;)
> 
> Eddie:
> What a fun thread!  My guess is Harry will send Voldy a free PC
> *without* virus protection and Voldemort will die in a flood of spam.
> 
> Remember, "there are worse things than death, Harry."
> 


and since wizards aren't really into the "internets" and the jargon, it 
really will be SPAM!  I can see Voldy overwhelmed by flying cans of 
pink Spam :)

colebiancardi
(who now has the Monty Python's Spam song in her head)






From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 18 18:52:52 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:52:52 -0000
Subject: What is Nagini?
In-Reply-To: <ec4veo+ho40@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec52a4+3d88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157117

> Carol:
> But what would be his [Harry's] reason for killing her [Nagini]
> if she's not a Horcrux? What if he kills her thinking she's a
> Horcrux and there's really another Horcrux left that he doesn't
> know about?

Eddie:
This leads me to an interesting tangent: how does
Dumbledore/Harry/anybody *KNOW* for certain when they've destroyed a
Horcrux?  If RAB hadn't left a message in the wrong!locket, would
Harry have known he had the wrong one?

We saw the memory image of Tom Riddle dissolve when Harry destroyed
the diary in COS.  We saw Dumbledore's blackened hand that Dumbledore
says is the price that had to be paid for the destruction of the ring
Horcrux.  But what other verification is there?  For example, does
Harry feel any relief when these pieces of Voldemort's soul were
destroyed?  Did his scar tingle happily?

Eddie, who wonders too much about the mechanics of magic in fictional
youth literature.







From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 18 19:02:58 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:02:58 -0000
Subject: Horcrux through the veil
Message-ID: <ec52t2+c36s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157118

If a horcrux object passes through the veil of death (at the Ministry
of Magic), does the piece of soul inside die?

Is this how Dumbledore destroyed the piece of Voldemort's soul in the
ring horcrux, by putting his (Dumbledore's) hand into the veil's
archway and quickly pulling it back out again?  And thus, this is why
Dumbledore's hand was dead/dying?

Corallary question: if you put the end of a branch with leaves
flourishing on it behind the veil and pulled the branch back out, what
would be left of the flourishing leaves?  Would the rest of the plant
that didn't get put behind the veil die too?

Eddie, who would like to intern at the MoM for a while to be able to
play with all these questions.






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 20:14:35 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:14:35 -0000
Subject: What is Nagini? Horcruxes and Soul-Bits
In-Reply-To: <ec52a4+3d88@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec573b+ugca@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157119

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, 
"ecaplan_52556" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > Carol:
> > But what would be his [Harry's] reason for killing 
> > her [Nagini] if she's not a Horcrux? What if he kills 
> > her thinking she's a Horcrux and there's really 
> > another Horcrux left that he doesn't know about?
> 
> Eddie:
> This leads me to an interesting tangent: how does
> Dumbledore/Harry/anybody *KNOW* for certain when 
> they've destroyed a Horcrux?  If RAB hadn't left a 
> message in the wrong!locket, would Harry have known 
> he had the wrong one?
> 
> ... what ... verification is there? 
> 
> Eddie, who wonders too much about the mechanics of 
> magic in fictional youth literature.
>


bboyminn:

It shouldn't come as any suprise to anyone that I have
 a theory on  this. Though I confess little proof beyond 
speculation. Although when I specualate I try to make if 
fit in consistently with the world we are presented. I'm 
not trying to rewrite the story, just reading very deeply 
between the lines.

I speculate that we do not literally destroy the soul-bit 
contained within the Horcrux. In a sense, the Horcrux 
becomes a new body for the soul-bit, and as long as that 
new 'body' stays intact, the soul-bit remains trapped within. 
So, to release the soul-bit, you don't have to destroy the 
soul, you merely have to destroy the 'container' it is in.

In a sense, very figurative, the soul-bit is imprisoned in
 the object. If you break the prison open, then the soul-bit
 is free and no longer earth-bound. Where the soul-bit goes 
after being freed is somewhat irrelevant, whether it stays 
on earth or crosses over or wanders the cosmos aimlessly 
isn't critical. 

So, in a sense, we would refer to the soul-bit as being 
destroyed since it is no longer earth-bound, no longer a 
Horcrux, and no longer connected to its master's body and 
therefore no longer relevant. While perhaps not literally
 dead, the soul-bit is neither any form of life force; its 
existance doesn't sustain Voldemort in any way. Functionally 
it is destroyed even if it more literally roams the earth.

So, to destroy a Horcrux and render its soul-bit ineffective, 
you must break open the prison and set the 'prisoner' free. 
Note the Diary was stabbed by a poisonous Basilisk fang, the 
ring was cracked open, and though it isn't confirmed, the 
Black locket couldn't be opened. 

Now, its not so much 'poking a hole' in a Horcrux object
 the neutralizes it, I think it is more a case of 
destroying the essense of the object rather than the 
object itself. For example, if Harry had torn a page from 
the diary, he would have damaged it, but I'm not sure that 
would have released the soul-bit, but stabbing it with a 
fang certainly was sufficient. 

In the case of the diary, I think there are many 
complicating circumstances involved. We could say that 
the diary was the embodiment of Tom's 16 year old self, 
and as Tom stole Ginny's life force to create a new body 
for himself, until the transition was complete, that diary 
still represented Tom's earthly embodiment, though that 
was rapidly transferring to his new body. When Harry 
stabbed the Diary, he was stabbing Tom's body, and thereby 
killing Tom, or at least that aspect of Tom's current self.

Note that I don't think stabbing the locket or the cup would
accomplish the task, since the circumstances of each one is 
unique. I think that will be a big part of Harry's task, to 
determine how to unlock each unique Horcrux 'prison'.

I suspect, that if Nagini is a Horcrux, killing her snake 
body, is the same as killing Tom's Diary body, and that 
would release the Horcrux soul-bit. 

Now to the mysterious and uniquely magical number seven. 
I ponder whether it is the existance of seven Horcruxes 
that is key, or the existance of seven independant soul-bits. 
If it is the existance of seven physical Horcruxes, then 
when each one is destroy, Voldemort would be obliged to keep
 making more to keep the number continually at seven. 

However, we don't see Voldemort doing this. He created the 
seventh in Nagini, or so Dumbledore speculates, to replace 
the failed Horcrux he intended to make out of Harry. But, 
Voldemort doesn't seem to have replaced the Diary which he 
surely knows was destroyed.

So, I speculate that the key is not seven physical objects, 
but seven independant remote pieces of soul. Note: that it 
is likely that Voldemort had many many torn soul bits inside 
him, but since they are still with the core soul, they, in 
a sense, don't actually exist as independant entities. 

I further speculate that the destroyed soul-bits were not 
really destroy but merely rendered irrelevant. They are free 
and independant, though still part of the magic number seven, 
but the fact that they are free and unconstrained by their 
physical Horcrux means they have no effect on Voldemort's 
immortality. Yet, they still give weight to the magical 
number seven.

When Voldemort is finally killed, if they are not already 
there, then I speculate the seven soul-bits will join him 
on the other side. 

Specifically to Nagini, I'm not convinced that Nagini is 
necessarily a Horcrux. Dumbledore seems to have reach the 
conclusion by process of elemination rather than proof. 
Dumbledore doesn't seem that convinced, but he needs a 
seventh Horcrux and there is something odd about that snake, 
so, lacking anything else, he concludes it's Nagini. 
But Dumbledore didn't really convince me, because he didn't 
sound all that convinced himself. 

I suspect the reason Tom wanted a job at the school was to 
give him a chance to find a Horcrux with a Gryffindor 
connection. That seems to be the only piece that he was 
missing. I think, being barred from that, he saw Harry's 
death as a powerful and effective alternative. 

It seems that both the Horcrux creating death and the magic 
object in which the resulting soul-bit will be imprisoned 
must be significant to Voldemort. The more powerful and 
significant the person and the more powerful and significant
the object, the more powerful and significant will be the 
protection it provides him.

Not sure it adds up to anything, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 19:21:38 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:21:38 -0000
Subject: What will become of the Voldemort Three?
Message-ID: <ec5402+df88@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157120

Let us suppose for a moment that the Voldy 3 (i.e. Snape, Draco, and 
Peter) live through the final confrontation.  What will become of them?

Snape I suppose has many possibilities.  I would find any return to 
Hogwarts absolutely contemptible barring clear punishment for his 
child abuse and a clear and humble apology to Harry and Neville 
(indeed, I think no fate for Snape, including death, is acceptable 
without these issues being clearly addressed).  Alla favors a long 
stint in Azkaban, I believe.  Other options have been bruited about, 
including sending him to an island to do potions research.

Draco now, what about him?  I just don't see him and Harry becoming 
friends.  I suppose he could decide to devote himself to charitable 
works or some such.  Of course, we are told he's a good crier, so 
maybe Shakespearean theater might be an option.

Peter, I guess, could work for an exterminator.  You know, transform 
into a rat and lead them to their doom.  His talents for bodily 
transformation and for treachery could be combined quite efficiently.  
I suppose he could also be a spy, if there's anyone left to spy on.  
Or he could be a model for rat underwear -- if rats wear underwear in 
the WW.


Lupinlore, who thinks of the three Draco has the best chance of 
living, but thinks that Peter would be the most interesting choice











From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 20:34:03 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:34:03 -0000
Subject: Horcrux through the veil
In-Reply-To: <ec52t2+c36s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec587r+urro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157121

Eddie wrote:
>
> If a horcrux object passes through the veil of death (at the
Ministry of Magic), does the piece of soul inside die?
> 
> Is this how Dumbledore destroyed the piece of Voldemort's soul in
the ring horcrux, by putting his (Dumbledore's) hand into the veil's
archway and quickly pulling it back out again?  And thus, this is why
Dumbledore's hand was dead/dying? ,snip>

>

Carol responds:
I don't think that you can put your hand or any part of yourself
through the Veil without being drawn in and, in essence, killed. IMO,
what damaged Dumbledore's hand and arm was a curse that passed through
DD's wand arm when he cracked open the ring Horcrux and released the
soul bit. Since the soul is immortal (and can only be "lost" by being
sucked by a Dementor--"lost" meaning, as I take it, prevented from
passing through the Veil), it can't be destroyed. All that's destroyed
is the container that encases it and holds it on the earth. So, IMO,
destroying a Horcrux involves releasing the soul bit to go behind the
Veil and there's no need to throw it through the Veil (which would
make a lot more sense than sticking your hand through it!)

Both the diary and the ring were damaged (one stabbed, the other
cracked). The diary, which was intended to be interactive, had no
protective curse on it. The ring was another matter. (I expect that
the locket and the cup will be protected in a way similar to the ring,
not to mention that the locket is magically sealed, to judge from the
housecleaning scene in OoP.) Snape apparently stopped the curse from
killing DD much as he stopped the progress of the curse from the opal
necklace, saving Katie's life so that she could be taken to St.
Mungo's for a full cure. (The curse on the Horcrux seems to be
irreversible or DD would surely have gone to St. Mungo's, too.)

Death, according to Dumbledore, is the next great adventure, so the
souls of the dead are not dead even though the person who has died
can't come back to life on earth. Think Orpheus and Eurydice.

Where am I going with all this? simply that I don't think it's
necessary to place--or toss--a Horcrux beyond the Veil. I think the
soul bit goes there, anyway, when its container is destroyed.
Indestructible but no longer bound to the earth, it would have no
place else to go.

Carol, who does not think that a soul bit can encase itself in a
Horcrux, accidentally or otherwise, and that any loose soul bit would
float beyond the Veil to its eternal home







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug 18 20:00:23 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:00:23 -0000
Subject: Scar Horcrux - again! -- Frank Bryce, Nagini
In-Reply-To: <ec3ugc+odoj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec568n+roml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157122

>Amiable Dorsai:

>Splitting his soul into exactly seven pieces seems to have been very
>important to Riddle--after all, if Dumbledore's speculation is
>correct, he not only stooped to using a Muggle's murder to create the
>necessary tear, but he put his final serving of soul into Nagini,
>which Dumbledore thought was dangerous move.

>So, the "most powerfully magical number", seven, must have been
>important to Riddle, he must have seen some benefit that outweighed
>the ignominy of using a random Muggle for the murder, and the "very
>risky business" of entrusting "a part of (his) soul to something that
>can think and move for itself".


Laurawkids:

This is just a little item, but I feel that Frank can be called
important to LV.  Frank was the caretaker for the Riddle family way
back, and has shown great devotion to the family by continuing to
keep the house.  Killing Frank is akin to killing their house elf.


>Brothergib

>As for where Nagini came from, I have heard it said that she could be
>LV's split Patronus. Not sure I believe that though!


Laurawkids:

I think I remember that JK expressed dismay that the snake set loose
on Dudley was not a poisonous one.   I took that to *imply* that
*maybe* Nagini was that original snake.

Except for the fact that Nagini does not kill people by looking at
them, I had hoped there was some way she could be a young Basilisk.

Maybe LV is becoming more snakelike because he goes to bed every
night with a toad on his egg-transfigured head  :  )  !

Laurawkids:












From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 20:42:39 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 20:42:39 -0000
Subject: Horcrux through the veil
In-Reply-To: <ec52t2+c36s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec58nv+pb2d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157123

"ecaplan_52556" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> If a horcrux object passes through the veil of death ...,
> does the piece of soul inside die?
> 
> Is this how Dumbledore destroyed the piece of Voldemort's
> soul in the ring horcrux, by putting his (Dumbledore's) 
> hand into the veil's archway and quickly pulling it back 
> out again?  And thus, this is why Dumbledore's hand was 
> dead/dying?
>

bboyminn:

That's precisely my theory, or at least one of them. Somehow
 I know the Veil is significant, but I could never come up 
with a way to get Harry and the gang back there again. 
Logically, why would they ever go there? If nothing else, 
JKR has played that card.

So, I speculated how the Veil could be significant, and the 
conclusion I can up with was that it was used to release the
 soul-bits. Now one could suggested that you could simply 
throw the Ring through the Veil and that would release it. 
But I speculated that a material object thrown through would 
simply land on the floor on the other side. To be carried 
behind the Veil, truly to the 'other side', it needs to be 
attached to more life force. Conclusion, Dumbledore put in 
on or in his hand, and thrust his hand through the Veil to
 release the soul-bit contained within.

If Harry figure this out, even if it is unrelated to what 
Dumbledore may or may not have done, he would return to 
the Veil to destroy the collected Horcruxes. That places 
the final battle in the Dept of Mysteries and allows the 
Veil to take part in the final solution.

> ecaplan_52556 continues:
>
> Corallary question: if you put the end of a branch with
> leaves flourishing on it behind the veil and pulled the 
> branch back out, what would be left of the flourishing 
> leaves?  Would the rest of the plant that didn't get put 
> behind the veil die too?
> 
> Eddie, who would like to intern at the MoM for a while to 
> be able to play with all these questions.

bboyminn:

Very tricky question. A plant or a branch has life force but we don't
know it it has soul. I suspect that portion which went behind the Veil
would die or at least slowly wither. Whether that death would continue
to spread to the rest of the plant of not is unclear. I guess it
depends on how extensive the damage was. I dead branch doesn't alway
kill a tree, but if the damage spread, yes, it will eventually kill
the whole tree. Still it is a difficult call in this unique
circumstance. Perhaps this is why they keep the Veil, so they can
perform experiments like these to help them determine the nature of death.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn








From weaslediva at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 20:09:02 2006
From: weaslediva at yahoo.com (Deborah Hunt)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:09:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: An excellent summary of Alchemy
In-Reply-To: <ebnduf+qfc6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060818200902.57242.qmail@web38011.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157124

Randy <estesrandy at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Here is a very concise, well-written summary of the principles
of Alchemy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A676370

As others have mentioned Alchemy in relation to Harry Potter before,
I thought this would provide a "Cliff Notes" version to those who
have no time to delve into the confusing language of Alchemy.

It does have some easily recognizable connections to the HP series.

The Blackening Stage of Sirius Black
The Whittening Stage of Albus Dumbledore
The Reddening Stage of (I believe) Rubeus Hagrid
<snip>

Given this theory, I think Rubeus Hagrid will die to provide the
Reddening process just as Albus D. died for the Whitening and Sirius
B. died for the Blackening. <snip>

Why don't the few of you who actually read this post talk amongst
yourselves and add your own comments on how to apply Alchemy to Book
Seven resolutions! <<


Deborah:
I am learning alchemy via the Harry Potter books as well as this
wonderful alchemy group.  I agree with the hypothesis that Rubeus
Hagrid will die in the final book, the last of Harry's primary adult
protectors gives his life to protect Harry.

  I am very interested in Ron as the King and the symbolism involved.
He was involved with a Lavender in book six (the whitening stage)
and Lavender is white plus purple.

  What is intriguing is that is the alchemy plays out in this popular
book series as I suspect it will, many people are now exposed to the
subject and all the wonders therein.  Alchemy is a very complex
subject and Harry Potter may provide Cliff Notes for many by applying
the basic principles and assigning roles to characters to play out
the sequence of events.

  Here is a big question: Now that Harry is more invovled with
potions, is he becoming an alchemist or is he becoming a Stone?

Deborah





From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 18 21:16:30 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (ecaplan_52556)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:16:30 -0000
Subject: Horcrux through the veil
In-Reply-To: <ec587r+urro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec5anf+go58@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157125

> Eddie wrote:
> > Is this how Dumbledore destroyed the piece of Voldemort's soul
> > in the ring horcrux, by putting his (Dumbledore's) hand into
> > the veil's archway and quickly pulling it back out again?
> 
> Carol responds:
> ... there's no need to throw it through the Veil (which would
> make a lot more sense than sticking your hand through it!)

Eddie:
Good point.  I was assuming that Dumbledore was unable to remove the
ring.  Why would he still walk around with the cracked ring on his
blackened hand otherwise?  And why, after all, would he even *WEAR*
the ring in the first place?  Darn, every question answered asks two
more.  So much so speculate about, so little time.  :-)

Eddie






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 18 21:23:50 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:23:50 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec28q6+p1s0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec5b56+e3le@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157126


> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> To me, the Christmas dinner scene in PoA seems to indicate who is
> married and who isn't. Lupin is absent because he's "ill" (his
> transformation shouldn't occur on Christmas Day because it's only 55
> days after the November 1 transformation, but, oh, well). 

Ken:

Carol, it only gets worse if you sit down with an astonomy program
(which this author certainly could afford!) and plot the dates of new
moons against, say, the calendars given in the Potter Lexicon. The
actual dates of the full moons during that period were October 30,
November 29, and December 29. To make matters even worse on September
1 when the whole school was travelling on the Hogwarts Express with
Lupin the moon was also full!!

Christmas Eve, 1996 was a full moon too. I don't remember off hand if
Lupin was gathered with the Weasley clan and guests that night but
Harry did talk to him at the Burrow three days later on the 27th.
Maybe it is a little nitpicky but plenty of kids in the local
astronomy club are perfectly capable of checking things like this.
There is no reason the author shouldn't have done.

Of course she can't even follow a simple calendar either. O well, indeed.

Ken






From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 18 21:56:32 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:56:32 -0000
Subject: ADMIN:  Call for HBP Chapter Discussion Volunteers!
Message-ID: <ec5d2g+io4c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157127

Greetings from Hexquarters!

The list elves would like to extend an apology for having let the 
HBP chapter discussions slide just a weeee bit.  However, summer is 
almost behind us, Hogwarts is almost in session again, and we're 
gung-ho to get started back up.  Which means that we need you!  Yes, 
at this time we would like to recruit some volunteers to lead our 
remaining chapter discussions.

To refresh everyone's memories, leaders write up a summary of their 
chapter and submit it, along with discussion questions, on a 
schedule which is rougly every other week.  We had completed 18 
chapters of HBP discussion before we got derailed.  (Please feel 
free to consult the HBP Chapter Discussion table if you'd like to 
revisit those chapter summary posts or are new here and didn't even 
realize this had been going on: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database , then scroll 
down to HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions)

At this time we are asking that any member interested in leading one 
of the remaining chapter discussions please send us an e-mail, 
expressing your interest and, if you have any preference, which 
chapter(s) you would like to lead.  

Please - before you hit "Reply" right away <g> -- we'd ask two 
things of you:  

1) Take a peek at http://tinyurl.com/8gsqg (aka, 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Structured_Discussi
ons//Chapter_Discussions_Instructions ) to read more about how the 
chapter discussions work; and

2) Actually, please DON'T hit "Reply" to this message at all <g>, 
but rather, send your email directly to the list owner address:  
HPforGrownups-owner @yahoogroups.com (minus that extra space).  That 
keeps the list from being cluttered with offers to volunteer, 
questions and such. 

We'd love to get going again with the chapter discussions around 
Monday, August 28, so if you're interested, please send in your 
name!  

Shorty Elf, 
for the HPfGU Admin Team







From unix4evr at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 22:40:25 2006
From: unix4evr at yahoo.com (UNIX4EVR)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:40:25 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
In-Reply-To: <ec3jah+v5ll@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec5fkp+oj1k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157128

> Eggplant wrote:
> > Sherlock Holmes, a man not noted for his modesty, admitted that his
> > older brother Mycroft was even smarter than he was, the only reason
> > few had heard of Mycroft was that he was very lazy and extremely
> > strange. I was wondering if JKR could have something similar in 
mind
> > for Aberforth. 
> 


Excellent catch.

And let us not forget that Arthur Conan Doyle "killed off" Sherlock 
Holmes only to bring him back with the aid of Mycroft.

Yes, Aberforth is going to be important.

And let's not forget the phoenix.

I think Dumbledore is dead.  I really do.

But maybe. . .

Boy that JKR is good!







From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 18 23:57:21 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 23:57:21 -0000
Subject: IIM: The Fate of the Trio?
Message-ID: <ec5k51+n6r6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157130

As we enter the seventh book, the members of the trio will become
adults by the standards of the wizarding world.  There are some
obvious aspects to this -- being able to apparate legally, for
instance, or chosing to leave Hogwarts.  But how might adult status
affect the trio in other ways?

Will they, that is, become like the adults that surround them: namely
Incompetent Ignoble Morons (IIMs)?  Or will they set new standards of
actual sensitivity and competence for the WW?

I'm betting the latter, but they certainly have no models. 
Dumbledore's incompetence was wretched, particularly with regard to
Snape and the Dursleys.  McGonagall's handling of Neville in PoA and
Harry in OOTP was reprehensible and set a stirling standard of
emotional stupidity and insensitivity.  Lupin has failed time and
again to offer Harry any meaningful support, and it seems that none of
the adults even bothered to check up on Harry after promising to do so
at the end of OOTP.  The insensitivity, incompetence, failure to
provide support, and general wretched attitudes and practices are
astounding.

How will HRH be different than this?  Or will they?  Will they too
become insensitive, stupid, uncaring of abuse, and morally vile as
even the "good" adults seem to be?  One hopes not, but the WW does
seem rather poisonous, and certainly has a way of corrupting anyone
over the age of majority.


Lupinlore








From bawilson at citynet.net  Sat Aug 19 02:55:11 2006
From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson)
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 22:55:11 -0400
Subject: Killing is not necessarily murder and to defeat is not the same thing as to kill.
Message-ID: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAh53tr4L4qkqc5Qv27VXasgEAAAAA@citynet.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157131

--- Lady Lawyer <mouthpiece49 at ...> wrote: 
<snip>
> by the way I don't think that killing someone in
> pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
> will split your soul. I think the soul splitting
> murder has to be with extreme cruelty. Else every
> soldier would have a split soul.
<snip> 

Cassy:
> Well, there's this nice thing called "Vietnam syndrom"
> (or "Afgan syndrom", etc, depending on the country and
> time period). I think that qualifies as split soul in
> a certain way. 

BAW:

AKA 'shell shock', 'combat fatigue', and 'post traumatic stress 
disorder'.  My father suffers from it as a result of WW II, and 
my grandfather had it from WW I.  

JKR says that to create a horcrux one must commit a murder, but 
not all killing is murder!

My legal dictionary defines murder as the unlawful killing of a 
human being with malice aforethought.  Not all killing is murder.  
Killing by accident, or in a sudden fit of rage, is not murder; 
killing in self-defense or in defense of another is not murder.  
That is why we have such concepts as 'manslaughter' and 'depraved 
indifference homicide',  'criminal negligence', and 'justifiable
homicide.'

Also, note that part of the definition of murder is the killing 
of a HUMAN BEING.  It might be argued that Voldemort is no longer 
human.

Hence, even if Harry ends up killing Voldemort, he won't 
necessarily be lost; but there are other ways of 'defeating' than 
killing.  What if he is able to strip Voldemort of his magic, so 
that he must live out his days as a Muggle?  Or if he completes 
Voldemort's transformation into reptilian form, so that he must
live out his days as a snake or lizard?












From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug 19 03:37:57 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:37:57 -0000
Subject: Aberforth and Mycroft
In-Reply-To: <ec4l8d+jqm4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec612l+g2c1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157132

Robert wrote:
> Do you think Aberforth knew he was buying a Horcrux from Fletcher?

Abergoat writes:
Tough call. Things would be easier of the locket is still in
Kreacher's nest. We have reason to believe Mundungus lifted the cup at
Christmas in OoP. Apparently the thing isn't a hot seller.

UNIX4EVR wrote:
> And let's not forget the phoenix.

Abergoat writes:
UNIX4EVR, now there is a moniker I like! As for Fawkes, I bet he plays
a significant role in the next book, as a bellweather of loyalty.
Would Harry still be able to call Fawkes to him? I've got doubts after
Harry's thought about 'Was this more of Dumbledore's insane
determination to see good in everyone?' thought in the cave. Somehow
using the adjective 'insane' on something Dumbledore strongly believes
in doesn't sound like Fawkes-loyalty to me.

Sigh, clearly I'm not going to interest anyone in goats. But I must
point out Dumbledore didn't say he wasn't sure Aberforth LEARNED to
read, he only says he wasn't sure he CAN read...as in the present.
Dumbledore is careful with words, the distinction might be significant. 

And Aberforth as a goat would explain why no one gave special
condolences to the barman at Albus's funeral. Perhaps the barman is no
longer Dumbledore's brother and hasn't been since shortly after the
prophecy. About the time Order member Dearborn disappeared without a
body found. *evil*

As for all of you that believe JKR says Aberforth is the barman, read
the interview again - she declines to answer just as she always does.
I'm interested that she put this particular interview on her
website...I don't believe all of them are there, but I could be wrong.

Abergoat






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug 19 03:44:15 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 03:44:15 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
Message-ID: <ec61ef+gg1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157133

There's a line in the MTMNBN that puts me in stiches every time I 
watch. Lockhart says it and I don't have the vaguest idea of 'what' 
he's saying, but it's a rapid-fire mouthful of words that is 
delivered beautifully. Something to do with Pixies. I don't even know 
if the line is in the book.

Speaking of books--since we are supposed to--my son and I are 
listening to GoF. I would never have believed it, but JKR wrote this 
line:

"So, been keeping busy, Barty?" said Bagman breezily.

I had to replay that line 3 or 4 times. I don't think I would have 
noticed it if I were reading it to myself. I don't know how Jim Dale 
kept from breaking up.

It's the weekend, we can use some fluff---does anyone else have an 
example of 'did she really write that?'--lines that sort of jump out 
and amuse us.

Potioncat








From buffyeton at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 09:18:06 2006
From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (Tamara)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:18:06 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
Message-ID: <ec6l0e+5and@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157134

Who has Voldemort killed personally and do we know why for each one?







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sat Aug 19 09:37:11 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:37:11 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6l0e+5and@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec6m47+1qoi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157135

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <buffyeton at ...> wrote:
>
> Who has Voldemort killed personally and do we know why for each one?
>

In chronological Order (as far as I remember):

- Moaning Myrtle, either because she was Muggleborn or because she 
happened to be in the way, when he released the Basilisk. (Or both). 
- His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles, for revenge
- Hepzibah Smith, because he wanted to have the Hufflepuff cup and the 
Slytherin locket
- Dorcas Meadows, reasons unknown, but Moody said he killed her 
personally
- James and Lily Potter, because they were in his way, when he wanted 
to kill Harry
- Maybe Bertha Jorkins, after he pressed her for informations, though 
it's possible that Wormtail killed her
- Frank Bryce, because he listened to Voldemort's conversation about 
killing Harry
- Maybe Amelia Bones, at least Fudge thinks so

I think those are all we know about, at least as far as I remember.

Hickengruendler 








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 09:56:09 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:56:09 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6m47+1qoi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec6n7p+4358@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157136

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hickengruendler" <hickengruendler at ...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <buffyeton@> wrote:
> >
> > Who has Voldemort killed personally and do we know why for each one?
> >

Hickengruendler:
> In chronological Order (as far as I remember):
> 
> - Moaning Myrtle, either because she was Muggleborn or because she 
> happened to be in the way, when he released the Basilisk. (Or both). 
> - His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles, for revenge
> - Hepzibah Smith, because he wanted to have the Hufflepuff cup and the 
> Slytherin locket
> - Dorcas Meadows, reasons unknown, but Moody said he killed her 
> personally
> - James and Lily Potter, because they were in his way, when he wanted 
> to kill Harry
> - Maybe Bertha Jorkins, after he pressed her for informations, though 
> it's possible that Wormtail killed her
> - Frank Bryce, because he listened to Voldemort's conversation about 
> killing Harry
> - Maybe Amelia Bones, at least Fudge thinks so
> 
> I think those are all we know about, at least as far as I remember.

Geoff:
There is also the question of whether he actually killed Quirrell.

Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her, according to 
her own testimony in COS.

Slightly OT, there seems to be some confusion about Dorcas Meadowes' 
name. In my Bloomsbury volume, her surname is spelt with an 'e', 
elsewhere - including the Lexicon -it doesn't appear to be. Just out of 
sheer pedantry, I wonder which is correct.






From harryp at stararcher.com  Sat Aug 19 11:59:54 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:59:54 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6n7p+4358@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec6ufq+khjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157137

> > > Tamara:
> > > Who has Voldemort killed personally [...]?
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> > In chronological Order (as far as I remember):
> > 
> > - Moaning Myrtle [...] 
> > - His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles [...]
> > - Hepzibah Smith [...]
> > - Dorcas Meadows [...]
> > - James and Lily Potter [...]
> > - Maybe Bertha Jorkins [...]
> > - Frank Bryce [...]
> > - Maybe Amelia Bones [...]
>
> Geoff:
> Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her,
> according to her own testimony in COS.

Eddie:
Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in Goblet
of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
- James Potter
- Lily Potter
- Bertha Jorkins
- Frank Bryce
- Cedric Diggory


Eddie






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sat Aug 19 13:20:59 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:20:59 -0000
Subject: Dorcas (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6n7p+4358@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec737r+uolk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157138

 
> Geoff:
 
> Slightly OT, there seems to be some confusion about Dorcas Meadowes' 
> name. In my Bloomsbury volume, her surname is spelt with an 'e', 
> elsewhere - including the Lexicon -it doesn't appear to be. Just out 
of 
> sheer pedantry, I wonder which is correct.

Potioncat:
In my hardback Scholastic Press edition it's Meadowes. Looks much 
better than Meadows,if you ask me. Perhaps the pixies took the 'e' from 
the other sites?

"Devilish tricky little blighters they can be!"












From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug 19 13:31:34 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:31:34 -0000
Subject: Killing Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608172238w31c0cdb4vac941a22e425f904@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec73rm+7u2a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157139

> Kemper: <SERIOUSLY SNIPPED>
> He made an interesting suggestion based on Snape being good 
> (Rushdie's opinion being correct) and that Dumbledore is dead.
> 
> Assumtion: Dumbledore is dead because Snape had to kill him.
> 
> If that's so: Snape now has the potential to make a Horcrux, if he
> hasn't already.
>  
> Other questions:
> Does one become evil if he separates his soul?
> 
> Sorry for any randomness.
> 
> Kemper, accepting that Dumbledore is dead
>
aussie:
Last thing first: 4. Never appologise for Randomness. It makes life 
less predictable/boring and more interesting.

2. Snape may have his own Horcrux? I missed that suggestion. Spooky 
reason for why Severus wouldn't mind making that UV.

1. "Snape HAD to kill (DD) him." Had to for JKR to make Snape into a 
new plot twist - like, alienate him from the rest of the OOTP?
Or maybe HAD to kill DD to save Draco and/or Harry (under the cloak)

3. "Does one become evil..." but this is assuming Snape is good - 
hmmm

aussie (did you like the random order of the answer?)







From keltobin at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 13:48:32 2006
From: keltobin at yahoo.com (Kelly)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:48:32 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6ufq+khjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec74rg+luvh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157140

> Eddie:
> Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in Goblet
> of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
> - James Potter
> - Lily Potter
> - Bertha Jorkins
> - Frank Bryce
> - Cedric Diggory
> 
> 
> Eddie

Wasn't Cedric Diggory killed by Wormtail with LV's wand though? 
Albeit, on Voldemort's orders.  Frank Bryce as well.  I don't know if
that is the same as being killed by LV "personally."






From BrwNeil at aol.com  Sat Aug 19 13:50:22 2006
From: BrwNeil at aol.com (BrwNeil at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:50:22 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort killed personally?
Message-ID: <51c.5dfcc02.3218711e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157141

 
 
In a message dated 8/19/2006 8:00:55 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
harryp at stararcher.com writes:

Eddie:
Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort  in Goblet
of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
- James  Potter
- Lily Potter
- Bertha Jorkins
- Frank Bryce
- Cedric  Diggory

Eddie




His wand was  used by Wormtail, but Voldemort did not personally kill Cedric.
 
Neil


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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 14:15:22 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 14:15:22 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6ufq+khjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec76dq+5198@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157142

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > > > Tamara:
> > > > Who has Voldemort killed personally [...]?
> > 
> > Hickengruendler:
> > > In chronological Order (as far as I remember):
> > > 
> > > - Moaning Myrtle [...] 
> > > - His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles [...]
> > > - Hepzibah Smith [...]
> > > - Dorcas Meadows [...]
> > > - James and Lily Potter [...]
> > > - Maybe Bertha Jorkins [...]
> > > - Frank Bryce [...]
> > > - Maybe Amelia Bones [...]
> >
> > Geoff:
> > Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her,
> > according to her own testimony in COS.
> 
> Eddie:
> Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in Goblet
> of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
> - James Potter
> - Lily Potter
> - Bertha Jorkins
> - Frank Bryce
> - Cedric Diggory

Geoff:
Returning to the thread's title, these were people who 
were killed by Voldemort's /wand/. He certainly didn't 
kill Cedric Diggory although it seems that he was physically 
able to hold a wand to kill Frank Bryce.

Just to underline from canon:

'He (Frank) was screaming so loudly that he never heard the 
words the thing in the chair spoke, as it raised a wand.'
(GOF "The Riddle House" p.19 UK edition)

'From far away, above his head, he heard a high, cold voice 
say, "Kill the spare."
A swishing noise and a second voice, which screeched the 
words to the night: "Avada Kedavra!"
(GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 UK edition)

After his return, Wormtail clothes him in his robes and the 
wand is in the pocket.
(GOF "Flesh, Blood and Bone" p.553 and "The Death Eaters" 
p.559 UK edition)

Voldemort certainly says of Betha Jorkins: "I disposed of her."
(GOF "The Death Eaters" p.569 UK edition)

Since Wormtail was with him and it appears that he could hold 
a wand - see above - we can perhaps assume from his words 
that he actually cast the spell.

Possibly in the case of Cedric, Wormtail cast the spell because 
Voldemort was caught wrong-footed by the appearance of two 
folk in the graveyard, one of whom he wanted removed immediately.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 13:24:05 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:24:05 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6ufq+khjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec73dl+6vnk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157143

Tamara:
Who has Voldemort killed personally [...]?

Hickengruendler:
In chronological Order (as far as I remember):
Moaning Myrtle [...]
His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles [...]
Hepzibah Smith [...]
Dorcas Meadows [...]
James and Lily Potter [...]
Maybe Bertha Jorkins [...]
Frank Bryce [...]
Maybe Amelia Bones [...]

Geoff:
Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her,
according to her own testimony in COS.

Eddie:
Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in Goblet
of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
- James Potter
- Lily Potter
- Bertha Jorkins
- Frank Bryce
- Cedric Diggory


Tinktonks:

It is unreliable to use Priori Incantatum as a judge because this
merely tells us which murders LV's WAND was responsible for and only
back as far as the Potters deaths.

Bertha Jorkins MAY have been killed by Wormtail but I think that
the 'you are to kill me too' (probably bad paraphrasing -sorry I'm at
work) shows that it was LV himself.

As for Cedric we know that was Wormtail.

Frank Bryce we know LV killed personally in the fetal form with his
own wand because Harry's 'dream' and Priori Incantatum support this.
(Which also concludes Dumbledore is wrong that LV uses Nagini.)

DD being wrong about using Nagini to kill Frank Bryce opens up an
important question for me though. DD seemingly thinks that Nagini
killed FB on LV's orders, he also thinks that Nagini was made a
Horcrux with FB's murder.

Is this a clue? Is DD's mistake (something that is pretty darn rare)
JKR's way of sneakily telling the reader that you don't need an AK to
create a Horcrux? Even though FB was AK'd (or so it would appear
given the green light although the words were not destinguishable
over the scream) DD does not think he was and still believes it is
possible for a Horcrux to have been made from this murder. I think DD
knows plenty about Horcruxes and it is one of them 'too noble'
things. As he is our authority on the situation I think it is safe to
assume that non AK and non direct murders are still Horcrux friendly.

Maybe Hokey did poison Hepzibah, LV gave her the poison and forced
her to give it to her trusting master. No telltale look of fear, no
struggle just a distraught house elf and a missing secret heirloom. I
would still call this act murder even if it is by proxy.

Anyone else think that this opens an interesting new vista of
opportunities for Horcuxes?

Tinktonks









From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug 19 16:12:06 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 16:12:06 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec73dl+6vnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7d8m+hcqh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157144


> Tamara:
> Who has Voldemort killed personally [...]?
> 
> Hickengruendler:
> In chronological Order (as far as I remember):
> Moaning Myrtle [...]
> His Father Tom Riddle senior and the elder Riddles [...]
> Hepzibah Smith [...]
> Dorcas Meadows [...]
> James and Lily Potter [...]
> Maybe Bertha Jorkins [...]
> Frank Bryce [...]
> Maybe Amelia Bones [...]
> 
> Geoff:
> Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her,
> according to her own testimony in COS.

Aussie now:
They are only the ones we know of. Not only is there a BIG pause 
between Hepzibah Smith and the Potters (with only Dorcas known of 
between) but also, is that enough to create 5 Horcruxes prior to 
James/Harry's AK-ing? 

The grandparents may not have been worthy of making Horcruxes from. 
Myrtle was an oppertunistic death by the Basalisk, not pre-meditated.

Tom travelled mainland Europe before returning to Hogwarts greatly 
changed. More murders may have been committed there leaving a trail 
for Harry to find Horcux clues.

aussie (wondering if this was your reason for asking thoe question 
in the first place)

> 
> Tinktonks: <SNIP>
> 
> Frank Bryce we know LV killed personally in the fetal form with his
> own wand because Harry's 'dream' and Priori Incantatum support 
this.
> (Which also concludes Dumbledore is wrong that LV uses Nagini.)
> 
> DD being wrong about using Nagini to kill Frank Bryce opens up an
> important question for me though. DD seemingly thinks that Nagini
> killed FB on LV's orders, he also thinks that Nagini was made a
> Horcrux with FB's murder.
> 
> Is this a clue? Is DD's mistake (something that is pretty darn 
rare)
> JKR's way of sneakily telling the reader that you don't need an AK 
to
> create a Horcrux? Even though FB was AK'd (or so it would appear
> given the green light although the words were not destinguishable
> over the scream) DD does not think he was and still believes it is
> possible for a Horcrux to have been made from this murder. I think 
DD
> knows plenty about Horcruxes and it is one of them 'too noble'
> things. As he is our authority on the situation I think it is safe 
to
> assume that non AK and non direct murders are still Horcrux 
friendly.

aussie:
Great point, Tonks ... Now look at the idea of directing another to 
kill to create a Horcrux, and relate it to Draco. 

LV directed Draco to kill DD. Just as DD assumed the snake could be 
Horcruxed this way, was that part of the hidden reason Draco was 
directed to kill DD and no other? 

The other DE on the tower were aware of this and held back till 
Snape stepped forward. For a long time I have thought young Tom is 
repeated in young Draco.

aussie






From littleleah at handbag.com  Sat Aug 19 17:48:20 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:48:20 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6l0e+5and@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7it4+he04@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157145

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tamara" <buffyeton at ...> wrote:
>
> Who has Voldemort killed personally and do we know why for each 
one?
>
Leah:

Long reply to a short but interesting question.  I was trying to 
work this one out the other day, and see if the deaths correlated 
with the horcruxes or supposed horcruxes and also which of the 
personal victims could be said to have been murdered, as  against, 
for example, killed in battle.    I got to:  Tom Riddle Snr; Riddle 
grandfather; Riddle grandmother; Lily Potter; Frank Byrce, as the 
people we can say with some certainty that VM killed with a personal 
AK.  That's five.

We are told by Sirius in OOTP that VM killed an Order member by the 
name of Dorcas Meadows personally.  We know nothing else about the 
intriguing Dorcas and I'm surprised that she doesn't seem to crop up 
in discussions.  We also know from this conversation between Harry 
and Sirius that (according to Sirius anyway) VM does not often kill 
in person but leaves that to his DEs. Anyway, Dorcas makes six.

There are other deaths which I would call associated with VM. These 
are: Moaning Myrtle; Hepzibah Smith; James Potter; Bertha Jorkins; 
Cedric Diggory. As to Myrtle, while VM was obviously responsible for 
the presence of the basilisk, Myrtle's death does appear not to have 
been intended or directed by him- manslaughter rather than murder.  
Hepzibah appears to have been poisoned by the innocent agency of her 
house-elf; I would term this a personal killing/murder by VM, 
particularly as it would have been logical to have made the cup 
horcrux with her death.  James was certainly killed personally by 
VM, but this was a fight, and I wonder if it can therefore be 
strictly described as murder.  VM says of Bertha in GOF, 'I disposed 
of her'. It's not clear whether she succumbed to the attacks on her 
memory or was AK'd.  Cedric Diggory was killed on VM's orders ("Kill 
the spare") by Wormtail. So I would say yes to Hepzibah, Frank,  and 
James (but James' death might not be classified as murder), no to 
Myrtle and Cedric and possible to Bertha.  So I get to nine personal 
killings, possibly ten.

In HBP, Fudge tells the Prime Minister that it is believed that VM 
killed Amelia Bones personally; if true, this would take his total 
to 10/11: Tom Riddle Snr, Riddle grandfather, Riddle grandmother, 
Hepzibah Smith, Dorcas Meadows (all pre-Godric's Hollow),James 
Potter, Lily Potter (Godric's Hollow), Frank 
Byrce,  ?Bertha Jorkins, ?Amelia Bones (post the return).   If RAB 
(Regulus?) died as a result of the locket removal, would this count 
as murder? Sirius thinks he was killed by DEs. 

I then tried to link the deaths with horcruxes.  We are told by 
Slughorn that  murder is necessary to split the soul in order to 
form a horcrux.   We have  the diary, ring and locket horcruxes.  
These are objects which link VM with Slytherin.  The diary reveals 
that he is the Heir, while the ring and locket are Slytherin/Gaunt 
heirlooms.  It seems logical to me both symbolically and in terms of 
timing that VM would use the murders of his despised muggle 
ancestors to make these horcruxes.   Then there is the cup horcrux.  
The logical assumption as already said is that this was made with 
the murder of Hepzibah Smith. We don't have a death for the 
Ravenclaw horcrux, so I nominate the mysterious Dorcas for that as 
the timing fits in.
   
That takes VM to Godric's Hollow with five murders and five 
horcruxes. If the death of James in battle with VM ("your father 
died like a man") is not murder, then one murder only occurs at 
Godric's Hollow, and it is possible that  an accidental horcrux 
(Harry's scar) was made with his mother's death- debatable I know, 
but it makes sense of the prophecy to me.  

This leaves VapourMort one horcrux short of immortality as far as 
he's concerned, hence DD's view that on VM's return he makes Nagini 
a horcrux, with Frank's death.  Again, some problems with this..  
Interestingly, as VM has not made a deliberate horcrux with the 
death of Lily, one would have thought his Vapoursoul would have been 
already split into two- why use an insignificant muggle when the 
mother of the Chosen One has already contributed.  This would 
suggest to me that either the accidental horcrux theory is correct 
and VM no longer has Lily's murder to work with, (and hasn't worked 
out why) or intriguingly, DD was wrong, and Nagini was horcruxed 
with Lily's death.  

However, on his return to `human' form, VM is outraged to learn that 
the diary horcrux has been destroyed. Shucks, one down again.  If we 
assume he has `used' Lily and Frank and that he did not murder 
Bertha personally, he needs another death- is this the purpose of 
Amelia's murder- has he made another horcrux?   

If we take the three Riddles, Hepzibah, Dorcas and Frank as murders  
and put James and Bertha in the no pile, then VM has  split his soul 
six times,  leaving himself with a seventh soul bit.  But if we 
include Lily's death that is seven splits.  If we include Amelia 
that is eight splits, leaving VM with a ninth soul bit- another 
interesting number. 

Leah








From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Aug 19 17:58:22 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:58:22 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec1kh6+bp75@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7jfu+o3en@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157146

 
> > Pippin:
> > So much for the theory that Snape outed Lupin because he wanted
> > revenge. <g> Isn't the underlying reason for Snape's hatred supposed
> > to be his belief  that Lupin was in on the attempt to murder Snape?
> 
> Renee:
> Hopefully I'm not misinterpreting this, as I'm not sure I follow your
> argument here. You can very well want revenge because of a perceived
> wrong; Snape's conviction that Lupin was in on the attempt, however
> mistaken, would be more than enough to want it (Lupin's
> non-intervention in the Pensieve scene and similar episodes would be
> another motive). But I fail to see how that would make Snape a
> reliable witness. His grudge against the Marauders makes him biased. 

Pippin:
Perhaps I am the one who is confused. I was discussing the reason for
Lupin's story about Snape losing the Order of Merlin. I thought your
argument was that Lupin didn't think Snape had any real grievance 
against him and was primarily upset about the escape of Sirius. Lupin
supposedly wanted to conceal this in order to spare Harry's feelings.  I 
was pointing out that in another context you seemed to admit that 
Snape did have reasons to be upset with Lupin. 

Certainly we can't rely on what Snape says about the Marauders. But
though his accusations are often overblown, we can't say they're
 completely groundless. Lupin *did* have something to do with 
Harry's jaunt into Hogsmeade, he *was* passively helping Sirius get into
the castle,  and by Lupin's own admission, Dumbledore trusted him more
than he deserved.

Lupin has an old habit of making up stories. He made up stories to
explain his absences to his friends when he was in school, and he made
up a story about Sirius learning dark arts from Voldemort (an accusation
that outraged Sirius when it came from Pettigrew) in order to justify
not revealing that Sirius was an animagus and knew about the secret
passages into the school. He seems to have made up a story about
the Order of Merlin. I don't think we can say he's a reliable witness either.

> 
> > Pippin:
> 
> > But alas, those who think ESE!Lupin is plausible don't like it, and
> thosewho like it don't think it's plausible. I don't really like it
> myself -- I've got no desire to see Lupin brought down --but it 
fits the evidence, IMO.
> 
> Renee:
> If those who like it are the people who don't like Lupin, this could
> have something to do with his perceived weakness. If you see Lupin as
> a week, passive wimp without initiative, the ESE!Lupin theory doesn't
> sound plausible, because it requires a rather different personality.

Pippin:
It's really the smarminess that turned me off Lupin as a good guy,
long before I came up with a theory that he was evil. Take this business
about the Order of Merlin. Lupin sounds as if he's being understanding,
even nobly sympathetic, and yet the effect of his words is to paint
Snape as a petty venal tyrant who retaliated for a setback to his
own ambitions by doing irreparable damage to Lupin's. Lupin's
own highly questionable behavior is made to seem beside the point even
as he admits to it. I can't consider someone who behaves like that
a hero, even a flawed one. But for a villain, it's magnificent. 

Renee:
> As for fitting the evidence, in Eco's Name of the Rose, all the
> evidence fits William of Baskerville's theory about they abbey murders
> and yet he turns out to be wrong. People have been convicted based on
> evidence that fit the accuser's theory - but in some cases, this later
> turned out to be a judicial error. 

Pippin:
Ye-ess, and if Harry, Sirius, Dumbledore or even Snape had presented
the reader with substantial evidence that Lupin was evil, I'd have  an 
excellent reason to look elsewhere for the solution to the puzzle.

But what we have is Snape's unsupported
accusation that Lupin was in on the 'joke', and Sirius's erstwhile belief
that Lupin was the spy, plus more  unaccountable absences,
ambiguous statements, and dubious behavior than can be attributed to
any other character, Snape obviously excepted. 

 It could be a misinterpretation on my part  and certainly
all of us theorists have built castles in the air on occasion, but I find
it hard to believe that all of this potentially incriminating evidence 
got into the story by accident. It seems to be waiting to be 
noticed, but by whom?

> Renee:
> Okay, I can see how your analysis of Lupin's fear could work. Would it
> drive him to murder? 
> 
> We know that Harry was ready to crucio Bellatrix, but his Crucio
> wasn't successful. We don't know whether Sirius and Lupin would have
> succeeded in killing Wormtail, so whether they were `ready' to kill
> him remains an unanswered question.

Pippin:
Hardly. If Sirius and Lupin weren't ready to  kill Wormtail, then there's
no life debt between Harry and Pettigrew. Dumbledore obviously believes 
they could have done it, and that's good enough for me.

Granted, Lupin was under a lot of stress that night, but it seems to be
much more associated  with what Dumbledore is going to think of him
than with what Pettigrew did. He hardly asks Peter any questions. 

If normal werewolves are unstable when they're not transformed, then the
whole argument for treating them the same as other wizards goes out the 
window. Pettigrew was exposed,  wandless, and according to Sirius had
information about other Death Eaters who hadn't been caught -- reason
enough to spare him right there, but Lupin, Order member though he is,
doesn't seem to be thinking about that -- unless he's ESE, of course. <g>

> 
> Pippin: 
> > If Lupin found himself helping the werewolves more than he 
> > should out of a desire to be liked, Voldemort would find out. Then
> > what? Would Lupin have the courage to throw himself on Dumbledore's 
> > mercy? I don't think so. 
> 
> Renee:
> But Lupin isn't helping the werewolves, he's trying to change their
> mind despite the fact that he has very little to offer them. Which
> makes him unpopular with them - so much for the desire to be liked.
> And if Voldemort found out what he was doing, Lupin wouldn't throw
> himself on Dumbledore's mercy, because he'd be dead.
>

Pippin:
This I don't understand. How could a genuinely compassionate 
person see people starving to death and not try to help them? 

And I think you underestimate Voldemort. Why should he kill
Lupin outright, when Lupin could be so useful? And why would
Lupin choose death as long as he thought he could see some
clever way out of his difficulties? Only to defy the most evil
wizard who ever existed? But Voldemort wasn't known for what
he was, even as late as when Regulus joined him, whereas the
evil of the Ministry's anti-werewolf policies would be all too 
apparent. 

Personally, I find  a Lupin  who became a Voldemort supporter
for misguided but noble reasons to be far more admirable as a 
character or a human being than  a smarmy weakling of a good guy. 
As for the lesson to be learned, how about 'terrorism does not pay'? 
Could  that be what JKR wants Lupin to teach her daughter? Is one
of the 'good lessons'  Lupin gives that even kind and clever people 
can be caught in the web of someone like Voldemort unless they
cultivate the moral courage to resist?

Pippin







From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Aug 19 18:20:05 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 11:20:05 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Killing Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ec73rm+7u2a@eGroups.com>
References: <700201d40608172238w31c0cdb4vac941a22e425f904@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ec73rm+7u2a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608191120q2d9b478fk7a079d001439cc65@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157147

> > Kemper earlier: <SERIOUSLY SNIPPED by aussie>
>
> > He made an interesting suggestion based on Snape being good
> > (Rushdie's opinion being correct) and that Dumbledore is dead.
> >
> > Assumtion: Dumbledore is dead because Snape had to kill him.
> >
> > If that's so: Snape now has the potential to make a Horcrux, if he
> > hasn't already.
> >
>
> > Other questions:
> > Does one become evil if he separates his soul?
> >
>
> aussie:
> ...snip...
> 2. Snape may have his own Horcrux? I missed that suggestion. Spooky
> reason for why Severus wouldn't mind making that UV.

Kemper now:
Hmm... My thought on when Snape could create a Horcrux would be after he
killed Dumbledore (assuming he killed him).  And I think if Snape did have a
Horcrux any time prior to UV (or prior to the Tower for that matter),
Dumbledore would have suspected it.  I have no canon support except to say
that the man has some familiarity with the one known to have Horcruxes
(Voldie) and the one some here suspect may have had an Horcrux
(Grindelwald).

Story wise, it would be more dynamic for Snape to create Horcrux from
killing DD thus making Snape even more tragic (assuming, as I always do,
that Snape is Good.)


>
> 3. "Does one become evil if he seperates his soul..." but this is assuming
Snape is good -
> hmmm


Kemper now:
Again, I always assume Snape is good. ;-)

Is the Horcrux wickedest of magical inventions because it requires the
Horcrux creator to kill someone or because it separates the soul?

Can a separated soul pieces be reunited?

Kemper


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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 18:26:39 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:26:39 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec7jfu+o3en@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7l4v+ltot@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157148

> Pippin:
> It's really the smarminess that turned me off Lupin as a good guy,
> long before I came up with a theory that he was evil. Take this 
business
> about the Order of Merlin. Lupin sounds as if he's being 
understanding,
> even nobly sympathetic, and yet the effect of his words is to paint
> Snape as a petty venal tyrant who retaliated for a setback to his
> own ambitions by doing irreparable damage to Lupin's. Lupin's
> own highly questionable behavior is made to seem beside the point 
even
> as he admits to it. I can't consider someone who behaves like that
> a hero, even a flawed one. But for a villain, it's magnificent. 
>

Alla:

Personally, I never thought that Lupin sounds understanding or nobly 
sympathetic. To me he sounded **pissed**, but trying to cover it by 
refusing to dissing fellow teacher in front of Harry. Was he 
succesful? No, not really, but Snape just made sure that he will not 
get paid job again probably forever. He IMO should not be 
understanding or sympathetic.

Oh, and again Lupin forgetting to drink his potion has nothing to do 
with what I am arguing. Snape should IMO be the very last person to 
decide whether Lupin should or should not resign. It is up to 
Dumbledore and to Lupin IMO and I am sure Lupin would have resigned 
anyways. It is just Snape should not have touched it at all.

At least then poor Remus could have find paying job elsewhere, IMO. 
Alas.

And I mentioned JKR's quote recently, but I may as well quote it 
again, although I am sure you know it.

"Lupin will come back as DADA teacher
Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to 
his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir 
Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press 
any time soon."

If there was anything **noble** in what Snape did, I think JKR's 
words would be something of Lupin's recklessness would not let him 
come back as a teacher.

Instead the way I read this quote - **all** blame is put on another 
party, the one who did that irreparable damage.

That is just my opinion of course, but yes I do think that Snape 
acted exactly as petty venal tyrant who finally get a chance to 
retaliate for the past to the party who in my book is pretty much 
blameless for what happened in the past.


Oh, and I do not remember if I mentioned it in the past or not, and 
this is not exactly answering your argument, but I read a very nice 
**speculation** somewhere that Snape behaviour towards Lupin when he 
was probably told by Dumbledore to keep his mouth shut did put a 
strain on their relationship. NO, not to the point of Dumbledore not 
trusting Snape per se, but to the point where Dumbledore refused to 
let Snape supervise school security as much as he did ( patrolling 
the corridors, etc). Don't we see Fake!Mooody doing that in GoF 
instead of Snape?

JMO,

Alla








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 18:38:34 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:38:34 -0000
Subject: Killing Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608172238w31c0cdb4vac941a22e425f904@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ec7lra+suc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157149



> Kemper:

> Does one become evil if he separates his soul?

AD:
"Become" evil?

No.

Amiable Dorsai







From technomad at intergate.com  Sat Aug 19 18:33:59 2006
From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:33:59 -0500
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
Message-ID: <004601c6c3be$0a074910$67560043@D6L2G391>

No: HPFGUIDX 157151

How do we know for sure that Moaning Myrtle was/is (I'm not sure about the 
verb tense here) Muggleborn?

I know what Draco Malfoy says---but I don't consider Draco Malfoy to be a 
bubbling fountain of truth and information.  He's repeating what his Daddy 
says, and, as near as I can figure out, Moaning Myrtle died decades before 
Lucius Malfoy entered Hogwarts.

In that length of time, it would be perfectly possible for student rumor to 
get things badly wrong.

What do we really know about M.M., anyway?

We know that she was killed by a basilisk, sometime in the 1940s, and she's 
very sad.  Other than that, almost nothing (except that she rather fancies 
Harry Potter.)

We don't even know her last name, or whether Riddle killed her on purpose or 
by accident.  I have a friend who says that she may have died of her own 
stupidity---in a school of magick, when you hear someone speaking in a 
strange language and something large moving about, you do _not_ barge in and 
interrupt, since the person you are interrupting may be in the process of 
summoning something large and nasty, and if he doesn't manage to get the 
leash on it, it'll get loose and do Horrible Things.  IOW, Riddle may not 
have even known she was in the stall, and when she burst out of it to tell 
him to go use his own bathroom, she startled the basilisk and it zapped her. 
(This would make her death manslaughter of some sort, not murder.  Come to 
it---can a manslaughter be used to create a Horcrux?  Inquiring minds want 
to know!)

For all that we know, she could be as pureblooded as the Malfoys themselves, 
but from a minor or obscure family.  We know that Riddle doesn't give a hoot 
about pureblood issues---he uses them to lure his followers in, and he wants 
the purebloods because a lot of them are Old Money and have very useful 
social and business connections.  Not unlike Slughorn and his Slug Club, as 
a matter of fact.

While Myrtle may well be Muggleborn (her first name is Muggle, instead of 
something "magicky" like a lot of pureblood families like) she could be of 
any ancestry---and I am not committing to anything until I get conformation 
from a reliable source, like Hermione quoting from _Hogwarts, a History_  or 
Dumbledore (possibly in a Penseive scene.) 




From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sat Aug 19 20:08:54 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:08:54 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec7l4v+ltot@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7r4m+8e3f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157152

> Alla:

> Oh, and again Lupin forgetting to drink his potion has nothing to do 
> with what I am arguing. Snape should IMO be the very last person to 
> decide whether Lupin should or should not resign. It is up to 
> Dumbledore and to Lupin IMO and I am sure Lupin would have resigned 
> anyways. It is just Snape should not have touched it at all.
> 
> At least then poor Remus could have find paying job elsewhere, IMO. 
> Alas.
> 
> And I mentioned JKR's quote recently, but I may as well quote it 
> again, although I am sure you know it.
> 
> "Lupin will come back as DADA teacher
> Alas, no. Lupin's exposure as a werewolf did irreparable damage to 
> his prospects for a career in teaching, and with the likes of Fenrir 
> Greyback out there, werewolves are unlikely to receive a good press 
> any time soon."
> 
> If there was anything **noble** in what Snape did, I think JKR's 
> words would be something of Lupin's recklessness would not let him 
> come back as a teacher.

> Instead the way I read this quote - **all** blame is put on another 
> party, the one who did that irreparable damage.

Pippin:
I'm afraid I can't follow your reasoning. JKR says nothing whatever
about what Snape did or why, or even whether Snape is the one 
responsible for Lupin's ruin. Merely stating that the  damage 
occurred does not say who is responsible for it, except in the minds 
of those who have already reached a conclusion. Look at Mel
Gibson's arrest -- people are predicting damage to his career but
who is to blame is a matter of controversy  though it's 
no secret how the story reached the press.

JKR doesn't place *any* blame, except on Fenrir Greyback and his like, 
who are cited as the reason werewolves have a bad press in the
first place. 

In the absence of the DADA teacher, it seems to me the
heads of house have as much right as anyone to decide how
their charges should be protected from a monster who might
have bitten any one of them and who was, AFAWK, still loose
on the grounds when Snape made his announcement. Of course
he didn't have to tell them that the werewolf was Lupin, but they
would have seen for themselves that he was absent. The rumor 
would have spread all the faster if Snape had tried to cover that 
up, IMO.

In GoF, Snape says he has as much right to prowl the corridors
at night as Moody, so I don't see that he was relieved of that
duty. 

For all we know, Dumbledore told Snape to announce
that Lupin was a werewolf, both to protect the students and to
draw the fangs from the story before it reached the Daily Prophet,
where it could have done far more damage. Doesn't Fudge say
he let Dumbledore hire werewolves? Note the plural. If
Dumbledore didn't show he could act decisively to protect his
students from a non-compliant werewolf, maybe another teacher 
who was totally innocent would have lost his or her job as well.


Pippin






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 20:35:08 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:35:08 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6n7p+4358@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7sls+10amg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157153

Geoff wrote:
> There is also the question of whether he actually killed Quirrell.

Carol responds:
We know that Quirrell died when LV left his body--not exactly a
murder, but LV must have known that Quirrell wouldn't survive the
prolonged possession any more than the snakes and other beasts (aside
from nagini) did. I don't think it would count as a murder that split
his soul, however, or at least not one that he would consider worthy
of a Horcrux.
> 
Geoff: 
> Slightly OT, there seems to be some confusion about Dorcas Meadowes'
name. In my Bloomsbury volume, her surname is spelt with an 'e', 
elsewhere - including the Lexicon -it doesn't appear to be. Just out
of  sheer pedantry, I wonder which is correct.

Carol responds, with apologies for rearranging Geoff's post:
Even the American edition spells the name with an "e," so the Lexicon
is incorrect.

Geoff:
> Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her, according
to her own testimony in COS. <snip>

Carol:
Nonetheless, I do consider it murder, as Diary!Tom himself does (see
below), just as it would be murder if he'd released a deadly snake
into a teacher's office knowing that the teacher was in there and the
snake had fatally bitten the teacher--or even more so, since the
Basilisk was under his command (see below). 

And Myrtle has no clear idea of what happened beyond hearing a boy's
voice speaking a "different language" and seeing a pair of "great,
big, yellow eyes" (Cos Am. ed. 299). She has no idea who the boy was
or what he said and consequently can't know that he's using the
Basilisk to kill her. Even though she's the victim, she doesn't know
what happened and is not a reliable witness as to whether it's murder
or, um, what else would you call it? An unfortunate accident? I think
not. That's like calling Cedric Diggory's death an accident.

Evidence that her death was murder:

Diary!Tom tells Harry, "It won't come till it's called" (308). IOW,
the Basilisk follows Diary!Tom's orders, as it followed Tom Riddle's
when he was a living boy. It doesn't act on its own and can't even
come out of the statue unless he releases it.

Diary!Tom tells Harry that Possessed!Ginny "set the Serpent of
Slytherin on four Mudbloods, and the Squib's cat" (310), and Ginny
herself writes in the diary, "I think I'm the one attacking everyone,
Tom!" (311). Again, the Basilisk doesn't act on its own. It attacks
when it's ordered to do so, when it's "set on" a victim by the Heir of
Slytherin (Tom) or the person he's possessing (Ginny).

Myrtle heard Tom talking to the Basilisk before it attacked her (299).
Clearly, he was "setting it on" her. What else would he have said to
it just before it attacked, especially since it doesn't attack unless
ordered to do so? Tom had just come up from the Chamber of Secrets
accompanied by the Basilisk with the intention of killing someone. No
other reason for bringing it into the school is plausible. He wasn't
just taking it for a stroll. And since Myrtle was crying (299), no
doubt sobbing as loudly as she does when she's a ghost, Tom would have
known she was in the stall and would be coming out at some point. He
must have told it to attack her when she came out. He wasn't making
idle conversation, and the Basilisk didn't say anything.

Tom tells Harry that he searched for years for the Chamber of Secrets
(312), which we know that Salazar Slytherin built so that "his own
true heir" could "unleash the horror within [the CoS] and use it to
purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic" (151)--use
it, IOW, as a murder weapon to kill Muggleborns. He also tells Harry
preserved the memory of his sixteen-year-old self in the diary with
the express intention of enabling someone else to finish "Salazar
Slytherin's noble work" when he could no longer release the Basilisk
himself without causing the school to be closed (312). 

So Tom's purpose in bringing the Basilisk with him on the day it
killed Myrtle must have been to kill Muggleborns. Since Myrtle is a
Muggleborn, it would have exactly suited his purpose to have the
Basilisk kill her. (Even if she wasn't a Muggleborn, it would still be
murder if he ordered the Basilisk to kill her for whatever reason. And
even if his words were something other than a direct order, he would
have known that she would die if the Basilisk looked her in the eyes.
The only way to be innocent of murder in such circumstances would be
to order it *not* to look at her, and clearly that is not what happened.)

Diary!Tom seems to regard her death as a murder. He tells Harry that
"killing Muggleborns doesn't matter to me any more" (312), which means
that his original intention (before he created the diary) was indeed
to rid the school of Muggleborns by using the Basilisk to kill them,
after which he created the diary so he could use someone else to
control the Basilisk, without which no Muggleborns could or would be
murdered. Until his focus transferred to Harry, *Diary!Tom's*
intention was also to kill Muggleborns using the Basilisk--as he tells
Harry and as indicated by "Enemies of the Heir, Beware" (138). The
chamber didn't open itself or the Basilisk release itself. Tom (and
later Diary!Tom, via Ginny) did both, with the express intention of
ridding the school of Muggleborns as Salazar Slytherin intended. 

Diary!Tom twice orders the Basilisk to kill Harry (318 and 319), and
only fails in his intention because Fawkes blinds the Basilisk and
provides Harry with the Sword of Gryffindor. Surely if Diary!Tom had
been a real person and had successfully ordered the Basilisk to kill
Harry, Harry's death would be murder. If so, Myrtle's in similar
circumstances is also murder if Tom ordered it to kill her (and
manslaughter at the least if he didn't). Again, I can conceive of no
other intention for bringing the Basilisk into the school than to use
it to kill people he, as Slytherin's Heir, considered to be enemies or
unworthy to attend the school, including little "Mudbloods" like Myrtle.

Surely, Geoff, you don't think that Tom Riddle is innocent of Myrtle's
death and it was all the Basilisk's fault? True, it's a bloodthirsty
and murderous beast, classified as XXXXX by the MoM bcause it's so
deadly, but who released it? Why was it released, if not to kill
people? Whose command was it under? Who was with it and spoke to it
before it killed Myrtle? Who "set it on" her, to use Diary!Tom's own
phrase? 

Was it just an accident for which sixteen-year-old Tom, that nice boy
who never hurt anyone, wasn't responsible? I think not, any more than
Diary!Tom innocent of petrifying the students in CoS. The Basilisk did
it, yes, but only because Ginny, under Diary!Tom's control, "set it on
them." It obeys the Heir of Slytherin and does his will. It's as much
 Tom's instrument as his wand, and even more deadly because its only
purpose, and only desire, is to kill.

If, as seems likely from the evidence, Tom ordered the Basilisk to
kill Myrtle when she came out, it was indeed murder. The only
difference between this murders and those he committed later was that
he used the Basilisk rather than his wand as the murder instrument.

On a side note, I believe, but can't prove my hypothesis, that Tom
used Myrtle's murder--his first--to create his first Horcrux. She was
his first victim and would have been important to him for that reason,
and her death was symbolically connected to the diary (and perhaps
recorded in it as one of the memories that Tom didn't choose for Harry
to see). Her death was also the *reason* he needed the diary since the
school would be closed if any other deaths occurred. so it makes sense
that he would use Myrtle's death for the diary Horcrux, just as it
makes sense to use his father's death for the ring Horcrux (using the
death of his Muggle father to empower a memento from his mother's side
of the family, rather like using the "bone" of that same father to
restore his body much later).

Carol, certain that Tom himself regarded Myrtle's death as a murder
and that having killed her made it easier to murder his family a few
months later






From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 19:22:30 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:22:30 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <004601c6c3be$0a074910$67560043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ec7odm+okdj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157154

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" <technomad at ...> wrote:
>> While Myrtle may well be Muggleborn (her first name is Muggle,
instead of something "magicky" like a lot of pureblood families like)
she could be of any ancestry---and I am not committing to anything
until I get conformation from a reliable source, like Hermione quoting
from _Hogwarts, a History_  or Dumbledore (possibly in a Penseive
scene.) <<


Tinktonks:

Be careful with making assumptions because of muggle names. Look at
the Weasleys:

Molly, Arthur, Bill, Charlie, Percy, Fred, George, Ron & Ginny......

Not very wizarding!

Tinktonks











From rosieb.juane at sbcglobal.net  Sat Aug 19 19:38:05 2006
From: rosieb.juane at sbcglobal.net (rosie743)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:38:05 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <ec61ef+gg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7pat+c2rf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157155

Potioncat <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:
> There's a line in the MTMNBN that puts me in stiches every
> time I watch. Lockhart says it and I don't have the vaguest
> idea of 'what' he's saying, but it's a rapid-fire mouthful
> of words that is delivered beautifully. Something to do with
> Pixies. I don't even know if the line is in the book.
> <snip>

rosie743:
Peski pixi pesternomi....?

Its the spell he tries to use to handle the cornish pixies he let
loose in class.

Forgive me, what does MTMNBN stand for???







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 20:56:08 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:56:08 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec6ufq+khjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7tt8+coik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157156

 
> Eddie:
> Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in Goblet
> of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
> - James Potter
> - Lily Potter
> - Bertha Jorkins
> - Frank Bryce
> - Cedric Diggory

Carol responds:
That doesn't quite work because we know that LV didn't kill Cedric
personally. He ordered Wormtail to do it ("Kill the spare!"), which
Wormtail did, using Voldemort's wand. so it's possible that Wormtail
also killed Bertha Jorkins on Voldemort's orders.

Also, this list doesn't include people like Dorcas Meadowes and
Hepzibah Smith, not to mention the Riddles, who were personally killed
by LV before Godric's Hollow (surely there were many victims from VWI
whose names we don't know, including some of the Inferi in HBP, whom
LV killed directly) or Amanda Bones, whom he killed after the Priori
Incantatem incident.

I include Myrtle as someone he killed personally even though he used
the Basilisk instead of a wand, and I speculate that the great Dark
wizard Grindelwald was one of Voldemort's victims but I don't have any
real evidence. But the indisputable names on the list of people he
killed personally would be 

Tom Riddle Sr. and his parents (Tom Jr.'s grandparents)
Hepzibah Smith
Dorcas Meadowes
James and Lily Potter
Frank Bryce
Amanda Bones

Only the first five, killed before the Potters, would have been
available for Horcruxes--though I think we should add Moaning Myrtle
to the list as the murder used for the diary Horcrux. At any rate, we
have just enough murders for five or six Horcruxes before GH, setting
aside any others that we don't know about.

Carol, wondering why Dorcas Meadowes was important enough to be killed
by LV in person






From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sat Aug 19 20:51:12 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 13:51:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec73dl+6vnk@eGroups.com>
References: <ec73dl+6vnk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <51860834.20060819135112@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157157


Tinktonks:
s> Is this a clue? Is DD's mistake (something that is pretty darn rare) 
s> JKR's way of sneakily telling the reader that you don't need an AK to 
s> create a Horcrux?

Dave:
Perhaps, but it throws a monkey wrench into the whole theory that I
was about to propose on what constitutes a "murder", as far as
Horcruxes are concerned.  Namely, that Horcruxes can only be made from
an AK, and an AK can only be cast with "murderous" intent -- In other
words, AK can't be cast in self-defense or what Bellatrix refers to as
"righteous anger".

Tinktonks
s> Even though FB was AK'd (or so it would appear 
s> given the green light although the words were not destinguishable 
s> over the scream) DD does not think he was and still believes it is 
s> possible for a Horcrux to have been made from this murder.

Dave:
Actually, what DD says is:

  "After an interval of some years, however, he used Nagini to kill
   an old Muggle man, and it might then have occurred to him to turn
   her into his last Horcrux."  -- HBP, USA Ed., p. 506.

The way I read this, Nagini killing this "old Muggle man" (who BTW I'm
not convinced is Frank) only gave him the *idea* to make her into a
Horcrux... It doesn't mean that he used *this* death to make it.
Indeed, I have a lot of trouble believing LV would ever use the death
of a ragamuffin, of-no-consequence Muggle to make *any* Horcrux.  As
DD tells us, LV uses only really important murders to make his
Horcruxes.

-- 
Dave




From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 19:42:00 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:42:00 -0000
Subject: Horcruxes and murder (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec7d8m+hcqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec7pi8+1021v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157158

Tinktonks: <SNIP>
>> Is DD's mistake <snip> JKR's way of sneakily telling the reader
that you don't need an AK to create a Horcrux? Even though FB was
AK'd (or so it would appear given the green light although the
words were not destinguishable over the scream) DD does not think
he was and still believes it is possible for a Horcrux to have
been made from this murder. I think DD knows plenty about Horcruxes
and it is one of them 'too noble' things. As he is our authority on
the situation I think it is safe to assume that non AK and non
direct murders are still Horcrux friendly. <<

aussie:
>> Great point, Tonks ... Now look at the idea of directing another
to kill to create a Horcrux, and relate it to Draco.

LV directed Draco to kill DD. Just as DD assumed the snake could be
Horcruxed this way, was that part of the hidden reason Draco was
directed to kill DD and no other? <snip> <<


Tinktonks:
Aussie, thank you. I was hoping someone would jump to this thread
because since writing it I formulated a bit of an expansion and was
DYING (no pun intended-sorry) to link the two.

I'm sure everyone remembers the 'who was polyjuiced thread' which
lead to loads of fantastic theories, well...........

Bellatrix was polyjuiced, it was really LV. We are told Bella is an
accomplished occlumens by Snape/Draco when Harry overhears their
argument so he could go undetected easily.

LV/Bella is the person who performs the UV, without the third that
could never have occurred. This being the case he/she (I'm sorry for
inadvertantly accusing LV of being a ladyboy-please dont AK me in my
sleep) was DIRECTLY responsible for DD's death by performing the UV
therefore DD's death would be Horcux friendly.

I think this is LV's plan for replacing the lost Diary horcrux. I
considered replacing the ring Horcrux but I'm firmly on the side of
Snape is a good guy!!!

Tinktonks











From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 19 21:49:02 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:49:02 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec7d8m+hcqh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec810f+q2d5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157159

Aussie wrote:
><snip> Myrtle was an oppertunistic death by the Basalisk, not
pre-meditated.

Carol responds:
Surely Tom Riddle wasn't just taking the basilisk for a walk. He had
released it from the statue and taken it out of the Chamber of Secrets
for a reason--to fulfill his role as Slytherin's Heir by carrying on
"Salazar Slytherin's noble work" of ridding the school of "those
unworthy to attend it." There was no other possible reason for having
the Basilisk with him. Moreover, I don't think it was a random death.
He probably knew quite well who was crying and that she was a
Muggleborn. He had the Basilisk with him with the intention of
"killing Mudbloods," to use his own words to Harry in CoS. If he
hadn't found Myrtle in the restroom, he'd have sought out another
victim. There was nothing "opportunistic" about it.

See my post on this topic upthread.

Tinktonks wrote: <SNIP>
>
> > DD being wrong about using Nagini to kill Frank Bryce opens up an
> important question for me though. DD seemingly thinks that Nagini
killed FB on LV's orders, he also thinks that Nagini was made a
Horcrux with FB's murder.
> > 
> > Is this a clue? Is DD's mistake (something that is pretty darn 
> rare) JKR's way of sneakily telling the reader that you don't need
an AK to create a Horcrux? <snip>

Carol responds:
I hadn't thought about it in quite this way, but you could be right.
In any case, a murder is a murder regardless of the weapon used, and
I'm quite sure that both Hepzibah Smith (descendant of Helga
Hufflepuff and ownder of the cup and the locket) and Myrtle (Tom's
first murder victim) were used to create the cup and diary Horcruxes
respectively. I certainly don't think that an AK is required. (BTW, I
wonder how many other victims of LV and the DEs were poisoned rather
than AK'd. Lucius Malfoy sold quite a few poisons to Mr. Borgin when
he was clearing out Dark artifacts in preparation for Mr. Weasley's
inspection of his manor.)

As for Nagini, I still think that she's a Horcrux but that she was
made on before Godric's Hollow. I raised the question of whether she
might be something else (a familiar spirit, that is, a demon in animal
form) but didn't get any responses. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that
JKR has an Old Testament thou-shalt-not-suffer-a-witch-to-live concept
of witches, wizards, and their familiars. I just think that Nagini is
something more than a snake, even a magical snake, and there's nothing
that fits her description in FBAWTFT.) If anyone is interested in that
idea, the post number is 157144.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157144
> 
> aussie wrote:
><snip> For a long time I have thought young Tom is 
> repeated in young Draco.

Carol responds:
However snooty and prejudiced and generally obnoxious Draco may be, he
has yet to hang his schoolmates' pets from the rafters or torture them
in caves. Draco is the product of his upbringing by pureblood
supremacists, at least one of whom is a DE, and perhaps, if Hagrid is
right, of the Malfoy blood (IMO, Hagrid is just as prejudice in his
way as the Malfoys with his "blood is important" attitude and his
sneering at Squibs and Muggles, but I digress.) And Draco, for all his
faults (and I don't regard him as innocent, by any means, especially
for letting the DEs into Hogwarts and setting off the chain of events
on the tower) does at least lower his wand slightly, finding that
killing a helpless, wandless, "stupid" old man isn't nearly as easy as
he thought it would be.

Tom Riddle, also partly the product of his "blood" and upbringing (in
his case, spartan and loveless but not cruel), but neither heredity
nor environment can explain the cruelty he displays from a very early
age. Yes, both Draco and Tom think they're special, but so do James
Potter and Sirius Black, the "arrogant little berks" we see in
"Snape's Worst Memory." There's a huge difference between the bullying
and arrogance we see in those three, even adding in Draco's views on
pureblood superiority which the other two don't share, and the
completely amoral inhumanity of young Tom Riddle, whose sense that
he's special leads him first to unleash the monster in the Chamber of
Secrets to prove that he's the Heir of Salazar Slytherin, "greatest of
the Hogwarts Four," and then, after having committed four murders at
the age of sixteen, including that of his own father, to seek to use
those murders to make himself immortal through the creation of
multiple Horcruxes.

Comparing Draco to young Tom Riddle is like comparing Buckbeak to the
Basilisk. IMO, there's no comparison.

Carol, wondering where the Snape posts have gone







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 22:01:58 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:01:58 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec7sls+10amg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec81om+nggp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157160

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

Geoff:
> > Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her, according
> to her own testimony in COS. <snip>
 
Carol:
 > Surely, Geoff, you don't think that Tom Riddle is innocent of Myrtle's
> death and it was all the Basilisk's fault? True, it's a bloodthirsty
> and murderous beast, classified as XXXXX by the MoM bcause it's so
> deadly, but who released it? Why was it released, if not to kill
> people? Whose command was it under? Who was with it and spoke to it
> before it killed Myrtle? Who "set it on" her, to use Diary!Tom's own
> phrase? 

Geoff:
No. but there is a subtle difference. The name of this thread is 
'Voldemort killed //personally//".

I take that to mean situations where he himself pointed the wand 
and cast the curse. It's a bit like having a contract killer to do your 
dirty work for you. You are still guilty of the murder.

In some of the recent war crime trials, the prosecution seems to have 
had to be able to accuse the prisoner of actually having committed a 
murder themselves in order to make the charge stick. If we are going 
to list all the people kiled by Death Eaters, then our list is going to 
run out of control.

I hope that clarifies the way in which my thoughts have been moving.







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sat Aug 19 22:12:00 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:12:00 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <ec7pat+c2rf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec82bg+3so2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157161

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rosie743" <rosieb.juane at ...> wrote:
>
> Potioncat <willsonkmom@> wrote:
> > There's a line in the MTMNBN that puts me in stiches every
> > time I watch. Lockhart says it and I don't have the vaguest
> > idea of 'what' he's saying, but it's a rapid-fire mouthful
> > of words that is delivered beautifully. Something to do with
> > Pixies. I don't even know if the line is in the book.
> > <snip>
> 
> rosie743:
> Peski pixi pesternomi....?
> 
> Its the spell he tries to use to handle the cornish pixies he let
> loose in class.
> 
> Forgive me, what does MTMNBN stand for???

Geoff:
It's "The medium that must not be named", ie films or DVDs for 
fear of incurring the List Elves' wroth.  I usually change it to 
"the medium that dare not speak its name" which is a 
steal from Oscar Wilde.....
:-)

Up the airy mountain, 
down the rushy glen,
we daren't mention films 
for fear of little men 
(or women - but it doesn't rhyme or scan then...)

With additional apologies to William Allingham







From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Sat Aug 19 22:17:17 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 22:17:17 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <004601c6c3be$0a074910$67560043@D6L2G391>
Message-ID: <ec82ld+e930@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157162

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eric Oppen" <technomad at ...> 
wrote:
>
> How do we know for sure that Moaning Myrtle was/is (I'm not sure 
about the 
> verb tense here) Muggleborn?
> 
> I know what Draco Malfoy says---but I don't consider Draco Malfoy 
to be a 
> bubbling fountain of truth and information.  He's repeating what 
his Daddy 
> says, and, as near as I can figure out, Moaning Myrtle died 
decades before 
> Lucius Malfoy entered Hogwarts.
> 
> In that length of time, it would be perfectly possible for student 
rumor to 
> get things badly wrong.
> 
> What do we really know about M.M., anyway?
> 
> We know that she was killed by a basilisk, sometime in the 1940s, 
and she's 
> very sad.  Other than that, almost nothing (except that she rather 
fancies 
> Harry Potter.)
> 
> We don't even know her last name, or whether Riddle killed her on 
purpose or 
> by accident.  I have a friend who says that she may have died of 
her own 
> stupidity---in a school of magick, when you hear someone speaking 
in a 
> strange language and something large moving about, you do _not_ 
barge in and 
> interrupt, since the person you are interrupting may be in the 
process of 
> summoning something large and nasty, and if he doesn't manage to 
get the 
> leash on it, it'll get loose and do Horrible Things.  IOW, Riddle 
may not 
> have even known she was in the stall, and when she burst out of it 
to tell 
> him to go use his own bathroom, she startled the basilisk and it 
zapped her. 
> (This would make her death manslaughter of some sort, not murder.  
Come to 
> it---can a manslaughter be used to create a Horcrux?  Inquiring 
minds want 
> to know!)
> 
> For all that we know, she could be as pureblooded as the Malfoys 
themselves, 
> but from a minor or obscure family.  We know that Riddle doesn't 
give a hoot 
> about pureblood issues---he uses them to lure his followers in, 
and he wants 
> the purebloods because a lot of them are Old Money and have very 
useful 
> social and business connections.  Not unlike Slughorn and his Slug 
Club, as 
> a matter of fact.
> 
> While Myrtle may well be Muggleborn (her first name is Muggle, 
instead of 
> something "magicky" like a lot of pureblood families like) she 
could be of 
> any ancestry---and I am not committing to anything until I get 
conformation 
> from a reliable source, like Hermione quoting from _Hogwarts, a 
History_  or 
> Dumbledore (possibly in a Penseive scene.)
>
Luckdragon:
I would love to find out she is related to Harry in some way. I find 
myself feeling sorry for Myrtle despite her seeming enjoyment of her 
own misery. I wish she had played a bigger part in previous books in 
helping Harry learn more about the secrets of the castle and what 
Draco was up to. A ghostly informant to help out the trio. Myrtle 
does seem to parallel Hermione in some ways in that she is used to 
impart information we otherwise would not have known.






From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Sat Aug 19 23:23:46 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:23:46 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec7jfu+o3en@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec86i2+gqv7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157163

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
> 
> Lupin has an old habit of making up stories. He made up stories to
> explain his absences to his friends when he was in school, and he made
> up a story about Sirius learning dark arts from Voldemort (an accusation
> that outraged Sirius when it came from Pettigrew) in order to justify
> not revealing that Sirius was an animagus and knew about the secret
> passages into the school. He seems to have made up a story about
> the Order of Merlin. I don't think we can say he's a reliable
witness either.


Renee:
As I wrote in a previous post, the source of the OoM story is probably
Fudge, whose suggestion it was that Snape ought to be rewarded such an
Order, and who witnessed Snape's reaction to the news that Sirius had
escaped. As he wasn't there at the time, being his werewolf alter ego,
Lupin has either heard it from Fudge himself, or from DD. 

The story about Sirius learning dark arts from Voldemort is a lie
Lupin tells himself; the moment he mentions it to others, he doesn't
do so to mislead, as it's obvious he doesn't believe in Sirius's guilt
anymore.     

I could even come up with an excuse for the absence stories, because I
don't think Lupin was supposed to tell his fellow students he was a
werewolf. (DD himself encouraged the people of Hogsmeade to believe
the Shrieking Shack was haunted.) But it's true that he did make up
those stories and actually managed to mislead his dorm mates for about
a year. 


> Pippin:
> It's really the smarminess that turned me off Lupin as a good guy,
> long before I came up with a theory that he was evil. Take this business
> about the Order of Merlin. Lupin sounds as if he's being understanding,
> even nobly sympathetic, and yet the effect of his words is to paint
> Snape as a petty venal tyrant who retaliated for a setback to his
> own ambitions by doing irreparable damage to Lupin's. Lupin's
> own highly questionable behavior is made to seem beside the point even
> as he admits to it. I can't consider someone who behaves like that
> a hero, even a flawed one. But for a villain, it's magnificent. 

Renee:
The problem is, that it's Harry, the POV character, who considers it
beside the point - he's the one who doesn't question Lupin, not even
when Lupin blames himself. You can't blame Lupin for Harry's
perception. As for painting Snape as a petty venal tyrant etc., - why
shouldn't he? That's precisely what Snape *is* at that moment. There
is an element of retaliation in Snape's outing of Lupin, whatever else
is behind it. 

I agree with you that Lupin is no hero. But that doesn't mean he's a
villain. With all his flaws *and* good points, he's exceedingly human
- one of the most human characters in the series. Ironical, seeing
that he's a werewolf. But I'm sure the irony is intentional on JKR's
part.     

 
> Pippin:
> 
> Granted, Lupin was under a lot of stress that night, but it seems to be
> much more associated  with what Dumbledore is going to think of him
> than with what Pettigrew did. He hardly asks Peter any questions. 

Renee:
No - the scene is long enough as it is :), and we've got Peters
statement `He was going to win' - that's the whole explanation in a
nutshell. Peter merely sided with the biggest bully again - his life's
story (though I actually hope it will end on a more positive note).
But if you think discovering that you weren't only robbed of all your
friends at once but duped into blaming the wrong person for thirteen
years isn't highly upsetting, or that it won't make you hate the real
traitor to distraction, there's probably no way I can convince you.


Pippin: 
> If normal werewolves are unstable when they're not transformed, then the
> whole argument for treating them the same as other wizards goes out the 
> window. 

Renee:
They're only a bit unstable shortly before a transformation. In the
Pensieve scene, Harry notices that Lupin looks pale and peaky and
wonders if the full moon is approaching. I'm sure this is JKRs way of
giving us a bit more information about werewolves. But it's probably
nothing that can't be treated by Wolfsbane (if they take it, that is...) 


Pippin:
Pettigrew was exposed,  wandless, and according to Sirius had
> information about other Death Eaters who hadn't been caught -- reason
> enough to spare him right there, but Lupin, Order member though he is,
> doesn't seem to be thinking about that -- unless he's ESE, of
course. <g>

Renee:
As Sirius is the one who mentions the informating, it seems more
remarkable that *he* isn't thinking of it. (No, I'm not going into
ESE!Sirius. That was Kneasy.)


> > Renee:
> > But Lupin isn't helping the werewolves, he's trying to change their
> > mind despite the fact that he has very little to offer them. Which
> > makes him unpopular with them - so much for the desire to be liked.
> > And if Voldemort found out what he was doing, Lupin wouldn't throw
> > himself on Dumbledore's mercy, because he'd be dead.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> This I don't understand. How could a genuinely compassionate 
> person see people starving to death and not try to help them? 

Renee:
Because Lupin himself is starving, too, once he comes to live with the
other werewolves? And if you present yourself in the werewolf
community as someone who's had it with the WW, you can hardly enter
bearing gift baskets.  

Of course Voldemort would want Lupin dead, if he discovered he was
trying to turn his allies away from him. Not to mention Greyback, who
doesn't strike me as someone who likes to be thwarted either.

Pippin:
> Personally, I find  a Lupin  who became a Voldemort supporter
> for misguided but noble reasons to be far more admirable as a 
> character or a human being than  a smarmy weakling of a good guy. 

Renee:
Well, I prefer to think he's too clever not to understand Voldemort is
merely using the werewolves to his own advantage. 


Pippin:
> As for the lesson to be learned, how about 'terrorism does not pay'? 
> Could  that be what JKR wants Lupin to teach her daughter? Is one
> of the 'good lessons'  Lupin gives that even kind and clever people 
> can be caught in the web of someone like Voldemort unless they
> cultivate the moral courage to resist?

Renee:
That would be teaching by bad example. I very much doubt this is what
JKR had in mind when she made that statement. The question was: "If
you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your child, who
would it be and why?" Her answer: "It would be Professor Lupin,
because he is kind, clever, and gives very interesting lessons." I
don't think this leaves much room for your interpretation, which seems
to need the word `something' behind the verb `teach' to be meaningful.


  







From bobhawkins at rcn.com  Sat Aug 19 21:43:02 2006
From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:43:02 -0000
Subject: Killing is not necessarily murder and to defeat is not the same thing as to
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAh53tr4L4qkqc5Qv27VXasgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <ec80l6+10mlg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157164

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson"
<bawilson at ...> wrote:

> Also, note that part of the definition of murder is the killing
> of a HUMAN BEING.  It might be argued that Voldemort is no longer
> human.
>
      This is a good point. If you could make a horcrux by killing a
rat, it would probably be a lot more common. And the defining
characteristic of "human" is "possessing a soul." Does "possessing
one-seventh of a soul" count?

      If it does, Harry's destruction of the diary, and with it
memory-Riddle, would already make him a killer. But memory-Riddle
apparently doesn't count, for example, Harry saw him expire but still
could not see thestrals. Voldemort possesses no more of a soul than
the diary did.

    I can believe that making a horcrux means making yourself no
longer human.

zeroirregardless









From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 01:02:49 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:02:49 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec81om+nggp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec8cbp+f4vu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157165

>-- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote:
>
> >--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> 
> > > Geoff:
> > > Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her, 
> > > according to her own testimony in COS. <snip>
>  
> > Carol:
> > Surely, Geoff, you don't think that Tom Riddle is innocent of 
> > Myrtle's death and it was all the Basilisk's fault? True, it's a 
> > bloodthirsty and murderous beast, classified as XXXXX by the MoM 
> > bcause it's so deadly, but who released it? Why was it released, 
> > if not to kill people? Whose command was it under? Who was with 
> > it and spoke to it before it killed Myrtle? Who "set it on" her, 
> > to use Diary!Tom's own phrase? 
> 
> Geoff:
> No. but there is a subtle difference. The name of this thread is 
> 'Voldemort killed //personally//".
> 
> I take that to mean situations where he himself pointed the wand 
> and cast the curse. It's a bit like having a contract killer to do 
> your dirty work for you. You are still guilty of the murder.
> 
<snip> 

Mike now:

As long as we are getting off on the Murder_for_Horcrux_making 
thread, I'd like to interject some canon myself. Check pg 498, HBP, 
US, you know the part. Sluggy say, "By *committing* murder." Not 
commissioning murder, not causing the death with malicious intent, 
not duping another to perform the act. I checked my dictionary, 
committing means performing, actually doing. Whether Tom would be 
guilty in a court of law for Myrtle's death is immaterial as to 
whether Tom could have made a Horcrux from it. (yes, Geoff, I 
understood that you weren't saying this.) We have no other 
explanation besides Sluggy's, so I'm forced to accept his. IOW, in 
order to perform the Horcrux creating spell successfully, it must be 
done in conjunction with a murder by the *hand* of the horcrux 
creator.

As Dave points out in another part of this thread, DD never said he 
thought LV used FB's death to create a Nagini Horcrux, only that 
this was when the *idea* occurred to LV. So this case is not the 
same as Tom and the Basilisk. Also, Hokie took credit for poisoning 
her mistress in the same way that Morfin took credit for killing the 
elder Riddles. So, I don't have any problem with the reading that 
Tom used Hepzibah's murder for horcrux making just as he could have 
used his relations murders to do the same. 

BTW, DD said that Tom killed his relatives "in the summer of his 
sixteenth year" not when he was sixteen years old. (I made this 
mistake myself) This puts their murders in 1942, Tom is 15 and about 
to start his 5th year at Hogwarts. This makes their murders Tom's 
first murders AFAWK. Sorry, I don't like the timing either, but 
canon is canon.

Mike, who scoured CoS for any mention of Tom wearing a ring, any 
ring, but didn't find it. But then, Harry wasn't much interested in 
jewelry, was he?








From kking0731 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 01:27:59 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:27:59 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec7it4+he04@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec8dqv+o4vd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157166





Carol in post 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157153 responded 
to Geoff:

>snipped<

Geoff:
> Regarding moaning Myrtle, surely the Basilisk killed her, according
to her own testimony in COS. <snip>

Carol:
Nonetheless, I do consider it murder, as Diary!Tom himself does (see
below), just as it would be murder if he'd released a deadly snake
into a teacher's office knowing that the teacher was in there and the
snake had fatally bitten the teacher--or even more so, since the
Basilisk was under his command (see below).

Snow:

To make my point I must reference Carol's post to Eddie: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157156

>snipped<

Eddie:
> Using the Priori Incantatem from Harry's duel with Voldemort in 
Goblet
> of Fire as canon we get (in chronological order):
> - James Potter
> - Lily Potter
> - Bertha Jorkins
> - Frank Bryce
> - Cedric Diggory

Carol responds:
That doesn't quite work because we know that LV didn't kill Cedric
personally. He ordered Wormtail to do it ("Kill the spare!"), which
Wormtail did, using Voldemort's wand. so it's possible that Wormtail
also killed Bertha Jorkins on Voldemort's orders.

Snow:

This sounds a bit contradictory ? or did you mean something else? 

Both victims are being killed on orders. The Basilisk has its orders 
to kill muggleborns via its master, and Wormtail on Orders killed 
Cedric. 

Myrtle may not have been selected personally but overall she is said 
to be a muggleborn and at that time young Tom was out to fulfill the 
noble work that was started by Slytherin; or so Diary!Tom claimed 
when he told Harry that he was no longer interested in killing 
muggles that his new target was Harry. 
>From this I take it that young Tom did release the Basilisk with 
instructions to kill muggleborns. Myrtle was attacked but not 
directly by Tom; Cedric was attacked but not directly by Baby!Mort.
 
I would like to refer to Leah's post:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157145 since she 
appears to be thinking along the same lines as myself :)

Leah:

Long reply to a short but interesting question. I was trying to
work this one out the other day, and see if the deaths correlated
with the horcruxes or supposed horcruxes and also which of the
personal victims could be said to have been murdered, as against,
for example, killed in battle. I got to: Tom Riddle Snr; Riddle
grandfather; Riddle grandmother; Lily Potter; Frank Byrce, as the
people we can say with some certainty that VM killed with a personal
AK. That's five.

>snipped<

I then tried to link the deaths with horcruxes. We are told by
Slughorn that murder is necessary to split the soul in order to
form a horcrux. We have the diary, ring and locket horcruxes.
These are objects which link VM with Slytherin. The diary reveals
that he is the Heir, while the ring and locket are Slytherin/Gaunt
heirlooms. It seems logical to me both symbolically and in terms of
timing that VM would use the murders of his despised muggle
ancestors to make these horcruxes. Then there is the cup horcrux.
The logical assumption as already said is that this was made with
the murder of Hepzibah Smith. We don't have a death for the
Ravenclaw horcrux, so I nominate the mysterious Dorcas for that as
the timing fits in.

Snow:

Since you've brought up the matter of linking each Horcrux to the 
death Voldemort found to be important (Sirius stating that he didn't 
think Regulus was important enough
), I thought I would try to help 
connect them. 

The first three murders we know for sure that Tom committed were 
those of his two grandparents and his father (all of these murders 
were blamed on his uncle which becomes important in a second). 

I agree with you Leah in your choice of the three items that were 
used from these three murders.

So we have, so far:

Pap ?Ring
Ma ? Locket
Dad- Diary

We continue with the next victim, who was Hepzibah (I think) whose 
death was blamed on a house elf, Hokey, much like the first three 
deaths were blamed on the Uncle. The deaths were blamed in the same 
way; the Uncle believed that he killed the three Riddles and Hokey 
believed she poisoned the old lady when in fact they were both 
altered to believe what Riddle wanted them to believe. 

Let's add to the list:

Hepzibah- cup, which is a Hufflepuff heirloom 
(tidbit that Zacharias is a Smith and is from Hufflepuff house). 

We now have Dorcas Meadowe's that we can fairly be sure, according to 
Mad Eye Moody, was directly killed by Voldemort. We don't know 
anything about Dorcas and there have not been any of her kin 
mentioned, we might have to use deduction and say that she is the 
Ravenclaw item.

So let's just add:

Dorcas- Ravenclaw heirloom (for some reason I want to say that tiara 
in the ROR, don't know why)

This would be five deaths directly killed by Voldemort and four of 
them, for sure, are unarmed. :)

The problem that I am having now is that we are up to the night of 
Godric's Hollow and only have five (as far as I can see) definite 
direct deaths at the hand of Voldemort. Dumbledore claimed that 
Voldemort wanted to make the last Horcrux with Harry so we are one 
death short I would think. Unless Voldemort wanted seven portions of 
soul, which would include his own, but that would mean that he only 
needed five containers and five deaths to make five Horcruxes before 
the Hollow. Harry would be his sixth and final Horcrux meaning that 
the one remaining in Voldemort would be the final seventh portion. 

This scenario would pose a very big problem with what Dumbledore 
surmised wouldn't it or would it? 

Dumbledore said that there was the:

Ring
Locket
Diary
Cup
 
Leaving something from Ravenclaw and Gryffindore. If Dorcas' death 
were Ravenclaw then Harry's death would have been meant for the 
Gryffindore Heirloom. 

The list would then be thus:

Pap ?Ring
Ma ? Locket
Dad ? Diary
Hepzibah ? Cup
Dorcas ? Ravenclaw Heirloom
Harry ? Intended Gryffindore Heirloom

This would actually represent seven equal parts of the soul since 
Voldemort needs a piece for himself. 

The Voldemort agenda didn't go as planned and, if you need an unarmed 
person to cause the soul to split :), Lily's death secured the final 
split. This represents six splits, to my way of thought, before he 
attempted the AK of Harry. 

We know through the many times that Dumbledore has stated that there 
is without a doubt a connection between Voldemort and Harry [besides 
their wands :) ]. In fact Dumbledore says in OOP pg. 826 that he had 
suspected it from the time Voldemort attempted to kill Harry:

"I guessed, fifteen years ago, " said Dumbledore, "when I saw the 
scar upon your forehead, what it might mean. I guessed that it might 
be the sign of a connection forged between you and Voldemort."

This forged-connection was suspected and yet Dumbledore never states 
this evidence in his scenario with Harry about the suspected 
Horcruxes. Did Dumbledore not know that this could be a factor or was 
Dumbledore unable to tell Harry this suspicion in reference to his 
portrayal of the possible Horcruxes? This might even be seen as 
evidence that Harry is not a Horcrux, but that would not conclude 
that my previous (in another post) claim, wherein, Harry did receive 
a portion of Voldy soul all the same become false. In fact just the 
opposite, this claim supports it. 

Dumbledore knew that there was a "forge" between the two and (a bit 
of suspicion on my part) that the-greatest-wizard-who-ever-lived was 
also aware of the mechanics involved in making a Horcrux, plus an old 
man's admitted tenderness to one so young could be the result of 
Dumbledore's explanation to Harry. This is not to say the old boy was 
lying (anymore than the creator), it's more the evasive yet optional 
conclusions left to Harry and his reader. 

For the focus of this conversation I will claim that Voldemort 
fulfilled his intentional destiny, which was to split his soul into 
seven at Godric's Hollow; there were seven pieces of soul after 
Lily's death, one residing with Voldemort. 

All deaths that occurred at Voldemort's hand after his rebirth may be 
insignificant after his rebirth. First off, can you split the soul 
once a Horcrux (or portion of the soul) has been destroyed? The Diary 
was already destroyed before the rebirthing. If the soul cannot be 
seen (metaphorically) as whole anymore then how can it further be 
split?

Ok, My head hurts
going to relax the muscle.

Snow








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 02:07:29 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:07:29 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec8cbp+f4vu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec8g51+h5u8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157167

Mike wrote:
> <snip> BTW, DD said that Tom killed his relatives "in the summer of
his sixteenth year" not when he was sixteen years old. (I made this 
> mistake myself) This puts their murders in 1942, Tom is 15 and about 
> to start his 5th year at Hogwarts. This makes their murders Tom's 
> first murders AFAWK. Sorry, I don't like the timing either, but 
> canon is canon.
> 
> Mike, who scoured CoS for any mention of Tom wearing a ring, any 
> ring, but didn't find it. But then, Harry wasn't much interested in 
> jewelry, was he?
>
Carol responds:
Actually, "in his sixteenth year" is the error, which a copyeditor
should have caught and corrected or queried. (JKR, as we know, is bad
at math and may not know the difference between "sixteen" and "in his
sixteenthe year.") Tom was already sixteen (and therefore in his
*seventeenth* year) when he killed Myrtle and preserved his
"sixteen-year-old self" in the diary, and given his December
31/January 1 birthday, he would still have been sixteen when he killed
the Riddles and when he returned for his sixth year. He may still have
been sixteen when he asks Slughorn about the Horcruxes. (That's the
scene in which he's wearing the ring; Harry understands that he's
already killed the Riddles. It's not mentioned in CoS is.)

In the diary memory where he confronts and frames Hagrid, he's at the
end of his fifth year and wearing a Prefect badge. He wouldn't be
wearing the ring because he hasn't yet killed his parents. The only
person he has killed at that point is Myrtle, if we count her death as
a murder (and I do, for reasons already given).

Just a side note regarding Myrtle's death: When Wormtail kills Cedric
on Baby!mort's orders, he's acting as Voldemort's *agent*, a person
who acts on another's orders and carries out that person's will, not
as his *instrument* (the weapon used to bring about the death). The
wand is the murder instrument. But when the Basilisk, which is not
human and therefore can't be an agent (it has no free will or ability
to reason), kills Myrtle, it serves as his *instrument* in lieu of the
wand. Ergo, Wormtail murdered Cedric (in a court of law, I believe
that he and LV would both be considered guilty, but for the purposes
of Horcrux-making, Cedric's murder wouldn't count because Voldemort
didn't perform it). But Tom Riddle murdered Myrtle using the Basilisk
as his weapon, with no human agent carrying out his orders, and I'm
quite sure that he considered her death a Horcrux-worthy murder.

There's nothing anywhere in canon that says the murder victim has to
be killed by the murderer's *hand.* (You may be thinking of the
Prophecy--"either must die at the hand of the other--" and even there,
"hand is used figuratively. Otherwise, the only kind of death that
would qualify is death by strangulation.) 

Carol, with apologies for oversnipping (see upthread for the rest of
Mike's argument)







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 02:58:08 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:58:08 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
Message-ID: <ec8j40+l5p7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157168

In Message #157167 Carol wrote:

> Carol responds:
> Actually, "in his sixteenth year" is the error, which a copyeditor
> should have caught and corrected or queried. (JKR, as we know, is bad
> at math and may not know the difference between "sixteen" and "in his
> sixteenthe year.")

Mike:

Thanks, Carol, for that info. It opens a whole new vista of 
possibilities for me. Now I have another question. Where did you find 
this copyeditor mistake and are there more of them floating out there? 
Do we have a list somewhere or do you happen to know a website that 
has that info? Can the elves add something here? I'm sure I'm not the 
only one who would like to know whether some of their theories are 
based on silly mistakes in copywriting.

I have a later edition of GoF that has a corrected order of James and 
Lily's appearance in the Priori Incantatum scene, but I have other 
questions about things in canon that seem to be mistakes. For 
instance, did JKR ever say something about Lupin tying up Pettigrew in 
the Shrieking Shack? I mean, he *walks* out and after Lupin breaks 
free from the manacles, he grabs Lupin's dropped wand. So neither his 
arms nor legs were tied up, what was?







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 03:10:28 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:10:28 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec8j40+l5p7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec8jr4+ib5c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157170

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> I have other questions about things in canon that seem to be 
mistakes. For 
> instance, did JKR ever say something about Lupin tying up 
Pettigrew in 
> the Shrieking Shack? I mean, he *walks* out and after Lupin breaks 
> free from the manacles, he grabs Lupin's dropped wand. So neither 
his 
> arms nor legs were tied up, what was?
>
Carodave:
I am going off memory here...so may not be 100% correct...but I 
believe that Lupin tied Pettigrew to himself on one side and to Ron 
on the other.  When they left the the Whomping Willow and saw the 
full moon, Lupin transformed into a werewolf and Sirius transformed 
into a dog to pull Lupin away from Ron (who he was tied to).  At 
this point, with Sirius otherwise occupied, Pettigrew lunged for 
Lupin's dropped wand, pulling Ron (who had a broken leg) off balance.

Carodave







From redmaurader at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 02:16:41 2006
From: redmaurader at yahoo.co.uk (redmaurader)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:16:41 -0000
Subject: half-blood prince.
Message-ID: <ec8gm9+d3oe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157171

Is it at all possible the half-blood prince was anyone other than Snape? (A friend of mine
thinks that Snape is lying to cover for someone-LV perhaps?).

redmarauder.










From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 03:47:19 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 03:47:19 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec8jr4+ib5c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec8m07+p47n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157172

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carodave92" wrote:
> > Mike previously
> > For instance, did JKR ever say something about Lupin tying up 
> > Pettigrew in the Shrieking Shack? I mean, he *walks* out and 
> > after Lupin breaks free from the manacles, he grabs Lupin's 
> > dropped wand. So neither his arms nor legs were tied up,
> > what was?
> >
> Carodave:
> I am going off memory here...so may not be 100% correct...but I 
> believe that Lupin tied Pettigrew to himself on one side and to  
> Ron on the other.
<snip>

Mike again:

No, it was like I said. Lupin told Harry to move aside so he could 
tie up Pettigrew. *Then* Sirius conjures manacles to shackle Ron and 
Lupin to either of Peter's arms. When Lupin transforms he breaks 
free from the *manacles*. Peter dives for Lupin's dropped wand.

So the question still stands, what part of Pettigrew got tied up by 
Lupin? Zanooda2 suggested to me that JKR forgot that she had Lupin 
tie up Pettigrew. Hence, my question of whether JKR admitted 
subsequent to the publishing of PoA that this was an unforced error.
(a little tennis lingo there)<g>

Mike






From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com  Sun Aug 20 04:41:43 2006
From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 21:41:43 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] half-blood prince.
In-Reply-To: <ec8gm9+d3oe@eGroups.com>
References: <ec8gm9+d3oe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44E7E807.1040802@pacificpuma.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157173


redmaurader wrote:

> Is it at all possible the half-blood prince was anyone other than 
> Snape? (A friend of mine
> thinks that Snape is lying to cover for someone-LV perhaps?).
>
> redmarauder.
>







Snape outright admited to being the half blood prince.  Why would it be 
someone else?

Jazmyn



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




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 06:38:11 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 06:38:11 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec8cbp+f4vu@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec900j+m8st@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157174

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

Geoff:
> > No. but there is a subtle difference. The name of this thread is 
> > 'Voldemort killed //personally//".
> > 
> > I take that to mean situations where he himself pointed the wand 
> > and cast the curse. It's a bit like having a contract killer to do 
> > your dirty work for you. You are still guilty of the murder.
> > 
> <snip> 
 
Mike:
> As long as we are getting off on the Murder_for_Horcrux_making 
> thread, I'd like to interject some canon myself. Check pg 498, HBP, 
> US, you know the part. Sluggy say, "By *committing* murder." Not 
> commissioning murder, not causing the death with malicious intent, 
> not duping another to perform the act. I checked my dictionary, 
> committing means performing, actually doing. Whether Tom would be 
> guilty in a court of law for Myrtle's death is immaterial as to 
> whether Tom could have made a Horcrux from it. (yes, Geoff, I 
> understood that you weren't saying this.) We have no other 
> explanation besides Sluggy's, so I'm forced to accept his. IOW, in 
> order to perform the Horcrux creating spell successfully, it must be 
> done in conjunction with a murder by the *hand* of the horcrux 
> creator.

Geoff:
I am in agreement with you here in that I was trying to make the point 
that even if Voldemort encouraged/incited/ordered the Basilisk and 
Pettigrew inter alia to commit murder, he did not actually say the words 
and thus, in the case of Cedric, if anyone's soul got split, it was 
Wormtail's.

I was writing very late in the evening after a busy day and probably didn't 
make my point with my usually efficient clarity and perception.
:-))






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sun Aug 20 14:16:19 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:16:19 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec810f+q2d5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec9qrj+6l8r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157175

> > aussie wrote:
> ><snip> For a long time I have thought young Tom is 
> > repeated in young Draco.
> 
> Carol responds:
> However snooty and prejudiced and generally obnoxious Draco may 
be, he
> has yet to hang his schoolmates' pets from the rafters or torture 
them
> in caves. 

aussie:-
Oops, mine was poorly worded.

I had an earlier post where I suggested Young Tom met Grindalwald 
and was enticed to seek out and take revenge on his muggle father. 
Grindalwald had an alternative motivation for urging Tommy to kill. 
That was to have the youngster split his soul and be a fertile heir 
to the Dark Wizard.

Likewise, I thought Young Draco was forced to repeat Tom's pre-adult 
experience to inherit this Dark Wizard's age old quest. The 
suggested - Revenge against Lucius Malfoy - is too simplistic a 
motive.

For LV to forbid any of the other DE on the Tower to finally AK DD, 
there had to be an deeper, hidden motive to put Draco through that 
soul splitting situation.

Young Regulus was singled out for (maybe) the same reason years ago. 
The Task set was so abhorant that death was preferable. 

(Since Tom killed his father; and Draco was sent to kill 
his "Patriarch"; maybe Regulus was sent to kill Sirius or his Uncle. 
Both were stricken from the House of Black's tapestry. Both may have 
been similar victims as Tom and Draco had to target. Both would be 
motive enough for Regulus to rebel against LV.)

> Carol: <SNIPPED>
> Tom Riddle,... neither heredity nor environment can explain the 
> cruelty he displays from a very early age. Yes, both Draco 
> and Tom think they're special, but so do James Potter and Sirius 
> Black, ...There's a huge difference between the bullying and 
> arrogance we see ...even adding in Draco's views on pureblood 
> superiority which the other two don't share, and the
> completely amoral inhumanity of young Tom Riddle, ...
> 
> Comparing Draco to young Tom Riddle is like comparing Buckbeak to 
> the Basilisk. IMO, there's no comparison.
> 
> Carol, wondering where the Snape posts have gone
>
aussie:
Although these last paragraphs follow a line of thought I didn't 
intend, Carol expresses a good distinction between Tom and Draco.

DD saw redeeming qualities in Draco to give him time through the 
year and a calming talk on the tower to save him from his task. 

For those that believe in a good Snape, the fact that Snape twarted 
LV's plan for Young Draco to do the AK-ing may have seriously 
altered LV hidden plan for Draco. DD was dead, Yes. But Draco was 
returned to LV with his soul in one piece. Not what the Dark Lord 
needed ... maybe.

aussie (still not convinced Snape is totally good)







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Sun Aug 20 14:19:47 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:19:47 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <ec82bg+3so2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec9r23+30n3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157177


> > rosie743:
 
> > Its the spell he tries to use to handle the cornish pixies he let
> > loose in class.

> 
> Geoff:
> Up the airy mountain, 
> down the rushy glen,
> we daren't mention films 
> for fear of little men 
> (or women - but it doesn't rhyme or scan then...)


Potioncat:
First, there was all this talk of pixies (slightly more off list), 
then I found myself watching a food related travel show. I saw some 
sort of huge fried English breakfast that left no doubts where 
Southern US cooking comes from.

Then the second host goes off to Cornwall---in search of the "famous" 
Cornish Pasties. "Doesn't he mean Cornish Pixies?" I says to myself, 
I says. Nope, he's holding up some gigantic fried pie (as we call 
them)

So my question is, did everyone in the UK "know" that Cornish Pixies 
was a play on Cornish Pasties? 

Potioncat, who wishes she'd learned how to make fried peach pies, but 
is probably better off for not knowing.







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Sun Aug 20 14:27:50 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:27:50 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec86i2+gqv7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec9rh7+108al@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157178


> Renee:
 
> The story about Sirius learning dark arts from Voldemort is a lie
> Lupin tells himself; the moment he mentions it to others, he doesn't
> do so to mislead, as it's obvious he doesn't believe in Sirius's guilt
> anymore.    

Pippin:
Yes. Lupin lied to himself about one of his oldest friends in order
to avoid revealing his own guilt , which at least makes it plausible 
that he could lie to himself about Voldemort for the same reason.

> > Pippin:
> > It's really the smarminess that turned me off Lupin as a good guy,
> > long before I came up with a theory that he was evil. Take this business
> > about the Order of Merlin. Lupin sounds as if he's being understanding,
> > even nobly sympathetic, and yet the effect of his words is to paint
> > Snape as a petty venal tyrant who retaliated for a setback to his
> > own ambitions by doing irreparable damage to Lupin's. Lupin's
> > own highly questionable behavior is made to seem beside the point even
> > as he admits to it. I can't consider someone who behaves like that
> > a hero, even a flawed one. But for a villain, it's magnificent. 
> 
> Renee:
> The problem is, that it's Harry, the POV character, who considers it
> beside the point - he's the one who doesn't question Lupin, not even
> when Lupin blames himself. You can't blame Lupin for Harry's
> perception. 

Pippin:
Oh but I can. Lupin is an expert on the presentation of information.
He knows all about spin. Just take that whole paragraph about Snape
out, and see how Lupin's explanation reads (paraphrasing because
my canon is boxed up at the moment) "They will not want someone
like me teaching their children. And after last night I  see their
point. I might have bitten any one of you. That must never happen 
again." Now it's the attitude towards werewolves in general that
seems tragically beside the point. 

Hagrid was roaring drunk that night. If alcoholism caused him to
misbehave, that would be pitiable, but it wouldn't excuse him from
the consequences.  If he'd threatened three children,
attacked the person who was trying to subdue him, and run raving
into the forest, do you think he'd still have had prospects as a teacher
 in the morning? That the parents would object anyway because he's half
giant is neither here nor there.

I notice neither one of us is taking seriously Lupin's indication that
Snape's revelation was accidental. More smarm, IMO. Snape isn't Lupin's
colleague any more, and Lupin has a  right to speak his mind
about him plainly if he cares to. But he'd rather sound as if he's
taking care for Snape's reputation while doing nothing of the kind.

Renee:
> I agree with you that Lupin is no hero. But that doesn't mean he's a
> villain. With all his flaws *and* good points, he's exceedingly human
> - one of the most human characters in the series. Ironical, seeing
> that he's a werewolf. But I'm sure the irony is intentional on JKR's
> part.     
> 

Pippin:
Who says it's not human to be evil? 

>  
> > Pippin:
> > 
> > Granted, Lupin was under a lot of stress that night, but it seems to be
> > much more associated  with what Dumbledore is going to think of him
> > than with what Pettigrew did. He hardly asks Peter any questions. 
> 
> Renee:
> No - the scene is long enough as it is :), and we've got Peters
> statement `He was going to win' - that's the whole explanation in a
> nutshell. Peter merely sided with the biggest bully again - his life's
> story (though I actually hope it will end on a more positive note).
> But if you think discovering that you weren't only robbed of all your
> friends at once but duped into blaming the wrong person for thirteen
> years isn't highly upsetting, or that it won't make you hate the real
> traitor to distraction, there's probably no way I can convince you.


Pippin:
"Nobody's going to kill you until we've straightened a few things out."
(or words to that effect.)  Lupin's not so upset as all that. 

> 
> 
> Pippin: 
> > If normal werewolves are unstable when they're not transformed, then the
> > whole argument for treating them the same as other wizards goes out the 
> > window. 
> 
> Renee:
> They're only a bit unstable shortly before a transformation. In the
> Pensieve scene, Harry notices that Lupin looks pale and peaky and
> wonders if the full moon is approaching. I'm sure this is JKRs way of
> giving us a bit more information about werewolves. But it's probably
> nothing that can't be treated by Wolfsbane (if they take it, that is...) 

Pippin:
Pale and peaky during OWLS? Gosh, I wonder why <g> Harry learns that
full moon is, in fact, not approaching, because Sirius wishes that it was.
> 
> 
> Pippin:
> Pettigrew was exposed,  wandless, and according to Sirius had
> > information about other Death Eaters who hadn't been caught -- reason
> > enough to spare him right there, but Lupin, Order member though he is,
> > doesn't seem to be thinking about that -- unless he's ESE, of
> course. <g>
> 
> Renee:
> As Sirius is the one who mentions the informating, it seems more
> remarkable that *he* isn't thinking of it. (No, I'm not going into
> ESE!Sirius. That was Kneasy.)

Pippin:
Sirius is distracted. I'll grant you that. He wants Pettigrew dead on the
spot. It's Lupin who says that they have to straighten some stuff out.
But it doesn't appear to be about Pettigrew. Nobody's interested in 
how he managed to kill so many Muggles with a single spell, or how
he kept his spying hidden from Dumbledore, or who his contacts
were. No, what Lupin seems to be interested in, besides establishing
himself as a great friend of Sirius and James in the old days, is how
Sirius came to believe that Pettigrew was guilty.

 
> > > Renee:
> > > But Lupin isn't helping the werewolves, he's trying to change their
> > > mind despite the fact that he has very little to offer them. Which
> > > makes him unpopular with them - so much for the desire to be liked.
> > > And if Voldemort found out what he was doing, Lupin wouldn't throw
> > > himself on Dumbledore's mercy, because he'd be dead.
> > >
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > This I don't understand. How could a genuinely compassionate 
> > person see people starving to death and not try to help them? 
> 
> Renee:
> Because Lupin himself is starving, too, once he comes to live with the
> other werewolves? And if you present yourself in the werewolf
> community as someone who's had it with the WW, you can hardly enter
> bearing gift baskets.  

Pippin:
But if he's presenting himself as someone who's had it with the WW,
then he isn't trying to change their minds. Anyway, that's not his
mission. He's not sent as Dumbledore's envoy. He's there in disguise,
as a *spy*. He's supposed to be getting information, probably proof
of Voldemort's criminal activities, if the spying started in the days
when Voldemort was still presenting himself as legit. Of course
he'd have to argue against criminal means or he'd be guilty of
entrapment. And the werewolves would have argued back, with
passion which is so much more convincing than reasoned argument.
Lupin wouldn't be human if he didn't have doubts about what he
was doing.

I'd wonder about the morality of anyone who *wouldn't*
steal to help feed a starving child. But things are never simple,
even in the Potterverse. Sometimes the werewolves kill.
It'd be so easy for Lupin to  compromise himself, and once he did, 
well he'd be easy prey for Voldemort. Greyback would be all for 
killing him, of course. But Voldemort would be for keeping him 
alive and making him useful.


> Renee:
> Well, I prefer to think he's too clever not to understand Voldemort is
> merely using the werewolves to his own advantage. 

Pippin:
Hepzibah and Slughorn were clever, and it didn't save them. Their
desire to be liked was their undoing. 

> 
> Pippin:
> > As for the lesson to be learned, how about 'terrorism does not pay'? 
> > Could  that be what JKR wants Lupin to teach her daughter? Is one
> > of the 'good lessons'  Lupin gives that even kind and clever people 
> > can be caught in the web of someone like Voldemort unless they
> > cultivate the moral courage to resist?
> 
> Renee:
> That would be teaching by bad example.

Pippin:
Which JKR loves to do. We see a lot more bad teachers in the books
than good ones, a lot more unhappy families than happy ones.

Pippin






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Sun Aug 20 14:33:23 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:33:23 -0000
Subject: The Missing E (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec6n7p+4358@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ec9rrk+87r1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157179

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Slightly OT, there seems to be some confusion about Dorcas Meadowes' 
> name. In my Bloomsbury volume, her surname is spelt with an 'e', 
> elsewhere - including the Lexicon -it doesn't appear to be. Just out of 
> sheer pedantry, I wonder which is correct.
>

I believe I have found your missing E. Fans of Harry Turtledove's alternate
history novels were dumbfounded when the blurb on the publisher's 
web site *and* on the dust jacket for his latest novel, The Grapple, was
released. Somehow his arch villian Jake Featherston became Jake 
FeatherstonE. HT fans would appreciate it if Ms. Meadowes missing E 
was reclaimed by HP fans.

Ken who is sorry that his fat fingers and skittish touchpad resulted in
the previous post going off half cocked.







From mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 06:08:36 2006
From: mouthpiece49 at yahoo.com (Lady Lawyer)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 23:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Horcruxes and Soul-Bits
Message-ID: <20060820060836.3253.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157180

I think that the horcruxes are like the one ring in Tolkien.  Mordar could only be destroyed by destroying the object that contained his essence.  It's the same with horcruxes.  So releaseds souls or soul bits are not destroyed, as was said by someone else, but rendered irrelevant.  The magical object which contains the released soul or soul bit becomes necessary for that soul to survive and be put to use - i.e. to be the one bit of life essence that prevents its original owner from dying.
 
 Didn't this happen in superman as well?  I think the original "Lex" was really Zod from their home planet.  Jor-el told Clark the only way to stop Zod is to destroy the vessel that contains his essence - kill Lex.
 
 I think its a common theme it feels really familiar.  In X-Men the comics, Nate sved the earth from the planted alien seed by dispersing his essence into every living thing on earth, thus sacrificing his life in the great tradition of the archetypal hero.
 
 But the myths don't always end with the hero dying, most talk only of his transformation.  Sooooo this is why I think that Harry can't find all the horcruxes and has to take Voldemort through the veil to put him out of commission, thus sacrificing himself.
 
 		
mouthpiece49.





From phil at pcsgames.net  Sun Aug 20 16:20:25 2006
From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:20:25 -0400
Subject: Snape didn't kill Dumbledore
References: <20060820060836.3253.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00ac01c6c474$90775d30$6600a8c0@phil>

No: HPFGUIDX 157181

Phil's theory on how Snape didn't kill Dumbledore.
Voltemort was hovering above the tower on a broom concealed behind an invisibility cloak.
He used a  nonverbal Impedimenta curse from under the cloak a second before Snape said, Avada Kedavra!
The Impedimenta   curse killed Dumbledore by stopping his heart so Dumbledore  was already dead when the green jet hit his chest, and the combined force of the two spells sent Dumbledore   over the wall.
Then, in all the confusion, Voltemort went down to the trophy room to turn the Triwizard cup into a Horcrux.

Phil who hopes he didn't spoil Jo's book seven revelations.




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




From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Aug 20 17:00:23 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 20 Aug 2006 17:00:23 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/20/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1156093223.26.76677.m31@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157182


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday August 20, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060820/36992baf/attachment.html>

From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 17:23:05 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:23:05 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec8j40+l5p7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eca5pp+3lr5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157183

Carol earlier:
> > Actually, "in his sixteenth year" is the error, which a copyeditor
should have caught and corrected or queried. (JKR, as we know, is bad
at math and may not know the difference between "sixteen" and "in his>
sixteenth year.")
> 
> Mike:
> 
> Thanks, Carol, for that info. It opens a whole new vista of 
> possibilities for me. Now I have another question. Where did you
find this copyeditor mistake and are there more of them floating out
there? Do we have a list somewhere or do you happen to know a website
that has that info? Can the elves add something here? I'm sure I'm not
the only one who would like to know whether some of their theories are
based on silly mistakes in copywriting. <snip>

Carol again:
Hi, Mike. First a small correction: Copywriting is writing advertising
copy. Copyediting is catching errors and inconsistencies in an
author's work. A good copyeditor familiar with JKR's work should have
noticed and queried the narrator's assertion in HBP that Tom murdered
his father "in his sixteenth year" since we know from CoS that he was
sixteen (he says so himself). To be fair, the copyeditor may not have
almost memorized the books as we have and the books may have been
copyedited by different people, but if I'd been the copyeditor, I'd
have queried: "JKR: Shouldn't it be seventeenth year, not sixteenth?
According to CoS, Tom was sixteen at this point. (If he's in his
sixteenth year, he'd be fifteen.)" It would be up to JKR as the author
to make the correction or not, but I would think she'd have made the
correction if the copyeditor caught it.

Other examples, some of them caught and corrected and some not,
include Nearly Headless Nick having not eaten for nearly four hundred
years in SS/PS but dying five hundred years before (she knows about
that one and SS/PS will be corrected, but he still has the
anachronistic Elizabethan ruff) and Snape having taught for fourteen
years at the beginning of OoP but having sixteen (should be fifteen)
years worth of information on Dumbledore. (Of course, that one could
be a slip on *Snape's* part that Bella didn't catch, but a copyediotr
familiar with the books should at least have queried it. Maybe one did
and JKR chose not to accept the correction, but I think it's an
oversight and one more example of JKR's abysmal math skills. The most
annoying one, to me, is Charlie Weasley: "We haven't won the cup since
Charlie left" and "We haven't won the cup for seven years" are
incompatible with Charlie being only three years older than Percy.
(Fortunately, his age is never mentioned in canon, only  in
interviews. All we have is Bill's statement in GoF that he hasn't been
to Hogwarts in five years. JKR seems to think that he's about
twenty-three, which would make Charlie twenty-one. But for "the
legendary Charlie Weasley" and his team to win all the cup when
Charlie was a seventh-year, he'd have be nine older than Percy (a
fifth-year when Harry enters Hogwarts), not three. So in GoF, Bill
should be about twenty-nine and Charlie about twenty-seven as opposed
to twenty-three and twenty-one, as JKR seems to think. (It's probably
not important to anyone but me, but she really seems to have no grasp
at all of numbers.)

Not all the inconsistencies relate to numbers, and some may be
intentional (conflicting accounts of the eavesdropping incident, for
example). There are other things that haven't been caught, however.
For example, even though the order of the "echoes" coming out of the
wand in the graveyard has been caught and corrected, when Harry tells
the story to Dumbledore later, the echoes are still in the wrong
order, with his father coming out before his mother (GoF Am. ed. 696). 

Another continuity error that jumps out at me, even though no one else
seems to care about it, is Ron's reference, months before Draco lets
the DEs into Hogwarts, to "Malfoy's Hand of Glory." How did Ron know
about that? Harry never mentioned it, and even he didn't see Draco
buying it. Draco asked his father if he could have it and Borgin
recommended it as an aid to thieves and plunderers, but Lucius sneers
that he hopes his son becomes something better than a thief or a
plunderer, and besides, Lucius is *selling* Dark artifacts, not buying
them. So Draco himself must have bought the Hand of Glory at some
point, but neither Harry nor Ron could know that.

To return to Tom Riddle's age and the question of how I know that
sixteen, as opposed to sixteenth year, is correct: Tom is a prefect,
so he must be in at least his fifth year, which means he's at least
fifteen. Since Myrtle's death and Hagrid's expulsion occurred in June
and we know from HBP that Tom was born on New Year's Eve (or perhaps
the early hours of New Year's Day), he must be sixteen, not fifteen at
that point. (He can't be seventeen, or he wouldn't be worrying about
returning to the orphanage.) Tom himself confirms that he's sixteen by
referring to "the memory of my sixteen-year-old self." (I can find the
page numbers if necessary.)

Since the Riddles were murdered after Myrtle's death, apparently the
following summer, Tom must still have been sixteen (he would not have
turned seventeen until the end of December). He certainly was not
fifteen ("in his sixteenth year"). The error is JKR's ("Oh, dear.
Maths"), but a copyeditor should have caught and corrected it. Had he
or she done so, we wouldn't be pulling our hair out for nothing.

I had thought that the Lexicon had a list of errors that JKR is aware
of and has corrected or plans to correct (Nearly Headless Nick's death
date and "last remaining ancestor" for "last remaining descendant"
among them), but I can't find it. Maybe it's on Mugglenet. The closest
I can find is a list of typos and apparent typos in the US edition 
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/changes_hbp.html
(which leaves out some of the more glaring errors, including the
annoying omission of "from" in "left leg still standing feet away
where she had started," HBP am. ed. 385). Not very helpful, I'm afraid.

Carol, who shouldn't drive herself crazy with errors and
inconstistencies but still wishes that they'd been caught and
corrected while the books were in manuscript








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 17:25:44 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:25:44 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't kill Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <00ac01c6c474$90775d30$6600a8c0@phil>
Message-ID: <eca5uo+jlh2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157184

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" <phil at ...> wrote:
>
> Phil's theory on how Snape didn't kill Dumbledore.
> Voltemort was hovering above the tower on a broom concealed behind  
> an invisibility cloak. He used a  nonverbal Impedimenta curse 
> from under the cloak a second before Snape said, Avada Kedavra!
> The Impedimenta   curse killed Dumbledore by stopping his heart so  
> Dumbledore  was already dead when the green jet hit his chest, and  
> the combined force of the two spells sent Dumbledore   over the wall.
> Then, in all the confusion, Voltemort went down to the trophy room 
to turn the Triwizard cup into a Horcrux.
> 
> Phil who hopes he didn't spoil Jo's book seven revelations.
> 

Mike:
I think you're safe.<g>








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 17:31:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:31:56 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec900j+m8st@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eca6ac+6fj1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157185

Geoff wrote:
> I am in agreement with you here in that I was trying to make the
point that even if Voldemort encouraged/incited/ordered the Basilisk
and  Pettigrew inter alia to commit murder, he did not actually say
the words  and thus, in the case of Cedric, if anyone's soul got
split, it was Wormtail's. <snip>

Carol responds:
I agree with you regarding Wormtail. But in the case of the Basilisk,
which as I've argued elsewhere was the instrument, not the agent, of
Myrtle's death, just as the wand and poison were in Tom's other
murders, the soul that split, if any, would have been Tom's. I doubt
that Basilisks have souls, nor do they have free will, as Wormtail,
for all his fear of Voldemort, still does. 

In the case of the Basilisk, "Kill him!" or "Kill her!" operates in
exactly the same way as "Avada Kedavra" does with the wand. It's a
command for his *instrument* or *weapon* to commit the murder. IMO.

Carol, who thinks that Tom would agree with me that *he* murdered Myrtle







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 17:35:04 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:35:04 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ec8m07+p47n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eca6g8+qgm5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157186

Sorry for responding to my own post; but I just bought the paperback 
copy of HBP. I checked, they didn't correct the "sixteenth year" 
to "seventeenth year" or in any way. Is it too early after the 
original publishing to expect corrections? Anyone? Anyone?<g>

Thanx,
Mike






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 18:35:05 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:35:05 -0000
Subject: Killing is not necessarily murder and to defeat is not the same thing as to
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAh53tr4L4qkqc5Qv27VXasgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <ecaa0p+1r01@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157187

--"Bruce Alan Wilson" <bawilson at ...> wrote:
>
> --- Lady Lawyer <mouthpiece49@> wrote: 
> <snip>
> > by the way I don't think that killing someone in
> > pitched equal battle is the kind of "murder" that
> > will split your soul. I think the soul splitting
> > murder has to be with extreme cruelty. Else every
> > soldier would have a split soul.
> <snip> 
> 
> Cassy:
> > Well, there's this nice thing called "Vietnam 
> > syndrom" .... I think that qualifies as split soul
> > in a certain way. 
> 
> BAW:
> 
> ...
> 
> JKR says that to create a horcrux one must commit a 
> murder, but not all killing is murder!
> 
> My legal dictionary defines murder as the unlawful 
> killing of a human being with malice aforethought.  
> Not all killing is murder.  
> ...
> 
> Also, note that part of the definition of murder is 
> the killing of a HUMAN BEING.  It might be argued that 
> Voldemort is no longer human.
> 
> Hence, even if Harry ends up killing Voldemort, he 
> won't necessarily be lost; ...


bboyminn:

I'm going to have to side with what I think Cassey is 
saying here.

We are dealing with the Soul, not the law. Keep in mind 
that which is immoral does not have to be illegal, and 
that which is illegal doesn't have to be immoral.

When we speak of Law, we are speaking of what society 
will tolerate. We will not tolerate the killing of each 
other, mostly because we ourselves do not want to be 
killed. 

Killing in a war, in the heat of combat, is not legal 
murder, but war in and of itself is an offense to the 
soul and a failing of mankind. I guess we could call 
it a necessary evil. When called upon by circumstances, 
men must do what men must do.

I think any kind of harm to a fellow human being harms 
the soul, though doesn't necessarily full tear it. So, 
as seems reasonable from that position, I believe that 
harm occurs in degrees and that it can be healed. 

I'm reminded of many World War II (WWII) veterans who 
came home from a horrible war having done horrible things 
that offended the soul, and they stoically went about 
their lives never burdening their loved one with the 
horrors they experienced. My own father stormed the 
beaches of France with the Allies in WWII. 

Yet, when I watch WWII documentaries, now these many 
many many years later, these veterans are move to tears 
while recounting their experience. Clearly, that experience 
has touched their souls, but while some scars may remain, 
I believe these basically good and decent men have healed 
those soulful wounds. 

Now to the story at hand, if Voldemort were a good and 
decent person who truly regretted and repented the 
mistakes of his past, and more importantly if he has keep 
his soul all together, then he would have had a chance at 
some soulful healing.

But he didn't, he externally stored pieces of his soul, 
piece that can never heal. To use a physical metaphor, if 
you cut off your finger and place it in a jar, you can never 
expect finger and hand to join together in healing when they 
are kept apart. Further, he stored pieces of his soul to gain 
power and defeat the natural order of death. More so, he is 
wholly unrepentant of his past acts and continues those 
horendous acts in the present and plans more in the future.

A torn off piece of soul can never be heal if the person 
does not engage in a healing process. If he continues to do 
harm to others, then he continues to harm himself. 
Metaphorically, he keeps picking at the scab.

Now to Harry; I really really hope JKR finds some why to 
move the story so Harry doesn't have to flatly and coldly 
kill Voldemort even though Voldemort thoroughly deserves 
it. If Harry pulls Voldemort through the Veil, I wouldn't 
consider that murder. I would say that it would damage 
Harry's soul to some unknown extent, but not to the extent 
of cold-blooded, heartless, compassionless, calculated 
murder. 

If Harry can find a way to rob Voldemort of his power, so 
much the better. Harry suffers minor harm to his soul and
 his emotions, and Voldemort is not only defeated by 
humiliated; the greatest wizard in the world, now a mere 
muggle.

So, I hope JKR can find a way for Harry to defeat Voldemort 
in a not so cold-blooded way, and if that is the only way, 
then I at least hope she shows us that later in life Harry 
experiences some healing from the experience.

JKR isn't crystal clear on this whole teat the soul thing, 
so the best we can do is guess. I say souls can be healed,
 but keeping a part of your soul away from the rest pretty 
much guarantees that no healing can occur.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn









From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 18:38:08 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 18:38:08 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eca5pp+3lr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecaa6g+68bs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157188

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> 
> Carol again:
<snip>
> A good copyeditor familiar with JKR's work should have noticed
> and queried the narrator's assertion in HBP that Tom murdered
> his father "in his sixteenth year" since we know from CoS that 
> he was sixteen (he says so himself). To be fair, the copyeditor   
> may not have almost memorized the books as we have and the books 
> may have been copyedited by different people, but if I'd been the
> copyeditor, I'd have queried: "JKR: Shouldn't it be seventeenth 
> year, not sixteenth?
>
> According to CoS, Tom was sixteen at this point. (If he's in his
> sixteenth year, he'd be fifteen.)" It would be up to JKR as the 
> author to make the correction or not, but I would think she'd have 
> made the correction if the copyeditor caught it.
> <massive snippage> 

Mike responds:

Um, Carol are you saying that this *isn't* a admitted mistake by 
either JKR or he publishing houses? Because, I thought you were 
saying that this was an *admitted* mistake as opposed to a 
*perceived* mistake. See, I too think this whole thing plays better 
if Tom kills his elders after his fifth year, after he openned the 
CoS. But here's the problem:

We have plenty of evidence that Tom openned the CoS in his fifth 
year, and Diary!Tom says he preserved his 16 year old self in the 
diary, but there is no reference whatsoever to when or if he killed 
his father. Diary!Tom only says that he wasn't using his "filthy 
Muggle fathers name", he'd benn calling himself "Lord Voldemort" 
already. In fact, Diary!Tom told us that his father had abandoned 
his mother. What book would he read this in? Yes, he could have 
deduced it since he had deduced his father was a muggle. But, we 
also know that Morfin told him this very thing at the Gaunt shack, 
right before Tom kills his dear Pa.

So Diary!Tom knows about his father abandonning his mother, and 
Penseive!Tom found out this same thing (and got confirmation that 
his father was a Muggle) just before he kills his father. Based on 
this evidence, it does appear that Tom killed his father *before* 
his fifth year. But, more importantly, it's canon. And unless 
someone of authority tells us it was a mistake, we shouldn't be 
assuming it was, no matter how well the alternate version plays. I 
know JKR admits she's bad with math, and I agree she's no whiz with 
time lines either. But, unless she comes out with a correction, like 
she did with the GoF priori scene, we're stuck with canon.

Darn shame, I had some good theories that worked so much better if 
Tom kills dear old dad after he makes the diary. Oh well, back to 
the TBay Inn for more evidence!

Mike, wishing he could just post corrections to JKR's timelines and 
they would magically correct themselves in his books.






From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 17:36:57 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 17:36:57 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't kill Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <00ac01c6c474$90775d30$6600a8c0@phil>
Message-ID: <eca6jp+nrhi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157189

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Phil Vlasak" <phil at ...> wrote:
>
> Phil's theory on how Snape didn't kill Dumbledore. (snipped)
>
> He [LV] used a nonverbal Impedimenta curse from under the cloak a
second before Snape said, Avada Kedavra!
> The Impedimenta curse killed Dumbledore by stopping his heart so
Dumbledore was already dead when the green jet hit his chest, and
> the combined force of the two spells sent Dumbledore over the wall.

Sally:

But an Impedimenta curse doesn't kill, as it is a defensive curse
which slows the person/object hit down.  So it more than likely
wouldn't have killed DD, even if LV was able to get to H/warts to
perform the curse, surely he would just use an unforgivable curse
straight away rather than get someone else to his dirty work for
him, because after all he does hate DD.

Sally, thinking well at least the theory made me smile.









From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Sun Aug 20 19:16:34 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:16:34 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec9rh7+108al@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecacei+jlhk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157190

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Renee:
>  As I'm going on vacation tomorrow and have very little time, I'll
have to keep this short, to my regret. (OTOH, we could probably argue
until we drop dead without ceding the point until Book 7 appears.) 
> > 
> Renee:
> > I agree with you that Lupin is no hero. But that doesn't mean he's a
> > villain. With all his flaws *and* good points, he's exceedingly human
> > - one of the most human characters in the series. Ironical, seeing
> > that he's a werewolf. But I'm sure the irony is intentional on JKR's
> > part.     
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Who says it's not human to be evil? 

Renee:
You seemed to allow no middle ground between hero and villain. So I
brought up the term human to supply one, and I'd be very surprised if
you didn't get that. But if the term human doesn't work for you in
this context, as apparently it doesn't, replace it by one of your own
choice, by all means.   
 
Pippin:
No, what Lupin seems to be interested in, is how Sirius came to
believe that Pettigrew was guilty.

Renee:
Eh, because Sirius knew Pettigrew was the Secret Keeper?


> > Pippin:
> > > As for the lesson to be learned, how about 'terrorism does not
pay'? 
> > > Could  that be what JKR wants Lupin to teach her daughter? Is one
> > > of the 'good lessons'  Lupin gives that even kind and clever people 
> > > can be caught in the web of someone like Voldemort unless they
> > > cultivate the moral courage to resist?
> > 
> > Renee:
> > That would be teaching by bad example.
> 
> Pippin:
> Which JKR loves to do. We see a lot more bad teachers in the books
> than good ones, a lot more unhappy families than happy ones.
> 
Renee:
I notice that you snip the text of the JKR quote that shows this
interpretation of it (teaching by example) is much less plausible from
a grammatical point of view than the obvious one of acting as a
schoolteacher. 

(BTW, the way JKR speaks about Lupin remains one of the most important
argument, if not *the* most important one, why I don't believe in
ESE!Lupin. The theory is highly ingenious, and the point that could be
made with it is worth making, but if I look at all JKRs Lupin quotes,
I know it's not going to happen.)

Renee




     







From kjones at telus.net  Sun Aug 20 19:23:09 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 12:23:09 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <ecaa6g+68bs@eGroups.com>
References: <ecaa6g+68bs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44E8B69D.4070300@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157191

Mike wrote:


> So Diary!Tom knows about his father abandonning his mother, and 
> Penseive!Tom found out this same thing (and got confirmation that 
> his father was a Muggle) just before he kills his father. Based on 
> this evidence, it does appear that Tom killed his father *before* 
> his fifth year. But, more importantly, it's canon. And unless 
> someone of authority tells us it was a mistake, we shouldn't be 
> assuming it was, no matter how well the alternate version plays. I 
> know JKR admits she's bad with math, and I agree she's no whiz with 
> time lines either. But, unless she comes out with a correction, like 
> she did with the GoF priori scene, we're stuck with canon.

> Mike

   KJ writes:

    While that is a logical assessment, it does not take into account 
that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving at Godric's Hollow.  He 
was very curious about how Harry survived, which again, he would know 
nothing about as a sixteen year old memory. He explains to Harry, who 
had the same question, that Voldemort was his past, present, and future. 
  The thing that is interesting here is that the diary horcrux must have 
been one of the first ones made and yet it has the memories of a later 
date, which would indicate some kind of contact with the main soul piece 
which we haven't seen in the ring horcrux. So for this reason, I am more 
inclined to stay within the timeline presented, that Tom actually killed 
his father and grandfather after this date and before we saw him wearing 
the ring in Slughorn's memory.

KJ




From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 20 19:27:53 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:27:53 -0000
Subject: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ec9rh7+108al@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecad3p+hnts@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157192


> Renee:
> > I agree with you that Lupin is no hero. But that doesn't mean he's a
> > villain. With all his flaws *and* good points, he's exceedingly human
> > - one of the most human characters in the series. Ironical, seeing
> > that he's a werewolf. But I'm sure the irony is intentional on JKR's
> > part.     
> > 
> 
> Pippin:
> Who says it's not human to be evil? 
> 
wynnleaf
Actually, I think many of the characters seem very "human," just some
are more likeable than others, or better people than others.  

Just looking at things in terms of literary themes, etc., it seems to
me that if JKR is going to have Snape be the "obvious" villian who
turns out to be good, in spite of his nasty demeanor, she's going to
need to balance that with a character who seemed to be "obviously"
good, but turns out to be bad, despite his nice demeanor.  

Lupin is the perfect candidate.  You know, the "smile and smile and be
villian" type.  Shakespeare was, after all, known for hitting the nail
on the head when it comes to understanding "humanity."

In case anyone has not yet looked it up, the essay below that someone
linked to a few days ago, is an excellent look at HBP from the
perspective of what Lupin was doing.  The author thinks Lupin wasn't
really Lupin, but being impersonated by Pettigrew.  However, the same
observations fit a scenario where it *was* Lupin, but Lupin is a traitor.

http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/164477.html?thread=3607165#t3607165

wynnleaf









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug 20 19:40:22 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:40:22 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <ec82ld+e930@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecadr6+fjoh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157193

Luckdragon wrote:

> I would love to find out she is related to Harry in some way. I find 
> myself feeling sorry for Myrtle despite her seeming enjoyment of her 
> own misery. I wish she had played a bigger part in previous books in 
> helping Harry learn more about the secrets of the castle and what 
> Draco was up to. A ghostly informant to help out the trio. Myrtle 
> does seem to parallel Hermione in some ways in that she is used to 
> impart information we otherwise would not have known.

Abergoat adds:
I'm not sure Myrtle's story is quite over. I'm suspicious that someone
else has talked to Myrtle about how she died, and that someone is why
Hagrid wasn't completely expelled but allowed to stay on at school.
(Unfortunately Myrtle herself tells us that she ran off to haunt Olive
Hornby. So this someone couldn't have a professor talk directly with
her informant, Myrtle. My guess is that by the time Myrtle returned to
Hogwarts it was too late so Dumbledore was only able to cast enough
doubt to allow Hagrid to stay on, but not as a student.)

And given the convenient timing of the publication of Harry's favorite
Potions book, that someone may well be Snape's mother.

Abergoat







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 19:47:08 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:47:08 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <eca6ac+6fj1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecae7s+8m8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157194

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
>
> > Geoff wrote:
> > I am in agreement with you here in that I was trying to make the
> > point that even if Voldemort encouraged/incited/ordered the 
> > Basilisk and  Pettigrew inter alia to commit murder, he did not 
> > actually say the words  and thus, in the case of Cedric, if 
> > anyone's soul got split, it was Wormtail's. <snip>

Mike:
Am I correct to assume that (left unsaid) you do not think a Horcrux 
could have been made from Myrtle's death? It sounds like it.

> 
> Carol responds:
> I agree with you regarding Wormtail. But in the case of the 
> Basilisk, which as I've argued elsewhere, was the instrument, not 
> the agent, of Myrtle's death, just as the wand and poison were in 
> Tom's other murders, the soul that split, if any, would have been 
> Tom's. <snip>

Mike responds:

Aye, but therein lies the rub. As Geoff alluded to above, Tom didn't 
perform the actual magic, he didn't say the spell to kill Myrtle. No 
magical spell was used to kill Myrtle. Granted, Parseltongue does 
appear to be a gift granted only to wizards, and very few of them at 
that, as far as we've been told. So it may require some magical 
ability to speak to snakes in the Potterverse. But, in terms of 
magically splitting one's soul, casting a killing curse is a far cry 
from commanding an animal to kill (if that is what happened), no 
matter what language that command is given in.

> Carol again: 
> 
> In the case of the Basilisk, "Kill him!" or "Kill her!" operates in
> exactly the same way as "Avada Kedavra" does with the wand. It's a
> command for his *instrument* or *weapon* to commit the murder. IMO.

Mike again:

I don't see how you work out that "Kill her!" *operates* exactly the 
same way as "AK". One is a command to another entity, the second is 
spell casting which, we have been told, requires powerful magical 
abilities behind it. Besides, "Kill him!" doesn't ensure the desired 
outcome, whereas a properly cast AK (unless it's cast at Harry) does 
seem to do the trick every time, doesn't it?

Have we not been instructed throughout the series that casting 
spells invites consequences to the spell caster, some consequences 
being more severe depending on the spell that was cast? 

As I have posted elsewhere on this thread, Sluggy said "commit" the 
murder, not *command* the murder. Commit (American Heritage? 
Dictionary: Description of commit,TRANSITIVE VERB: 1. To do, 
perform, or perpetrate: commit a murder.), as in by ones own *hand*, 
is my *figurative* usage clear here?
 
> Carol, who thinks that Tom would agree with me that *he* murdered 
> Myrtle

Mike, who *knows* that Hagrid was originally accused of Myrtles 
death and wasn't even sent to prison for it! What does a guy gotta 
do around here to win an Azkaban vacation?!









From random832 at gmail.com  Sun Aug 20 19:50:16 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 15:50:16 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec8g51+h5u8@eGroups.com>
References: <ec8cbp+f4vu@eGroups.com> <ec8g51+h5u8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608201250y40d1e22fk9a60bd1bb2db86c5@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157195

> Carol:
> Just a side note regarding Myrtle's death: When Wormtail kills Cedric
> on Baby!mort's orders, he's acting as Voldemort's *agent*, a person
> who acts on another's orders and carries out that person's will, not
> as his *instrument* (the weapon used to bring about the death). The
> wand is the murder instrument. But when the Basilisk, which is not
> human and therefore can't be an agent (it has no free will or ability
> to reason),

Random832:
Other snakes have been shown to have A) obviously, the ability to use
language. B) the ability to form complex ideas like wanting to go home
to brazil. Why do you think snakes, and therefore the basilisk, don't
have free will, in the context of HP?

-- 
Random832



From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 20 19:55:50 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:55:50 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lupin vs Snape (was Lupin and "Severus")
In-Reply-To: <ecacei+jlhk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F37262D9B7C213D2E2FF815DD400@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157196


>
> > > Pippin:
> > > > As for the lesson to be learned, how about 'terrorism does not
>pay'?
> > > > Could  that be what JKR wants Lupin to teach her daughter? Is one
> > > > of the 'good lessons'  Lupin gives that even kind and clever people
> > > > can be caught in the web of someone like Voldemort unless they
> > > > cultivate the moral courage to resist?
> > >
> > > Renee:
> > > That would be teaching by bad example.
> >
> > Pippin:
> > Which JKR loves to do. We see a lot more bad teachers in the books
> > than good ones, a lot more unhappy families than happy ones.
> >
>Renee:
>I notice that you snip the text of the JKR quote that shows this
>interpretation of it (teaching by example) is much less plausible from
>a grammatical point of view than the obvious one of acting as a
>schoolteacher.
>
>(BTW, the way JKR speaks about Lupin remains one of the most important
>argument, if not *the* most important one, why I don't believe in
>ESE!Lupin. The theory is highly ingenious, and the point that could be
>made with it is worth making, but if I look at all JKRs Lupin quotes,
>I know it's not going to happen.)
>
>Renee
>
wynnleaf
Just to re-play the quote

" If you had to choose one teacher from your books to teach your child, who 
would it be and why?"
J.K. Rowling responds: "It would be Professor Lupin, because he is kind, 
clever, and gives very interesting lessons."

Please correct me if there's another quote you're thinking of, although 
there is one where JKR mentions that she created Lupin to be the kind of 
teacher she would want.

However, this really doesn't make Lupin in any way an all-round great guy.  
It's perfectly possible to be an excellent teacher, and still be a traitor.

Personally, I think if Lupin is a traitor, he's a conflicted traitor.  JKR 
has said also that Lupin really did like Lily for instance.  I think this 
makes a big difference in the kind of traitor he could be.  Yes, he could be 
a nice and kind person, who was originally trying to do the "right thing," 
but made the mistake of following the wrong person, and can't bring himself 
to (like Snape) return to the good side.

Notice this quote:

"Lupin's a wonderful teacher and a very nice man but he has a failing and 
his failing is that he does like to be liked and that's where he slips up 
because he has been disliked so often that he's always so pleased to have 
friends so he cuts them and awful lot of slack."

Obviously it's very possible to be a "wonderful teacher and a very nice 
man," and still have a major weakness.  We already know his big weakness 
caused him to at the very least deceive Dumbledore for 9 months at the cost 
of (as far as anyone knew) putting every child in Hogwarts at risk from a 
crazed murderer.  How much further a step would it be for this "wonderful 
teacher and very nice man" to be lead by his weaknesses to cut too much 
slack to his friends in the werewolf community?

I don't think this is too far a stretch for a great teacher and nice man to 
believably be this kind of traitor, especially if it happened due to the 
very weaknesses that JKR has said that Lupin exhibits.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/




From kjones at telus.net  Sun Aug 20 20:16:40 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:16:40 -0700
Subject: Horcrux connection
Message-ID: <44E8C328.20504@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157197

KJ writes:

    I have a few questions thanks to Mike's earlier post.

        If there is enough of a connection between soul pieces to allow 
the transfer of knowledge which is older than the actual horcrux, has 
that continued now that Voldemort is back as a living being?  Would it 
have continued even when he was a vaporous spirit?

        If Harry is the holder of a soul piece, from which he has been 
protected by his mother's blood, will the taking of that blood by 
Voldemort prevent him from accessing his other horcruxes?  How will 
Harry's seventeenth birthday affect this?

        Since JKR has chosen to give us a trail to follow by showing us 
Voldemort's red eyes as a disembodied head in PS/SS, Voldemort's 
Request, as a memory in CoS, and as a living being in Goblet of Fire, 
how is this likely to be used in Book 7, or is it likely to be used.	

KJ




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 20:34:07 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:34:07 -0000
Subject: Pixies and pasties (was Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters)
In-Reply-To: <ec9r23+30n3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecagvv+k2pi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157198

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> wrote:

> First, there was all this talk of pixies (slightly more off list), 
> then I found myself watching a food related travel show. I saw some 
> sort of huge fried English breakfast that left no doubts where 
> Southern US cooking comes from.
> 
> Then the second host goes off to Cornwall---in search of the "famous" 
> Cornish Pasties. "Doesn't he mean Cornish Pixies?" I says to myself, 
> I says. Nope, he's holding up some gigantic fried pie (as we call 
> them)
> 
> So my question is, did everyone in the UK "know" that Cornish Pixies 
> was a play on Cornish Pasties? 

Geoff:
Sorry, there is no play on Cornish pasties.

Cornish pasties and Cornish pixies are two totally different and 
totally unrelated things.

Cornish pasties are not /fried/ pies. You will have any true-born 
Cornishman rising up in wrath against you. In passing, please note 
that I am not Cornish-born. I've just had a number of holidays in 
that county. My dictionary defines a pasty as 'a folded pastry case 
filled with seasoned meat and vegetables.' They are cooked in an 
oven. The Cornish variety is recognised by its distinctive shape and 
they are very tasty.

Cornish pixies on the other hand are mischievous little characters, 
often portrayed as men with pointed hats and possibly distant 
relatives of leprechauns.

I do wish you non-UK people would get up to speed.As Professor 
Kirke remarks in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe', "I wonder 
what they do teach them at these schools." Mark you, Gilderoy 
Lockhart could probably cope with a room full of flying pasties 
better he did with the pixies....
:-)







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 20:35:20 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:35:20 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <44E8B69D.4070300@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ecah28+rkrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157199

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones wrote:
>
> >  Mike wrote previously:
> 
> > So Diary!Tom knows about his father abandonning his mother, and 
> > Penseive!Tom found out this same thing (and got confirmation 
> > that  his father was a Muggle) just before he kills his father.  
> > Based on this evidence, it does appear that Tom killed his 
> > father *before* his fifth year.
<snipping myself, ouch!>
> 
> KJ writes:
> 
> While that is a logical assessment, it does not take into account 
> that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving at Godric's 
> Hollow. He was very curious about how Harry survived, which again, 
> he would know nothing about as a sixteen year old memory.
<snipping KJ, no offense>

Mike now:

"'Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry,' said 
Riddle. 'Your whole *fascinating* history.'" (p.311, CoS, US) 
That's where Tom learned about Harry.

> KJ again:
> The thing that is interesting here is that the diary horcrux must  
> have been one of the first ones made and yet it has the memories  
> of a later date, which would indicate some kind of contact with  
> the main soul piece which we haven't seen in the ring horcrux.
<snip again, sorry>

Mike again:
While I'm not ready to rule out the possibility of Horcruxes trying 
to or managing to make contact with the *mother ship*, I am thinking 
that something would have to intervene to act as a catalyst to 
affect this connection. Had Diary!Tom come back to *life* by 
completing the process of sucking out Ginny's soul (or whatever he 
was doing), I am prepared to believe it could have accomplished a 
Psychic connection to Tom's home base. (Remind you of any other 
psychic connection in the series?)

> KJ again:
> So for this reason, I am more inclined to stay within the timeline 
> presented, that Tom actually killed his father and grandfather 
> after this date and before we saw him wearing the ring in 
> Slughorn's memory.

Mike again:
I'm a little unsure here. Does "timeline presented" mean as it is in 
canon? And which date is "after this date"? Sorry, I'm not following 
you.

I'm going to stick with my previous assertion, to wit:
> > But, more importantly, it's canon. And unless someone of 
> > authority tells us it was a mistake, we shouldn't be 
> > assuming it was, no matter how well the alternate version plays. 
> > I know JKR admits she's bad with math, and I agree she's no whiz 
> > with time lines either. But, unless she comes out with a 
> > correction, like she did with the GoF priori scene, we're stuck 
> > with canon.







From miles at martinbraeutigam.de  Sun Aug 20 20:08:11 2006
From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:08:11 +0200
Subject: Killing is not necessarily murder and to defeat is not the same thing as to
References: <ec80l6+10mlg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00fc01c6c494$5da6bc50$14b2a8c0@rechnerchen>

No: HPFGUIDX 157200

zeroirregardless wrote:
> And the defining
> characteristic of "human" is "possessing a soul."

Miles:
This definition is from... ? As far as I can see, you conjured it out of
nowhere, right? ;)
One necessary element of being a human being is the possession of a mortal
body. Otherwise Ghosts would be "human beings" - but they are not, since
they are dead. So, having a soul is only one characteristic of being human.

zeroirregardless wrote:
> Does "possessing
> one-seventh of a soul" count?
> If it does, Harry's destruction of the diary, and with it
> memory-Riddle, would already make him a killer.

Miles:
Neither Ghosts nor Horcruxes are human beings, because they have no mortal
body.

zeroirregardless wrote:
> But memory-Riddle
> apparently doesn't count, for example, Harry saw him expire but still
> could not see thestrals. Voldemort possesses no more of a soul than
> the diary did.

Miles:
Diary!Tom was not alive, so he couldn't die. The part of Voldemorts soul
that was enclosed in the diary was not destroyed, it was set free.


zeroirregardless wrote:
>     I can believe that making a horcrux means making yourself no
> longer human.

Miles:
Now, the main moral institution in the books seems to see this differently.
For example, he always addresses Voldemort by his old first name Tom, the
name of the boy he once invited to Hogwarts.

LV does not want to be the old mortal Tom Riddle, but Dumbledore reminds him
that he is both - Tom Riddle, and mortal. And a human being, albeit changed
and "thinned out" during the process of Horcrux making.

Miles, who doubts very much that JKR will let Harry kill any human being,
not even the Evil Overlord




From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 20:36:45 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:36:45 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ecae7s+8m8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecah4t+4m7d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157201

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> >
Geoff:
> >I am in agreement with you here in that I was trying to make the
> > point that even if Voldemort encouraged/incited/ordered the 
> > Basilisk and  Pettigrew inter alia to commit murder, he did not 
> > actually say the words  and thus, in the case of Cedric, if 
> > anyone's soul got split, it was Wormtail's. <snip>
 
Mike:
> Am I correct to assume that (left unsaid) you do not think a Horcrux 
> could have been made from Myrtle's death? It sounds like it.

Geoff:
Unless a Basilisk possesses a soul, yes.






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 20:55:06 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:55:06 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <3f5.817931f.320d4fd7@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ecai7a+lvhi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157202

Betsy Hp:
Okay, so I totally missed out on this particular conversation, but 
it's been something I've been thinking about and I have a tentative 
theory so I'm bringing it back up. <g>  

Why did Snape take the Unbreakable Vow?  Why would a spy *tighten* 
the constrants he's working under?  Snape must have felt he was 
gaining something.  But what?

What does Snape gain in that scene?  He doesn't gain any information 
(the task is never spelled out).  Bellatrix is shut up, but that 
seems fairly temporary, and frankly Snape doesn't seem all that 
worried about Bellatrix as an adversary.

What Snape *does* seem to gain is Narcissa's good will.  He shows 
himself to be a loyal friend of the Malfoy family, willing to put 
himself at possible odds with Voldemort himself to keep Draco safe.  
Why is that important to him?

There's the ACID POPS answer.  Snape is madly in love with Narcissa 
and couldn't resist her heartfelt pleas.  I have a couple of 
problems with that idea.  For one, Snape doesn't *act* like he's 
madly in love, IMO.  For another, Narcissa brings up Lucius and 
Snape being old friends.  Which strikes me as an odd way for a woman 
to go about seducing someone.  Finally, I'm not sure that there's a 
thematic reason for Snape to be in love with Narcissa; it seems a 
bit beside the point.

But what about the Malfoy family?  What if there's a reason for 
Snape to try and earn (or keep) the goodwill of the Malfoy 
*family*?  We've already got Snape doing that odd twitchy thing way 
back in GoF when Harry names Lucius as one of the Death Eaters.  
We've been told that he was Lucius's lapdog (his fag, maybe?) back 
in his old school days.  Narcissa knows the way to his decidedly 
*out of the way* home.  She sees Snape as someone who might actually 
defy Voldemort (in a mild way) to protect her son.  And in the final 
moments of his life we have Dumbledore offering to protect the 
entire Malfoy family.

So, could the Malfoys actually end up being helpful in the defeat of 
Voldemort?  It seems crazy.  I mean, the Malfoys are the face of 
pureblood bigotry.  But...perhaps they're exactly who needs to be 
won over if the Order is to win.  Maybe if the Malfoys are shown to 
change that will suggest the underlining bigotry of the WW may 
change as well.

Just a thought. <g>

Betsy Hp






From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Sun Aug 20 19:44:35 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 19:44:35 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <44E8B69D.4070300@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ecae33+o33g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157203

> Mike wrote:
> > So Diary!Tom knows about his father abandonning his mother,
> > and Pensieve!Tom found out this same thing (and got
> > confirmation that his father was a Muggle) just before he
> > kills his father. Based on this evidence, it does appear that
> > Tom killed his father *before* his fifth year. <snip>
>
> KJ writes:
> While that is a logical assessment, it does not take into
> account that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving at
> Godric's Hollow.  He was very curious about how Harry survived,
> which again, he would know nothing about as a sixteen year old
> memory. He explains to Harry, who had the same question, that
> Voldemort was his past, present, and future. <snip>


Sally:

Tom states that he found things out about 'The Boy Who Lived'
from Ginny, who at the time was obsessed with Harry.  He taunts
Harry in the CoS by imitating Ginny writing that Harry will never
like her, and so because of Ginny's obsession, he found out about
his so called 'downfall'.  He doesn't know that LV is scared of
DD and if it was a future memory, he would know how Harry survived,
as he did in GoF.

Sally











From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug 20 21:17:35 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:17:35 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebqgtd+6ktp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecajhf+ek2i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157204

Raymond wrote:
> Has JKR called the barman Aberforth? I have never seen the barman's
> name in any of the books.

We are never given the barman's name but HP-Lexicon (unfortunately)
has made the assumption that JKR has confirmed that the current barman
is Aberforth. I find it interesting that JKR put the interview used
for this assumption on her website (I don't think she has all
interviews, why this one?) If you read it on her website she makes
very clear she she is NOT confirming that Aberforth is the barman (and
this is her 'obviously' since she NEVER confirms theories) but she
makes clear she is impressed that readers tied Aberforth to the bar
because of the goat smell.

I do think that the barman that warned Dumbledore about Voldemort's
waiting Death Eaters was Aberforth and I think Aberforth banned
Mundungus from Hog's Head. But I suspect one of JKR's big surprises
will be that Voldemort, when Aberforth refused to let Voldemort see
his own memory of Trelawney's prophecy, turned Aberforth into a goat.

I haven't gotten too many people to buy into the goat idea though.
Dumbledore doesn't say he isn't sure that Aberforth LEARNED to read.
He says he isn't sure Aberforth CAN read. Could be significant.

And the real clincher for me, why doesn't anyone offer the barman
condolences at the funeral? Mad Eye has met Aberforth, he should
recognize him given that everyone thinks Harry recognized the barman
because he looks like Dumbledore.

The simple answer is that we are wrong. The current barman isn't
Aberforth.  He may look familiar to Harry because Harry has seen his
picture. Next to Aberforth. I'd bet my last dollar that the current
barman is Caradoc Dearborn, the Order member whom we are told went
missing right around the time Aberforth heard the prophecy. I bet
Caradoc went deep undercover gathering information for Dumbledore by
running Hogs Head when his brother was no longer in a position too.

So Mundungus dresses as a witch to hide from a goat.

Abergoat







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 22:04:34 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:04:34 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eca6g8+qgm5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecam9i+foh7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157205

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> Sorry for responding to my own post; but I just bought the paperback 
> copy of HBP. I checked, they didn't correct the "sixteenth year" 
> to "seventeenth year" or in any way. Is it too early after the 
> original publishing to expect corrections? Anyone? Anyone?<g>
> 
> Thanx,
> Mike
>
It's much too early for a revised edition of the books, which will be
a major project undertaken after all the books have been published and
somebody, possibly an assistant editor, compiles a list of all the
errors, possible errors, and inconsistencies in the books. Whether the
project would involve both Bloomsbury and Scholastic, I don't know. I
assume that it would.

In the meantime, JKR can specify corrections that she considers
important enough to include in new *printings* of the books (not the
same thing as new editions), such as the order of the wand echoes in
GoF, but it will be a long time before anyone corrects what they would
consider minor errors in continuity. 

It can't hurt to write to her or her editors at Scholastic or
Bloomsbury or post about it on a site that you know she reads. But
given all the other errors and inconsistencies (two hundred people in
the Slytherin section of the stadium in one Quidditch game when there
appear to be about 280 students in the whole school, to take one
example), I wouldn't expect the correction any time soon.

Carol, noting that some editions of "Huckleberry Finn" refer to Becky
Thatcher, a character from "Tom Sawyer," as Betsy Thatcher, and the
first American edition of "Moby-Dick" (on which other definitive
editions are based) refers to the second mate, Stubb, as the third mate






From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Aug 20 22:08:11 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:08:11 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ecae7s+8m8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecamgb+tmsa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157206

 
> 
> Mike responds:
> 
> Aye, but therein lies the rub. As Geoff alluded to above, Tom 
didn't 
> perform the actual magic, he didn't say the spell to kill Myrtle. 
No 
> magical spell was used to kill Myrtle. 

Hickengruendler:

This argument doesn't convince me. Nowwhere it is said in Canon, that 
any magic needs to be done for your soul to split. It splits when you 
murder somebody. When Voldemort poisoned Mrs Smith, his soul 
splitted, because he commited murder. He has to do some spell to make 
the Horcrux, but this is after the killing (and could probably be 
done anytime once your soul is split). His soul splits anyway, with 
or without any spell. I agree with Carol. The Basilisk is IMO nothing 
but the murder weapon. Voldemort killed Myrtle. He killed her as if 
he used a dagger and stabbed her to death. Just that the "dagger" was 
a magical creature. 
 
> Mike again:
> 
> I don't see how you work out that "Kill her!" *operates* exactly 
the 
> same way as "AK". One is a command to another entity, the second is 
> spell casting which, we have been told, requires powerful magical 
> abilities behind it. Besides, "Kill him!" doesn't ensure the 
desired 
> outcome, whereas a properly cast AK (unless it's cast at Harry) 
does 
> seem to do the trick every time, doesn't it?

Hickengruendler:

I still don't see much of a difference. If you say "kill him" to a 
dangerous monster, that is under your control, I would argue that the 
outcome is pretty much ensured. Admittingly, the attack could still 
fail, but an AK doesn't have to hit, either. Many AK's in the DoM 
missed their aim. So I think the first has as good a chance to 
succeed as the later.
 
Hickengruendler
  
 







From hickengruendler at yahoo.de  Sun Aug 20 22:13:36 2006
From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:13:36 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608201250y40d1e22fk9a60bd1bb2db86c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecamqg+f8pd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157207

 
> 
> Random832:
> Other snakes have been shown to have A) obviously, the ability to use
> language. B) the ability to form complex ideas like wanting to go home
> to brazil. Why do you think snakes, and therefore the basilisk, don't
> have free will, in the context of HP?
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

Hickengruendler:

The Basilisk is not a simple snake. It is a monster and is out for 
blood. It's in it's nature to kill. This is the very reason (as far as 
we know), why Slytherin put it into the Chamber. It does have the 
ability to listen to Parselmouths, but this is the reason, why Tom 
could use it as his weapon.






From buffyeton at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 22:30:16 2006
From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (Tamara)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:30:16 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ec7tt8+coik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecanpo+s0dj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157208

Do you think Voldemort has made any other horcruxes since returning 
to full strength? In killing Bones possibly? And why would he kill 
Dorcus Meadows personally? Was she somehow related to Dumbledore? I 
find it odd that no one has plunged deeper into this question. 

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

> I include Myrtle as someone he killed personally even though he used
> the Basilisk instead of a wand, and I speculate that the great Dark
> wizard Grindelwald was one of Voldemort's victims but I don't have 
any
> real evidence. But the indisputable names on the list of people he
> killed personally would be 
> 
> Tom Riddle Sr. and his parents (Tom Jr.'s grandparents)
> Hepzibah Smith
> Dorcas Meadowes
> James and Lily Potter
> Frank Bryce
> Amanda Bones
> 
> Carol, wondering why Dorcas Meadowes was important enough to be 
killed
> by LV in person
>







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 23:08:06 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:08:06 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecaa6g+68bs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecaq0m+a193@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157209

> Mike responds:
> 
> Um, Carol are you saying that this *isn't* a admitted mistake by 
> either JKR or he publishing houses? Because, I thought you were 
> saying that this was an *admitted* mistake as opposed to a 
> *perceived* mistake. 

Carol responds:
I'm saying that it's an obvious inconsistency that should have been
caud=ght and corrected but wasn't. I don't think that JKR even knows
about it, but the canon evidence I've cited shows that it's an error.
We *know* that Tom was sixteen when he killed Myrtle (or the Basilisk
killed her, if you insist). He would have to have been near the end of
his fifth year at that time. We know that he killed the Riddles after
that, either a few months later or the following summer. I think it
was just a few months later because in Slughorn's memory, he's wearing
Marvolo's ring (which is not yeat a Horcrux) and the narrator states
that he's "by no means the oldest of the boys." If that's true, and,
granted, it's Harry's perception, he must be a sixth-year. He'd be
among the older students in his year, given his December 31 birthday,
so the boys who seemed older must have been seventh-years.
Speculation, I realize, but it's the best explanation I can come up
with. But absolutely, he was at least a fifth year in the diary memory
because he's wearing a prefect badge. He says he's sixteen, and that
fits the evidence I've already cited. It's *canonical* that he's
sixteen at that point and *canonical* that he has a December 31
birthday. The line about being "in his sixteenth year" has to be
simply a typo or mathematical error based on JKR's misconception of
the concept of "sixteenth year." (A *lot* of people think it means
that he was sixteen. It's a common misconception.)

Mike:
See, I too think this whole thing plays better 
> if Tom kills his elders after his fifth year, after he openned the 
> CoS. But here's the problem:
 
> We have plenty of evidence that Tom openned the CoS in his fifth 
> year, and Diary!Tom says he preserved his 16 year old self in the 
> diary, but there is no reference whatsoever to when or if he killed 
> his father. Diary!Tom only says that he wasn't using his "filthy 
> Muggle fathers name", he'd benn calling himself "Lord Voldemort" 
> already. In fact, Diary!Tom told us that his father had abandoned 
> his mother. What book would he read this in? Yes, he could have 
> deduced it since he had deduced his father was a muggle. But, we 
> also know that Morfin told him this very thing at the Gaunt shack, 
> right before Tom kills his dear Pa.
> 
> So Diary!Tom knows about his father abandonning his mother, and 
> Penseive!Tom found out this same thing (and got confirmation that 
> his father was a Muggle) just before he kills his father. Based on 
> this evidence, it does appear that Tom killed his father *before* 
> his fifth year. But, more importantly, it's canon.

Carol:
No, it isn't. See below.

 And unless 
> someone of authority tells us it was a mistake, we shouldn't be 
> assuming it was, no matter how well the alternate version plays. I 
> know JKR admits she's bad with math, and I agree she's no whiz with 
> time lines either. But, unless she comes out with a correction, like 
> she did with the GoF priori scene, we're stuck with canon.
> <snip>

Carol responds:
Diary!Tom, like the real Tom Riddle, knows what the people at the
orphanage told him, that his mother lived just long enough to name him
(Tom Riddle after his father; Marvolo after his grandfather).
Dumbledore tells us that Tom at first believed that his mother must
have been a Muggle or she wouldn't have died, but after failing to
find any record of his father at Hogwarts, he started trying to find
information on his father's family. 

We *know* that he was trying to find a link between himself and
Slytherin once he discovered that both of them spoke Parseltongue.
Research on the Heir of Slytherin and the Chamber of Secrets would
have led him to the Gaunts, Slytherin's only known living descendants.
He was looking for Marvolo Gaunt, with no intention of killing anyone,
when Morfin spilled the beans about Merope running off with "that
Muggle" and Slytherin's locket. At that point, the plan changed, and
Tom killed his father and grandparents in revenge, framed Morfin for
the murders, and took Marvolo's ring from Morfin. (He still didn't
know how to make a Horcrux, as we know from the conversation with
Slughorn, which takes place after the murders, as we know because he's
wearing the ring. He *isn't* wearing a ring in CoS, or surely the
narrator would have mentioned it.) He knows that "the blood of Salazar
Slytherin" runs in his veins through his mother's side (CoS Am. ed.,
314) because he's done his research. He could not have located the
Gaunts otherwise.

Of course, he doesn't mention having killed his father in CoS. In his
view, it hasn't happened yet. But we know he did, not only from the
scenes Dumbledore shows Harry in HBP but because Voldemort himself (as
opposed to Diary!Tom) says so.

Frank Bryce sees "a teenage boy, dark-haired and pale," near the house
on the day of the murders (GoF Am. ed. 3), and Voldemort tells Harry
in the graveyard, "I revenged myself upon him, the fool who gave his
name" (646). 

There's other evidence throughout the books that Tom killed his father
and grandparents and framed Morfin for the murders, and we know that
he made the ring into a Horcrux, probably using his father's murder,
some time later. (I would guess that it was done after he left school
and had started working at Borgin and Burke's.)

I don't see the problem, actually--just a small error ("sixteenth
year" for "age sixteen"). He certainly killed the Riddles, and he must
have done so in the summer following Myrtle's death. The diary,
associated with her death, became his first Horcrux. The ring,
associated with the Riddles and especially his "filthy Muggle father,"
became the second.

To repeat, Diary!Tom knows that his father was a Muggle and his mother
was a witch who died in childbirth. He knows that no one named Riddle
ever came looking for him. Therefore, his father was either dead or
abandoned her. He deduces that it was because she was a witch. Morfin
says no such thing, only that the Muggle came back, that Tom looks
"mighty like him," and that the Muggle lives on the hill. So Tom goes
hunting for his father to seek vengeance.

There is no canon whatever except the "sixteenth year" statement,
which is similar to the error in "Spinner's End" indicating that Snape
had taught for sixteen years when we know that it should be fifteen,
to indicate that Tom killed his parents when he was fifteen. Logic and
canon indicate that it occurred when he was sixteen, after he had
killed Myrtle.

Call "sixteenth year" canon if you like. I call it an inconsistency,
almost certainly a Flint. We do *not* have a canonical statement that
the murders occurred before he killed Myrtle, and all the evidence
indicates that they occurred afterwards. Diary!Tom would have
mentioned an important matter like killing his father, don't you
think? Instead, he merely tells Harry that he created a new name for
himself rather than using his "filthy Muggle father's" name (CoS Am.
ed. 314).

Carol, sorry to have created a hornet's nest with a simple statement
about copyediting






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 20 22:46:13 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 22:46:13 -0000
Subject: Different Magic, Different Rules (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecamqg+f8pd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecaonl+58ch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157210

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

> 
> Hickengruendler:
> 
> The Basilisk is not a simple snake. It is a monster and is out for 
> blood. It's in it's nature to kill. This is the very reason (as 
far as 
> we know), why Slytherin put it into the Chamber. It does have the 
> ability to listen to Parselmouths, but this is the reason, why Tom 
> could use it as his weapon.
>

All very true.  However, I think the whole question of whether using 
the Basilisk constitutes a personal murder misses some points.

Magic seems to come in two different varieties in the Potterverse.  
The first type is the most common variety, which let us lable for 
the sake of discussion "natural magic."  It seems to be a kind of 
technology that manipulates different energies (or perhaps it is 
better to say that it manipulates energy in a different way) than 
the technology in the real world.  But it is very like RW 
engineering in that it operates according to certain rather precise 
and dependable rules -- i.e. say the words, move the wand in a 
certain way, mix the potion precisely, etc.  With this kind of magic 
logical hairsplitting is appropriate.  Why didn't the potion work?  
Well, maybe "to crush the root" is not the same thing as "to 
pulverize the root."

The second type, rarer and much more powerful, let us 
lable "spiritual magic."  The making of horcruxes falls into this, 
as does Harry's blood protection and the power of love that Harry 
has within himself.  This type of magic seems more like religious 
rites than technology.  Here, intention, feeling, and thought seem 
much more important whereas technicalities and logical hair-
splitting recede (not disappear completely, but recede).  In other 
words, I strongly suspect the important thing about making a horcrux 
is the intention to make a horcrux -- whether you use a wand, a 
knife, an Uzi, or a basilisk to do the actual killing is, I suspect, 
quite irrelevant.  Similarly, I suspect the thing that makes 
Unforgivables unforgivable is that they aren't technical 
performances but in effect dark religious rites -- the intent to 
kill or hurt or control and to kill or hurt or control for a 
particular set of reasons is what is ultimately important.

In our world, there is a strong difference between spiritual rites 
and technological manipulations.  The results of the one can very 
seldom be mistaken for the results of the other.  In the 
Potterverse, their results can be superficially similar in that both 
effect the physical universe.  However, at base they are not the 
same thing, and don't operate by the same rules.


Lupinlore, who thinks this is one reason that moral matters, 
including the morality of Dumbledore the epitome of goodness, are so 
important in the context of the Potter saga









From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 00:57:33 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 20:57:33 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <ecadr6+fjoh@eGroups.com>
References: <ec82ld+e930@eGroups.com> <ecadr6+fjoh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608201757k239525c3t83bb154221f80511@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157211

> Abergoat adds:
> I'm not sure Myrtle's story is quite over. I'm suspicious that someone
> else has talked to Myrtle about how she died, and that someone is why
> Hagrid wasn't completely expelled but allowed to stay on at school.
> (Unfortunately Myrtle herself tells us that she ran off to haunt Olive
> Hornby. So this someone couldn't have a professor talk directly with
> her informant, Myrtle. My guess is that by the time Myrtle returned to
> Hogwarts it was too late so Dumbledore was only able to cast enough
> doubt to allow Hagrid to stay on, but not as a student.)

Random832:
But he _was_ guilty of something, that it's arguable was worthy of
expulsion even _without_ having caused a death. Keep in mind that even
after he was proven innocent beyond all doubt of any involvement in
Myrtle's death or of opening the CoS, he still didn't get the right to
use a wand. Raising an acromantula inside the castle, which no-one
disputes he did, still constitutes reckless endangerment.



From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 01:26:25 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 01:26:25 -0000
Subject: Voldemort killed personally?
In-Reply-To: <ecanpo+s0dj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecb241+ndrs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157212



Tamara:

Do you think Voldemort has made any other horcruxes since returning 
to full strength? In killing Bones possibly? And why would he kill 
Dorcus Meadows personally? Was she somehow related to Dumbledore? I 
find it odd that no one has plunged deeper into this question.

Snow:

I'm not certain from the snipping to whom you are directing this 
question but I will assume it is myself.

The first question, I would emphatically say no, even though 
Dumbledore suggests otherwise. The subsection of the question 
referring to Bones can only be answered with supposition that she was 
indeed killed and that she indeed died at the hand of Voldemort. 

The second question is quite interesting since Mad Eye makes this 
accusation that Voldemort himself killed Dorcas and there is no 
hesitation in Mad Eyes accusation whatsoever, therefore, I would be 
more than willing to accept that Dorcas died at the hand of 
Voldemort. What is more interesting with this death is the lack of 
any clue to knowledge about who Dorcas was or why she was important 
enough to use her death as a Horcrux. 

I would assume that Dorcas' death was important enough to use as a 
Ravenclaw Horcrux item because Slytherin and Hufflepuff items had 
previously been accomplished, as Horcrux containers, as far as 
Dumbledore's claim. Also the claim, from Dumbledore, was that a 
Gryffindore item would be far fetched to secure. The deduction 
process would allow me such a conclusion since there are no facts to 
either secure my assumption nor dispute it. 

As far as relationship to Dumbledore, I'm sure it would be anyone's 
guess since we know little more of Dorcas' life than we do of 
Dumbledore's past, all is supposition. 

That won't stop us from supposing though, will it?

Cheers,
Snow 









From djklaugh at comcast.net  Mon Aug 21 02:12:55 2006
From: djklaugh at comcast.net (Deb)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:12:55 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <ec61ef+gg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecb4r7+t7ap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157213

(Snip) 
> "So, been keeping busy, Barty?" said Bagman breezily.
> 
> I had to replay that line 3 or 4 times. I don't think I would have 
> noticed it if I were reading it to myself. I don't know how Jim Dale 
> kept from breaking up.
> 
> It's the weekend, we can use some fluff---does anyone else have an 
> example of 'did she really write that?'--lines that sort of jump out 
> and amuse us.
> 
> Potioncat


Deb Here:

 I chuckle at that one too PotionCat!  I came across a line yesterday 
as I was rereading SS for the 9th or 10th time that had me rolling on 
the floor! In fact it was so astonishing I swear JR is psychic and can 
foretell the future! Cuz there, in the very first Harry Potter book, 
is the cornerstone of the HPFGUs reason for being.....

 Chapter Four: Keeper of the Keys

"BOOM. They knocked again. Dudley jerked awake.
  "Where's the cannon?" he said stupidly."

And thus did JR provide the List Elves with their Motto .... long 
before HPFGUs was even a gleam in it's creator's eye. *G* Yeah, yeah I 
know the spelling is different .... (and hugs to the List Elves - I do 
not at all mean to imply that Dudley's state of existence is any where 
similar to yours - we have only intelligent List Elves)

djklaugh (aka Deb) - who is finding the 10th or is it the 15th reading 
or SS just as enjoyable as the first and is chortling at the massive 
numbers of foreshadowings that occur in just the first couple of 
chapters.       







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 21 02:15:23 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:15:23 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens?
Message-ID: <ecb4vr+u4m3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157214

I was reading through POA today and ran across yet another reference
to Lupin acting "as though he had read Harry's mind..."  Regardless of
whether or not Lupin is good or bad, I am starting to think this is
one we should be looking at more closely.

As far as I know (there may be more), there are three examples of
blatant "mind reading" language regarding Lupin:

1.  When Lupin first sees Sirius in the Shrieking Shack, he stared at
him, "so intently it seemed he was trying to read his mind," before
almost automatically accepting him as innocent and giving him a hug.

2.  In POA when Lupin is talking to Harry in The Marauder's Map
chapter.  Harry says, "'Why do they affect me like that?  Am I just
--?'  'It has nothing to do with weakness,' said Professor Lupin
sharply, as though he had read Harry's mind."   

3.  In OOTP-US50, Lupin, at 4 Privet Dr., speaks, "as though he had
read Harry's mind."

That's three times JKR has used the same terminology to describe an
action of a character in a fictional world where she has clearly shown
us that some characters *can* "read minds."  

Further possible examples of legilimency being used include:

1.  On the train in POA, Lupin takes a look at the children on the
train and knows that the broken and unwrapped chocolate in their hands
hasn't been even tasted.

2.  In the DADA class on boggarts, Harry notes that almost everyone
has their eyes closed thinking of their greatest fears (by
implication, Harry's eyes are open). Lupin thinks that Harry's
greatest fear will be LV, but it turns out to be the dementor. Later
Harry tells Lupin that he never thought of LV, but that's not true.
The narration, during the classroom scene, says that Harry first
thought of LV as his greatest fear, but later that it was dementors.
Did Lupin use legilimency to see Harry's greatest fear and assumed
that the first thing that came to Harry's mind was his greatest fear?

3.  When Snape confronts Lupin about the Marauders Map in POA, Lupin
is said to have an "odd, closed look."  Since we know that Lupin was
hiding something at that point, and since we know that Lupin is aware
of Snape's legilimency skills, this sounds like it could be occlumency.

There are other examples of similar intent looks that could have been
occlumency or legilimency.  There are also Snape's comments about
Lupin.  He says, "who knows how a werewolf's mind works," and also
(can't recall where), speaks of not being able to "fathom" Lupin's
mind.  Is this just a turn of phrase?  Or is this a comment on Snape's
inability to delve into Lupin's mind?

Lupin has commented on Snape's ability in occlumency.  He knows that
DD asked Snape to teach Harry.  He knows Harry didn't want Snape to
teach him, and he knows that Sirius didn't want Snape to teach him. 
Yet, if he's an occlumens/legilimens himself, why didn't he volunteer
or even mention it?  In other words, if Lupin is an occlumens or
legilimens, he's keeping it a secret.

When OOTP first came out and we discovered that Snape was a occlumens
and could do legilimency, readers quickly found many places in the
books similar to the scenes I mentioned above, as examples of where
Snape was probably practicing legilimency as he attempted to figure
out whether or not students were lying to him.  

If JKR was using those scenes (so similar to the Lupin ones above) as
examples of Snape doing legilimency, then it seems highly likely that
she's doing the same thing with Lupin, but she just hasn't told us. 
However, in a fictional world where so much is made of other wizard's
ability to do occlumency and legilimency, it seems remarkably odd that
JKR would *three times* use the "like he was reading his mind," type
of line only as a passing, unimportant description.

Further, although some might think these could just be red herrings,
that also seems unlikely.  Almost all of the examples take place
either in POA, or in OOTP prior to our introduction into the magic of
legilimency and occlumency.  So these scenes just don't work as red
herrings since readers couldn't possibly notice them as anything
important until after they've either read the book (OOTP), or several
years later when they read the next book(POA to OOTP).  

Last, although it is possible that an occlumens or legilimens Lupin
could be good, if Lupin *can* do this kind of magic, it lends a lot of
weight to ESE!Lupin.  Because if JKR is holding back this kind of info
about Lupin, then it means that she is planning some sort of Big
Surprise regarding Lupin in Book 7.

Thoughts?  More examples of legilimens or occlumens Lupin?

wynnleaf, who must credit pippin for passing this theory along to me
and finding many (most) of the examples.  Oh, and I paraphrased pippin
a few times, too, in describing some of the scenes.









From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Aug 21 02:15:09 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:15:09 -0000
Subject: UnbreakableVow/Snape&DD/FamilyBias/Horcrux/Lupin/Wolfsbane/TimeTravel/Nagini
Message-ID: <ecb4vd+sqgm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157215

Just Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156621>:

<< What I don't understand, though, is how making an Unbreakable Vow
could be regarded as "the ultimate gift" or why you think that DD
would wish him to make one. Surely DD wouldn't compel him against his
will. That isn't trust, and I don't see how it can be regarded as a
gift. >>

Few people can imagine Dumbledore demanding an UV from anyone, not
even an allegedly repentant Death Eater, but some imagine that Snape
insisted on giving DD a UV and the question is whether DD would be
stern and principled enough to refuse it or kindly and lax enough to
accept it.

The usual idea is that Snape wanted to give DD a UV to convince DD
that he is trustworthy and his conversion is sincere. I think
Katssirius may have been suggesting that Snape wanted to give a UV 'as
a gift' to DD, to show how much he loved (in words, how grateful he
was to) DD.

While writing this, it occurred to me that Snape might have wanted to
take a UV to DD as a deterrant against relapse. Like some recovering
alcoholics use Antabuse, a drug whose purpose is that it will cause
severe liver damage from even a little bit of ethanol. They figure
they don't have enough willpower to avoid the temptation of alcohol
just because they recognize all the harm it has already done them
(including cumulative liver damage) but figure they'll have enough
willpower to avoid alcohol = instant death or serious disability. Now
I have also recalled an anecdote of a man who arranged to stick to his
diet by contracting to give $1000 to the American Nazi Party if he
didn't meet his weight loss goals.

Lupinlore wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156647>;

<< And DD's answer is uncompromising. He in effect says, "I don't love
you the way you want, Severus. Harry is my darling, you are not. So
yes, I have to die, and no, I will not ask my darling to do it. And
furthermore, I won't let Draco do it, either." >>

Dumbledore never had to admit to himself if that was what he was
saying. He could have told himself the same thing he surely told Snape
if Snape asked the question: "Severus, they are children with their
souls still untorn. It is the place of an adult to spare chidren this
burden and protect their innocence a while longer."

I think DD is stern and principled enough that that is what he would
have said even if he loved Severus most.

colebiancardi wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156644>:

<< Draco "hates" Harry & Ron, for no real reason other than they truck
with non pure-bloods and his bias from his parents. Ron "hates" Draco
because of those biases. Harry "hates" Draco because of those biases
as well. >>

Draco hates Harry partly (IMHO mostly) because of that incident on the
Hogwarts Express where Draco offered his friendship to Harry and put
out his hand to shake and Harry insulted him and refused his hand: 

<< "You'll soon find out some wizarding families are much better than
others, Potter. You don't want to go making friends with the wrong
sort. I can help you there." 

He held out his hand to shake Harry's, but Harry didn't take it.

"I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he
said coolly. >>

That incident began when Ron heard Draco's name and sniggered. Draco
felt insulted so he insulted Ron right back: "all the Weasleys have
red hair, freckles, and more children than they can afford." Draco's
*choice* of return insults came from what he'd heard his father say
about Weasleys -- that fistfight in the bookstore revealed some
serious *personal* dislike between Lucius and Arthur. If he hadn't
recognized Ron's family name, he might have insulted Ron's big feet or
the dirt on his nose.

I don't know why Ron sniggered -- anything from remembering all the
bad things his father had said about Lucius Malfoy to the reaction
that I had to the movie's *little* Tom Felton saying: "My name is
Malfoy. Draco Malfoy." in just the same tone as Sean Connery saying:
"The name is Bond. James Bond."

Anyway, it seems to me that the reason that Draco hates Ron rather
than, say, ignoring him is anger at Ron's role in that unpleasant
incident and jealousy that it was Ron who got Harry's friendship.

Ron hates Draco because Draco so often and so successfully taunts him
about his relative poverty.

Harry first took a dislike to Draco because Draco spoke with snobbery
and arrogance, then hated Draco for Ron's sake.

Ryan rlace2003 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156670>: 

<< Well, Harry destroyed a horcrux in CoS, but he didn't die, so that
hypothesis [ in order to destroy a horcrux someone has to die] doesn't
seem very solid. >>

The basilisk died. Maybe it was big and old and magic enough to count
as 'someone' rather than 'something'.

Tinktonks wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156778>:

<<  But I can't see anyone else getting all snuggly with Lupin ; ) >>

Oh, there are any number of female Potterfans who want to get all
snuggly with Remus, not just me, and and we can't believe that all
witches are too bigotted to want the same. Anyway, spies get snuggly
with outright repulsive people if that's how they can get the
information they seek or preserve their cover.

Just Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156858>:

<< Evidently [Wolfsbane Potion] isn't available from wizarding
apothecaries or St. Mungo's, either, or the werewolf problem would be
solved. >>

I like to think it is available but expensive (because only a few
superb potioners (potioneers inm JKR's language) can make it, so they
can charge monopolistic prices). Lupin has no job and very little
money, and the werewolves in the tramp encampment have no jobs, even
less money, and no knowledge that there is such a thing as Wolfsbane
Potion. I think that the Werewolf Supportive Services Unit should
distribute free Wolfsbane Potion to those who need it -- maybe even
send visiting nurses to observe that they take it correctly. But I
think even more strongly that the Werewolf Supportive Services Unit
should take the bitten children discarded by their parents into some
kind of foster care, even if they have to use force to take them away
from the werewolves in the tramp encampment.

Steve bboyminn wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157007>:

<< If you take the approach that time happened only once, but Harry
and Hermione happened twice, it gets much easier. If you view it
right, JKR's account of time travel is as reasonable and consistent as
is possible for time travel. >>

Yes, but it is just as inconsistent with Free Will as unbreakable
Prophecies are, and without Free Will, what is the point of nattering
on and on about choices?

Just Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157114>:

<< Why didn't she die like the other snakes when he possessed her, >>

I figure that, being *much* larger than the other snakes, she could
survive possession *much* longer. And since Voldemort cared about
Nagini, he was careful to end his possessions of  her before she was
harmed.

<< and why does she stay around him like a pet? >>

I suppose if Potterverse snakes are actually capable of forming and
expressing complicated thoughts (also mentioned by Jordan/Random in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157195>) like 'I
want to go to my natural habitat in Brazil' and 'There is an old man
listening at the door', they are also capable of forming complicated
Pavlovian conditioning, like 'This man feeds me and rewards me, so I
will remain with him and do the stuff he rewards me for." I can't
imagine RL snakes having such complicated mental or emotional activity
-- does anyone want to weigh in on whether their RL pet snake can tell
one human from another, or even male humans in general from female
humans in general?

There was once some speculation that she was an Animagus who got stuck
in snake form. A witch *that* devoted to LV -- surely Bellatrix helped
her get stuck! A dish of irony for Bella: LV likes Nagini better this way.







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug 21 02:55:04 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 02:55:04 -0000
Subject: 16 years 9wasRe: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eca5pp+3lr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecb7a8+cc8p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157216


> Carol:
> Other examples, (snip)and Snape having taught for fourteen
> years at the beginning of OoP but having sixteen (should be fifteen)
> years worth of information on Dumbledore. (Of course, that one could
> be a slip on *Snape's* part that Bella didn't catch, but a copyediotr
> familiar with the books should at least have queried it. Maybe one did
> and JKR chose not to accept the correction, but I think it's an
> oversight and one more example of JKR's abysmal math skills. 


Potioncat:
I snipped everything except the Snape part because that's the part I'm 
addressing.

If Snape had been teaching 14 years in the fall during Umbridge. Then 
he had been teaching for 15 years the fall he was DADA. But we don't 
know that he wasn't already spying on DD before that. It seems he was 
spying on DD that autumn before Harry was born. So I think the 16 years 
of information on DD wasn't just while at Hogwarts.

I'm not sure which of us is correct, I'm just not convinced the 16 
years is an error. 






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 03:47:47 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:47:47 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecaq0m+a193@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecbad3+nbi4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157217

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"  wrote:
<snip>
> We *know* that Tom was sixteen when he killed Myrtle. He would    
> have to have been near the end of his fifth year at that time.
> We know that he killed the Riddles after that, <snip>

Mike:
How do we *know*? What is the evidence? We know he was sixteen when 
he killed Myrtle because he told us he preserved his sixteen-year-
old self in the diary. We can also backtrack 50 years to arrive at 
Tom's fifth year at school. Where's the evidence that Tom killed the 
Riddles *after* his fifth year?

<snip>
> Carol again:
> The line about being "in his sixteenth year" has to be simply a 
> typo or mathematical error based on JKR's misconception of the
> concept of "sixteenth year." (A *lot* of people think it means
> that he was sixteen. It's a common misconception.)
 
Mike again:
I know, like I said, I misread it the first time myself. But that 
certainly doesn't prove that I was right on my first reading.

<major snip>
> 
> Carol responds:
> <snipping the recap of Tom's pursuit of his heritage thru killing 
his Riddle relatives. No mention of Tom's age in there>

> (He *isn't* wearing a ring in CoS, or surely the narrator would 
> have mentioned it.) 

Mike again:
I would have thought so too. But *not* mentioning the ring is not 
proof that he *didn't* have the ring. I'll even give you more fuel, 
check out CoS, p.243, Riddle in Dippet's office (memory scene):

"'Oh', said Riddle. He sat down, gripping his hands together very 
tightly."

You would think if Tom had a ring on, we would have noticed it right 
here. But, it still isn't proof that he *didn't* have it.

> Carol again:
<huge snippage>
> I don't see the problem, actually--just a small error ("sixteenth
> year" for "age sixteen"). He certainly killed the Riddles, and he 
> must have done so in the summer following Myrtle's death.
<snippage again>
> There is no canon whatever except the "sixteenth year" statement,
> which is similar to the error in "Spinner's End" indicating that 
> Snape had taught for sixteen years when we know that it should be 
> fifteen, to indicate that Tom killed his parents when he was 
> fifteen. Logic and canon indicate that it occurred when he 
> was sixteen, after he had killed Myrtle.
>  
> Call "sixteenth year" canon if you like. I call it an 
> inconsistency, almost certainly a Flint.

Mike:
Not proof, conjecture. Snape said he was spying for sixteen years 
not that he was teaching for sixteen. Logic, maybe...canon, not 
buying it even though I'd prefer it.

> Carol again:
> We do *not* have a canonical statement that the murders occurred 
> before he killed Myrtle, 
<snipping the rest>

Mike:
Yes we do! We have DD's statement in HBP. What we don't have is a 
canonical statement that the murders occurred after Myrtle's. I read 
your post through three times, hoping to find that piece of 
contradictory evidence. You just didn't have it.

I think this list loses all integrity if we start calling 
inconvenient but non-contradictory canon Flints. 







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Aug 21 04:05:24 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 04:05:24 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608201757k239525c3t83bb154221f80511@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecbbe4+pceh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157218


Random832 wrote:
> But he _was_ guilty of something, that it's arguable was worthy of
> expulsion even _without_ having caused a death. Keep in mind that even
> after he was proven innocent beyond all doubt of any involvement in
> Myrtle's death or of opening the CoS, he still didn't get the right to
> use a wand. Raising an acromantula inside the castle, which no-one
> disputes he did, still constitutes reckless endangerment.

Abergoat responds:
But did Hagrid ever get cleared? I believe Fudge takes him away in
Chamber of Secrets once the trouble starts again. And we don't know
how long Myrtle haunted Olive Hornby, it could have been years.

Abergoat







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 04:52:48 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:52:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecajhf+ek2i@eGroups.com>
References: <ebqgtd+6ktp@eGroups.com> <ecajhf+ek2i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608202152t6caea19ke9cdf263e027c652@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157219

Abergoat:

And the real clincher for me, why doesn't anyone offer the barman
condolences at the funeral? Mad Eye has met Aberforth, he should
recognize him given that everyone thinks Harry recognized the barman
because he looks like Dumbledore.

Lynda:

I don't know that no one offered the barman condolences at the funeral.  I
do know that its not noted in the text if someone did.  Once again, that's
the narrator's prerogative to not detail everything (for which I'm
grateful...I don't need to know about every bath Harry takes or whether or
not Ron gets a birthday present from him every year).
And, if the barman is Aberforth, I'm a little surprised that Harry hasn't
realized the reason yet that he always seems so familiar.

Lynda


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






From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:21:31 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:21:31 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Different Magic, Different Rules (was Re: Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecaonl+58ch@eGroups.com>
References: <ecamqg+f8pd@eGroups.com> <ecaonl+58ch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210521l5c3821cy4204068569340a37@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157220

Lupinlore:
> All very true.  However, I think the whole question of whether using
> the Basilisk constitutes a personal murder misses some points.
>
> [the most common variety of magic] operates according to certain
> rather precise and dependable rules

Random832:
Or, at least, everyone supposes it does. Which is what really matters,
as i'll explain below

Lupinlore:
> Here, [in what we'll call "spiritual magic",] intention, feeling, and thought seem
> much more important whereas technicalities and logical hair-
> splitting recede (not disappear completely, but recede).  In other
> words, I strongly suspect the important thing about making a horcrux
> is the intention to make a horcrux

Random832:
It seems somewhat clear that intention is important in all magic -
that Ron could use the incantation to levitate a feather to levitate a
club simply because he _believed_ it was simply the incantation to
levitate anything and _intended_ to levitate the club makes that clear
enough.

Lupinlore:
> Similarly, I suspect the thing that makes
> Unforgivables unforgivable is that they aren't technical
> performances but in effect dark religious rites -- the intent to
> kill or hurt or control and to kill or hurt or control for a
> particular set of reasons is what is ultimately important.

Random832:
I don't think there's _any_ excuse for them to be "unforgivable" in
the sense that they are: the state does not have the right of
forgiveness in the first place to withhold. This seems, to me, just
yet another example of how thoroughly corrupt wizarding society is.

They're unforgivable because the ministry can't regulate them - better
to put people away without trial on suspicion of using them.

-- 
Random832



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug 21 12:27:42 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:27:42 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecai7a+lvhi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecc8ru+beeo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157221

 "horridporrid03" wrote:
 
> But what about the Malfoy family?  What if there's a reason for 
> Snape to try and earn (or keep) the goodwill of the Malfoy 
> *family*? > 


Potioncat:
I hope I haven't snipped too much here. 

I think you're on to something. You gave some good Snape-Malfoy 
examples, but there are also a couple of DD-Malfoy examples. Why was DD 
so easy on Lucius after the diary event? Did he know that Malfoy had 
compromised his position with LV and might be useful later? DD also 
said, in front of Malfoy, that help would always be offered at Hogwarts 
when asked for. It seemed to be for Harry's benefit, but what if it 
wasn't? (CoS--in Hagrid's hut)

Why did DD emphasize twice (I think) that Lucius was safe in Azkaban?--
and that the Order could offer sanctuary to the Malfoy family?

Back to the lapdog comment, Snape certainly didn't deny it and that 
seems to be on DD's orders.

Hmmm--something new to think about.







From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:37:09 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:37:09 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: UnbreakableVow/Snape&DD/FamilyBias/Horcrux/Lupin/Wolfsbane/TimeTravel/Nagini
In-Reply-To: <ecb4vd+sqgm@eGroups.com>
References: <ecb4vd+sqgm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210537k306c83e9uffe36d713467cb13@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157223

On 8/20/06, Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) <catlady at wicca.net> wrote:

> Steve bboyminn wrote in
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157007>:
>
> << If you take the approach that time happened only once, but Harry
> and Hermione happened twice, it gets much easier. If you view it
> right, JKR's account of time travel is as reasonable and consistent as
> is possible for time travel. >>
>
bboyminn:
> Yes, but it is just as inconsistent with Free Will as unbreakable
> Prophecies are, and without Free Will, what is the point of nattering
> on and on about choices?

Not necessarily. There are interpretations that preserve both - the
Novikov Self-consistency Principle, for example, only says that things
have to fall into place one way or another - the idea that any attempt
to cause an "inconsistent" version of the timeline must fail no more
contradicts the idea of free will than the fact that any attempt to
reverse entropy must fail.

Free will only requires that you be able to make a choice, not that
you be able to make one choice, then go back in time and successfully
influence your past self to make the opposite choice.

I'm curious as to why you think "the approach that time happened only
once, but Harry and Hermione happened twice" is inconsistent with free
will.



From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:44:35 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:44:35 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <ecbbe4+pceh@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608201757k239525c3t83bb154221f80511@mail.gmail.com>
	 <ecbbe4+pceh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210544n57d7d8f7o5d60419b4cf16320@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157224

> Random832 wrote:
> > But he _was_ guilty of something, that it's arguable was worthy of
> > expulsion even _without_ having caused a death. Keep in mind that even
> > after he was proven innocent beyond all doubt of any involvement in
> > Myrtle's death or of opening the CoS, he still didn't get the right to
> > use a wand. Raising an acromantula inside the castle, which no-one
> > disputes he did, still constitutes reckless endangerment.
>
> Abergoat responds:
> But did Hagrid ever get cleared? I believe Fudge takes him away in
> Chamber of Secrets once the trouble starts again. And we don't know
> how long Myrtle haunted Olive Hornby, it could have been years.

Random832:
I meant he was cleared in the course of the book itself, and released
from Azkaban by the end of it. He certainly was present at the school
for book 3 and later. Yet he wasn't allowed a wand.

-- 
Random832



From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 12:42:41 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:42:41 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecbad3+nbi4@eGroups.com>
References: <ecaq0m+a193@eGroups.com> <ecbad3+nbi4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608210542u486a38boecbf4ef0319d3a40@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157225

> Mike:
> I think this list loses all integrity if we start calling
> inconvenient but non-contradictory canon Flints.

Random832:
Well, Flint himself, if his year hadn't been corrected in a later
edition (thus admitting the error) isn't non-contradictory - there's
nothing in canon that explicitly states that no-one EVER gets left
back a year.

-- 
Random832



From coverton at netscape.com  Mon Aug 21 06:37:59 2006
From: coverton at netscape.com (coverton at netscape.com)
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 23:37:59 -0700
Subject: replying to Lupin as a mind reader
Message-ID: <20060820233759.1F6DE582@resin06.mta.everyone.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157226

I don't think Lupin is a Legilimens I think he's just good at guessing what people are going to say next. You know when you are talking to someone and in the conversation you guess what they will say next, I mean like that. Besides you need a wand to perform Legilimens. 
Your fellow member, Corey.









From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Aug 21 15:11:28 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:11:28 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608202152t6caea19ke9cdf263e027c652@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eccif1+qbuf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157227

Lynda wrote:

> And, if the barman is Aberforth, I'm a little surprised that Harry 
> hasn't realized the reason yet that he always seems so familiar.

Abergoat writes:
If I'm getting the right impression you think that it is strange that
if Aberforth truly resembles Dumbledore then Harry should see the
resemblance, right? I completely agree. Sure Harry was distracted when
Moody showed him a picture of Aberforth, but if Aberforth looked like
Dumbledore wouldn't Harry register that? Dumbledore is Harry's new
father figure - and Harry certainly looked at the picture well enough
to see Peter and his parents. And I recall that Harry is still looking
to note that Moody isn't as scared as he is now.

Here is JKR's quote (she even has it on her website):
Ooh-you are getting good. Why do you think that it is Aberforth?
[Audience member: Various clues. He smells of goats and he looks a bit
like Dumbledore]. I was quite proud of that clue. That is all that I
am going to say. [Laughter]. Well yes, obviously. I like the goat
clue-I sniggered to myself about that one.

So JKR refuses to answer (her 'obviously' undoubtedly refers to the
fact she refuses to answer - because she always does when asked to
confirm theories).

I do think the barman was Aberforth in the past, but  JKR's quote
works with Aberforth being transformed into a goat by Voldemort and
Dumbledore's words work better that way. 

Dumbledore OoP:
<snip>
My own brother, Aberforth, was prosecuted for practicing inappropriate
charms on a goat. It was all over the papers, but did Aberforth hide?
No, he did not! He held his head up high and went about his business
as usual! Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may
not have been bravery...
<end of snip>

If Aberforth had learned to read but is now a goat Dumbledore couldn't
be sure he could still read. McGonagall seems to read as a cat (she
looks at a street sign in PS/SS) but a goat may not be able to -
partiularly if transformed against their will.

And have any of you seen a goat? Its head goes up nearly 90 degrees
from its back...cannot hold a head higher than that.

So Harry may think the barman looks 'vaguely' familiar because the
barman is Caradoc Dearborn - the Order member in the picture that went
missing six months after the picture was taken...right around the time
of the prophecy!!!! Did Dumbledore ask him to go undercover to keep
the Hog's Head bar open as part of Dumbledore's information network?

Abergoat






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Mon Aug 21 15:16:56 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:16:56 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608210544n57d7d8f7o5d60419b4cf16320@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eccip8+3q82@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157228

Random832 wrote:
> I meant he was cleared in the course of the book itself, and released
> from Azkaban by the end of it. He certainly was present at the school
> for book 3 and later. Yet he wasn't allowed a wand.

Abergoat clarifies:
I apologize for mis-understanding your post. As far as the clearing in
CoS, Hagrid isn't a wizard because he never passed his OWLs. Besides,
I suppose it is possible he could have a wand (kwik-spell courses
suggest anyone can get a wand) but he just hasn't done so because he
likes his old wand.

Abergoat








From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 16:23:38 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:23:38 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecaa6g+68bs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eccmma+qdo8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157229

> Mike:
> Mike, wishing he could just post corrections to JKR's timelines and 
> they would magically correct themselves in his books.

Eddie:
I'd also want a memory charm so I could forget there ever was an
error, and some magic to eradicate the Yahoo Groups messages on the
topic, and further magic to rectify the links to the YG messages on
the topic, and on and on and on.

Eddie








From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 16:28:40 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:28:40 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <44E8B69D.4070300@telus.net>
Message-ID: <eccmvo+51lp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157230

>    KJ writes:
>     While that is a logical assessment, it does not take
> into account that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving
> at Godric's Hollow.  He was very curious about how Harry
> survived, which again, he would know nothing about as a
> sixteen year old memory.

Eddie:
It's possible that Diary!Riddle learned about Harry's survival from
Ginny, writing the info into the diary.  But no canon to support it.

Eddie








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 17:18:32 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:18:32 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608210544n57d7d8f7o5d60419b4cf16320@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eccpt8+ish6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157231

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Random832 wrote:
> > > But he _was_ guilty of something, that it's arguable 
> > > was worthy of expulsion even _without_ having caused 
> > > a death. ...edited.... Raising an acromantula inside 
> > > the castle, which no-one disputes he did, ...

> > Abergoat responds:
> > But did Hagrid ever get cleared? I believe Fudge takes 
> > him away in Chamber of Secrets once the trouble starts 
> > again. ...

> Random832:
> I meant he was cleared in the course of the book itself, 
> and released from Azkaban by the end of it. He certainly 
> was present at the school for book 3 and later. Yet he 
> wasn't allowed a wand.
> 
> -- 
> Random832
>

bboyminn:

Well, as if you didn't already know, I have a theory about this.

First, in CoS, Hargid is imprisoned for the /current/ troubles at the
school. When that trouble is resolved and it is clear Hagrid had no
involvement, he is released from prison. In fact, in the immediate
circumstances, it was the fact that Hagrid was in prison that cleared
him. Problems continues after he went to prison so he couldn't have
been involved.

Now, in the process of all that, a second event occurred; it was
shown, but not proven, that Hagrid wasn't involved in the circumstance
that occurred 50 years ago. I say shown but not proven because Tom
confesses to Harry, but that doesn't leave them with much evidence to
take to the Ministry. I suspect it would be considered hear-say. 

However, informally the Ministry does accept Hagrid innocence of the
event that occurred 50 years ago. In fact, in the next book, GoF, we
see Hagrid assisting the Ministry by using magic. So, at that time it
is generally accepted that Hagrid is innocent and that he is now
allowed to use magic. BUT, and this is a big but, there was no formal
hearing to reverse Hagrid's previous conviction. That's why Hagrid
can't officially use a wand, because his original conviction has not
been overturned.

In the next book, OotP, Dumbledore and Harry and anyone close to them
is out of favor with the Ministry. We see the extreme lengths that the
Ministry or members of the Ministry will go to discredit or destroy
Dumbledore and Harry. Now we see the Ministry willing to severely
enforce the long standing sactions agains Hagrid. 

On an general informal basis everyone accepts that Hagrid is innocent
and that he should be allowed to use magic, but the ruling against him
was never formally reversed. It probably didn't seem urgent or
necessary when Dumbledore and Harry were on good terms with the
Ministry, but in unfavorable time, it's a weapons the Ministry can use
against Hagrid and Dumbledore.

I keep hoping that Harry will force the issue, and make the Ministry
give Hagrid a full and formal pardon, thereby allowing Hagrid to buy a
new wand. Though I am greatly saddened that he will not be able to by
an Ollivanders wand. This is one of the issues I want resolved before
the end of the story.

So, the apparent inconsistencies and apparent discrepancies in the
books with regard to Hagrid, are the difference between general
acceptance and official formal legal acceptance. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn







From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 14:19:34 2006
From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:19:34 +1200 (NZST)
Subject: Killing is not necessarily murder and to defeat is not the same thing as to kill.
In-Reply-To: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAq7J8AJNZvxGJq/KbtzLRq8KAAAAQAAAAh53tr4L4qkqc5Qv27VXasgEAAAAA@citynet.net>
Message-ID: <20060821141934.47557.qmail@web38309.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157232

--- Bruce Alan Wilson <bawilson at citynet.net> wrote:

<snip>
>  What if he <Harry> is able to strip Voldemort of
> his magic, so that he must live out his days as a 
> Muggle?  Or if he completes Voldemort's transformation 
> into reptilian form, so that he must live out his 
> days as a snake or lizard?
 
 Cassy: 

The first one would be too close to X-men 3, though
would serve LV right (powerless and _really_ old and,
as I imagine, quite ill). But I really like the lizard
concept. Just imagine a nice tank in the DADA class,
and  first years learning to feed while not being
bitten by "You-know-who"! Or perhaps Hagrid would like
such a pet?






From kennclark at btinternet.com  Mon Aug 21 09:59:12 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 09:59:12 -0000
Subject: Snape didn't kill Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <eca6jp+nrhi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecc05g+bmgh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157233


> Phil Vlasak <phil@> wrote:
> > Phil's theory on how Snape didn't kill Dumbledore. (snipped)
> >
> > He [LV] used a nonverbal Impedimenta curse from under the cloak
> > a second before Snape said, Avada Kedavra!
> > The Impedimenta curse killed Dumbledore by stopping his heart
> > so Dumbledore was already dead when the green jet hit his chest,
> > and the combined force of the two spells sent Dumbledore over
> > the wall.
>
> Sally:
> But an Impedimenta curse doesn't kill, as it is a defensive curse
> which slows the person/object hit down.  So it more than likely
> wouldn't have killed DD, even if LV was able to get to H/warts to
> perform the curse, surely he would just use an unforgivable curse
> straight away rather than get someone else to his dirty work for
> him, because after all he does hate DD.


Kenneth:
What I don't understand is what the DeathEaters were hoping to
achieve in Hogwarts while Dumbledore was away.  They were obviously
informed by Rosmerta that he had gone with Harry so why were they
there - to take Voldemort's hidden horcrux?  What?

Secondly why did Malfoy (and Voldemort) believe Malfoy could kill
Dumbledore when he returned?  He didn't know that D was
injured/poisoned/weak so he was setting himself up against a
potentially full powers Dumbledore.

Finally if it was just Malfoy coming through the door why didn't
Dumbledore leave Harry to deal with him - after all it was just
Malfoy?






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 17:41:45 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:41:45 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608210542u486a38boecbf4ef0319d3a40@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <eccr8p+h94o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157234

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Mike:
> > I think this list loses all integrity if we start calling
> > inconvenient but non-contradictory canon Flints.
> 
> Random832:
> Well, Flint himself, ...- there's nothing in canon that 
> explicitly states that no-one EVER gets left back a year.
> 

bboyminn:

I think perhaps what Mike is getting at is that just because we don't
understand something or just because it seems inconsistent in the
story so far, that doesn't mean these things are Flints (the general
term for mistakes in the books). We can't call them mistakes because
it is yet possible that they will be explained. 

As far as being left back a year, didn't Snape say in HBP that Crabbe
and Goyle had to repeat some classes. I suspect to truly be left back
a year, one would have to fail every class. However, if we assume JKR
modeled Hogwarts after traditional British school, student could
offically leave school after OWLs with 'qualification'. Finishing GCSE
, the equivalent of OWLs, is like getting a high school diploma in the
USA. Once you have it, you are free to go out in the world and make
you way.

A-Levels, the equivalent of NEWTs, represent extra classes, similar to
college prep course, that are additional education for students that
intended to go on to college or university. I don't think 6th and 7th
year students are left back, they would simply move on or take a
course over again. (I confess a limited knowledge of British education.)

So, unless Flint totally messed up his OWLs in 5th year, or unless he
was left back a year in one of the lower years, it's unlikely that he
would actually be left back at all. I suppose it's possible to
speculate that a personal tragedy pulled Flint from the school to the
extent that he had to repeat a year. But we have seem other student
who have missed substantial amounts of school and were no left back. 

To some extent the grades/marks, years and classes themselves seem
irrelevant. The goal is to pass your OWLs, you could miss a whole year
 as Hermione nearly did in CoS, and if the teacher thought you could
continue on to your OWLs without problem, you would just move to the
next class year.

I seem to be rambling here, ...not really sure what my point is. I
guess I'm analysing the possible ways in which Flint could be left
back. That doesn't seem to be a common occurance in the books. It
seems more likely that you would have to make up a class or two. So,
while we could speculate some weak explanation for Mr. Flint, I think
more likely he really is a FLINT.

And to make the final point agreeing with what I think Mike was
saying; just because we can't currently explain something in the books
doesn't mean those things aren't true.

For what it's worth.

Steve/bboyminn






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 21 18:04:48 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 13:04:48 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape didn't kill Dumbledore
In-Reply-To: <ecc05g+bmgh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F4AA852BB9C49ED855468FDD410@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157235


>
>Kenneth:
>What I don't understand is what the DeathEaters were hoping to
>achieve in Hogwarts while Dumbledore was away.  They were obviously
>informed by Rosmerta that he had gone with Harry so why were they
>there - to take Voldemort's hidden horcrux?  What?

wynnleaf
How about kidnap Trelawney?   After all, Voldemort really wanted that 
prophecy.  But after HBP, the only way to get it was either from DD 
(impossible) or Trelawney.  Remember that DD said several times that 
Trelawney needed to stay in Hogwarts, presumably for her own protection.

Harry wonders after the attack if someone didn't go back and make sure the 
vanishing cabinet had been shut down, but we don't hear any more about it.  
Suppose some DE's that we don't know of grabbed Trelawney and took her back 
through the cabinet?

Interesting that Harry told her to stay put when he left her in the hallway 
to find Dumbledore.  What if she *did* stay put?  Would it make it easy for 
DE's to find her?

Of course, Draco chased her off from the Room of Requirement, but that could 
have just been an accident, him chasing off whatever intruder happened to 
come into the RoR while he was engaged in his project.

Anyway, she certainly wasn't mentioned at the funeral.  'Course, she could 
just have been drinking somewhere.

But if Voldemort sent the DE's not just as back-up for Draco, but for some 
*other* project, then we have one other current goal of LV's that we *know*  
of and that would relate to Hogwarts, and that's getting the prophecy.  LV 
knows that Trelawney gave the prophecy, since Snape would have told him 
years before.  Why not kidnap Trelawney?  Sounds like a good plan to me.

As a matter of fact, if LV sent DE's into Hogwarts, complete with a 
convenient escape route, he *should* have had them kidnap Trelawney -- from 
a strategic point of view of course.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 18:20:03 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:20:03 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <eccmvo+51lp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecctgj+nmgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157236

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > KJ writes:
> > While that is a logical assessment, it does not take
> > into account that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving
> > at Godric's Hollow.  He was very curious about how Harry
> > survived, which again, he would know nothing about as a
> > sixteen year old memory.
> 
> Eddie:
> It's possible that Diary!Riddle learned about Harry's survival from
> Ginny, writing the info into the diary.  But no canon to support it.
> 

Mike:
Yes, there is canon. Look up thread two posts from yours.







From Eyemlynn at aol.com  Mon Aug 21 03:40:51 2006
From: Eyemlynn at aol.com (eyemlynn)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 03:40:51 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
Message-ID: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157237

I am very curious about a lot of things. I've been reading your e-mails
for a couple of weeks.

I have many questions but I am hoping to ask just a few if I may.

I have read everything but am unsure as to how certain things end up in
e-mail and others do not (pardon my ignorance)

I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
forever since I have 3 small children).

My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

Lynn

PS what's a tea cosy?










From taguem at jmsearch.com  Mon Aug 21 18:09:22 2006
From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:09:22 -0400
Subject: Petrificus totalis?
Message-ID: <EXCHANGE019g89Mmh3800000884@compdevsys.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157238

I'm curious as to what opinions you guys might have had regarding that spell
and why it wasn't used in more serious sticky situations that HRH have been
in.   Was that discussed onlist before?  I will certainly head to the
archives and research what was discussed before.
 
Michelle, the newbie from Philly who's THRILLED with this list and hoping
that my "first" post is long enough this time ;-)
 


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






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Aug 21 18:54:53 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:54:53 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eccvht+bim3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157239

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eyemlynn" <Eyemlynn at ...> wrote:
>
> I am very curious about a lot of things. I've been reading your e-mails
> for a couple of weeks.
> 
> I have many questions but I am hoping to ask just a few if I may.
> 
> I have read everything but am unsure as to how certain things end up in
> e-mail and others do not (pardon my ignorance)
> 
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).
> 
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?
> 
> Lynn
> 
> PS what's a tea cosy?

Geoff:
Welcome to the madhouse. :-)

I started reading the HP books at the end of 2002 and have now read the series about 
seven times and am embarking on my eighth.

If you think that is a lot, I have read LOTR about 25-30 times - mark you I read it for the 
first time in 1955.

A tea cosy is a piece of (usually) quilted and stuffed material which fits over a teapot to 
keep the tea hot.

In passing, my wife would probably vote along with your husband to have us certified....






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 19:07:30 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:07:30 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd09i+m8mi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157240

Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).

zgirnius:
Hi Lynn, someome else will have to explain the email question-I always 
go to the website to read all of the messages,
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups). That way I don't get 
hundreds of extra emails a weeek...

I have read the series more times than I can recall, maybe 6-7? I first 
read them right around the time the PoA movie came out. I heard it weas 
good, and wanted to see it. I tend to prefer books to movies so I 
decided to read the book first.

Lynn:
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

zgirnius:
Ditto. Not to mention, for discussing it online with other adults, or 
even reading it in the first place. (The kids are still too young to be 
a valid excuse).

Lynn:
> PS what's a tea cosy?

zgirnius:
A cloth covering to put over a teapot to keep the tea in it warm longer.
It looks sort of like one of those quilted toaster covers popular in 
country-style kitchens, if you are familiar with those.








From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Mon Aug 21 19:07:53 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:07:53 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd0a9+9c6p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157241

Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).

SSSusan:
Hi, Lynn, and welcome to HPfGU!  

Let's see.  I have read each of the books a minimum of 3 times.  Some, 
like PoA (which is still my favorite) I've read a half-dozen times.  
Additionally, if this counts as a "reading" (and I think it does!), 
I've listened to each book on audio (Jim Dale recordings for me) at 
least twice, except HBP, which I'm still listening to for the first 
time.

(If we count the movies, which we don't really, but then heavens! I've 
watched each one at least 10 times, and PoA probably 20 times.)

I suspect you'll find there are members here at HPfGU who've read the 
books *many* more times than I have, but I thought I'd just weigh in to 
get things started. 
 

Lynn:
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

SSSusan:
Heh.  Well, my husband has never *called* me a nutter, but I won't 
vouch for what he's *thought.* <g>  I think he was a little distressed 
as my interest/obsession (take your pick) grew, but as he's seen our 
children get into the books & movies, too, and as he watched me work 
out some Sunday school lessons using CoS and GoF, he's definitely 
become accustomed to them.


Lynn:
> PS what's a tea cosy?

SSSusan:
I'm sure this won't be a really precise definition, but a tea cosy is 
an item which one places over a teapot or tea kettle to help keep the 
hot water or tea inside nice & toasty.  I tend to think of them as 
being made of a quilted fabric, but I'm sure they come in a variety of 
fabrics.

Siriusly Snapey Susan








From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 21 19:13:00 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:13:00 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eccr8p+h94o@eGroups.com>
References: <7b9f25e50608210542u486a38boecbf4ef0319d3a40@mail.gmail.com>
	 <eccr8p+h94o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608211213v160ef746sf76cf3b8dd6d44ae@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157242

> > Random832:
> > Well, Flint himself, ...- there's nothing in canon that
> > explicitly states that no-one EVER gets left back a year.
> >
>
> bboyminn:
> I think perhaps what Mike is getting at is that just because we don't
> understand something or just because it seems inconsistent in the
> story so far, that doesn't mean these things are Flints (the general
> term for mistakes in the books).

Random832:
But I think it's a perfect example of a Flint - something that doesn't
outright contradict anything said in canon but nonetheless is highly
likely to be a mistake. There was absolutely no reason to think JKR
wasn't being serious in saying that Marcus Flint failed his exams and
was left back a year until finding out later that it had been quietly
corrected in subsequent editions of PS/SS. Saying "the general term
for mistakes in the books" oversimplifies - calling something a Flint
implicitly draws an analogy to the case of Marcus Flint.

--



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 20:26:01 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 20:26:01 -0000
Subject: 16 years of teaching at Hogwarts? (wasRe: Copyediting Errors - Listed?)
In-Reply-To: <ecb7a8+cc8p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd4sp+caap@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157243

Carol earlier:
> > Other examples, (snip)and Snape having taught for fourteen
> > years at the beginning of OoP but having sixteen (should be fifteen)
> > years worth of information on Dumbledore. (Of course, that one could
> > be a slip on *Snape's* part that Bella didn't catch, but a copyediotr
> > familiar with the books should at least have queried it. Maybe one did
> > and JKR chose not to accept the correction, but I think it's an
> > oversight and one more example of JKR's abysmal math skills. 
> 
> 
> Potioncat:
> I snipped everything except the Snape part because that's the part
I'm addressing.
> 
> If Snape had been teaching 14 years in the fall during Umbridge.
Then he had been teaching for 15 years the fall he was DADA. But we
don't know that he wasn't already spying on DD before that. It seems
he was spying on DD that autumn before Harry was born. So I think the
16 years of information on DD wasn't just while at Hogwarts.
> 
> I'm not sure which of us is correct, I'm just not convinced the 16 
> years is an error.

Carol responds:
I agree that Snape was *spying* for Dumbledore for about a year before
he started teaching, but he wouldn't want to reveal that information
to Bellatrix. He would only have wanted to mention the fifteen years
of teaching as a means of (ostensibly) gathering information on
Dumbledore to provide to Voldemort if and when he returned. But I
think that either "sixteen year worth of information" is one of JKR's
little math/continuity errors *or* it's a slip that Bellatrix didn't
catch. But if it's a slip, it should have been followed up on (an
added reason for Bella's suspicion of Snape), and it's
uncharacteristic for Snape, who is usually very careful about what he
does and doesn't reveal and exactly how he words what he reveals, to
make a slip of that sort. And Snape *is* talking about teaching in the
context of that remark:

"'Why did you stay there [at Hogwarts] all that time, Snape? Still
spying on Dumbledore for a master you believed dead?'

"'Hardly,' said Snape,'although the Dark Lord is pleased that I never
deserted my [teaching] post: I had sixteen years or information on
Dumbledore to give him when he returned. . .'" (HBP Am. ed. 27).

Oops. Where did that extra year come from? If it's not a math error on
JKR's part (which should have been caught and queried by a
copyeditor), then it must be a slip on Snape's part since Bellatrix
surely knows that he began teaching at Hogwarts a few months before
Godric's Hollow (she asks why he wasn't with the Dark Lord when he
fell and Snape reminds her that he was teaching at Hogwarts, where LV
had sent him to spy on DD, p. 26). So he apparently expects Bellatrix
to remember when he began teaching, which, AFWK, was two months before
Voldemort fell.

Surely JKR can't have forgotten when the events at Godric's Hollow
occurred, but might she be thinking that Snape began teaching a year
before he actually did, assuming that "fourteen years" in OoP is
correct? Or has *she* somehow conflated the year or so of spying *for*
(not *on*) Dumbledore with the years of teaching? Given the
inconsistencies elsewhere, it seems to me more likely that it's JKR's
error than Snape's. He can't afford fuzzy thinking or lapses in
concentration.

Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco complete his
assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape a little more time to spy
at Hogwarts since there would be no one left to spy on except
McGonagall and Flitwick, neither of whom seems particularly important
to the Order







From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 21 21:06:23 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:06:23 -0000
Subject: Copywrite Errors - Listed?.
Message-ID: <ecd78f+892e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157244

In book 1 the official stool used in the sorting ceremony had 4 legs,
in book 2 it only had 3. In addition I had thought I had discovered
another rather more serious error in book 3 that JKR had made. I
figured the Marauders Map should have showed two different versions of
Harry and Herminie when they went back in time. I was just about to
write to this group and proclaim my brilliance when I discovered JKJ
had made no error at all and I wasn't nearly as smart as I thought I
was. The thing is, I found this recall notice from the manufactures of
the map:      

"A Time Turner exploits a buffer overflow error in the original
Marauders Map that can produce to misleading information. This is
because when the map was first made the manufactures had never heard
of a Time Turner and had not made provisions for it, we apologies for
any inconvenience this may cause. Marauders Map version 2.0 and above
does not contain this flaw; owners of older versions should install
the security patch provided by Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and
Prongs, Purveyors of Aids to Magical Mischief-Makers for over a decade."

Eggplant 









From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 21:23:52 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:23:52 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <ecctgj+nmgd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd898+b9tm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157245

> > Eddie:
> > It's possible that Diary!Riddle learned about Harry's survival from
> > Ginny, writing the info into the diary.  But no canon to support it.
> > 
> 
> Mike:
> Yes, there is canon. Look up thread two posts from yours.
>

Eddie:
Oops!  Sorry!  I was further behind in my reading than I realized.








From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 21:26:23 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:26:23 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd8dv+bb9t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157246

> Lynn:
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books.

Eddie:
Get a new husband.  :-)








From kaylee01 at woh.rr.com  Mon Aug 21 19:18:38 2006
From: kaylee01 at woh.rr.com (Stacy Patnode)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:18:38 -0500
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
References: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <074b01c6c556$9ba551c0$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3>

No: HPFGUIDX 157247

Lynn: <snip>
 I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
 reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
 time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
 forever since I have 3 small children).
My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

Stacy now:
I read the HP books for the first time last December.  I plowed my way 
through them in eleven days.  I'm also on my third read through the series 
and each time, I pick up on new things, different angles to support my two 
favorite theories.  I have a twin sister who, sadly, does not share my 
obsession with all things Potter and teases me endlessly for abandoning the 
romance genre for the intriguing world of Harry Potter.  :)








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 21:38:14 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:38:14 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV?
In-Reply-To: <ebirs4+fd38@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd946+aset@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157248


> a_svirn:
> But if he didn't know about the task then the whole point is moot. 
> Carol argued that he did know in which case he couldn't help but 
> anticipate the third provision, IMO. 

zgirnius:
I know, I know, this is an old discussion, but I am just catching up 
after my vacation...

I disagree. I think Snape was expecting a different third and final 
provision. (I would bet Unbreakable Vows are always done in threes.) 
Narcissa had already suggested Snape could do it, and he had refused. 
He *then* suggested to the distraught Narcissa that he could help 
Draco, and she seized on that idea. 

And help is nice and ambiguous. There would definitely have been 
wiggle room in such a Vow for a Snape loyal to Dumbledore.











From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 21:41:33 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:41:33 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
Message-ID: <ecd9ad+o5hc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157249

OK, Here's something that's been bothering me for a long time.  Why
did Voldemort and Barty Crouch Jr (in the guise of Mad Eye Moody) use
such a complicated method to capture Harry?  I mean, all year they are
relying on all kinds of devices: pulling Harry's name out of the
goblet (4th out of 3), living through the challenges, being the first
to the goblet in the maze, changing the goblet into a portkey, etc,
etc, etc.  Meanwhile, Harry is sometimes alone with Crouch!Moody who
could have easily knocked Harry on the head with a wrench, thrown the
invisibility cloak over him (it's demonstrated that Crouch!Moody knows
about the cloak and can see Harry beneath it), carry the invisible
Harry off-grounds of Hogwarts, and apparate to Voldemort.

Why so complicated?

Eddie, who enjoyed the book anyway.

P.S. Similarly, if Snape is evil, he could have done the same thing to
Harry many many times.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 21:49:10 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:49:10 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <ecbad3+nbi4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd9om+1n44@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157250

Mike wrote:
> <snip> We know he was sixteen when he killed Myrtle because he told
us he preserved his sixteen-year-old self in the diary. We can also
backtrack 50 years to arrive at Tom's fifth year at school. Where's
the evidence that Tom killed the Riddles *after* his fifth year?
><snip>

Carol earlier:
> > (He *isn't* wearing a ring in CoS, or surely the narrator would 
have mentioned it.) 
> 
Mike again:
> I would have thought so too. But *not* mentioning the ring is not
proof that he *didn't* have the ring. I'll even give you more fuel, 
check out CoS, p.243, Riddle in Dippet's office (memory scene):
> 
> "'Oh', said Riddle. He sat down, gripping his hands together very 
> tightly."
> 
> You would think if Tom had a ring on, we would have noticed it right 
> here. But, it still isn't proof that he *didn't* have it.

Carol again:
Exzctly. The narrator's failure to mention the ring isn't proof, but
if Harry notices the Prefect's badge, surely he'd notice the ring, as
he does in HBP. And surely the narrator would provide that piece of
information because it would be important later, like the reference in
SS/PS to "young Sirius Black's" flying motorcycle or the reference to
the unopenable locket in OoP or the references to the Hand of Glory
and the cursed necklace in CoS. The diary becomes the first Horcrux.
Surely the ring, the second Horcrux, would also be mentioned in CoS if
Tom had it already? (Granted, absence of evidence isn't proof, but we
know how JKR works, and the absence of the ring must surely mean that
he hadn't obtained it yet, just as the absence of a reference to the
death of his "filthy Muggle father" must surely mean that Tom placed
his memories in the diary before he had murdered the Riddles.) Of
course, logical deduction isn't proof. If the point were proven, we
wouldn't need to discuss it.

> > Carol again:
> > We do *not* have a canonical statement that the murders occurred 
before he killed Myrtle, 
> 
> Mike:
> Yes we do! We have DD's statement in HBP. 

Carol:
We do? Dumbledore says that Tom killed the Riddles before he killed
Myrtle? Quote, please? Or do you mean "in his sixteenth year," which
can't be used to prove its own validity? I'm arguing that "in his
sixteenth year" is probably an error for "when he was sixteen." What
I'm asking for is evidence that it really means "when he was fifteen,"
in which case it isn't an error and JKR isn't mathematically confused
in this instance.

Mike:
What we don't have is a canonical statement that the murders occurred
after Myrtle's. I read your post through three times, hoping to find
that piece of contradictory evidence. You just didn't have it.

Carol again:
If I could quote a statement that one occurred after the other, I
would do so and that would end the argument. Since I can't, nor can
you, I'm presenting a *reasoned argument* that the murders must have
occurred after the events in the diary. *If* I'm right, the "sixteenth
year" statement is just JKR not understanding that "in his sixteenth
year" is not synonymous with "sixteen." You yourself state that if it
weren't for that statement, you'd believe that the Riddles were killed
after Myrtle. You seem to be placing a higher value on one possibly
erroneous statement of Tom's age than on Tom's motives or logic or the
absence of evidence to support your point that "in his sixteenth year"
must be correct. You're also discounting all the other discrepancies
in numbers that I've presented and JKR's own statement that she's
abysmal at math.

I would appreciate your presenting any piece of evidence *other than*
the statement we're arguing about, which can't be used to prove
itself, or any reasoned argument in favor of the Riddle murders
occurring before Tom released the Basilisk. Can you provide one
plausible reason why Tom would have bothered trying to kill
"Mudbloods" using a Basilisk when he had already murdered three people
of personal importance to him using Avada Kedavra, a considerably
simpler procedure if you have the will and the power to do the spell?
Why would ridding the school of Muggleborns be important to him if he
was already thinking about Horcruxes, as evidenced by the conversation
with Slughorn?

Here's the logical sequence of events:
1. Tom opens the Chamber of Secrets.
2. The Basilisk, probably on his command, kills Myrtle.
3. Tom frames Hagrid.
4. Tom places the memory of his sixteen-year-old self in the diary so
that someone else can continue "Salazar Slytherin's noble work."
5. Tom kills his family over the summer break, frames Morfin, and
steal the ring.
6. Tom asks Slughorn about Horcruxes, clearly after the Riddle murders
because he's wearing the ring.
7. Tom makes the diary, already a "powerful magical object," and the
ring into Horcruxes.

Please convince me that items 5 through 7 could occur before items 1
through 4. I don't think it's plausible. Tom's focus changes with the
murder of the Riddles. The Chamber of Secrets no longer matters. All
he cares about at this point is Horcruxes.

Carol, who remains convinced that "in his sixteenth year" is an error
for "when he was sixteen" but is not calling anything canon except
Tom's age when he killed Myrtle






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 21:50:20 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:50:20 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecd9qs+m652@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157251

> Lynn:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

Eddie:
At least 3 times, plus random lookups to check out stuff tickled by
this group.

But this past month I loaded Jim Dale's Book-On-CD reading of the
series into my iTunes.  Then I shuffle the tracks and now hear 2-3
minute snippets of all the (published) books in totally random order.
 It creates some pretty bizarre seques.

Eddie







From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 21 22:11:34 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:11:34 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecd9qs+m652@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdb2m+evau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157252

> Eddie:
> seques.

Er, I mean, "segues"







From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com  Mon Aug 21 22:36:13 2006
From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:36:13 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecd9qs+m652@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdcgt+7urg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157253

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > Lynn:
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.
> 
> Eddie:
> At least 3 times, plus random lookups to check out stuff tickled by
> this group.
> 
> But this past month I loaded Jim Dale's Book-On-CD reading of the
> series into my iTunes.  Then I shuffle the tracks and now hear 2-3
> minute snippets of all the (published) books in totally random 
order.
>  It creates some pretty bizarre seques.
> 
> Eddie
>


AmanitaMuscaria now - Jumping jellybeans, Eddie! I would think that 
getting disconnected snippets of all the books would fry my brain! 
Just out of interest, what are you doing whilst listening to this? 
And what stops you muttering - that's PoA; oh, no, it's GoF!

Lynn - In a way, I don't think it matters how many times you read 
them.What I find difficult is, I start off looking for things that 
would go into a theory, but a couple of hours later, I'm just 
reading, having forgotten about the Quest for Clues.
Welcome, anyways.
Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria






From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 22:57:05 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:57:05 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdcgt+7urg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecddo1+117p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157254

<snip>
> 
> Lynn - In a way, I don't think it matters how many times you read 
> them.What I find difficult is, I start off looking for things that 
> would go into a theory, but a couple of hours later, I'm just 
> reading, having forgotten about the Quest for Clues.
> Welcome, anyways.
> Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria
>

bridg13219:  
That's really funny, because I find myself doing the same thing 
lately!  I'm re-reading them for 5th (maybe 6th?), with the original 
intention of trying to pick up on clues, and the just get lost in the 
story!  

My husband does like to tease me for reading the series so much AND 
(like someone said before) for discussing them in depth and in detail 
with other adults!  He just doesn't get it!  : )







From juli17 at aol.com  Mon Aug 21 23:14:52 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 19:14:52 EDT
Subject: Dumbledore's love (was Re:)
Message-ID: <c00.21ed582.321b986c@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157255

 
Lupinlore wrote  in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156647>;

<<  And DD's answer is uncompromising. He in effect says, "I don't love
you the  way you want, Severus. Harry is my darling, you are not. So
yes, I have to  die, and no, I will not ask my darling to do it. And
furthermore, I won't let  Draco do it, either." >>



Catlady wrote:
Dumbledore never had to admit to himself if that was what  he was
saying. He could have told himself the same thing he surely told  Snape
if Snape asked the question: "Severus, they are children with  their
souls still untorn. It is the place of an adult to spare chidren  this
burden and protect their innocence a while longer."

I think DD is  stern and principled enough that that is what he would
have said even if he  loved Severus most.



Julie:
I agree. And let's not forget that Dumbledore's days may have well
been numbered anyway. He had permanent damage from the ring
horcrux curse and it's entirely possible that Snape was only able to 
halt the progress of the damage temporarily rather than ridding  DD
of the curse completely. DD may well have added, "Severus, you
know my days are numbered. And don't say I could still outlive the
prognosis. I'm an old man, I've lived a long and full life, I've done 
what I had to do, and I've made peace with it."
 
If DD is weakened and his days are numbered, there is also the
likelihood that he truly believes Snape can be much more useful
to the cause now, and he is correct. So add, "Severus, you *are*
far more valuable to the cause now than I am, whether you believe
it or not. You can weaken Voldemort's position from the inside, 
thus help Harry get the access necessary to defeat him. And for 
this task, it doesn't matter whether Harry or anyone else trusts you, 
does it?" (And in fact it doesn't.)
 
But let's get to the true heart of the matter. DD's love, for  Harry,
for Severus, for Hogwarts, for whoever and for whatever, is quite
inrelevant. DD has always done exactly what he felt he had to
do the ensure Voldemort will be defeated. He has allowed both
Snape and Harry to make great personal sacrifices, even when it
must have hurt him to see them suffer. Because, like any general
in a war, DD must distance himself, close off his emotions, and 
act purely objectively based only on what will most likely ensure 
victory. The objective is to save the entirety of the WW. The lives 
of the many trump the lives of the few, even if the lives of the few
may be the ones he most cherishes. 
 
So, add to DD's thoughts if not words, "Severus, you will never
know how much it hurts me to ask this of you. If I could change
places with you, I would. But you are the only one in position to 
succeed. With this act, you can save the WW and the children
of Hogwarts for generations to come, and more immediately,  the 
frightened, confused boy who needs your mercy, and yes, even
the boy you are so determined to detest but who will ultimately
save us all.  And you mustn't do this for me or for my love (which 
you already have), but because it the right thing to do, even if it's 
the hardest thing you will ever do."
 
In conclusion I don't think we can infer anything about DD's love
for Severus (nor how it might measure against his love for Harry)
from DD's request/order that Severus kill him if it comes down  to 
that worst case scenario. It's irrelevant to what must be done, to 
what is right (for the WW and its inhabitants) over what is easy.  

Julie
 
 
 
 


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




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 21 23:17:50 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:17:50 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors
In-Reply-To: <ecbad3+nbi4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdeuu+hhmb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157256

> Mike:
> How do we *know*? What is the evidence? We know he was sixteen when 
> he killed Myrtle because he told us he preserved his sixteen-year-
> old self in the diary. We can also backtrack 50 years to arrive at 
> Tom's fifth year at school. Where's the evidence that Tom killed the 
> Riddles *after* his fifth year?

Carol responds:
I forgot to include this bit of canon in my earlier reply:

"Fifty years before, at daybreak on a fine summer's morning, when the
Riddle House had still been well kept and impressive, a maid had
entered the drawing room to find all three Riddles, dead" (GoF Am. ed.
1-2). The narrator also refers to the incident as occurring "half a
century ago"(1). Either this figure, in both versions, is an
estimation, or Tom killed his parents exactly fifty years before the
beginning of GoF, in which case, he did it between his sixth and
seventh years, when he was seventeen, which would make sense because
he'd be legally an adult and free of the orphanage, and which would
still allow him to return for his seventh year and talk to Slughorn
about Horcruxes. But the description of Tom as "by no means the
oldest" of the group of boys is a bit confusing if he's a seventh year
since the oldest boy in the group could be at most three months older
than he is. (I think the description is meant to suggest that Tom, a
sixth year, is the leader of a gang that contains seventh years.)

Either way, whether he's sixteen, as he would be if the murders
occurred after Myrtle's death, or seventeen, as a literal reading of
"fifty years" would indicate, "in his sixteenth year" is an error if
it's intended to mean age fifteen. The "fifty years" in GoF takes that
statement farther from the mark, not closer to it.

Carol, hoping that Mike is satisfied now











From sherriola at earthlink.net  Mon Aug 21 23:25:22 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:25:22 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecd0a9+9c6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GFJ98-0008FR-Sh@elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157257

Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started 
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third 
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took 
> forever since I have 3 small children).

 
Sherry now:

oh my, I've read books one and three quite a few times, both the audio and
braille versions.  I've read GOF four times I think, and COS, OOTP and HBP
twice.  COS is my least favorite of the books.  The death of Sirius and
Dolores Umbridge bother me so much that I never can make it through OOTP,
even though there are many things I really like about the book.  I always
stop when they get to the ministry for the battle.  POA is my favorite of
the three, and I expect I've read it six or seven times all the way through.

Lynn:
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?



Sherry:
Yeah, many of my friends think I'm nutters too, but I've been surprised at
how many are fans as well.

Welcome to the group!

Sherry




From parisfan_ca at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 00:22:39 2006
From: parisfan_ca at yahoo.com (laurie goudge)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:22:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecd9ad+o5hc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060822002239.84830.qmail@web39501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157258



--- Eddie <harryp at stararcher.com> wrote:

> OK, Here's something that's been bothering me for a
> long time.  Why
> did Voldemort and Barty Crouch Jr (in the guise of
> Mad Eye Moody) use
> such a complicated method to capture Harry?  I mean,
> all year they are
> relying on all kinds of devices: pulling Harry's
> name out of the
> goblet (4th out of 3), living through the
> challenges, being the first
> to the goblet in the maze, changing the goblet into
> a portkey, etc,
> etc, etc.  Meanwhile, Harry is sometimes alone with
> Crouch!Moody who
> could have easily knocked Harry on the head with a
> wrench, thrown the
> invisibility cloak over him (it's demonstrated that
> Crouch!Moody knows
> about the cloak and can see Harry beneath it), carry
> the invisible
> Harry off-grounds of Hogwarts, and apparate to
> Voldemort.
> 
> Why so complicated?
> 
> Eddie, who enjoyed the book anyway.
> 

parisfan writes:

well first off we wouldn't HAVE a book four if
'FakeMoody' simply beamed Harry over the head and made
off with him. 

But I have always worked under the assumption that
it'd be kinda obvious something was amiss if Hogwarts
most famous student went missing just like that, no
note or statement of good bye.  And that the whole
'plot' was probably a good way to give certain people
to grab him with out incident and maybe lead to a good
cover story for like death seeing as the tri wizard
tournament has a high death toll.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Aug 22 00:31:54 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 00:31:54 -0000
Subject: 16 years of teaching at Hogwarts? (wasRe: Copyediting Errors - Listed?)
In-Reply-To: <ecd4sp+caap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdj9q+esuu@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157259

> Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco 
> complete his assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape 
> a little more time to spy at Hogwarts since there would 
> be no one left to spy on except McGonagall and Flitwick, 
> neither of whom seems particularly important to the Order

houyhnhnm:

One of the reasons I thought Snape did not know the nature of Draco's 
task when the sisters came to call.

My view is that Snape knew Voldemort was up to something that he was 
keeping Snape in the dark about.  Snape was desperate to get that 
information and so took the dangerous gamble of agreeing to the UV.  
Other see the UV as proof that Snape is really on LV's side and there 
are many convoluted theories (none of which I really understand) about 
why a DDM or OFH Snape would take the vow, knowing what it entailed.  
But I think everyone agrees that it was a Bad Idea.

If Snape was in over his head playing the double agent game, if 
desperation was undermining his judgement and making him careless, 
then slipping up in front of Bella with the "sixteen years" would be 
consistant with that.  The chapter isn't called "Spinner's End" for 
nothing.

On the other hand, it *could* be Rowling's slip up. We seem to be 
racking up an awful lot of them, though.  






From wyldleolynx at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 21 23:39:33 2006
From: wyldleolynx at hotmail.com (wicleolynx)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:39:33 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdg7l+bkkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157260

>Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).

Sheila:
Howdy, Lynn, and welcome to HPfGU!!!!
I know I have read the entire series at least 4 times and some of the
indivual books I have read even more then that.  I started with POA
and then GOF, then I finally went back and bought the SS/PS and COS
and then had to start the series from the beginning and then before
OOP came out I reread the whole series and again before HBP.  I know I
will do it again before #7 comes out. 

>Lynn:
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

>zgirnius:
>Ditto. Not to mention, for discussing it online with other adults, or
>even reading it in the first place. (The kids are still too young to be
>a valid excuse).

Sheila:
My husband thinks I'm an absolute "nutter" LOL so does other members
of my family.  I don't care what anyone else thinks I enjoy the books
and movies.  Besides I can't get away from Harry Potter because my 2yr
old son absolutely  adores  the movies and has even shown interest in
the books and loves to be read from Harry Potter. (He must have gotten
it from me, go figure) And if we are talking the movies (which is for
the other group) my youngest is working on our second set of  DVDs, he
watches almost daily (if I let him)










From aida_costa at hotmail.com  Mon Aug 21 23:20:12 2006
From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (Aida Costa)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:20:12 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157261

Lynn wrote:

<snip>

> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

Aida:

I've read the first four books 3 times, the 5th book twice and HBP
only once so far.  I want to start reading the whole series again from
the beginning to try and make sense of all the little
questions/abnormalities/inconsistencies that we all discuss here :-)

> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

Aida:
A couple of years ago I finally convinced my husband to read the books
and now he's just as big a Potter-head as I am, thank goodness!

As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off.
Umbridge is such a cow!!!  What really steamed me was knowing that in
our real world, politics and government *are* corrupt- this wasn't
just JKR's wonderful imagination at work - and we all suffer for it.
I got angrier and angrier as I read the book that by the end, I was so
incensed at Dumbledore that I almost threw the book across the room!
That's when I *really* realized what a talented story teller JKR is -
they're fictional characters for goodness sakes, yet I was so mad at
them!!!

Then again, book 5 is my husband's favourite book in the series
*precisely* because of the political intrigue.  (Can you guess which
of us is a hard-core James Bond fan?)

I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
any of the books?

When I read the description of the DE's in book 4 (robes, hoods and
masks) I had such a visceral reaction as I realized this was no
different than the KKK.  I already knew JKR was heavily influenced by
the atrocities of the Nazi regime, so any parallels there didn't hit
me as hard, or come out of the blue, I expected it.  But for some
reason that *image* of the DE's freaked me out.  And then the GOF
movie!  Oh, man!!!  I think the movie DE's are even more menacing than
how they're described in the book.

Am I the only one that gets freaked out reading the books?

Aida










From penhaligon at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 00:37:43 2006
From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:37:43 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <eccif1+qbuf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007201c6c583$30e8d230$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60>

No: HPFGUIDX 157262

> Abergoat writes:
> If I'm getting the right impression you think that it is 
> strange that if Aberforth truly resembles Dumbledore then 
> Harry should see the resemblance, right? I completely agree. 
> Sure Harry was distracted when Moody showed him a picture of 
> Aberforth, but if Aberforth looked like Dumbledore wouldn't 
> Harry register that? Dumbledore is Harry's new father figure 
> - and Harry certainly looked at the picture well enough to 
> see Peter and his parents. And I recall that Harry is still 
> looking to note that Moody isn't as scared as he is now.

Panhandle:
But what if Aberforth, say, doesn't have a beard? I think it might be quite
hard for Harry to spot Aberforth as a relative of Dumbledore if he didn't
wear a beard. Just a thought.

penhaligon at gmail.com




From penhaligon at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 00:47:49 2006
From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:47:49 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <eccmvo+51lp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007601c6c584$9a5bf2f0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60>

No: HPFGUIDX 157263

> Eddie:
> It's possible that Diary!Riddle learned about Harry's 
> survival from Ginny, writing the info into the diary.  But no 
> canon to support it.
> 

Panhandle disagrees:

I believe there is canon to support this. From the paperback adult British
version of CoS, page 229:

'Well, you see, Ginny told me all about you, Harry,' said Riddle. 'Your
whole fascinating history.' ...

For me, that counts as proof that Ginny told Riddle all about Harry.

Panhandle
penhaligon at gmail.com




From kjones at telus.net  Tue Aug 22 00:50:48 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 17:50:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Copyediting Errors - Listed?
In-Reply-To: <ecctgj+nmgd@eGroups.com>
References: <ecctgj+nmgd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44EA54E8.9000605@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157264

Mike wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>>> KJ writes:
>>> While that is a logical assessment, it does not take
>>> into account that Tom Riddle also knew about Harry surviving
>>> at Godric's Hollow.  He was very curious about how Harry
>>> survived, which again, he would know nothing about as a
>>> sixteen year old memory.
>> Eddie:
>> It's possible that Diary!Riddle learned about Harry's survival from
>> Ginny, writing the info into the diary.  But no canon to support it.
>>
> 
> Mike:
> Yes, there is canon. Look up thread two posts from yours.

   KJ writes:

    Mike is absolutely right on this one, and from the conversation in 
CoS between Tom and Harry seems the most likely explanation.  I think it 
likely that the disparate times can be dealt with as well since Toms 
Birthday is on the first of the year.  JKR like the rest of us has a 
hard time with what age people were in what year because of the birthdays.

    I like, Carol feel, that the murders occurred after Myrtles death 
mainly because killing tends to become progressively easier with 
practice. Once he had been responsible for Myrtle's death, it would be 
easier to murder his relatives. He had already progressed as a child 
from killing small animals and torturing his schoolmates.

   If Myrtle was killed during his fifth year after January and the 
relatives murdered in the summer following his fifth year, it would 
still place him, at sixteen, asking for horcrux information early in his 
sixth year unless I am still confused. I do not see a date in canon for 
when he actually put his sixteen year old self into the diary. He could 
have done that, again, early in his sixth year, after the murders. There 
is also, no particular time given for when he actually turned the diary 
into a horcrux, as it was in his possession until his fall and then in 
the care of Lucius before it was returned to the school.

   JKR may have a reason for being so imprecise, although I can't think 
of what it could be.  Even worse, Dumbledore explains that now Harry 
knows what Tom was doing up until he was seventeen, and applying for the 
DADA position at eighteen, when by rights he should have turned nineteen 
in January.

KJ: wondering if I can knock a year or two off my age this way?





From taguem at jmsearch.com  Mon Aug 21 19:43:56 2006
From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 15:43:56 -0400
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <eccvht+bim3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <EXCHANGE01jSDWBerZh00000925@compdevsys.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157265

 
--- In HPforGrownups@ <mailto:HPforGrownups%40yahoogro
yahoogroups.com, "eyemlynn" <Eyemlynn at ...> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).
> 
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?


 I am also new.  My husband thinks I'm a complete freak for my addiction and
love of Harry Potter.  I love the movies, but they do nothing for the books
at all.  I've read the first 4 books 3 times (I'm such a novice compared to
most here!)... but am really struggling to re-read 5... it just wasn't my
favorite at all.  The angst in the book.... yuck... but I will read it
again, especially after joining this list and seeing so much that I just
don't recall.
 
I've just helped my 7 year old son through reading ps/ss.  We watch the
movies together and he'd ask questions about it... the why's and all...and
I'd tell him well, the books have so much more detail... etc etc... and
never really answer him... so that got him going on the desire to read.
I've (unfortunately ???) gotten my 3 year old son completely hooked on the
series too.  He loves the movies and he payed some attention to reading the
books.  It's more his thing than my 7 year olds... but they both enjoy it.  
 
Not as much as their Mom does though.
 
Michelle 








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug 22 02:16:33 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:16:33 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <007201c6c583$30e8d230$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60>
Message-ID: <ecdpe1+jpcg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157266

Panhandle wrote:
> But what if Aberforth, say, doesn't have a beard? I think it might
be quite
> hard for Harry to spot Aberforth as a relative of Dumbledore if he
didn't
> wear a beard. Just a thought.

Abergoat writes:
True, the current barman may well be the Aberforth in the picture. But
I think it is possible that he is not and many fans don't consider
this a possibility. I just got word from HP-Lexicon that they are
going to soften the language on their page to make it clear it is not
yet known that the current barman is Aberforth.

If the current barman ISN'T Aberforth (but the barman WAS Aberforth up
until the prophecy) this still works with what Dumbledore says and
JKR's remarks. And it has the added benefit of clearing up the
confusion on these points:

- Why Aberforth isn't in the second Order of the Phoenix
- Why the current barman was speaking to "banned" Mundungus
- Why Mundungus runs around as a witch (to avoid a goat kick)
- Why Dumbledore is uncertain about literacy (can a goat read?)
- Why the bar still smells of goats (Abergoat still lives there)
- Why no one consoles the barman at Albus's funeral
- Why Mad Eye didn't seem perplexed by never seeing Aberforth again
- Why Mad Eye IS perplexed by Order member Dearborn's missing body
- Why didn't Voldemort come after Aberforth to get his version of the
prophecy?

I think Voldemort DID come after Aberforth. And 'uncouth' Aberforth
(Trelawney's adjective) gave Voldemort a piece of his mind. And
Voldemort made him a goat in honor of that old transfiguration teacher
that stubbornly refused to give into his charm.

Harry recognizes Mundungus dressed as a witch so the disguise isn't
that good - but perhaps it only had to fool a goat that normally wears
glasses.

All just fun speculation!

Abergoat







From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 02:16:26 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:16:26 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdcgt+7urg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdpdq+dlq0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157267

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" 
> > Eddie:
> > But this past month I loaded Jim Dale's Book-On-CD reading of the
> > series into my iTunes.  Then I shuffle the tracks and now hear 2-3
> > minute snippets of all the (published) books in totally random
> > order.
> 
> AmanitaMuscaria now - Jumping jellybeans, Eddie! I would think that 
> getting disconnected snippets of all the books would fry my brain! 
> Just out of interest, what are you doing whilst listening to this? 
> And what stops you muttering - that's PoA; oh, no, it's GoF!

Eddie:
I admit it is disorienting sometimes.  And I do keep thinking PoA? 
GoF?  Usually I'm just doing something that doesn't take too much
effort while listening.








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug 22 02:21:21 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:21:21 -0000
Subject: Moaning Myrtle---Muggleborn?
In-Reply-To: <eccpt8+ish6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdpn1+g7l5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157268

bboyminn wrote:
> I keep hoping that Harry will force the issue, and make the Ministry
> give Hagrid a full and formal pardon, thereby allowing Hagrid to buy a
> new wand. Though I am greatly saddened that he will not be able to by
> an Ollivanders wand. This is one of the issues I want resolved before
> the end of the story.

Abergoat writes:
I really enjoyed reading that! I had not even thought about Harry
working to get Hagrid's wand status re-instated.

I am hoping that Hagrid is the character that got a 'reprieve' and
your theory works beautifully with that. Hagrid will need a wand.

Abergoat







From bobhawkins at rcn.com  Tue Aug 22 02:22:48 2006
From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:22:48 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecd9ad+o5hc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdppo+rlv0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157269

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>

> Why so complicated?
> 

    There's an old saying: nothing is difficult for the man who
doesn't have to do it. I can hear Voldemort saying to Crouch Jr, "All
you have to do is get Potter into the tournament, make sure he wins,
and cast Portus on the Triwizard Cup. I'll take it from there." The
Dark Lord is one of those unreasonable bosses, know what I mean? (If
you're familiar with the stories of P.G. Wodehouse, Voldemort is a lot
like Bertie Wooster's Aunt Dahlia.)

                                      Zero Irregardless










From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 02:52:04 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 21:52:04 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this i
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F239129EE842B873C5D913ADD460@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157270

>Lynn wrote:
>
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

wynnleaf

I think I've read each one except HBP about 6 times, and HBP three times 
straight through.  I've also read numerous chapters or sections many more 
times.
>
> > My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?
>
wynnleaf
My family are all HP fans and my husband has read the books several times 
each, but they don't do much with other fans/readers.  So they think I'm 
more obsessed than they are because I discuss the books with people online.  
But that's okay -- practically everyone in my family is obsessed with 
something, so I'm not too wierd.

As for the films, my kids watch them a lot, so I've seen them far too many 
times to count.

My least favority book is GOF, as is my least favority movie.  My favorite 
books are probably POA, OOTP and HBP.  I didn't like OOTP the first time I 
read it, but it gets better every time I read it.  I liked HBP right off, 
since -- while I was a bit surprised (not too much) that Snape AK'd DD, 
nothing else (including the phoenix over the grave) surprised me.  It was a 
lot of fun to watch so much play out about the way I felt it should.

My favorite film is POA.  I love the atmosphere of that book.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Get real-time traffic reports with Windows Live Local Search  
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=42.336065~-109.392273&style=r&lvl=4&scene=3712634&trfc=1




From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Tue Aug 22 05:15:09 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 22:15:09 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Horcruxes and Soul-Bits
In-Reply-To: <20060820060836.3253.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <20060820060836.3253.qmail@web56515.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <957225368.20060821221509@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157272


mouthpiece49 wrote:

LL> But the myths don't always end with the hero dying, most talk
LL> only of his transformation. Sooooo this is why I think that
LL> Harry can't find all the horcruxes and has to take Voldemort
LL> through the veil to put him out of commission, thus
LL> sacrificing himself.

Dave:
It seems to me there might be other "loopholes" that don't require
Harry sacrificing himself... One thing I'd be interested to know: What
happens if a Dementor sucks out the soul of someone who has a
Horcrux(es)?




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 05:17:15 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:17:15 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors
In-Reply-To: <ecdeuu+hhmb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ece40r+s21b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157273

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
> I forgot to include this bit of canon in my earlier reply:
> 
> "Fifty years before, at daybreak on a fine summer's morning, when 
> the Riddle House had still been well kept and impressive, a maid 
> had entered the drawing room to find all three Riddles, dead" (GoF 
> Am. ed. 1-2). The narrator also refers to the incident as 
> occurring "half a century ago"(1). Either this figure, in both 
> versions, is an estimation, or Tom killed his parents exactly 
> fifty years before the beginning of GoF, in which case, he did it 
> between his sixth and seventh years, when he was seventeen, which 
> would make sense because he'd be legally an adult and free of the 
> orphanage, and which would still allow him to return for his 
> seventh year and talk to Slughorn about Horcruxes. But the 
> description of Tom as "by no means theoldest" of the group of boys 
> is a bit confusing if he's a seventh year since the oldest boy 
> in the group could be at most three months older than he is. 
> (I think the description is meant to suggest that Tom, a
> sixth year, is the leader of a gang that contains seventh years.)
> 
> Either way, whether he's sixteen, as he would be if the murders
> occurred after Myrtle's death, or seventeen, as a literal reading 
> of "fifty years" would indicate, "in his sixteenth year" is an 
> error if it's intended to mean age fifteen. The "fifty years" in 
> GoF takes thatstatement farther from the mark, not closer to it.
> 
> Carol, hoping that Mike is satisfied now

Mike now:
Canon, I knew you had it in ya. If anyone could find something to 
contradict DD's statement you could. Unfortunately, this timeline 
puts Tom's patricide after his sixth year, which is more of a 
problem than after his fourth year (don't worry, I'm not gonna go 
into it). Fortunately, what it does do is provide us an alternate 
canonical timeline that disputes the infamous "sixteenth year".

IMO these two opposing canonical statements cancel each other out. 
Now, we can say that JKR contradicted herself, so we can postulate: 
*what the lady meant to say was...*. So you and I can agree that JKR 
meant to say 'when Tom was sixteen, he left the orphanage...' and 
feel reasonably sure that it won't be contradicted in Book 7. More 
importantly, we aren't imposing our own view, we are clearing up a 
canonical mistake that JKR isn't going to.

So, yes Carol, I'm satisfied. I wasn't from your preceding post. 
BTW, you really don't want me to answer the question of why Tom 
would continue to pursue openning the Chamber, do you?

Mike, wondering if Carol will regret working so hard to convincing 
me to accept this revision after I use it to bolster my Harry is a 
Horcrux theory with it?







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 05:51:49 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:51:49 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this i
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F239129EE842B873C5D913ADD460@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ece61l+54ga@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157274

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fair wynn" wrote:
> >
> > Lynn wrote:
> >
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.
> > <snip>
>
> wynnleaf:
> 
> I think I've read each one except HBP about 6 times, and HBP   
> three times straight through. I've also read numerous chapters or  
> sections many more times. <snip>

Mike:
I estimate that I've read the first five books at least a dozen 
times, HBP about eight or nine. Not bragging, unemployment gives you 
lots of time on your hands.

> In message #157261, Aida wrote:
<snip> 
> As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off.
<snip>
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
> any of the books?
<snip>
> Am I the only one that gets freaked out reading the books?
 
Mike again:
Not freaked out, but I will admit to getting emotional, even on my 
second or third read. I read the first time through for pure 
enjoyment, trying to put myself in the moment. No analysis of 
anything (of course, I can't help noticing something odd). After 
knowing the story, I read the second or third time trying to pick up 
things I might have missed, but I still enjoy the plot. My later 
reads were for a combination of enjoyment and analysis of 
characters, with a smattering of searching for clues. 

My favorite book remains PoA. I loved getting all the back story, 
meeting Sirius (my favorite HP character), and learning all about 
the Marauders and their Map. And my favorite scene in the whole 
series is still Harry reaching out his hand to touch his Patronus 
and muttering, "Prongs". Yep, that scene had me leaking ocularly. My 
least favorite is OotP, both because of having to read so much about 
that, hem hem, woman and because there was too much superfilous 
material to get through. I know JKR would disagree and maybe Book 7 
will prove me wrong. Oh, and I was disappointed that JKR interjected 
the whole prophecy thingy.







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Tue Aug 22 06:32:31 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:32:31 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
References: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <07998454.20060821233231@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157275


Monday, August 21, 2006, 4:20:12 PM, Aida Costa wrote:

AC> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
AC> any of the books? 

Dave:
OOTP has a big emotional effect on me, because so many of the events
therein (by coincidence) profoundly parallel events in my life within
months of the book's release...

                   Death of Sirius   -- Death of my mom
Harry stands up to tyrant Umbridge   -- I stand up to a tyrant in my
                                        Toastmasters Club
Harry discovers his leadership
qualities in the DA                  -- I discover my leadership
                                        qualities in my
                                        Toastmasters Club
Private lessons with Snape
go bust                              -- Private lessons with my first
                                        singing teacher go bust
Harry realizes that he has true
friends, "ranged there, on his side" -- I realize that I have true
                                         friends on my side

And so on...  I think OOTP is my favorite for that reason.  (Plus I
think Tonks is cute as a button!) :)

-- 
Dave




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 06:39:16 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele)
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 23:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Spinner's End Confessions
Message-ID: <20060822063917.94035.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157276

  --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote:
  
> I agree that Snape was *spying* for Dumbledore for about a year
> before he started teaching, but he wouldn't want to reveal that
> information to Bellatrix. He would only have wanted to mention the
> fifteen years of teaching as a means of (ostensibly) gathering
> information on Dumbledore to provide to Voldemort if and when he
> returned. 

Mike:
Ah, but Snape is the one who reported the prophesy to LV. And since
the prophesy was probably made around Halloween 1979 then looking at
it from June 1995 it has been about 16 years. Even if Bella doesn't
know anything about the prophesy, Snape would have no problem with
admitting he was spying *for* LV during that time.

> Carol continues:
> But I think that either "sixteen year worth of information" is
> one of JKR's little math/continuity errors *or* it's a slip
> that Bellatrix didn't catch. But if it's a slip, it should have
> been followed up on (an added reason for Bella's suspicion of
> Snape), and it's uncharacteristic for Snape, who is usually
> very careful about what he does and doesn't reveal and exactly
> how he words what he reveals, to make a slip of that sort.


Mike again:
Was giving you a clue! The Dark Lord, before he changed... Oh,
sorry, must have been channelling Dobby. Where was I? Oh yeah, JKR
was either giving us the clue that Snape was the one who overheard
the prophesy (for youse in the ESE!Snape camp) or she was telling us
that Snape was in with DD already but LV didn't know it (for youse
in the DDM camp). Those of you in the OFH camp, *No Soup For You*.

> Carol continues:
> And Snape *is* talking about teaching in the context of that
> remark:
>
> "'Why did you stay there [at Hogwarts] all that time, Snape? Still
> spying on Dumbledore for a master you believed dead?'
>
> "'Hardly,' said Snape,'although the Dark Lord is pleased that I
> never deserted my [teaching] post: I had sixteen years of
> information on Dumbledore to give him when he returned. . .'"
> (HBP Am. ed. 27). 

Mike again:
Um, Carol, you inserted the word "teaching" in there didn't you?
Admit it, I saw you. And if you take that word out of there, well
that sly fox Snape isn't saying he taught for 16 years. He just said
he didn't desert his *post*. And LV had got information on DD from
Snape before Snape started teaching at Hogwarts. What information
depends on whose side he was on. (I know, but I'm not saying, hehe)

The real question for us is that little part at the end, "... when
he returned...". Because LV returned in June 1995. So Snape is
admitting to Bella that he had been spying on DD since June 1979.
Not that Bella necessarily caught that, but we did. June 1979 is
before the prophesy and just before Regelus graduates. Is maybe
another clue, you think? Like maybe Snape was working in earnest for
LV as a real DE should. Then something happened...BANG(sorry
George)...Snape changes his mind and becomes a double agent. Now
what happened in 1979 that would make Snape change sides. Hmmm


> Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco complete his
> assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape a little more time to
> spy at Hogwarts since there would be no one left to spy on except
> McGonagall and Flitwick, neither of whom seems particularly
> important to the Order

Mike again:
What I want to know is why LV wants Draco to infiltrate some DEs.
When DD is at full strength he had no problem handling, what 9, 10
of them in the DoM, and LV knows it. So LV is going to send 6-8 of
his less than Sterling DEs into Hogwarts where DD will be on his
home turf and will probably have Order and Teachers to call on.

If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who
wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? Snape wasn't part of
the plan because he was still in his office knitting tea cozies when
Draco and the DEs where on the tower. I'm not so sure LV is such a
brilliant tactician. There might be method to his madness, but all
I'm seeing so far is the madness.



 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

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




From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 10:41:11 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:41:11 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End Confessions
In-Reply-To: <20060822063917.94035.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecen07+fcfq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157277

Mike:
> Ah, but Snape is the one who reported the prophesy to LV. And since 
the prophesy was probably made around Halloween 1979 then looking at 
it from June 1995 it has been about 16 years. 
*(snip)*
He just said he didn't desert his *post*. And LV had got information 
on DD from Snape before Snape started teaching at Hogwarts. What 
information depends on whose side he was on. (I know, but I'm not 
saying, hehe)

The real question for us is that little part at the end, "... when he 
returned...". Because LV returned in June 1995. So Snape is admitting 
to Bella that he had been spying on DD since June 1979. Not that 
Bella necessarily caught that, but we did. June 1979 is before the 
prophesy and just before Regelus graduates. Is maybe another clue, 
you think? Like maybe Snape was working in earnest for LV as a real 
DE should. Then something happened...BANG(sorry George)...Snape 
changes his mind and becomes a double agent. Now what happened in 
1979 that would make Snape change sides. Hmmm

Ceridwen:
Nice.  Thanks for putting it like this.  Yes, if Snape was spying on 
Dumbledore for Voldemort at the time of the prophecy (possibly as 
early as autumn 1979), then at the time of LV's reconstitution, it 
would have been about sixteen years.  It absolutely explains what he 
was doing in Hogsmeade when he was caught eavesdropping on the 
prophecy - he was following Dumbledore around.  Makes sense in the 
context of the story as it has played out so far.  This doesn't mean 
that Snape wasn't also spying on LV for Dumbledore at the same time, 
it only means that LV set him to spying on Dumbledore in 1979.

It does not explain the discrepancies between Dumbledore's version of 
the eavesdropper and Trelawney's version, but that may be cleared up 
in book 7.  (If it isn't, I hope it's a question JKR will answer once 
book 7 has been published)

> > Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco complete his 
assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape a little more time to spy 
at Hogwarts since there would be no one left to spy on except 
McGonagall and Flitwick, neither of whom seems particularly important 
to the Order

Ceridwen:
I've wondered the same thing.  The only person left at Hogwarts of 
interest to LV would be Harry.  But, what would Harry be doing as a 
student that would be of such great interest?  Could you imagine LV 
chortling with glee as Snape reports *again* that Harry received 
detention?  Since DD was the one, implying to me that DD was the 
*only* one, that LV feared, then Snape's job for LV would end the 
minute DD is dead or gone for good.

Mike again:
> What I want to know is why LV wants Draco to infiltrate some DEs.  
When DD is at full strength he had no problem handling, what 9, 10 of 
them in the DoM, and LV knows it. So LV is going to send 6-8 of his 
less than Sterling DEs into Hogwarts where DD will be on his home 
turf and will probably have Order and Teachers to call on.

Ceridwen:
The DEs were quite a bunch, weren't they?  Someone else has called 
them 'second-string', not the real heavyweights.  It's almost as if 
he didn't want to risk his most effective followers...

Mike:
> If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who 
wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? Snape wasn't part of the 
plan because he was still in his office knitting tea cozies when 
Draco and the DEs where on the tower. I'm not so sure LV is such a 
brilliant tactician. There might be method to his madness, but all 
I'm seeing so far is the madness.

Ceridwen:
Following on from your paragraph before, if LV expects Draco to fail, 
I thought at first that LV expected the DEs to back him up, kill DD 
in case he did fail, and kill Draco too for failing.  Why else send a 
monster like Fenrir Greyback?

But, now we have Snape being out of the loop, "knitting tea cozies" 
while the action is coming down.  So, what did he really know at 
Spinner's End?  He isn't in on this, was he in on just the bare bones 
since Draco was a student and Snape was senior DE on the spot?

And, I would think LV would consider Snape to be one of his first-
string DEs, effective and competent, right up there with effective 
though fanatical Bellatrix.  Snape could have created a diversion 
instead of being so far out of the picture that Flitwick had to rouse 
him in his office.  While I couldn't imagine Snape setting off 
fireworks in the castle a la Fred and George, he could have done 
something to draw the Order and teachers away from the tower.

It's almost as if LV wanted to get rid of troublesome DEs and 
allies.  If DD at full strength can take down several DEs at once, 
not to mention Aurors and the Minister of Magic (OotP), then what 
chance do Brutal-Face, Amicus, Alecto and Greyback have against him 
on his own turf?

DD has proven that he can turn a situation without harming anyone 
permanently, but LV would attribute his own mentality (fear of death, 
for an instance) to anyone he deems to be as powerful.  LV would kill 
them all, so he thinks DD would as well.  A very elegant way to get 
rid of his problem followers without causing undue alarm within the 
DE ranks.  All of the DEs there, and Greyback, seem like 
liabilities.  If they are killed or captured, LV and the DEs are 
better off.  Sort-of like the Brown-shirts who were gotten rid of, 
since they were so brutal they were a liability, once Hitler gained 
power.  Maybe we saw the Brute Force Squad of the DE here?

Ceridwen.







From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Tue Aug 22 11:02:10 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:02:10 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so
	 complicated?
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39BDA@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 157278


parisfan writes:

well first off we wouldn't HAVE a book four if
'FakeMoody' simply beamed Harry over the head and made
off with him. 

But I have always worked under the assumption that
it'd be kinda obvious something was amiss if Hogwarts
most famous student went missing just like that, no
note or statement of good bye. And that the whole
'plot' was probably a good way to give certain people
to grab him with out incident and maybe lead to a good
cover story for like death seeing as the tri wizard
tournament has a high death toll.


James adds:

Absolutely. We have to remember that there were two goals, not one in LV's
mind at the time. It's obvious that he wanted/needed Harry. But you can't
overlook the second goal, to return without anyone having any suspicions.

I suspect the plan was to have throw the cub back at harry after he was dead
and blame the death of another champion. Big tradegy, isn't it sad. To have
the boy who lived randomly disappear in bizarre circumstances is going to
raise a few eye brows (Obviously LV had no idea that the ministry would put
as much effort into ignoring his return as he was putting into hiding it).

LV obviously didn't want DD to know about the return,  but I can only
imagine his joy when he saw what was going on at Hogwarts and the WW world
as whole during OotP.



From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Aug 22 12:20:39 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:20:39 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End Confessions
In-Reply-To: <20060822063917.94035.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecesqn+n3h6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157279


 "justcarol67" wrote:
>   
> > I agree that Snape was *spying* for Dumbledore for about a year
> > before he started teaching, but he wouldn't want to reveal that
> > information to Bellatrix. 

Potioncat:
What if Bella had known all along that Snape was a spy for LV? If 
Snape was spying for LV, then of course he couldn't be involved in 
any of the more public events, could he? He could slither right out 
of them. So I don't think he was saying anything that Bella didn't 
know.

It helps to explain why Sirius Black had never heard that Snape was a 
DE. Snape hadn't been involved in most of the other activities. I 
think LV intended all along to have the little oddball who was up to 
his ears in DADA (LV's viewpoint) infiltrate Hogwarts.

Snape's wording reminds Bella of how long he's been serving.


Potioncat, who somehow snipped all of Mike's comments, but was 
agreeing with his timeline for Snape's activities.







From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 12:29:50 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:29:50 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecetbu+m2it@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157280


> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my 
third
> time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> forever since I have 3 small children).
> 
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?
> 
> Lynn

ibchawz responds:

I started reading the books after I found a copy of COS in an 
airport.  I promptly bought the other 3 books (SS, POA, and GOF) and 
read them.  I have read these 4 books about 8 times each.  I have 
read OOTP 5 times and I am currently listening to it on CD during my 
commute. This is my first try with books on CD.  So far, I like it, 
but still prefer to read the books. I have read HBP twice (soon to be 
3 times).  When I start a re-read, I start at book 1 and read them in 
order.  I will probably read all of them again shortly before the 
release of book 7.

My wife doesn't give me too much grief about reading, since it does 
set a good example for my 12 year old twin boys.  They have read all 
the books once.

ibchawz







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Tue Aug 22 05:32:26 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 05:32:26 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecd0a9+9c6p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ece4ta+p6lm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157281


> Lynn wrote:
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started
> > reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my 
third
> > time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took
> > forever since I have 3 small children).

Laurawkids:

I am a little less new than you, but welcome, this is a great group!  

I was drawn in to reading the series by my husband reading GOF out 
loud to my daughter on a vacation.  I kept staying up late so I could 
catch up in secret, and then he hid the book because he was aghast 
that I would read them out of order.  (He is a purist on reading 
issues.  I think he loves Madam Pince.)  That was a long 3 days until 
I was back home with SS/PS.

I had been staying away from them initially because of "misguided 
Christian" thang, then by my daughter's take on "how there was this 
adopted boy whose adoptive parents were so hateful and abusive, but he 
found out he was a wizard and will get them back 'cuz he hates them."  
I didn't need that as an adoptive parent myself.  Then the first 
chapter of PS/SS and Harry being kept in the closet was emotionally 
too much for me to spend my time on when I had 2 babies to take all my 
time anyway. 

But my husband decided to read them to our oldest daughter.  I kept 
out of it until that vacation.  It was nice because I did not have to 
wait for them to come out.  I had to fight for the HBP book.  I got a 
babysitter and spent 4 hours of bliss in my car reading it.


I am now on my third read-through of them all.  Love them!!     


> Lynn:
> > My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?
> 

Laurawkids:

I should be fixing up the house so we can move to a bigger one with 
more space for kids and books, but I found this group, and my hubby 
has to make a list for me if he wants anything to get done!!  Yeah, he 
gets all huffy, but when I expound on the theories and research from 
here, he is all mine!  He's a little jealous, I think.  I *was* able 
to paint the ceiling and all 4 walls of a small room today, AND still 
read all the posts from Sat. thru today, so I don't think I'm doing so 
badly  : )  !!
Laurawkids


















From wyldleolynx at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 04:50:34 2006
From: wyldleolynx at hotmail.com (wicleolynx)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:50:34 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ece2eq+bt0h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157282

Aida wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
> any of the books?

> Am I the only one that gets freaked out reading the books?

Sheila:
Yes I have found myself so caught up in the books at time that I have
felt truely deep emotions (part of why I keep reading, JKR is just
sooo good with her books); 

HBP- DD funeral gets me every time and I have read HBP about 5 times
now. I find myself in absolute tears with my husband asking what's
wrong, though now if he sees me at the end of HBP he just shakes his
head and walks the other way.

GOF- I found myself cussing out MM for her reaction to Hagrid asking
about her obivous "giant" blood. And I was soo mad at RS that I
actually threw my book across the room (TG it was a paperback)

OOTP- I had my heart in my throat when SB went through the veil.

So yes I have had strong reaction to several of the HP books.

Sheila









From sgreybe at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 11:13:06 2006
From: sgreybe at yahoo.com (sgreybe)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:13:06 -0000
Subject: Missing OWL??
Message-ID: <eceos2+a871@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157283

Hi all,

I seem to be missing a subject
 Can anyone help me discover what the 
last subject is that Hermione took for her OWLs?

It says at the end of PoA that she drops Muggle Studies so that she 
can have a normal time table.  Earlier in the year she drops 
Divination because it is "woolly" to her.  But if there are only 12 
subjects in total, how does she manage to get 11 OWLs without Muggle 
Studies and Divination?  Or am I missing a subject? Do "Flying 
Lessons" count as a subject?  And if so, why do Harry and Ron not do 
it?

SUBJECTS:
Ancient Runes
Arithmancy
Astronomy
Care of Magical Creatures
Charms
Defence Against the Dark Arts
Divination
Herbology
History of Magic
Muggle Studies
Potions
Transfiguration

(Hermione is said to drop Divination and Muggle Studies.  How then 
did she manage to get 11 OWLs?)


Sylvia










From aida_costa at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 10:45:13 2006
From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (Aida Costa)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:45:13 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecdppo+rlv0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecen7p+mpkr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157284

I've always wondered - why did Fake!Moody *insist* Harry learn how to
fight off Imperio?  At first I thought, 'well maybe he wanted to see
how powerful Harry was'.  That's fine, but why ensure Harry gets
*stronger*?    Doesn't that make Voldy's job harder?

Just another inconsistency that JKR will never answer.

Aida









From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug 22 11:10:48 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:10:48 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
Message-ID: <eceono+gec3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157285

Does anyone else think that Dumbledores scar on his knee is
significant to Grindewald's horcruxes. Possibly DD's belief in Harry
defeating LV comes from the fact that it is akin to what DD went
through before he defeated Grindewald?

Or any other theories on why we would be thrown this snippet of info?

Tinktonks (Who is now totally overthinking every tiny little thing and
hoping that someone out there thinks I'm not crazy!)









From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug 22 11:05:25 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:05:25 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
Message-ID: <eceodl+ugvm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157286

Not sure if this has been mentioned before but I've decided to got
through the books with a fine toothed comb and I've noticed that
Dumbledore alone appears to apparate silently.

"A man appeared in the corner the cat had been watching, appeared so
suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd just popped out of the
ground."

Or do you think he took a port key? There isn't really any evidence he
took a port key as he doesn't appear to be holding anything until he
gets out the put-outer.

What do you think of this?

Tinktonks









From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug 22 12:48:37 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 12:48:37 -0000
Subject: Tea Cosy (was: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct)
In-Reply-To: <ecba03+ldnq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eceuf5+bdul@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157287

> lynn wrote:
>
> I am very curious about a lot of things. <SNIP> what's a tea cosy?
>

Aussie writes:

The tea cosy:
- Keeps the tea in the pot hotter
- Stops you burning your hand on the tin pot
- Holds the lid on the teapot so it doesn't topple while pouring
- Allows House Elves to poke ears through where a tea pot would have 
the spout poking through one side and the handle the other.

It looks like a beanie with slits on either side. Traditionally, 
they were knitted with wool, so stretchy. The quilt matterial ones 
have larger splits on the sides since they don't stretch as well.

If Dobby can wear a tea cosy, that makes his head the size of a tea 
pot. So is it the tea pot like the one the Mad Hatter uses in Alice 
in Wonderland for his tea party, or the one Mary Poppins uses on the 
ceiling?

Great question, Lynn and now watch the debate over the size of 
Dobby's head grow .... lol

aussie






From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 13:05:02 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:05:02 -0000
Subject: replying to Lupin as a mind reader
In-Reply-To: <20060820233759.1F6DE582@resin06.mta.everyone.net>
Message-ID: <ecevdu+b39l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157288

corey
> I don't think Lupin is a Legilimens I think he's just good at
guessing what people are going to say next. You know when you are
talking to someone and in the conversation you guess what they will
say next, I mean like that. Besides you need a wand to perform
Legilimens. 

wynnleaf
In real life the phrase "as though he could read his mind" is commonly
used to mean just what you said.  However, HP isn't real life, nor is
it an imaginary world.  It's the written word and the author picks and
chooses her words to mean certain things.  So the question really
isn't "can this phrase in ordinary conversation mean guessing what
people are going to say next?" because that really doesn't make much
difference.  The real question is why JKR would use this phrase *three
times* with the same character when she has shown us an HP universe
where people really can read minds (Snape says it's not really minding
reading).

If we were to find various instances where JKR used this phrase with
other characters (besides Dumbledore or Snape), then we could easily
argue that it's just a "turn of phrase," so to speak.  But if JKR has
*only* used this phrase with Lupin, then we *should* be quite
suspicious as to her intentions.

As I've already pointed out, it wouldn't be a red herring.  You don't
write in red herrings 2 full books prior to where you explain enough
for anyone to even spot the red herring.  Two examples of this phrase
with Lupin are in POA, and one in OOTP.  There may be more -- I'm looking.

We could assume JKR simply wasn't thinking.  But she did manage to
think about using clues for Snape's occlumens/legilimens abilities, so
it was obviously on her mind.

I'm a bit surprised that no one found this particularly interesting. 
Perhaps everyone has discussed this in depth much earlier.  But if
Lupin is a legilimens it could have major implications. And I think
JKR's repeated use of that phrase, in addition to other examples of
intent "looks" or "closed" looks, and examples of Lupin knowing little
things about people he couldn't have known, does point to legilimens.

And if Lupin is a legilimens, and JKR is keeping it a secret until
Book 7, that means she has some sort of surprises about Lupin in store
for the last book, which gives weight to the ESL!Lupin theory,
although a legilimens Lupin could also be DDM and use his skills to
help Harry.

Oh, and the Sectumsempra chapter shows Snape using legilimency without
any mention of his using his wand.  There are examples of wandless
magic periodically throughout the books and legilimens appears to be a
spell that a powerful wizard can use wandlessly.

wynnleaf









From penhaligon at gmail.com  Tue Aug 22 13:10:48 2006
From: penhaligon at gmail.com (Jane Penhaligon)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:10:48 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <eceodl+ugvm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <009e01c6c5ec$649ccff0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60>

No: HPFGUIDX 157289

Tinktonks: 
> Not sure if this has been mentioned before but I've decided 
> to got through the books with a fine toothed comb and I've 
> noticed that Dumbledore alone appears to apparate silently.
> 
> "A man appeared in the corner the cat had been watching, 
> appeared so suddenly and silently you'd have thought he'd 
> just popped out of the ground."
> 
> Or do you think he took a port key? There isn't really any 
> evidence he took a port key as he doesn't appear to be 
> holding anything until he gets out the put-outer.
> 
> What do you think of this?

I think that it is quite true that Dumbledore apparates silently. It is my
belief that the more powerful and gifted a wizard or witch is, the more
quietly that wizard or witch apparates. If I'm not mistaken, the sounds
associated with apparation range from very loud cracks to little pufty
sounds to silence. 

Panhandle
penhaligon at gmail.com




From taguem at jmsearch.com  Tue Aug 22 12:55:34 2006
From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:55:34 -0400
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <EXCHANGE01XL6Akolxp00000d2f@compdevsys.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157290

 


Aida:
<SNIP>
I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
any of the books? 

Michelle:

Aside from wanting to punch Umbridge? And bawling my eyes out when Sirius
died... and omg, the box of tissues I went through at the end of HBP???

Yea, I think it's safe to say that I'm emotionally attached to the
books/characters.... 

Michelle 









From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 13:53:39 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:53:39 -0000
Subject: Missing OWL??
In-Reply-To: <eceos2+a871@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf293+a6id@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157291

> Silvia:
> SUBJECTS:
> Ancient Runes
> Arithmancy
> Astronomy
> Care of Magical Creatures
> Charms
> Defence Against the Dark Arts
> Divination
> Herbology
> History of Magic
> Muggle Studies
> Potions
> Transfiguration
> 
> (Hermione is said to drop Divination and Muggle Studies.  How then 
> did she manage to get 11 OWLs?)

Eddie:
Pure speculation, but she may have taken the OWL for Muggle Studies
even though she dropped it after one year.  As a muggle-born, and
after one year of "formal study", she probably could have done well on
the exam.

Eddie








From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 13:58:06 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:58:06 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <eceono+gec3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf2he+71cr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157292

> Tinktonks:
> Does anyone else think that Dumbledores scar on his knee is
> significant to Grindewald's horcruxes.

Eddie:
I sometimes wonder if half of what Dumbledore says is actually true,
or whether he is just joking.  A scar that's a perfect map of the
Underground?  Haven't blushed so much since Madame Pomfrey said she
liked my earmuffs?  )I may have that quote wrong)  Alas, ear wax
[flavored jelly bean]?  (How would he know what ear wax tastes like
anyways?)

Or maybe it's a clue.  :-)

Eddie







From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 13:59:31 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:59:31 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <eceodl+ugvm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf2k3+o8kg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157293

< Tinktonks:
> Not sure if this has been mentioned before but I've decided to got
> through the books with a fine toothed comb and I've noticed that
> Dumbledore alone appears to apparate silently.

Eddie:
He also silently dis-apparates from Privet Drive too, no?







From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 14:03:26 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:03:26 -0000
Subject: Tea Cosy (was: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct)
In-Reply-To: <eceuf5+bdul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf2re+hnkf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157294

> > lynn wrote:
> >
> > I am very curious about a lot of things. <SNIP> what's a tea cosy?
> >
> Aussie writes:
> 
> If Dobby can wear a tea cosy, that makes his head the size of a tea 
> pot. So is it the tea pot like the one the Mad Hatter uses in Alice 
> in Wonderland for his tea party, or the one Mary Poppins uses on the 
> ceiling?
> 
> Great question, Lynn and now watch the debate over the size of 
> Dobby's head grow .... lol

Eddie:
Depends on the size of the teapot, I guess.  2-cup? 4-cup?  My wife
and I had 10-cup teapot once.  Alas, it cracked, but the cracks now
form a perfect map of the Washington, DC Metro.  :-)  LOL  ;-)







From kennclark at btinternet.com  Tue Aug 22 10:29:15 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:29:15 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End Confessions
In-Reply-To: <20060822063917.94035.qmail@web53004.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecem9r+gnp0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157295

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Mike Crudele <mcrudele78 at ...>
wrote:

> Mike again:
> What I want to know is why LV wants Draco to infiltrate some DEs.
> When DD is at full strength he had no problem handling, what 9, 10
> of them in the DoM, and LV knows it. So LV is going to send 6-8 of
> his less than Sterling DEs into Hogwarts where DD will be on his
> home turf and will probably have Order and Teachers to call on.
>
> If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who
> wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? Snape wasn't part of
> the plan because he was still in his office knitting tea cozies when
> Draco and the DEs where on the tower. I'm not so sure LV is such a
> brilliant tactician. There might be method to his madness, but all
> I'm seeing so far is the madness.

Mike I asked the same question in my post no. 157233.  fair wynn gave
an excellent answer in post 157235 though I don't necc. agree with
it.  I suspect a horcrux in the claw footed (Ravenclaw?) mirror of
desire and I think they were after that.

ken






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 14:27:07 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:27:07 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's love (was Re:)
In-Reply-To: <c00.21ed582.321b986c@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ecf47r+pfak@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157296

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>  
> But let's get to the true heart of the matter. DD's love, for  
Harry,
> for Severus, for Hogwarts, for whoever and for whatever, is quite
> inrelevant. DD has always done exactly what he felt he had to
> do the ensure Voldemort will be defeated. He has allowed both
> Snape and Harry to make great personal sacrifices, even when it
> must have hurt him to see them suffer. Because, like any general
> in a war, DD must distance himself, close off his emotions, and 
> act purely objectively based only on what will most likely ensure 
> victory. The objective is to save the entirety of the WW. The 
lives 
> of the many trump the lives of the few, even if the lives of the 
few
> may be the ones he most cherishes. 
>  

Ahh, the cold, manipulative Dumbledore again.  <Shrug>  Maybe.  I 
suppose we will see.  Or maybe not.  I really don't know how much 
JKR wants to reveal.

The question, I guess, is whether this is the behavior and attitude 
of an "epitome of goodness."  Frankly, I don't think it is.  I think 
it's rather contemptible, actually.  Especially when it involves 
standing aside and agreeing to the abuse of a child by both Snape 
and the Dursleys -- and even Umbridge if DD has indeed been watching 
Harry so closely and indeed does know "pretty much everything that 
goes on at Hogwarts."  Or not offering said child the information 
and emotional support he needs.  Which is why DD comes off to me so 
often as an incompetent ignoble moron.  Sorry, but the needs of the 
many DON'T trump the needs of the few or the one, at least not 
always.  Life and morality are not a utilitarian game.  Which is 
also why, I think, if JKR comes up with the excuse for DD's behavior 
that it was a "learning experience" for Harry to suffer and be 
abused, that she will have failed reprehensibly.

But we are back again to the type of things that arose in the wake 
of OOTP.  What did DD's speech at the end of that book mean?  Is 
DD's prime goal to defeat Voldemort?  Or is his goal to keep Harry 
alive?  Is there really any difference?  More importantly, does DD 
think there is any difference? Why did DD leave Harry to be abused 
at the Dursleys?  Was it primarily for his plan to defeat 
Voldemort?  Or was it simply that he honestly felt it was the only 
way to save Harry's life? How does the DD of the end of OOTP square 
with the DD at the beginning of HBP?  

A lot of this, I think, comes from the fact that DD is not always an 
actual character.  Very often he is merely a plot device.  The 
behavior and attitudes of DD the plot device are not always very 
consistent with those of DD the character, and neither really 
approach the standard of an "epitome of goodness."  

To make matters even more complicated, I do think that JKR realized 
that she had made some mistakes with OOTP.  The image of DD the 
character that came off there wasn't what she wanted to sell -- the 
plot device was messing things up pretty badly.  Thus the beginning 
of HBP (and other scenes therein, but especially the scenes at the 
Dursleys) where she tried to rescue the character she wanted from 
the clutches of the plot device she needed.  I think she succeeded 
only partially, at least so far.

But, we will see.  Or not.


Lupinlore








From dossett at lds.net  Tue Aug 22 16:26:45 2006
From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:26:45 -0000
Subject: Spinner's End Confessions
In-Reply-To: <ecen07+fcfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfb85+o0ho@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157297


> 
> > > Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco complete his 
> assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape a little more time to spy 
> at Hogwarts since there would be no one left to spy on except 
> McGonagall and Flitwick, neither of whom seems particularly important 
> to the Order
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I've wondered the same thing.  The only person left at Hogwarts of 
> interest to LV would be Harry.  But, what would Harry be doing as a 
> student that would be of such great interest?  Could you imagine LV 
> chortling with glee as Snape reports *again* that Harry received 
> detention?  Since DD was the one, implying to me that DD was the 
> *only* one, that LV feared, then Snape's job for LV would end the 
> minute DD is dead or gone for good.

Pat here:

It occurs to me that LV *might* be interested in keeping Snape at
Hogwarts for other reasons - possibly for recruiting, after DD is
gone.  It might also be nice for LV to have somebody in his camp when
he returns in glory, if this is at all part of his plan.  Hogwarts is
very important to him, after all.



> Mike:
> > If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who 
> wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? Snape wasn't part of the 
> plan because he was still in his office knitting tea cozies when 
> Draco and the DEs where on the tower. I'm not so sure LV is such a 
> brilliant tactician. There might be method to his madness, but all 
> I'm seeing so far is the madness.
> 
Ceridwen:
> 
> But, now we have Snape being out of the loop, "knitting tea cozies" 
> while the action is coming down.  So, what did he really know at 
> Spinner's End?  He isn't in on this, was he in on just the bare bones 
> since Draco was a student and Snape was senior DE on the spot?
> 

Pat again:
But then, Draco very pointedly did *not* include Snape in the loop
about this, and apparently neither did LV.  This seems to indicate
that Snape really was on a fishing expedition at Spinner's End.  My
very little brain is bothered by the idea that there could have been
another reason for Snape being kept ignorant of the plan, but I can't
exactly figure out what the reason could be.  Obviously, LV had a
reason, but could there be something besides testing Snape's loyalty?
 I appeal to the greater intellect of the group to see if anyone else
has thought about this.


 
> Maybe we saw the Brute Force Squad of the DE here?
> 
> Ceridwen.
>

Loved this!  Thanks -
Pat








From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 17:35:07 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 17:35:07 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <009e01c6c5ec$649ccff0$bd5a1618@the248437c0a60>
Message-ID: <ecff8b+pb01@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157298

Jane Penhaligon:

> I think that it is quite true that Dumbledore apparates silently. It
> is my belief that the more powerful and gifted a wizard or witch is,
> the more quietly that wizard or witch apparates. 

AD:
Or perhaps it's a question of care and practice.

The night Harry arrived at the Burrow in HBP, he and Mrs. Weasley
watched Arthur's hand on the clock go from "mortal peril" to
"traveling" and back when Arthur arrived at the Burrow, but although
he clearly must have appeared just outside the door, no mention is
made of an Apparition crack.

Mundungus Fletcher, who was probably half in the bag at the time, made
a bang like a starter's pistol, and the twins, who are new at the
game, also make a loud noise when they Apparate at Grimmauld place,
even though they have reason to be stealthy (Molly is listening).

If it is just a question of the amount of noise you make depending on
practice and of how careful you are being to be quiet, we can be sure
that Percy already Apparates pretty quietly, and that the Twins will
soon be making a noise like pair of hand grenades.

Amiable Dorsai







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 18:08:05 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:08:05 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecen7p+mpkr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfh65+ankm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157299

Aida wrote:
>
> I've always wondered - why did Fake!Moody *insist* Harry learn how to
> fight off Imperio?  At first I thought, 'well maybe he wanted to see
> how powerful Harry was'.  That's fine, but why ensure Harry gets
> *stronger*?    Doesn't that make Voldy's job harder?
> 
> Just another inconsistency that JKR will never answer.

Carol responds:
Just speculation, but I think that Barty Jr. enjoys casting
Unforgiveable Curses and Harry's apparently innate ability to resist
the Imperius Curse gives him the opportunity to Imperio Harry about
five times until he masters the skill. (He also Imperios everyone in
the class to show them what it feels like, even though not one of them
can resist the curse, and uses all three curses on the spiders,
prolonging the Crucio to torture poor Neville, in part for sadistic
pleasure and in part so he can pretend to feel sorry for Neville and
give him the water plants book.)

Granted, satisfying his sadistic impulses would not justify (in his
mind or LV's) teaching Harry to resist the Imperius Curse if he
expected Harry to live, but he's trying to get Harry to win the
tournament so that he'll grab the Triwizard Cup and be portkeyed right
to Voldemort and Wormtail, who will make sure (so Barty thinks) that
Harry contributes his blood to the potion and is then killed. Being
able to resist the Imperius Curse won't give him any advantage against
Crucio or Avada Kedavra. It might, however, give him an advantage in
the tournament if, say, Igor Karkaroff tries to Imperio him to give
his own champion, Viktor Krum, a better chance. Crouch!Moody wants
Harry to win and is giving him every possible advantage over the other
champions, who are older and more experienced, but not an advantage
over Voldemort, the most powerful Dark Wizard since Salazar Slytherin.
(That Harry might survive the encounter with Voldemort probably
doesn't enter Crouch!Moody's mind.)

On a side note, I'm not at all sure that Crouch!Moody really received
Dumbledore's permission to illustrate the Unforgiveable Curses on
spiders in front of the students, much less to Imperio them. I doubt
very much that the real Moody would have done so. So whether he
requested and received permission (DD does seem to give his teachers
an unusual amount of free rein) or demonstrated the curses without
permission and DD found out about it, DD's suspicions would have been
aroused, at least subconsciously. One more piece of the puzzle, which
flies into place, along with the memories DD has placed in the
Pensieve and the stolen Polyjuice ingredients, when Crouch!Moody
disobeys DD's order to leave Harry where he is when he returns with
Cedric's body.

Carol, who loves GoF and was much more disturbed by Cedric's death
than by Sirius Black's








From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 18:03:44 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:03:44 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39BDA@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <ecfgu0+th8b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157300

> James adds:
> 
> We have to remember that there were two goals, not one in LV's
> mind at the time. It's obvious that he wanted/needed Harry. But
> you can't overlook the second goal, to return without anyone
> having any suspicions.

Eddie:
I can imagine this is true, but I'm not entirely persuaded.  Does
Voldemort really care if anybody is suspicious or not?  I can't recall
the canon now, but didn't Barty Crouch Jr. light the dark mark at the
Quidditch on Voldemort's orders?  That doesn't seem in line with
trying to not raise suspicions about his return.

Eddie








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 18:18:50 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:18:50 -0000
Subject: replying to Lupin as a mind reader
In-Reply-To: <ecevdu+b39l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfhqa+l691@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157301

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote:
<snip> 
> Two examples of this phrase with Lupin are in POA, and one in 
> OOTP.  There may be more -- I'm looking.

Mike here:
Lupin legilimens examples that I count:
PoA:
1. Kids not eating the chocolate on the train.
2. Lupin assumes Harry will have a Voldemort boggart.
(interesting the difference between the British and American 
versions, how in the British Harry admits he was thinking of 
Voldemort at first. Us Yanks didn't get that legilimens clue)
3. Lupin tells Harry, "nothing to do with weakness", just after 
Harry was thinking it.
4. Lupin is suspicious about Harry's explanation over tasting 
butterbeer. Ron and Hermione could have brought Harry a bottle, just 
like Lupin was about to give Harry a bottle.
5. Lupin looks like he's trying to read Sirius' mind in the shack.
OotP:
1. Once at Privet Drive Lupin answers Harry before he asks.
2. Once outside of Grimmauld Place Lupin cuts off Harry's question 
with the answer. (This one could be just common sense)
3. Lupin's eyes are fixed on Sirius during the after dinner debate 
with Molly. Not proof, but everyone else is looking back and forth 
between the two.
4. Lupin knows some extendable ears have survived Molly's purge.
Are these the one's you had.

<snip> 
> wynnleaf again: 
> I'm a bit surprised that no one found this particularly  
> interesting. Perhaps everyone has discussed this in depth much    
> earlier. But if Lupin is a legilimens it could have major 
> implications. And I think JKR's repeated use of that phrase, in 
> addition to other examples of intent "looks" or "closed" looks, 
> and examples of Lupin knowing little things about people he 
> couldn't have known, does point to legilimens. <snip>

Mike again:
IIRC, someone (sorry I can't remember who, for attribution) has 
postulated that Lupin is an OK legilimens and we have been given 
abundant clues to that effect to figure it out. Another clue is  
Lupin knows that Snape is a "superb Occlumens", he has tried 
legilimens on Snape and got nowhere. Just because it isn't formally 
announced isn't sinister, JKR expects us to figure it out. Besides, 
a legilimens doesn't want others to know he is one, doesn't want 
others on their guard to thwart his efforts. Nature of the magic, ya 
know.

I am unconvinced of Lupin's true intentions or whether he will crack 
under pressure. But so far, none of his legilimency seems to be used 
for sinister ends. It just looks like he is practicing it whenever 
he can, you know, honing his skill.

<snip>
> wynnleaf finishes:
> Oh, and the Sectumsempra chapter shows Snape using legilimency 
> without any mention of his using his wand. There are examples of 
> wandlessmagic periodically throughout the books and legilimens 
> appears to be a spell that a powerful wizard can use wandlessly.

Mike finishes:
Yeah, kinda makes you wonder what Snape was trying to accomplish in 
those Occlumency lessons. Looks more and more like Snape was worried 
about an uninvited guest gaining access without really being there, 
if you know what I mean. Harry tunes into LV when LV is feeling 
strong emotions, why wouldn't it work in reverse? Did ya notice that 
just after Snape berates Harry, just after Harry blurts out the 
question, just after Snape admits spying on LV is his job, Harry 
comes up with the idea of casting Protego to reverse the legilimency 
and see into Snape's memories? Is it possible someone subconciously 
suggested that spell to Harry, someone who wanted to know a little 
more about Snape's spying? Just a thought.







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 18:33:25 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:33:25 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfill+gtqd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157302


> Aida:


> I got angrier and angrier as I read the book that by the end, I
> was so incensed at Dumbledore that I almost threw the book across
> the room!
> That's when I *really* realized what a talented story teller JKR
> is - they're fictional characters for goodness sakes, yet I was
> so mad at them!!!


Oddly enough, book 5, especially the scene in the Headmaster's office
right after Sirius died, was the book that finally made me respect
Dumbledore.

I'm fascinated by the variety of reactions JKR's characters inspire in
her readers.

Amiable Dorsai









From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 18:39:16 2006
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 11:39:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecfgu0+th8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060822183917.97197.qmail@web55103.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157303


                                  Eddie  queried:
Does Voldemort really care if anybody is suspicious or not?  I can't recall
 the canon now, but didn't Barty Crouch Jr. light the dark mark at the
 Quidditch on Voldemort's orders?  That doesn't seem in line with
 trying to not raise suspicions about his return.
 




akh responds:

That scenario was in the movie, not the book.  To our knowledge, LV was no more aware than anyone else that Barty Crouch didn't die in Azkaban, but was polyjuiced and traded for his dying mother.  He took it entirely upon himself to shoot off the Dark Mark.  In fact, he was Imperio'd until quite shortly before he set of the Mark.  We later find out that he sought out LV after the Quidditch World Cup, once he was no longer under his father's Imperious Curse.  

Because of this timeline, it's entirely possible that LV was less than thrilled with either the Death Eaters' or Barty's displays at the QWC.  However, we don't see the initial interaction between Barty and LV, so we can make up whatever we like!

akh, who doesn't write fan fiction but can see endless possibilities...


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




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 18:37:57 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:37:57 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecb4vr+u4m3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfiu5+hgup@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157304


"wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...> wrote:
>
> I was reading through POA today and ran across yet 
> another reference to Lupin acting "as though he had 
> read Harry's mind..."  Regardless of whether or not 
> Lupin is good or bad, I am starting to think this is
> one we should be looking at more closely.
> 
> ...edited-excellent list of Legilimens/Occlumens examples...
> 
> ... Yet, if he's (Lupin) an occlumens/legilimens himself, 
> why didn't he volunteer or even mention it? In other words, 
> if Lupin is an occlumens or legilimens, he's keeping it a 
> secret.
> 
> If JKR was using those scenes (so similar to the Lupin 
> ones above) as examples of Snape doing legilimency, then 
> it seems highly likely that she's doing the same thing 
> with Lupin, but she just hasn't told us. 
> ...
> 
> Further, although some might think these could just be 
> red herrings, that also seems unlikely.  ... 
> 
> Last, although it is possible that an occlumens or 
> legilimens Lupin could be good, if Lupin *can* do this 
> kind of magic, it lends a lot of weight to ESE!Lupin.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> wynnleaf, ...

bboyminn:

Sorry for cutting so much of such an excellent post. 
I'm going to partly respond to this post and partly 
respond to the subject in general.

I agree, JKR is dropping giant sized hints that Lupin 
is certainly skilled in Legilimency, and possibly even 
skilled at Occlumency. But I don't think that makes 
Lupin 'Ever So Evil'. Though, I admit, I can't imagine 
how that is going to come into play in the last book.

I suspect that Legilimens and Occlumens are not like 
on-off switches where you either have it 100% or you 
don't have it at all. I suspect it is like any other 
skill; it comes in degrees. For example, we can all 
probably play soccer, but only certain people have a 
natural gift for it, and those people who have a 
natural gift have that gift in degrees. Some may have 
the gift to the degree that it allows them to excel 
at the high school level, other may excel as 
professionals.

So, most wizards and witches might have a casual level 
of skill, as an illustration, in the 5% to 15% range. 
That would hardly be more than good intuition. Good 
practitioners might be more in the 40% to 60% range. 
Snape could be in the 70% to 90% range. 

I suspect Lupin would be in the high-middle range. He 
certainly can do it, and seems to be able to do it 
consistently, but at the same time, he is able to 
recognise Snape superior skill in the matter. 

I think that Lupin didn't volunteer to teach Harry 
because, as I said, he recognised Snape's superior 
skill. But further, that Snape was at Hogwarts and Lupin 
wasn't. It would have looked suspicious if Lupin had shown 
up at the school to talk to Harry several times a month. 
Then there is Lupin's 'furry little problem'. 

Having been removed as a teacher, and having had the 
restictions on werewolves become even more strict since 
then, I think Lupin saw himself at a substantial 
disadvantage (whether actually true or not). Also, I 
think Lupin thought that if Dumbledore thought him the 
best condidate, he would have suggested him. It's not 
really up to Lupin to volunteer; it's up to Dumbledore 
to pick the best candidate - all things considered. 

Sirius and his sinking mood also complicate the situation. 
It's possible that both Dumbledore and Lupin thought 
keeping Sirius's spirits up was a more critical use of 
Lupin's talents than tutoring Harry. Plus Lupin may have 
well had other duties for the Order that he needed to 
perform. I think Dumbledore made his choice, and Lupin, 
the ever compliant person that he is, just accepted that. 

I do see one flaw in both Dumbledore and Lupin's 
thinking though. While Snape may be a far superior 
Legilimens/Occlumens, Lupin is an infinitely more effective 
teacher. I think Snape used the worst possible teaching 
method in teaching Harry, and that lead to the overal 
failure of the effort. If Lupin had taught Harry, Harry's 
skill might not have been perfect, but he would have been 
able to function to some degree. As it is, though Harry 
is actually capable of doing it, he sees the Occulmency 
classes and his efforts as a failure, and so he has written 
that skill off as a lost cause. Yet, we see that the skill 
is actually there, but Snape made the circumstances such 
that it was impossible to nuture and enhance that skill. 
I think Harry's belief that he can't do Occumency is the
major obstical to his being able to do it. He believes 
he is a failure, and so he is.

So, yes, I think, most definitely, that Lupin is certainly 
a skilled Legilimens, and very probably a capable Occlumens.

I also want to emphasize again that Legilimens/Occlumens 
are likely skills that are common in varying degrees; Lupin 
is in the high-middle ground of skill, Snape is on the very 
high end of skill level. 

Now to a point that is very tangental to the immediate 
discussion, and a point that I have made before because I 
think it is important to keep in mind when discussing this
subject.

We have actually seen Legilimens in TWO distinct forms. One 
form that could be used by just about any magical person 
regardless of skill level, and another that is very much 
tied to personal skill. 

There is the Legilimens SPELL which is quite different and 
unique and separate from the SKILL of Legilimens. When 
people discuss this subject they tend to merge those two 
separate and only slightly related things into one entity.

Anyone with a reasonable degree of magical skill can 
perform the Legilimens Spell, but notice the results, a 
disjointed cascade of random memories. It would only be 
by random chance that the information you were looking for 
would come floating by, and also notice that memories can 
be blocked as Harry clearly demonstrates. 

Even more important, it is not a very stealthy method of 
gathering information. The 'victim' is clearly and 
consciously aware that something is going on, and summoning 
the resolve, can stop the cascade. 

I suspect there is probably a companion Occlumency Spell 
to block access to memories, but it is as crude and obvious 
as the Legilimens Spell; again, not very stealthy or subtle.

The natural SKILLS of Legilimency (primarily) and 
Occlumency are much more subtle and much more selective. 
When Voldemort preforms Legilimency, I think he very 
stealthly enters the mind and is able to draw forth very 
specific memories. He is selectively able to read the mind. 
Again, that's not absolute fact, but my reasonable and 
likely expansion of what we know.

I think Occlumency is the same. If Voldemort probes Snape's 
mind and senses that Snape is blocking his access, then 
Voldemort is going to be very suspicious. However, if Snape 
is able to close those sections of his mind that he wants 
kept secret, close them in a way that gives the impression 
that they don't exist, then to Voldemort it gives the 
impression that he is able to freely roam Snape's mind. 

I think the Room of Requirements is a good metaphor for 
Snape's Occulmency skill; there /is/ a door and behind it 
lay your heart and minds desire, but on the outside, all 
Voldemort sees is a plain and simple section of ordinary 
wall. To survive, Snape's skill level must be that high, 
so high that you can't even tell that it is there.

I just want to make sure that people make the distinction 
between the Legilimency SKILL and the Legilimency SPELL, 
they are not the same thing.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:00:46 2006
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:00:46 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <ecff8b+pb01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfk8u+ui5i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157305

> Jane Penhaligon:
> 
> > It is my belief that the more powerful and gifted a wizard or 
witch is, the more quietly that wizard or witch apparates. 
> 
> >Amiable Dorsai:

> Or perhaps it's a question of care and practice.
> 
> SNIP > 
> Mundungus Fletcher, who was probably half in the bag at the time, 
> made a bang like a starter's pistol, and the twins, who are new at
> the game, also make a loud noise when they Apparate at Grimmauld
> Place, even though they have reason to be stealthy (Molly is 
listening).
> SNIP

> hpfan_mom now:

Hermione comments in HBP (more than once, IIRC) that products from 
the twins' store are the result of some really skillful magic.  I was 
left with the impression that while the twins might be goof-offs, 
they're pretty smart goof-offs (or, as they might have been called in 
an American high school, "gifted underachievers").

They barely scrape a few OWLs apiece and drop out in the 7th year.  
Yet they're actually pretty gifted wizards when it comes to practical 
magic that interests them.  The twins probably think it's hilarious 
to "go out with a bang," so they do.

hpfan_mom







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:08:05 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:08:05 -0000
Subject: Petrificus totalis?
In-Reply-To: <EXCHANGE019g89Mmh3800000884@compdevsys.com>
Message-ID: <ecfkmm+8gsk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157306

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Michelle A. Tague" <taguem at ...>
wrote:
>
> I'm curious as to what opinions you guys might have 
> had regarding that spell and why it wasn't used in 
> more serious sticky situations that HRH have been in. 
> ...
>  
> Michelle, ...

bboyminn:

We've seen several battles now, and the selection of spell by both
sides is admittedly confusing.

Personally, I think the Stunning Spell ('Stupify') is the best
non-lethal spell to use in battle, is has a short crips incantation
and seems very effective. 

One problem with 'Petrificus Totalus' is that the victim remains
conscious and aware of what is being said and done around him.
Eventually the spell will be reversed or wear off and he will be able
to tell his comrades what he heard. 

With the Stunning Spell the person is completely unconscious, not able
to overhear, and not able to formulate plans while he is disabled. 

Logic would tell me that the best spells are those with the shortest
and easist to say incantation that render the victim as completely
disabled as possible while doing no harm.

What amazes me even more that the choice of spells, is the movie, TV,
and book age old custum of leaving the enemies weapons behind. It
would seem the most practical, safe, and effective thing if when the
good guys had disabled a bad guy, if they took and/or destroyed his
wand, thereby limiting his ability to do battle even when he recovers
from the disabling curse.

Maybe it's a matter of wizardly honor. A wizard's wand is such a deep
and personal thing, that even the worst wizard will not destroy his
enemies wand in the heat of battle. But wizardly honor or not, it
sounds like a very smart thing to do to me. 

Note, as I pointed out, in the movies/TV/books, when you run out of
bullets, you don't pick up the enemies gun, you struggle on without
one. When you knock an enemy unconscious, you don't take his weapon,
at best, you just toss it to the side. 

Life is strange, or at least, fictional life is strange.

Steve/bboyminn






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:11:30 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:11:30 -0000
Subject: replying to Lupin as a mind reader
In-Reply-To: <ecevdu+b39l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfkt2+p395@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157307

wynnleaf wrote:
<snip>
> Oh, and the Sectumsempra chapter shows Snape using legilimency without
> any mention of his using his wand.  There are examples of wandless
> magic periodically throughout the books and legilimens appears to be a
> spell that a powerful wizard can use wandlessly.

Carol responds:
I think that the spell Legilimens and the skill Legilimency are two
different things. The spell ejects memories from the mind of the
person it's cast on, whereas Legilimency is, as you say, wandless
magic involving eye contact. Snape uses the spell in the Occlumency
lessons to force Harry to defend himself, using any spell he can think
of, or, better yet, using his mind to block it. Of course, as Snape
tells Harry, the mind is not a book, and Legilimency has its
limitations, revealing only what the person being Legilimensed is
feeling or remembering at the moment as far as I can tell. It seems to
be used chiefly to detect falsehoods and can evidently, like
Occlumency, be turned on and off at will, meaning that neither Snape
nor Dumbledore is *always* penetrating Harry's mind when he speaks to
them. (Harry can generally sense when they're looking into his eyes,
ad Draco tells Snape, "I know what you're doing!" With LV, however, 
Legilimency may be undetectable and it would be safest for Snape to be
in Occlumency mode at all times when they're together, assuming that
he's DDM.)

I also think that some Legilimens (Legilimentes?) are more skilled
than others (Voldemort is supposed to be the greatest Legilimens in
the world, but he's probably matched by Dumbledore. Snape also appears
to be quite good at it, but perhaps not in their league as a
Legilimens). The degree of mastery of Occlumency (for which I don't
think there's a corresponding "Occlumens" spell) also varies. Lupin,
who doesn't hand out praise casually, calls Snape "a superb
Occlumens," and Snape would certainly need to be one to fool LV,
concealing memories and emotions that "contradict the lie" without his
Occlumency being detectable. Draco, OTOH, clumsily and obviously
blocks Snape's Legilimency attempt. (If Draco tried that with
Voldemort, he'd be Crucio'd on the spot. I speculate that Snape could
have forced the truth from Draco using the Legilimens spell, or
penetrated his clumsy and obvious Occlumency in some other way, but
doing so would have undermined his already shaky relationship with
Draco and perhaps have revealed that he was loyal to Dumbledore, not
to LV. Why else try to discover the plan that LV doesn't want Snape to
know? Sorry for the digression.)

BTW, the Latin noun "mens" means mind. A Legilimens is a person;
Legilimency is the wandless magic the Legilimens practices. The same
is true for Occlumens (the person) and Occlumency (the magic). (BTW,
the adjective demens, dementis means insane--hence, the Dementors.)

Regarding Lupin as a possible Legilimens, I've also noticed the "mind
reading" references in relation to him, but I think they *may* simply
reflect Lupin's psychological astuteness and his knowledge of Harry's
past, rather like the way that Fred and George can intuit each other's
thoughts, but not to the same degree. (Don't Ron and Harry also
sometimes read each other's minds, in the figurative sense, by
exchanging glances, as Black and Lupin also do?)

Carol, trying to clear up the concept and the terminology without
really answering the question in the subject line 






From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:11:49 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:11:49 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecd9ad+o5hc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfktl+so8r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157308

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:

> Why so complicated?

Because Voldemort is a terrorist, and because terrorism, in its own
ghastly way, is a form of theater--the bigger the impression you make
on your audience, the more successful you are.

Snatching Harry out from under the watchful eyes of both Dumbledore
and the Ministry of Magic in front of an audience--what could be
better than that for dispelling the mystique of the Boy Who Lived?

I've long believed that the two-way Portkey was made that way so that,
for the final act of Voldy's gruesome little play, a Death Eater could
port into the maze, dump Harry's corpse, and fire off the Dark Mark.

Would have made a great finale, if only Harry had died on cue--damned
kid is always flubbing his lines.

Amiable Dorsai









From harryp at stararcher.com  Tue Aug 22 19:16:11 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:16:11 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfiu5+hgup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfl5r+e901@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157309

> "wynnleaf" <fairwynn@> wrote:
> > I was reading through POA today and ran across yet 
> > another reference to Lupin acting "as though he had 
> > read Harry's mind..."
>
> bboyminn:
> I suspect that Legilimens and Occlumens are not like 
> on-off switches where you either have it 100% or you 
> don't have it at all. I suspect it is like any other 
> skill; it comes in degrees.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

Eddie:
All this makes sense except I can't reconcile any of it with Draco's
ability to block out Snape's Legilimens.  Surely a Legilimens master
like Snape should have been able to penetrate a newbie like Draco. 
It's not as if Snape didn't try because he didn't want Draco to know
he was doing it, or because he didn't want to invade Draco, or any
other reason: remember that Snape *DID* try (I think Harry overheard
Draco repelling him during Slughorn's party?).

Eddie







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:37:02 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:37:02 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfiu5+hgup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfmcu+jmpj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157310

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

Mike:
Likewise, sorry to snip an excellent response to an excellent post. 
I also questioned Snape's true motives in those occlumency lessons, 
different thread, same topic, wynnleaf's 2nd installation:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157301

if anyone is interested.

> bboyminn:
> <snip> 
> I do see one flaw in both Dumbledore and Lupin's 
> thinking though. While Snape may be a far superior 
> Legilimens/Occlumens, Lupin is an infinitely more effective 
> teacher. I think Snape used the worst possible teaching 
> method in teaching Harry, and that lead to the overal 
> failure of the effort. If Lupin had taught Harry, Harry's 
> skill might not have been perfect, but he would have been 
> able to function to some degree. As it is, though Harry 
> is actually capable of doing it, he sees the Occulmency 
> classes and his efforts as a failure, and so he has written 
> that skill off as a lost cause. Yet, we see that the skill 
> is actually there, but Snape made the circumstances such 
> that it was impossible to nuture and enhance that skill. 
> I think Harry's belief that he can't do Occumency is the
> major obstical to his being able to do it. He believes 
> he is a failure, and so he is.
> <snip>

Mike:
Could you expand on Harry being able to do Occlumency? See I've 
resigned myself to believing, like Harry does, that he can't do it 
because he can't rein in his emotions. Have I been duped by that 
*unreliable narrator* again?


> bboyminn again:
> 
> We have actually seen Legilimens in TWO distinct forms. One 
> form that could be used by just about any magical person 
> regardless of skill level, and another that is very much 
> tied to personal skill. 
> 
> There is the Legilimens SPELL which is quite different and 
> unique and separate from the SKILL of Legilimens. When 
> people discuss this subject they tend to merge those two 
> separate and only slightly related things into one entity.
> <snip> 
> I suspect there is probably a companion Occlumency Spell 
> to block access to memories, but it is as crude and obvious 
> as the Legilimens Spell; again, not very stealthy or subtle.
> <snip>

Mike again:
Excellent point!!! It almost pains me to snip any of it.
Permit me to add one thing; People keep confusing the two related 
but seperate skills. And while they are related, it seems entirely 
possible that one could be "superb" at one while being only passable 
at the other. For instance, I envision Snape is an excellent 
Occlumens but only a good Legilimens. Conversely, I picture LV as 
the greatest Legilimens but only above average Occlumens. Why would 
he worry about someone probing his mind, he could detect the intent 
before the prober got started, and stop him/her in a very painful 
way!!

Once again, excellent post!!!

Mike








From amsmith422 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 02:43:14 2006
From: amsmith422 at yahoo.com (amsmith422)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 02:43:14 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdg7l+bkkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecdr02+ufb0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157311

> >>Lynn:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.
> <snip>
> My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone else?

> >>zgirnius:
> Ditto. Not to mention, for discussing it online with other adults, or even reading it in the first place. (The kids are still too young to be a valid excuse).

> >>Sheila:
> My husband thinks I'm an absolute "nutter" LOL so does other members of my family.  I don't care what anyone else thinks I      enjoy the books and movies.  Besides I can't get away from Harry    Potter because my  2yr old son absolutely  adores  the movies and  has even shown interest in the books and loves to be read from     Harry Potter. (He must have gotten it from me, go figure) And if   we are talking the movies (which is  for the other group) my       youngest is working on our second set of DVDs, he watches almost   daily (if I let him)

Anna:
My husband keeps asking me how many times I'm going to read "those
books" because I'm always carrying one around with me.  I began
reading the books just last year before the fourth movie came out.
I had read in a magazine article about how the movies leave so much
of the story out and had never really thought of that before.  I had
seen all of the movies so I started reading with GOF and worked my
way back to the first.  Then re-read from the 1st to the 6th.  Since
that time I have read over 10 times (was a lit. major in
college...became quite adept at speed reading).

I am absolutely obsessed with this series and will not rest until the 7th book comes out so I will finally know how it all ends.  I check the websites daily and buy any magazine in which I see an article immediately.  I am definitely a Potterite.  My husband loves the movies....he's just more of a numbers guy, not big into reading.  My six and two year olds love them also.  What's not to love.  I do not care what anyone thinks or says....if they ever took the time to read the series they would be addicts too. I am actually mid-way through COS again as we speak.

Anna





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 19:59:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 19:59:24 -0000
Subject: The Summer of his 16th Year (was: Voldemort killed...)
In-Reply-To: <ec8g51+h5u8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfnms+4g2p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157312

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
>
> Mike wrote:
> > <snip> BTW, DD said that Tom killed his relatives "in 
> > the  summer of his sixteenth year" not when he was 
> > sixteen years old. ...
> >

> Carol responds:
> Actually, "in his sixteenth year" is the error, which a 
> copyeditor should have caught and corrected or queried. 
> (JKR, ... may not know the difference between "sixteen" 
> and "in his sixteenth year.") 

bboyminn:

Normally when we say someone is in their 'first year', we 
are talking about the year between 0 and One, as in, he 
is in his first year of college.

But people do not speak in absolutes, and I think there is 
a reasonable general conversational context for Dumbledore's 
statement even if it is not absolutely factually accurate.

'..in the summer of his sixteenth year' could in the context 
of the coversation mean in the summer of the year in which 
he was 16, rather than his 16th year of life. Your 16th year 
of life, as has already been pointed out, is techincally the 
year in which you are 15. When you reach the age of 15, you 
have lived 15 full years, so the year following your 15th 
birthday is you 16th year of life. We agree on that aspect.

But, I think there is a fair argument to be made for common 
speech rather than techincal definition. While the Copy 
Editor should have questioned the entry, I personally don't 
think it represents an actual error, and may have been 
justified at being left as is. To say 'in the summer of his 
17th year' may have actually caused more confusion. 

So, for ease and simplicity of understanding, I am going 
to take 'in the summer of his 16th year' to mean what I 
feel was intended, 'in the summer of the year in which he 
was 16'; 16th year of age, not 16th year of life.

I agree with Carol's assessment of the time line 
(post#157250) in which she list a logical and reasonable 
sequences of events.

Tom made the diary AFTER he killed Myrtle, so that fact 
that he incorporated his 16 year old self in the diary 
does establish that he was 16 when Myrtle died. 

While the absents of mention of the ring is not the same 
as absents of the ring, I think it is not mentioned to 
help establish the time line. Before, without the ring, 
and after, with it.

I think in the post referenced above, Carol establishes 
the most likely and reasonable time line. Sure you can 
argue other possibilities, but I think hers makes the 
most sense, and keeps the most consistent flow of time 
information we have. 

One small point I will quibble with though - see items 
6 and 7 below -

6. Tom asks Slughorn about Horcruxes, clearly after the 
Riddle murders because he's wearing the ring.

7. Tom makes the diary, already a "powerful magical object," 
and the ring into Horcruxes.

While not stated, it is implied that 7 immediately follows 
6. We don't actually know the time span between them. Yes, 
Slughorn gives Tom some basic information about Horcruxes, 
but Tom needs to research the subject for a while since it 
seems to be information that the wizard world in not eager 
to have divilged, and not an easy task to perform.

I don't think the Ring and Diary were made Horcruxes until 
a few years at best after Tom left school. 

Again, Carol doesn't specifically say one occurs immediately 
after the other, but I think it is important to the time line 
to understand that there is likely a significant amount of 
time between item 6 and 7.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 22 20:09:47 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:09:47 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GFcZQ-0000It-AE@elasmtp-scoter.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157313

Aida:
As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off. 
Umbridge is such a cow!!!  What really steamed me was knowing that in our
real world, politics and government *are* corrupt- this wasn't just JKR's
wonderful imagination at work - and we all suffer for it. 
I got angrier and angrier as I read the book that by the end, I was so
incensed at Dumbledore that I almost threw the book across the room! 
That's when I *really* realized what a talented story teller JKR is -
they're fictional characters for goodness sakes, yet I was so mad at them!!!

I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to any of
the books?  



Sherry now:

I had a very emotional reaction to OOTP and still have trouble getting
through it when I try to reread.  The weekend of its release, I had two
friends over to read the audio book with me.  During many of the Umbridge
scenes, particularly the lines writing, I had to leave the room and let my
friends continue without me.  And the part where Sirius dies upset me more
than any other thing in any of the books.  Not even Dumbledore's death upset
me as much.  The manner of Dumbledore's death shocked me, and I was sad that
he had to die, but he was old, and he had to die in the story.  But to take
away Harry's godfather and guardian, to take away the one person he'd found
who was all his, it really broke my heart.  When I can manage to read OOTP,
I always have to stop before Sirius dies.  Emotionally speaking, I think
it's one of the cruelest events in the entire series for me, anyway.

Sherry




From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 20:17:25 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:17:25 -0000
Subject: 16 years of teaching at Hogwarts? (wasRe: Copyediting Errors - Listed?)
In-Reply-To: <ecd4sp+caap@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfool+4mbr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157314

"justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Carol earlier:
> > > Other examples, ...and Snape having taught for 
> > > fourteen years at the beginning of OoP but having 
> > > sixteen (should be fifteen) years worth of 
> > > information on Dumbledore. ... 
> > 
> > 
> > Potioncat:
> > ...
> > 
> > If Snape had been teaching 14 years in the fall during 
> > Umbridge. Then he had been teaching for 15 years the 
> > fall he was DADA. But we don't know that he wasn't 
> > already spying on DD before that. ...
> 
> Carol responds:
> I agree that Snape was *spying* for Dumbledore for about
> a year before he started teaching, but he wouldn't want 
> to reveal that information to Bellatrix. He would only 
> have wanted to mention the fifteen years of teaching as 
> a means of (ostensibly) gathering information on 
> Dumbledore to provide to Voldemort if and when he 
> returned. ...

bboyminn:

Though I am willing to be wrong about this, I don't think I am.

I think there is one small point we are overlooking in our analysis of
this particular aspect of the timeline. Voldemort SENT Snape to
getting good with Dumbledore. Everyone seems to be counting the time
from which Snape seems to have /joined/ Dumbledore, but Snape was sent
on his mission to work with Dumbledore /before/ he turned to the good
side.

So, when Snape says '15 years' he probably means 15 years from the
time Voldemort sent me on my mission. Further, it is to Snape benefit
to flaunt that aspect in front of Bellatrix. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Tue Aug 22 16:23:18 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:23:18 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <ecf2k3+o8kg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfb1m+rbte@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157315

> < Tinktonks:
> > Not sure if this has been mentioned before but I've decided to
> > got through the books with a fine toothed comb and I've noticed
> > that Dumbledore alone appears to apparate silently.
>
> Eddie:
> He also silently dis-apparates from Privet Drive too, no?

Laurawkids:
And, I think, from the infirmary:

GOF US pb pg.713-14: "Harry slumped back against his pillows as
Dumbledore disappeared. Hermione, Ron, and Mrs. Weasley were all
looking at him. None of them spoke for a very long time."

The "him" they were looking at should be DD because he is the last
person referenced, right?  We want to think DD walked out like Snape
did, but it does not say that.  There is no sound mentioned.  And you
CAN'T dis-apparate on Hogwarts grounds! It says so in... .

One idea I floated on a previous post 156834 (which no one even
touched, even to rip to shreds in a civilized manner ; ) ) is that we
might be being shown that DD is using his time-turner watch on
occasion.

Even just turning it back a few minutes will get you silently out of
somewhere.  Quite handy for a man in DD's position, I think.

So if that is correct, DD would have shown up on Privet Drive by time
travel rather than apparation.

Why does Mundungus make a huge crack on Privet Drive?  You'd think a
sneak-thief would have practiced making his comings and goings silent.

And lest it seems too easy an out for JKR to use time as one of DD's
tricks, remember that messing with time is viewed as a dangerous
thing.  But someone who is a genius, as DD is supposed to be, could
be using it to quite interesting ends.  If he has twelve hands on
that watch, is he keeping track of twelve people, or could he be
keeping track of where *himselves are* in time.  For me it would
indicate DD is trickier and more brilliant, not less so.

Laurawkids











From kaylee01 at woh.rr.com  Tue Aug 22 19:06:00 2006
From: kaylee01 at woh.rr.com (Stacy Patnode)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:06:00 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
References: <ece2eq+bt0h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <096501c6c61e$01c0aa00$0a00a8c0@userqtmj2qaxb3>

No: HPFGUIDX 157316

 Aida wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
 any of the books?

Stacy:
Yes, I most certainly did.  As I said yesterday, I'm on my third read of the 
series and this time, I had quite a strong reaction to a few things in the 
first few chapters of PS/SS.  I got really choked up when Hagrid gave Hedwig 
to Harry.  I'm not really sure why; it just really got to me this time.  I 
think it's just because that's such a beautiful example of Hagrid's caring 
generous character.  I also got emotional when Harry and Ron met for the 
first time.  I love the beginning of the trio!
I think PS/SS really sucks the reader in, showing us the wizarding world 
from Harry's innocent intrigued perspective and I love that.

In OotP... well, I'd like to force Umbridge to write "I must not act like 
such an evil toad." with her quill.  Call me evil or whatever you wish, but 
I certainly hope Umbridge truly gets her just desserts in the seventh book. 
:)
The pensieve scene bothered me for months after I read that chapter and I 
was unable to discuss it rationally for quite a while.  I absolutely hate 
seeing/reading about a child being bullied that way, but that's a completely 
different discussion.  :)
The Weasley twins prank campaign against Umbridge was brilliant and when I'm 
feeling depressed by the events in OotP, I just have to think about their 
beautiful little swamp and I completely crack up!  :)
I was upset when Sirius died, but even more distraught when Harry found the 
mirror.

HBP... when Snape killed Dumbledore, I actually shouted a few obscenities, 
started crying and had to put down the book for a while before I could 
finish it.  Silly as this may sound, I felt so betrayed!
I think the confrontation between Harry and Snape at the end of HBP is so 
compelling and gave me so much fodder for my favorite theory.

OotP and HBP invoked a really strong emotional reaction for me and I think 
that's why they are my favorite books in the series.  HBP certainly leaves 
us with way more questions than answers and as strange as this may sound, I 
think it's brilliant.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 22 20:56:40 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:56:40 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfmcu+jmpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfr28+ib18@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157317

> > bboyminn:
As it is, though Harry 
> > is actually capable of doing it, he sees the Occulmency 
> > classes and his efforts as a failure, and so he has written 
> > that skill off as a lost cause. Yet, we see that the skill 
> > is actually there, but Snape made the circumstances such 
> > that it was impossible to nuture and enhance that skill. 

> 
> Mike:
> Could you expand on Harry being able to do Occlumency? See I've 
> resigned myself to believing, like Harry does, that he can't do it 
> because he can't rein in his emotions. Have I been duped by that 
> *unreliable narrator* again?

Magpie:
Harry can't do Occlumency--according to JKR in interviews outside 
canon he's "too damaged," but I think also she implies it's just 
against his nature (I'd even suggest she thinks this reflects well 
on his character).  We don't ever see that the skill is there--on 
the contrary, he uses own natural impulse against Snape by throwing 
a Protego at him (something he's been working on in the DA) but 
never actually cloaks his mind, as far as I recall.  I think given 
what Rowling's said Occlumency is a skill to be learned by anyone, 
though some people are naturally better at it (Draco is a natural, 
though presumably a beginner who would still need to practice and 
study to get very good), just like most other skills.  But it's a 
skill Harry is particularly unsuited for and probably won't ever do 
it.

-m






From taguem at jmsearch.com  Tue Aug 22 12:51:32 2006
From: taguem at jmsearch.com (Michelle A. Tague)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:51:32 -0400
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <E1GFJ98-0008FR-Sh@elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <EXCHANGE018ihOmw9AD00000d29@compdevsys.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157318

Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I 
> started reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way 
> through my third time. <snip>

Sherry now:
>> <snip> I've read GOF four times I think, and COS, OOTP and HBP
twice. COS is my least favorite of the books. The death of Sirius 
and Dolores Umbridge bother me so much that I never can make it 
through OOTP, even though there are many things I really like about 
the book. I always stop when they get to the ministry for the 
battle. POA is my favorite of the three, and I expect I've read it 
six or seven times all the way through. <<


Michelle:

My order of favorites is from most to least:

HBP

PoA 

GOF

PS/SS

COS

OOTP

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714&grpId=2176166&grpspId=1602544108&msgId
=157257&stime=1156202861&nc1=3848611&nc2=3848551&nc3=3848429>  
Friends of mine who are also big HP fans.... insist that OOTP is a 
great book... but it was too emotional for me.  And darnit I really 
wanted to punch that Umbridge in the face like 10000000 times in the book.
 
Is this more of a HPfGU Chatter list comment or is it ok on this regular list?
 
Michelle. 








From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 21:07:45 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:07:45 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <20060822183917.97197.qmail@web55103.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecfrn1+t2c5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157319

akh wrote:

To our knowledge, LV was no more aware than anyone else that Barty 
Crouch didn't die in Azkaban, but was polyjuiced and traded for his 
dying mother. He took it entirely upon himself to shoot off the Dark 
Mark. In fact, he was Imperio'd until quite shortly before he set of 
the Mark. We later find out that he sought out LV after the Quidditch
World Cup, once he was no longer under his father's Imperious Curse.

ibchawz responds:

Actually, LV did know about Barty Crouch, Jr.  He learned this 
information from Bertha Jorkins in Albania.  LV had to break through 
the memory charms placed on her to make her forget seeing Barty Jr.  
This was before he returned to the Riddle home in chapter 1 of GOF.  
Barty did not seek out LV.  LV came to Barty's house, liberated Barty 
Jr, and placed Barty Sr under the Imperious curse.  I don't recall 
the exact timeline, but I believe this was after the Quidditch World 
Cup.  Winky sure seemed surprised at Barty Jr's explanation of the 
events that transpired after the Quidditch World Cup while he was 
under the influence of the Veritaserum.  Winky would not have known 
of these events since she was given clothes by Barty Sr immediately 
following the Quidditch World Cup.

ibchawz







From anita_hillin at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 21:21:20 2006
From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:21:20 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecfrn1+t2c5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060822212120.63570.qmail@web55108.mail.re4.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157320



                                  akh wrote:(from memory):
 
 To our knowledge, LV was no more aware than anyone else that Barty 
 Crouch didn't die in Azkaban, but was polyjuiced and traded for his 
 dying mother. 
 ibchawz responded:
 
 Actually, LV did know about Barty Crouch, Jr.  He learned this 
 information from Bertha Jorkins in Albania.  LV had to break through 
 the memory charms placed on her to make her forget seeing Barty Jr. 




akh 'fesses up:



You're right about the Bertha Jorkins episode, I believe.  I'm doing this from work (instead of researching donor prospects) and didn't have access to the books.  Crouch is definitely NOT with Voldy before the QWC, because by his own admission under Veritaserum, he states that Winky talked his father into taking him to the tournament, and it was once there that he began to regain his own free will.  He had to steal Harry's wand to cast the Dark Mark, so this was not preplanned.



akh, who actually likes researching donor prospects, but is hitting some brick walls right now...







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




From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Aug 22 15:23:14 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:23:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <ecf2he+71cr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf7h2+75qh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157321

Tinktonks:
Does anyone else think that Dumbledores scar on his knee is
significant to Grindewald's horcruxes.

Eddie:
I sometimes wonder if half of what Dumbledore says is actually true,
or whether he is just joking.  A scar that's a perfect map of the
Underground?  Haven't blushed so much since Madame Pomfrey said she
liked my earmuffs?  )I may have that quote wrong)  Alas, ear wax
[flavored jelly bean]?  (How would he know what ear wax tastes like
anyways?)

Or maybe it's a clue.  :-)

Tinktonks:

Well I do take a few of Dumbledores more humerous comments with a
pinch of salt (god i love that old guy!) but I just don't see DD
lying for no reason. You know? Its not like he's really trying to
inject a little humour into the situation (it is McGonnagal he's
talking to after all) and I just don't see the point. And doesn't he
say the truth is always preferable to lies?

Oh, just to add to that LV must apparate silently too as Harry
doesn't realise he is in the MOM-unless he uses floo powder. I
wonder if Harry makes a noise!

Tinktonks






From rlace2003 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 14:39:12 2006
From: rlace2003 at yahoo.com (rlace2003)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:39:12 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecen7p+mpkr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecf4ug+fvfs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157322

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Aida Costa" <aida_costa at ...>
wrote:
> I've always wondered - why did Fake!Moody *insist* Harry learn how to
> fight off Imperio?  At first I thought, 'well maybe he wanted to see
> how powerful Harry was'.  That's fine, but why ensure Harry gets
> *stronger*?    Doesn't that make Voldy's job harder?
> <snip>


Because that's what the Real Moody would've done.

Ryan









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 22:32:38 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:32:38 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecc8ru+beeo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecg0m6+qb37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157323

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > But what about the Malfoy family?  What if there's a reason for 
> > Snape to try and earn (or keep) the goodwill of the Malfoy 
> > *family*?

> >>Potioncat:
> I hope I haven't snipped too much here. 

Betsy Hp:
Hee, never!  I get too long-winded at times. <g>

> >>Potioncat:
> I think you're on to something. You gave some good Snape-Malfoy 
> examples, but there are also a couple of DD-Malfoy examples. Why   
> was DD so easy on Lucius after the diary event? Did he know that   
> Malfoy had compromised his position with LV and might be useful    
> later? DD also said, in front of Malfoy, that help would always be 
> offered at Hogwarts when asked for. It seemed to be for Harry's    
> benefit, but what if it wasn't? (CoS--in Hagrid's hut)
> Why did DD emphasize twice (I think) that Lucius was safe in      
> Azkaban? -- and that the Order could offer sanctuary to the Malfoy 
> family?

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, fascinating.  I never thought to look at the CoS scene that 
way.  

Honestly, I have a hard time getting a handle on canon!Lucius.  
Jason Isaacs so totally made Lucius his own in the movies it's hard 
to seperate his admittedly over the top interpertation (flowing 
locks, pimp cane, a penchant for manhandling Draco) from the 
character in the books.  

On the positive side we know that his wife and son both love him.  
Lucius is also (relatively speaking <g>) a reasonable and rational 
man.  And he's a leader, *possibly* a pretty powerful one.  But you 
can't dismiss the Death Eater.  He is a pureblood bigot, that's for 
sure (Draco doesn't get his philosophy from nowhere).  He tells the 
Death Eaters at the DoM to "be gentle with Potter until we've got 
the prophecy, you can kill the others if necessary--". [GoF hardback 
scholastic p.788]  So he's also able order children killed.  And 
he's pretty hard on Draco the one time we see the two interacting.

But... The Black family suffered from similar sins, I think.  But 
Sirius suggested that they *weren't* true Voldemort supporters.  And 
his brother, though a pureblood bigot as far as we know, tried to 
get out and possibly gave Voldemort the finger while doing so.  So 
is there room for Draco to *really* save his entire family?  (I 
personally *loved* the fact that HBP made it so Draco doesn't have 
to betray his family to choose the right side.)

> >>Potioncat:
> Back to the lapdog comment, Snape certainly didn't deny it and    
> that seems to be on DD's orders.

Betsy Hp:
Do you mean Snape's continuing friendship with Lucius?  I agree.  I 
think Snape is acting with Dumbledore's blessing.  But I think 
Lucius did take tiny!Snape under his wing when Snape first started 
at Hogwarts.  Which is interesting in and of itself.  Snape is a 
half-blood and I'm betting Lucius would have realized that pretty 
quickly.  But still, Lucius befriended tiny!Snape.  I'm sure he saw 
some gain there (Snape's skills, I presume), but it does point to 
his bigotry not being that cut and dried.

> >>Potioncat:
> Hmmm--something new to think about.

Betsy Hp:
I'm glad someone else thought so, too!  I was afraid I might have 
gone a little too far afield. <g>

Betsy Hp






From snapes_witch at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 21:07:04 2006
From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:07:04 -0000
Subject: Missing OWL??
In-Reply-To: <ecf293+a6id@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfrlo+mp0p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157324

> >>Eddie:
> Pure speculation, but she may have taken the OWL for Muggle Studies
> even though she dropped it after one year.  As a muggle-born, and
> after one year of "formal study", she probably could have done
> well on the exam.


Snape's Witch here:

It's been corrected in the American trade paperback pg. 103.
Hermione has nine 'Outstandings' and an 'Exceeds Expections' in
Defence Against the Dark Arts.

This is my first post, I hope I did it correctly.

Snape's Witch
who's back to lurkdom where she's more comfortable










From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 22:55:20 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 22:55:20 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecf4ug+fvfs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecg20o+hvvc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157325

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "rlace2003" wrote:
>
> > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Aida Costa"  wrote:
> > I've always wondered - why did Fake!Moody *insist* Harry learn how 
> > to fight off Imperio?  At first I thought, 'well maybe he wanted 
> > to see how powerful Harry was'.  That's fine, but why ensure Harry 
> > gets *stronger*?    Doesn't that make Voldy's job harder?
> > <snip>
> 
> Ryan:
> Because that's what the Real Moody would've done.

Mike:
Which brings up an interesting question: How could Crouch Jr. know how 
to act like Moody well enough to fool Dumbledore? He had no time to 
even question Moody prior to showing up Sept. 1 at Hogwarts, much less 
time to get a feel for the character he was going to impersonate.

Besides, he just spent 12-13 years under the Imperious curse. Not real 
conducive to developing ones social skills. And he was at Azkaban and 
a junior DE before that. How could this neophyte possibly fool DD into 
believing that he was DD's old friend Moody?






From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 23:14:36 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:14:36 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecdpe1+jpcg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecg34s+spun@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157326

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> 
wrote:
>
 
> Abergoat writes:
> <snip>
> 
> Harry recognizes Mundungus dressed as a witch so the disguise isn't
> that good - but perhaps it only had to fool a goat that normally 
wears
> glasses.
> 
Carodave:

Your Abergoat theory is interesting, I don't know if I'm sold but it 
does answer some of my questions...regarding Mundungus though, Harry 
doesn't recognize him, Sirius tells him later that the witch was 
Mundungus in disguise.

Which brings up a new question - if Mundungus is keeping an eye on 
Harry, and he is already in the Hogs Head when HRH arrive - how does 
he know they will be there?

Carodave
>







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 23:29:53 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:29:53 -0000
Subject: Can Harry do Legilimency and Occlumency  WAS: Re: Is Lupin a Legilimens?
In-Reply-To: <ecfr28+ib18@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecg41h+fo1h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157327

> > Mike:
> > Could you expand on Harry being able to do Occlumency? See I've 
> > resigned myself to believing, like Harry does, that he can't do it 
> > because he can't rein in his emotions. Have I been duped by that 
> > *unreliable narrator* again?
> 
> Magpie:
> Harry can't do Occlumency--according to JKR in interviews outside 
> canon he's "too damaged," but I think also she implies it's just 
> against his nature (I'd even suggest she thinks this reflects well 
> on his character).  We don't ever see that the skill is there--on 
> the contrary, he uses own natural impulse against Snape by throwing 
> a Protego at him (something he's been working on in the DA) but 
> never actually cloaks his mind, as far as I recall.  
<SNIP>


Alla:

Well, yes, I am not sure whether this interview forecloses the 
possibility of Harry ever doing Occumency, but certainly it does seem 
to me as well that JKR suggests that this is against his nature and 
that this is reflects good upon him - the inability to suppress his 
emotions, etc.

I suspect that even though Dumbledore, certainly **good wizard** could 
do it, that only shows that Dumbledore was too emotionaly detached at 
times ( just speculating here, nothing more) and that in that aspect 
Harry will be better, sort of.

But JKR never said that Harry cannot do Legilimency, or did she?

**That** I speculate we will see and Harry certainly showed that he 
could attack Snape during the lessons, no?

Hmmm, maybe Harry will perform Legilimency on Snape during their 
confrontation and that way will be able to discover some secrets?

Alla, who does not remember if she read this speculation about Harry 
performing Legilimency on Snape or not, but if she did, certainly 
gives the credit to whomever came up with it.







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 21:31:44 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:31:44 -0000
Subject: Draco vs. Dumbledore or What was V thinking?!? (was: Re: Spinner's End...)
In-Reply-To: <ecen07+fcfq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecft40+iu3u@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157328

> >>Mike:
> > What I want to know is why LV wants Draco to infiltrate some    
> > DEs. When DD is at full strength he had no problem handling,    
> > what 9, 10 of them in the DoM, and LV knows it. So LV is going   
> > to send 6-8 of his less than Sterling DEs into Hogwarts where DD 
> > will be on his home turf and will probably have Order and       
> > Teachers to call on.

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but remember, Draco waited to call in the Death Eaters until 
*after* Dumbledore had left the building.  There were Order members 
lurking about, but that was a big secret, wasn't it?  Especially 
that there were Order members actually *inside* the castle.  
Remember, the Death Eaters were supposed to take everyone 
*completely* by surprise.  Draco wasn't supposed to be suspected at 
all.

> >>Mike:
> > If he expected Draco to fail at killing DD (and face it who 
> > wouldn't) what does he expect his DEs to do? 
> > <snip>
> > I'm not so sure LV is such a brilliant tactician. There might be 
> > method to his madness, but all I'm seeing so far is the madness.
 
> >>Ceridwen:
> Following on from your paragraph before, if LV expects Draco to    
> fail, I thought at first that LV expected the DEs to back him up, 
> kill DD in case he did fail, and kill Draco too for failing.  Why 
> else send a monster like Fenrir Greyback? 
> <major snip>
> All of the DEs there, and Greyback, seem like liabilities.  If    
> they are killed or captured, LV and the DEs are better off.  Sort-
> of like the Brown-shirts who were gotten rid of, since they were   
> so brutal they were a liability, once Hitler gained power.  Maybe 
> we saw the Brute Force Squad of the DE here?

Betsy Hp:
Oh I totally agree that we saw the Brute Force Squad of the Death 
Eaters.  Voldemort sent in his beserkers, not because he *wanted* to 
get rid of them, but because they would cause the most damage and 
they were, in the end, expendable.

Remember, Draco is being set up to fail here.  This is a plan born 
of rage, as per Snape, and Voldemort's main goal is to punish 
Lucius.  A dead Draco does that much better than a live Draco 
covered in Death Eater glory.  So Voldemort sends through his 
bloodiest, most violent, loves kids in *all* the wrong ways, Death 
Eaters not to back Draco up, but to cause untold havoc.

Sure, the teachers of Hogwarts are no easy pickings, but they should 
have been taken completely by surprise.  The Death Eaters should 
have been able to spread through the school, not get bunched up in 
one section of hallway.

And Draco would have been distracting Dumbledore.  With the added 
bonus of possibly forcing Dumbledore to kill a child (something I 
think Voldemort would realize Dumbledore would be loath to do).

Sure in the end, Dumbledore and the teachers would have prevailed, 
but at what cost?  Would any kind of body-count be acceptable to the 
WW?  Talk about a psychological coup.

> >>Mike:
> > <snip>
> > Snape wasn't part of the plan because he was still in his office 
> > knitting tea cozies when Draco and the DEs where on the tower.
> > <snip> 

> >>Ceridwen:
> <snip>
> But, now we have Snape being out of the loop, "knitting tea        
> cozies" while the action is coming down.  So, what did he really   
> know at Spinner's End?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Snape wasn't part of the plan because he wasn't supposed to take 
part in it.  Snape (as Ceridwen points out in a part I snipped) is 
not a beserker.  He's not cannon fodder.  So Voldemort would expect 
him to stay out of the way.  Snape will know that Draco has a 
mission to kill Dumbledore (Snape was probably there, based on some 
of his comments, during the rage fest that led to this plan) but he 
won't know the nitty-gritty because he doesn't need to know the 
details.

Once the poop hit the fan Snape would realize what was going on and 
act accordingly (which was probably to lay low, *maybe* take out 
Dumbledore if the chance arose.)  But really, the mad-dog crazies 
attack Hogwarts was Bellatrix's show.  This was her chance to show 
Voldemort that she could get it done.  (Sly Snape manages to steal 
her thunder.  Wonder how that's going to go down?)  So Snape knew 
enough to keep him out of trouble and to keep him from completely 
screwing up the plan.  But he didn't know the exact details because 
he didn't need to know.

> >>Carol, who's also confused as to how having Draco complete his 
> > assigned task (killing DD) would give Snape a little more time   
> > to spy at Hogwarts since there would be no one left to spy on    
> > except McGonagall and Flitwick, neither of whom seems           
> > particularly important to the Order

> >>Ceridwen:
> I've wondered the same thing.  The only person left at Hogwarts of 
> interest to LV would be Harry.  
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But a Snape still at Hogwarts would be a Snape still in the Order.  
And the time you *most* need information on your enemy is when that 
enemy is thrown into chaos.  It would have been incredibly helpful 
for Voldemort to know just how badly the Order was thrown by 
Dumbledore's death, who exactly was primed to take over (if anyone), 
what new plans of action are being taken, what use will they make of 
Harry, how will they protect Harry, etc.

Obviously it's not the be all, end all.  Killing Dumbledore is huge 
and I don't think Voldemort is going to be too out done with Snape.  
(Voldemort still has delicious reason to punish Draco in any way 
he's sees fit.  He can still make Lucius squirm.)  But if there had 
been a way for Dumbledore to die and Snape to remain undercover, of 
course Voldemort would have preferred that. 

Betsy Hp (who ruthlessly snipped and cut and pasted and put just 
about everything out of order for her own organizational reasons <g>)






From CliffVDY at juno.com  Tue Aug 22 21:52:34 2006
From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:52:34 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfmcu+jmpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfub2+2ln2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157329

 Mike:
> Could you expand on Harry being able to do Occlumency? See I've
> resigned myself to believing, like Harry does, that he can't do it
> because he can't rein in his emotions. Have I been duped by that
> *unreliable narrator* again?
>
Cliff here:
Harry was told to have a blank mind in order to block the intrusion.
This is exactly opposite to what I would consider proper instruction.
Snape does want LV and himself to be able to read HP's mind and to
send him ideas (although maybe never done as I've not re-read the
books that often). Harry's emotions have nothing to do with it IMO.












From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 02:46:26 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:46:26 -0000
Subject: The Ancient Riddle - what does JKR know?
Message-ID: <ecgfi2+255m@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157330

Finishing my Alchemy 101 studies I have discovered this interesting 
point.  Apparently the stone can NOT be destroyed.  I wonder if JKR 
knows this.  DD must have figured it out somewhere between book 1 
and book 2.  But does Rowling know??

According to Carl Jung, the stone, because it is the union of all 
the opposites, can not be taken apart once it is created.  I don't 
know if this has any implications for book 7.  If JKR doesn't know, 
then it will not.  But is seems to me that she does have some 
knowledge of Alchemy. My evidence for this is as follows:

She says that the 4 houses represent the 4 elements.  The 4 elements 
are important in Alchemy. (Yes, I know that they are important in 
witchcraft too.)

The colors of red and gold are important in Alchemy. They are the 
colors between the darkness and the dawn. They are the colors that 
represent the process of resurrection. In HP they are the colors of 
Gryffindor and of Fawkes. 

Alchemy has 4 colors:  Black, red, gold/yellow and white.  In that 
order. Perhaps we have the Blacks as evil and Albus and Lily as the 
good for a reason.  Sirius is a special case as a Black that becomes 
good as in Alchemy through the process of starting with that which 
is vile or from the earth (black) and proceeding to the white in 
creating the stone.

The 2 serpents spiraling in opposite directions are also from 
Alchemy.  They represent the east (right hand path/sun/fire) and the 
west (left hand path/moon/water) and when they come together we have 
the union of the opposites necessary to create the stone. (In HP 
this is the union of Gryffindor and Slytherin.) Carl Jung sees them 
as parts of the human mind. This is why I think that LV is the dark 
side of Harry that Harry must take into himself in order to vanquish 
LV.  I also think that this is why Harry and Tom look so much alike 
at the same age.  LV is a part of Harry.  Just as the evil in the 
world is a part of each of us and in order to *vanquish* it we each 
have to start within ourselves.  I suspect that this is part of the 
message of the HP series. 

The lightening bolt is also from Alchemy. In fact two lighting bolts 
in different directions are on the throne of the Dalai Lama. 
According to Carl Jung the bolt that goes from left to right is the 
good. The one that goes from right to left is the evil.  They are 
united in a symbol in Tibetan Buddhism that was later taken by 
Hitler to represent his cause. So when you see the image that I am 
describing it looks somewhat like the swastika.  Remember on JKR's 
website the lightening bold was like an L with another line coming 
straight down from the bottom of the L. I remember people commenting 
on it; that is wasn't the angle that they thought it was and it 
wasn't the way it was shown in the pictures.  But the image on JKR's 
site would be more in keeping with the image from Buddhism. 

One final comment about Alchemy. It is called the highest of 
sciences.  It is called "the science of God".  It has nothing to do 
with chemistry as the Muggles have been told.  It is about the human 
being finding God (by whatever name you know) within himself.  For a 
Christian this means finding the inner Christ, being transformed and 
living the life of Christ in the world.  The person who has done 
this becomes the stone.  So maybe John Granger will be right.  Maybe 
Harry will become the stone. And according to the ancient alchemist, 
the stone can not be destroyed. 

Tonks_op









From littleleah at handbag.com  Wed Aug 23 07:04:26 2006
From: littleleah at handbag.com (littleleahstill)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:04:26 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecg20o+hvvc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecgulq+i2cn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157331

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> Which brings up an interesting question: How could Crouch Jr. know 
how 
> to act like Moody well enough to fool Dumbledore? He had no time to 
> even question Moody prior to showing up Sept. 1 at Hogwarts, much 
less 
> time to get a feel for the character he was going to impersonate.
> 
> Besides, he just spent 12-13 years under the Imperious curse. Not 
real 
> conducive to developing ones social skills. And he was at Azkaban and 
> a junior DE before that. How could this neophyte possibly fool DD 
into 
> believing that he was DD's old friend Moody?
>


Crouch Jnr was brought up in the house of a senior Ministry official.  
I imagine this would have given him the opportunity to meet other 
senior Ministry staff, including Aurors.  Moody must have been a pretty 
unforgettable character for a small boy to witness.  We also know that 
Voldemort arrived at the Crouchs' house in the arms of Wormtail.  
Pettigrew had been an Order member alongside Moody, and presumably had 
memories which could have been extracted for a teaching session or two 
(assuming the Crouchs owned a pensieve; their use doesn't seem to be 
general).

So, I think impersonation would be possible, though whether it would be 
good enough to fool DD is another question.  Perhaps we are meant to 
assume that DD is too preoccupied with the hosting of the tournament 
and pondering on Diary!Tom to give the DADA teacher his full 
attention.   

There are many good things in GOF, but I do feel that in terms of plot 
it is the creakiest of the six books.  Was it in GOF that JKR said she 
found a large plot hole half way through and had to rewrite?

Leah   






From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 02:48:55 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:48:55 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
Message-ID: <ecgfmn+ivbs@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157332

When I was browsing through Wikipedia, I came across an interesting 
tidbit about Leo the Lion in Astronomy and Alchemy.


Harry is born under the astrological sign of Leo the Lion (an 
excellent sign for a Gryffindor).

According to Wikipedia..."in the symbolism of Alchemy, Leo denoted 
the absorption or assimilation of one substance by another."

What if Harry can survive by absorbing the bits of Voldemort into 
himself before Voldemort can assimilate Harry?  Harry would have to 
come to terms with his Dark Shadow figure, but Voldy would have to 
understand Love to overcome Harry.  We have been told that Voldy 
does not understand Love, and this gives Harry a great advantage.  
This battle to absorb the other would be somewhat analogous to the 
Priori Incantatem scene in GOF where both fight each other to 
overcome the wand emanations.

This fits the Jungian philosophy of coming to terms with your Shadow 
personality to become whole.  I think Harry has been on a 
psychological journey throughout the series.  He has had to deal 
with Pride, Greed, Sloth, Anger, Gluttony and soon will deal with 
Envy.  Each was represented by a person in one of the books.  I 
think Snape is the one who represents Envy.  Voldy has all of the 
bad qualities wrapped up into one person. He is inside Harry's mind 
in several scenes.  Harry must deal with this Dark Voice in his head 
to become whole?   He must absorb Voldy bits!!!  Resistance is 
Futile!

Randy







From greatraven at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 23 09:58:36 2006
From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 09:58:36 -0000
Subject: Tea Cosy (was: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct)
In-Reply-To: <eceuf5+bdul@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ech8sc+qggk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157333

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Hagrid" <aussie_lol at ...> wrote:
>
> > lynn wrote:
> >
> > I am very curious about a lot of things. <SNIP> what's a tea cosy?
> >
> 
> Aussie writes:
> 
> The tea cosy:
> - Keeps the tea in the pot hotter
> - Stops you burning your hand on the tin pot
> - Holds the lid on the teapot so it doesn't topple while pouring
> - Allows House Elves to poke ears through where a tea pot would have 
> the spout poking through one side and the handle the other.
> 
> It looks like a beanie with slits on either side. Traditionally, 
> they were knitted with wool, so stretchy. The quilt matterial ones 
> have larger splits on the sides since they don't stretch as well.
> 
> If Dobby can wear a tea cosy, that makes his head the size of a tea 
> pot. So is it the tea pot like the one the Mad Hatter uses in Alice 
> in Wonderland for his tea party, or the one Mary Poppins uses on the 
> ceiling?
> 
> Great question, Lynn and now watch the debate over the size of 
> Dobby's head grow .... lol
> 
> aussie
>

Sue here:

Good point about Dobby's head and the tea cosy - how big a teapot must it be? (g)

The tea cosy is also great to knit for that fund-raising bazaar, or for a local history 
museum souvenir shop. I can imagine Molly knitting them in between all those jumpers...







From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Wed Aug 23 11:11:40 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:11:40 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echd5c+7i2h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157334

> Lynn wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.
> 
> Aida:
> 
> I've read the first four books 3 times, the 5th book twice and HBP
> only once so far.  <SNIP>
> 
> As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off.
> Umbridge is such a cow!!!  <SNIP> I got angrier and angrier as I 
> read the book that by the end, I was so incensed at Dumbledore 
> that I almost threw the book across the room! That's when 
> I *really* realized what a talented story teller JKR is -
> they're fictional characters, yet I was so mad at them!!!<SNIP>
> 
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
> any of the books?  <SNIP>
> 
> Am I the only one that gets freaked out reading the books?

Aussie:
My kids know there are some "Parental Guidance" sections so I have 
to read each new book first. So there is no joy reading through the 
first time ... just proof reading (LOL).

But HBP made me MOAN during the Cave scene. My kids asked me what 
was happening, so I discribed it as painful as "Detention with 
Delores", but Harry being forced to torture someone he likes ... 
continuously.

Each of my kids have read some of the books over 10 times. PS - 10 
times; POA - 25 times for one; GOF WAYyy over 10 times for that same 
child.

aussie
PS: The end of HBP made Snape the unaminous person we love to hate.






From aida_costa at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 23 07:29:47 2006
From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (Aida Costa)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:29:47 -0000
Subject: Draco and occlumency - WAS Re: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfl5r+e901@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ech05b+ib6t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157335

Eddie wrote:

> All this makes sense except I can't reconcile any of it with Draco's
> ability to block out Snape's Legilimens.

<snip>


I don't think my original reply posted so here it is again.  The
Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview explains it:

http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview2.shtml

JKR: Well, I'm glad you think so, because I enjoyed this one. Draco
did a lot of growing up in this book as well. 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. 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.
And I think that that is an accurate depiction of how some people fall
into that kind of way of life and they realize what they're in for. I
felt sorry for Draco. Well, I've always known this was coming for
Draco, obviously, however nasty he was.


Aida.







From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug 23 10:53:25 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:53:25 -0000
Subject: Karkaroffs hearing
Message-ID: <echc35+pnhk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157336

I've been thinking alot about the DE's and how many of them there are. 
I know that it seems that there are only a handful but I am wondering 
if Karkaroff may have been telling the truth at his 'parole hearing' 
when he said that no DE knows the identity of the others.

Moody certainly seems to believe this story.

This makes me think that maybe LV has his A list of DE's and then 
other groups of less powerful/usefull wizards who do his bidding but 
are unknown to the A listers. It would make sense that we've only met 
A listers so far as anything to do with Harry DD or The Order will be 
top priority but I wonder if there is a flurry of other action from 
other groups that aren't connected to each other that may eventually 
come out of the woodwork.

What do you guys think?

Tinktonks








From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug 23 10:48:31 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:48:31 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecfgu0+th8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echbpv+5h37@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157337

James adds:
 
We have to remember that there were two goals, not one in LV's mind at 
the time. It's obvious that he wanted/needed Harry. But you can't 
overlook the second goal, to return without anyone having any 
suspicions.
 
Eddie:
I can imagine this is true, but I'm not entirely persuaded.  Does 
Voldemort really care if anybody is suspicious or not?  I can't recall 
the canon now, but didn't Barty Crouch Jr. light the dark mark at the 
Quidditch on Voldemort's orders?  That doesn't seem in line with 
trying to not raise suspicions about his return.
 
Tintonks butts in:
JKR says on her website when asked about why veritaserum is not used, 
that it works more on the unsuspecting. I believe that this is the 
same for all magic where the mind is a key defence (i.e the imperious 
curse etc)

Also one of LV's greatest tools is fear. If you are unprepared for LV 
turning up on your door, and know that nobody will suspect his hand in 
you fate you are unlike;y to have any means of escape or protection.

Plus DD immediately begun taking measures against LV. I dont think we 
have even touched on what these measures are but we undoubtedly will.

I dont think that BC Jr was supposed to put cast the dark mark in the 
air. I'm pretty sure that he couldn't resist it because of his old 
bitterness for all the DE's who roam free.

Tinktonks











From OctobersChild48 at aol.com  Wed Aug 23 12:42:06 2006
From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:42:06 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if thi...
Message-ID: <3ae.72335d8.321da71e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157338

In a message dated 8/21/06 8:36:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
aida_costa at hotmail.com writes:


> As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off. 
> Umbridge is such a cow!!!

Sandy:

First I would like to respond to Lynn's original post asking how many times 
we have all read the HP books. I bought the first three books in 1999 but they 
sat on the bookshelf, unread, until December 2004. Trying to raise my spirits 
at the holidays, which have been so depressing since my husband passed away 
around the holidays in 2001, I started reading Sorcerer's Stone. I loved it. 
Wow, what a good book! So I read COS and POA. Then I had to buy GoF and OOTP, 
which, fortunately, they sell where I work. It was all in the timing because I no 
more than finished the first five when I learned HBP was being released in a 
few months, so I reserved my copy and then read the first five books again.

As for OOTP --- I HATED it. I had a very difficult time reading it the first 
time and I had to force my way through it the second time. I will only read it 
again when I read the books in order preparatory to the release of book 7, 
and I will have to allow for the time it will take me to muddle through it. The 
book just bunches me up in a knot, literally. My muscles tighten, my teeth 
clench, my breathing becomes shallow and labored and I wind up with a rip-roaring 
headache. I can never find adequate words to describe how I feel about 
Delores Umbridge. It doesn't help matters any that I am related to someone who is 
very much like Umbridge. She isn't a nice person to begin with and when you put 
her in a position of power she abuses it to the nth degree. I had the 
misfortune of living in a house she owned for 4 1/2 years, and the longer I lived 
there the more rules she imposed and they got more and more bizarre. 

I snipped most of your post but you pointed out how good a writer JKR is to 
have made you feel that angry at fictional characters. I have always taken the 
stance that OOP is the worst writing she had done prior to HBP, but I am 
always willing to rethink things and I believe you are right. To make you 
physically and emotionally react to a book like that the writing has to be pretty 
brilliant. 

Back to the number of times reading the books. I have only read HBP once. I 
have to admit that I was very disappointed with it. I was expecting to learn so 
much and have many questions answered but it fell well short of what I 
expected. She wasted so much page space on the entire first chapter and all of the 
shipping that could have been so much better used. It was always my intention 
to reread it, but I decided to wait until it was released in paperback to do 
it. I bought the paperback as soon as it was released but had to wait to finish 
a book I was already reading to start it. Six chapters into it I have put it 
down in favor of a new book I just got from the book club about the World Trade 
Center. I am having a very difficult time getting into HBP again. I will 
finish it though, and hopefully I will appreciate it better when I do. Despite 
thinking the first chapter was wasted page space I did enjoy reading it more this 
time.

Sandy


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




From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 13:06:49 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:06:49 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <ecgfmn+ivbs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echjt9+38v6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157339

>Randy:
<snip> 
> What if Harry can survive by absorbing the bits of Voldemort into 
> himself before Voldemort can assimilate Harry?  Harry would have 
to 
> come to terms with his Dark Shadow figure, but Voldy would have to 
> understand Love to overcome Harry.  We have been told that Voldy 
> does not understand Love, and this gives Harry a great advantage.  
> This battle to absorb the other would be somewhat analogous to the 
> Priori Incantatem scene in GOF where both fight each other to 
> overcome the wand emanations.
> 
> This fits the Jungian philosophy of coming to terms with your 
Shadow 
> personality to become whole.  I think Harry has been on a 
> psychological journey throughout the series.  He has had to deal 
> with Pride, Greed, Sloth, Anger, Gluttony and soon will deal with 
> Envy.  Each was represented by a person in one of the books.  I 
> think Snape is the one who represents Envy.  Voldy has all of the 
> bad qualities wrapped up into one person. He is inside Harry's 
mind 
> in several scenes.  Harry must deal with this Dark Voice in his 
head 
> to become whole?   He must absorb Voldy bits!!!  Resistance is 
> Futile!

bridge13219:
(heh-heh, good reference!)
I agree whole heartedly!  But I think we see that Harry has indeed 
already absorped "bits" of LV. It comes up in CoS (Harry's a 
parseltongue), and in OotP (I think) at the end when DD is trying to 
explain to Harry how special he is:  that he's been "inside" LV mind 
and come out whole and fairly unscathed (and more examples which I 
can't remember right now).  We see that Harry still has trouble with 
the idea that he is in any way similar or connected to LV, and I 
think that's the point; he's still not been seduced by the dark side.






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Wed Aug 23 13:57:17 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:57:17 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecg34s+spun@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echmrt+7h9n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157340

Carodave wrote:
> Which brings up a new question - if Mundungus is keeping an eye on 
> Harry, and he is already in the Hogs Head when HRH arrive - how does 
> he know they will be there?

Abergoat writes:
Thanks for the correction - does Mundungus not wear a dress in HBP?
Sirius is dead there so Harry has to recognize him or someone else
tells him. It could be that Sirius told him the first time but once
you expect Mundungus in a dress you can recognize him. But from your
answer I'm guessing we don't see Mundungus in the dress in HBP.

Are we certain that Mundungus is keeping an eye on Harry? I'm
suspicious that Hog's Head is one of Dumbledore's information networks
and the barman needs to get the information he gathers back to
Dumbledore. I suspect this may be Mundungus's purpose and the reason
he is seen talking to the barman.

Abergoat






From kjones at telus.net  Wed Aug 23 01:47:29 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:47:29 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Summer of his 16th Year
In-Reply-To: <ecfnms+4g2p@eGroups.com>
References: <ecfnms+4g2p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44EBB3B1.8020300@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157341

Steve wrote:

> One small point I will quibble with though - see items 
> 6 and 7 below -
> 
> 6. Tom asks Slughorn about Horcruxes, clearly after the 
> Riddle murders because he's wearing the ring.
> 
> 7. Tom makes the diary, already a "powerful magical object," 
> and the ring into Horcruxes.
> 
> While not stated, it is implied that 7 immediately follows 
> 6. We don't actually know the time span between them. Yes, 
> Slughorn gives Tom some basic information about Horcruxes, 
> but Tom needs to research the subject for a while since it 
> seems to be information that the wizard world in not eager 
> to have divilged, and not an easy task to perform.
> 
> I don't think the Ring and Diary were made Horcruxes until 
> a few years at best after Tom left school. 
> 
> Again, Carol doesn't specifically say one occurs immediately 
> after the other, but I think it is important to the time line 
> to understand that there is likely a significant amount of 
> time between item 6 and 7.
> 
> Just a few thoughts.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn

  KJ writes:

    I was in agreement with this for a while, and considered that 
Voldemort might have made contact with Grindlwald prior to making his 
first horcruxes.  Unfortunately, he was already showing red flashes in 
his eyes in the cup and locket memory. He was working for B&B at that 
time and it must have been within the first two years after leaving 
school. He could have made his first, the diary, as early as his seventh 
year and simply took it with him when he left. The second, the ring had 
much stronger protections around it and showed more skill in the making. 
When he returned to Hogwarts after a ten year period, he was still 
recognizable but no longer handsome, and by the time he had been in 
power for eleven years following that, he looked like a snake. It makes 
it hard to judge how many horcruxes he made during which particular time 
period.

KJ




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 13:55:03 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:55:03 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecai7a+lvhi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echmnn+79n1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157342

> Betsy Hp: 
> There's the ACID POPS answer.  Snape is madly in love with Narcissa 
> and couldn't resist her heartfelt pleas.  I have a couple of 
> problems with that idea.  For one, Snape doesn't *act* like he's 
> madly in love, IMO.

Neri:
Er... I'm curios now. How *would* MadlyInLove!Snape act, in your opinion?

Starry eyes? Flowers? Chocolates? Somehow I can't quite see that.

Especially towards a woman who preferred *another man* over him. A man
with much more gold, status and pure blood than Snape had. Do you
think Snape would feel, dare I suggest it, offended? Discarded? Might
he want just a teeny weenie bit of payback, after all these years,
before he shows her a sign of his love? Might he even require that
woman to <gasp> kneel before him first? You know, like in "you should
be thanking me on your bended knee!", now where have I seen these
words before? <eg> 


> Betsy Hp:
> For another, Narcissa brings up Lucius and 
> Snape being old friends.  Which strikes me as an odd way for a woman 
> to go about seducing someone.

Neri:
She brings this up once, in a very mild way. It's second place to
Snape being Draco's favorite teacher: 

************************************************************
"I only meant. . . that nobody has yet succeeded. . . . Severus . . .
please . . . You are, you have always been, Draco's favorite teacher.
. . . You are Lucius's old friend. ... I beg you. .. . You are the
Dark Lord's favorite, his most trusted advisor. . . . Will you speak
to him, persuade him ? ?"
************************************************************

But even this single small reminder of the Lucius/Snape friendship is
a BIG mistake of Narcissa, as Snape immediately responds by beating
her on the ears with her dear Lucius:

************************************************************
"The Dark Lord will not be persuaded, and I am not stupid enough to
attempt it," said Snape flatly. "I cannot pretend that the Dark Lord
is not angry with Lucius. Lucius was supposed to be in charge. He got
himself captured, along with how many others, and failed to retrieve
the prophecy into the bargain. Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa,
very angry indeed."
************************************************************

This Lucius bashing strikes me like a strange way to earn the good
will of the Malfoy *family*. And Narcissa must realize her mistake,
because she immediately changes tack and go on to tell Snape, with the
proper attitude I might add, how *you* (italics) could do for her what
Lucius obviously can't, and how Snape would be rewarded beyond all the
other DEs (Lucius naturally included): 

************************************************************
When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little
self-restraint she still possessed. Standing up, she staggered to
Snape and seized the front of his robes. Her face close to his, her
tears falling onto his chest, she gasped, "You could do it. *You*
could do it instead of Draco, Severus. You would succeed, of course
you would, and he would reward you beyond all of us ?"
************************************************************

Now that's more like it, but she's still not quite kneeling, so Snape
reminds her again why the Malfoys have acquired the Dark Lord's wrath:

************************************************************
"The Dark Lord is very angry," repeated Snape quietly. "He failed to
hear the prophecy. You know as well as I do, Narcissa, that he does
not forgive easily."
************************************************************

A bit repetitive of you, Severus, and not very diplomatic either, if
you are interested in the good will of the Malfoy family. But no doubt
it effectively breaks Narcissa completely. She "crumples, falling at
his feet, sobbing and moaning on the floor". And *now* suddenly Snape
shows her a little tenderness, oh yeah. He seizes her by her arms,
lifts her up and steers her back to the sofa (snort! JKR has never
been very original when it comes to blatant SHIPping), he hints that
he may be able to help her, and finally she's properly kneeling at his
feet. *Now* that she's just where he wanted her, he kneels in front of
her too and clasps hands.

Madly in love? Oh yes, I can quite see that. Snape's style of love,
anyway.


> Betsy Hp:
> Finally, I'm not sure that there's a 
> thematic reason for Snape to be in love with Narcissa; it seems a 
> bit beside the point.
> 

Neri:
Well, this depends on what the point *is*, isn't it? Was it thematic
for Merope to fall in love with Tom Sr., the tragic affair that
started it all?

The name "Spinner's End" hints that Snape was finally caught in his
own web of lies. And thematically you don't get caught because you
were jockeying for this or that advantage. You get caught because of a
tragic flaw.


> Betsy Hp:
> But what about the Malfoy family?  What if there's a reason for 
> Snape to try and earn (or keep) the goodwill of the Malfoy 
> *family*?

Neri:
I actually believed so before HBP, when I thought Lucius's good word
was necessary for Snape to regain his place at the Dark Lord's side.
But I have serious trouble seeing what reason it could be now. Surely
not another Horcrux when Lucius had already lost the first? 


> Betsy Hp:
> We've already got Snape doing that odd twitchy thing way 
> back in GoF when Harry names Lucius as one of the Death Eaters.  
> We've been told that he was Lucius's lapdog (his fag, maybe?) back 
> in his old school days.

Neri:
Ah, yes. Can you imagine how much animosity towards Lucius would Snape
accumulate if he had to pretend all these years to be Lucius's lapdog
while being in love with Narcissa? And he *would* pretend to be
Lucius's lapdog if his double agent role required it, but what would
he feel inside? Enough for a little twitch, do you think?

And another question I don't remembered being answered: what did Draco
have against Snape during HBP, anyway? Snape *was* Draco's favorite
teacher for five years, more than just a favorite teacher, he was
Draco's constant ally at Hogwarts. And suddenly in HBP, just when
Draco needs Snape the most, he refuses any help? Why does Draco all of
the sudden convince himself that Snape is out "to steal his glory"?
Draco is desperate, to the point of crying in bathrooms more than
once. Wouldn't it be worth to share a bit of glory to save his life
and his family? His own mother wants him to. And Draco does believe
that Snape was on Voldemort's side, and yet even after Snape saves his
life from the Sectumsempra, he doesn't trust Snape enough to share his
plan with him.  How come? Don't you think that Draco's attitude
towards Snape in HBP just smacks of teenager hurt feelings? Is this
because Draco has this uneasy hunch about Snape and his mother? Or
maybe more than just a hunch?


Neri








From bobhawkins at rcn.com  Wed Aug 23 13:37:05 2006
From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:37:05 -0000
Subject: Twins apparating WAS: Re: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <ecfk8u+ui5i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echlm1+4dke@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157343

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" <rdsilverstein at ...>
wrote:
>
>   The twins probably think it's hilarious
> to "go out with a bang," so they do.
>

They're also masters of misdirection. Let everyone "know" that you
make a sound like a cannon when you apparate. Then when you need to
sneak in on them....

                                   Zero Irregardless









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 14:05:21 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:05:21 -0000
Subject: Karkaroffs hearing
In-Reply-To: <echc35+pnhk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echnb1+7o8f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157344

spookedook:
> This makes me think that maybe LV has his A list of DE's and then 
> other groups of less powerful/usefull wizards who do his bidding but 
> are unknown to the A listers. It would make sense that we've only met 
> A listers so far as anything to do with Harry DD or The Order will be 
> top priority but I wonder if there is a flurry of other action from 
> other groups that aren't connected to each other that may eventually 
> come out of the woodwork.

zgirnius:
I agree that there could be more than we have seen. I would guess, 
though, that the A-listers, as you call them, do know some of the 
others. The organization may have what is called a 'cell structure' 
like some Real Life terrorist/underground organizations. Some A-listers 
may be leaders of small groups of B-listers. The B-listers would know 
only the indetity of the other members of their 'cell' and the leader.

I think also that not even all the A-listers know one another. Why else 
wear masks to meetings?







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 14:35:38 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:35:38 -0000
Subject: Pixies and pasties (was Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters)
In-Reply-To: <ecagvv+k2pi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echp3q+r8cf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157345

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> Cornish pixies on the other hand are mischievous little characters, 
> often portrayed as men with pointed hats and possibly distant 
> relatives of leprechauns.
> 
> I do wish you non-UK people would get up to speed.As Professor 
> Kirke remarks in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe', "I wonder 
> what they do teach them at these schools." Mark you, Gilderoy 
> Lockhart could probably cope with a room full of flying pasties 
> better he did with the pixies....
> :-)
>

Ken:

Geoff, I admit our local schools are woefully inadequate when it comes
to teaching us the folklore of Cornwall. Perhaps you can enlighten us
further. My wife and I just got back from a short trip to southwestern
Wisconsin. One of the places we visited was Mineral Point, a former
mining town that once had a large population of transplanted Cornish
miners. Apparently our good Wisconsin mines were infested with
creatures known as Tommyknockers who were blamed for being the cause
of lost tools and other mining mishaps. Smart miners were always
careful to leave behind offerings of food to appease them.
Tommyknockers do not seem to be mentioned in HP and here is where you
could help. Is a Tommyknocker the same thing as a Cornish Pixie, or a
relative, perhaps?

Ken ;-)






From eggplant107 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 23 14:30:46 2006
From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:30:46 -0000
Subject: The Ancient Riddle - what does JKR know?
In-Reply-To: <ecgfi2+255m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echoqm+asq5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157346

 "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:

> Finishing my Alchemy 101 studies I 
> have discovered this interesting point.
> Apparently the stone can NOT be destroyed.
> I wonder if JKR knows this. [
]
> According to Carl Jung, the stone,
> because it is the union of all the 
> opposites, can not be taken apart 
> once it is created.

JK Rowling is as free to create her own fantasy universe as Carl Jung
was, and as creator of that universe she can make the laws of physics
that operate there anything she wants. If Rowling says the stone can
be destroyed in the Potter universe than it can be. Let Jung write his
own novel.

Eggplant 









From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 14:48:18 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:48:18 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <ecgfmn+ivbs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echpri+bvtl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157347

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at ...> wrote:
>
> When I was browsing through Wikipedia, I came across an 
interesting tidbit about Leo the Lion in Astronomy and Alchemy.
>  
> Harry is born under the astrological sign of Leo the Lion (an 
> excellent sign for a Gryffindor). According to Wikipedia..."in the 
symbolism of Alchemy, Leo denoted the absorption or assimilation of 
one substance by another."
> 
> What if Harry can survive by absorbing the bits of Voldemort into 
> himself before Voldemort can assimilate Harry?  Harry would have 
to come to terms with his Dark Shadow figure, but Voldy would have 
to understand Love to overcome Harry.  (Snip)
> This fits the Jungian philosophy of coming to terms with your 
Shadow personality to become whole.  I think Harry has been on a 
> psychological journey throughout the series.  


Tonks:
This is exactly what I have been saying in all of my Alchemy 101 
post. I didn't think anyone was listening. So there are at least 3 
of us that think that this is the way that Harry will vanquish LV. 
Nice to know that I am not alone here.

When you read the prophesy, it is the only way that makes sense when 
you understand that Harry will not kill.  And as others here have 
said the "boy who lived" will probably not become the "man who 
died".  It is the only way to make sense of it all. LV will 
be "vanquished", not killed. The fact that LV has Harry's blood will 
make it possible for LV to be absorbed into Harry in a way that was 
not able to happen before. And JKR doesn't think anyone can figure 
it out!!  Well I think that we have.  In my not so humble opinion, 
of course.   ;-)

Tonks_op

 







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 15:10:25 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:10:25 -0000
Subject: Can Harry do Legilimency and Occlumency /Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of th
In-Reply-To: <ecg41h+fo1h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echr51+ifb1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157348

 
> Alla:

> But JKR never said that Harry cannot do Legilimency, or did she?
> 
> **That** I speculate we will see and Harry certainly showed that 
he 
> could attack Snape during the lessons, no?
> 
> Hmmm, maybe Harry will perform Legilimency on Snape during their 
> confrontation and that way will be able to discover some secrets?

Magpie:
I was thinking about that--and they are two different things.  I 
actually don't consider Harry as performing Legilimency on Snape 
during their sessions.  I think his Protego shield was so strong it 
pushed the Legilimency Snape was performing back onto himself and 
into his own head.  At least that's how I read it at the time, since 
Harry slammed into Snape's head doing that charm.  However he *has* 
experienced Legilimency with Voldemort, and some of it might be 
conscious because he did want to see what was going on in his head.  
So yeah, I see no reason that Harry's natural problems with 
Occlumency would effect his ability to do Legilimency one way or the 
other. As to whether he would perform it with Snape in book 7 I can 
think of some automatic reasons storywise I don't think he would, 
but who knows?  JKR might have good reason for him to do it.

Neri:
Wouldn't it be worth to share a bit of glory to save his life
and his family? His own mother wants him to. And Draco does believe
that Snape was on Voldemort's side, and yet even after Snape saves 
his life from the Sectumsempra, he doesn't trust Snape enough to 
share his plan with him. How come? Don't you think that Draco's 
attitude towards Snape in HBP just smacks of teenager hurt feelings? 
Is this because Draco has this uneasy hunch about Snape and his 
mother? Or maybe more than just a hunch?

Magpie:
Personally, I have to admit I find it more interesting to look to 
the answers for this in Draco and Snape rather than an outside twist 
like Snape being in love with Narcissa.  If Snape is the DE Draco 
believes he is, than he'd be a fool to trust him no matter how much 
he's trusted him in the past.  DEs stab each other in the back for 
glory, and DE Snape, if he exists, would want Draco to fail.  Plus, 
if Draco's beginning to have second thoughts about the whole idea of 
working for LV, he'd have lots of emotional reasons to want to run 
from Snape.  Everything from not wanting Snape to see his doubts 
because he's ashamed and considering Snape sort of an enemy as a DE. 
Thematically, of course, I think it's just a matter of Draco growing 
up and needing to do things on his own because he does, and going to 
a grown-up isn't something he feels he can do.  Harry's demonstrated 
this sort of thinking before.   


-m







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 15:23:46 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:23:46 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry
In-Reply-To: <ecdf3c+24n8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echru2+oacm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157349

> Aida:
> As a matter of interest - reading book 5 really ticked me off.
> Umbridge is such a cow!!!  What really steamed me was knowing that 
in our real world, politics and government *are* corrupt- this wasn't
> just JKR's wonderful imagination at work - and we all suffer for 
it. I got angrier and angrier as I read the book that by the end, I 
was so incensed at Dumbledore that I almost threw the book across 
the room!
> That's when I *really* realized what a talented story teller JKR 
is - they're fictional characters for goodness sakes, yet I was so 
mad at them!!!
> 
> I'm wondering if anyone else has had a severe emotional reaction to
> any of the books?
> 


Tonks:
What?  You mean the WW isn't real?  These are not real people?  lol.
There were times when I just yelled at Harry "what are you 
thinking!".  I too hated Umbridge, I had a supervisor like her once, 
so seeing her getting her comeuppance was good.

And when DD died, I was depressed for a month. And thinking that 
Hogwarts will be closed, this really upset me.  As long as DD was 
there and Hogwarts was there, all was right with the world.  My 
world
 our world. 

I have to hand it to JKR, she has made a world and people in it that 
are as real as our own.  I know many people, myself included, that 
long to be part of the WW as JKR has made it, especially in the 
earlier books.  As the books go on, it is not as fun a place, and 
starts to be like the RW.  But still the magic would be fun.  Now if 
I just concentrate really, really hard I can use this wand to clean 
my house.  There are no Muggles around, after all.

Tonks_op










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 16:45:32 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:45:32 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfmcu+jmpj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci0nc+g40r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157350

 "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:

> 
> > bboyminn:
> > <snip> 
> > ... . As it is, though Harry is actually capable of 
> > doing it, he sees the Occulmency  classes and his 
> > efforts as a failure, and so he has written that skill 
> > off as a lost cause. Yet, we see that the skill is 
> > actually there, ....  He believes he is a failure, and 
> > so he is.
> > <snip>
> 
> Mike:
> Could you expand on Harry being able to do Occlumency? 
> See I've resigned myself to believing, like Harry does, 
> that he can't do it because he can't rein in his emotions. 
> Have I been duped by that *unreliable narrator* again?
> 
> 

bboyminn:

Someone else posted the Quote from JKR's interview on 
this matter, but I don't actually think she is saying 
Harry is incapable of it; I think she is say that he 
isn't and won't every be very good at it.

Think about the Occlumency lessons in general. In those 
lessons Harry is as curious to see the cascade of 
memories as Snape is. In fact, Harry is probably more 
interested than Snape. So, Harry never summons a force 
of resistance against them.

However, when he sees a memory coming on that he feels is 
private and that he absolutely does not want Snape to see, 
the same voice he hears in the back of his mind when he 
is fighting the Imperious Curse says 'NO!', and Harry 
cuts off the memory.

Here, I believe is, the first Occulumency lesson from OotP-

(Snape) ". . . brace yourself, now. Legilimens!'

Snape had struck before Harry was ready, before he had 
even begun to summon any force of resistance. The office 
swam in front of his eyes and vanished; image after image 
was racing through his mind like a flickering film so 
vivid it blinded him to his surroundings.

He was five, watching Dudley riding a new red bicycle, 
(...edited memories...) . . . Cho Chang was drawing 
nearer to him under the mistletoe . . .
    
No, said a voice inside Harry's head, as the memory of 
Cho drew nearer, you're not watching that, you're not 
watching it, it's private ? '
    
He felt a sharp pain in his knee. Snape's office had come 
back into view and he realised that he had fallen to the 
floor; one of his knees had collided painfully with the 
leg of Snape's desk. He looked up at Snape, who had 
lowered his wand and was rubbing his wrist. There was 
an angry weal there, like a scorch mark.
    
'Did you mean to produce a Stinging Hex?' asked Snape 
coolly.

'No,' said Harry bitterly, getting up from the floor

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Notice that when Harry sense a memory coming that he 
absolutely does not want Snape to see, he is able to 
cut it off. Instead of standing in dazed silence, the 
voice in the back of his mind come forward and 'wakes' 
him.

This holds true in all the lessons, Harry is interested 
in seeing the memories, but when a private memory comes, 
using one method or another, he cuts it off.


Now notice that last Occlumency lesson -

He (Snape) raised his wand: 'One ? two ? three ? Legilimens!'
    
A hundred Dementors were swooping towards Harry across the 
lake in the grounds . . . he screwed up his face in 
concentration . . . they were coming closer . . . he could 
see the dark holes beneath their hoods  . . yet he could 
also see Snape standing in front of him, his eyes fixed 
on Harry's face, muttering under his breath . . . and 
somehow, Snape was growing clearer, and the Dementors 
were growing fainter . . .
    
Harry raised his own wand.

'Protego!'

Snape staggered ? his wand flew upwards, away from 
Harry ? 'and suddenly Harry's mind was teeming with 
memories that were not his: ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Notice that in this case Harry is far less effected 
by the Legilimens Spell. He isn't refusing a specific 
private memory, he is resisting the curse itself. It 
is having far less effect on him than in the past. 

That establishes to me that Harry is able to do this, 
but he will never be good at it for all the reason JKR 
pointed out in her interview. Harry is too damaged, his 
emotions are too close to the surface. 

We are told that Occlumency skills are an extention of 
the ability to fight the Imperious Curse, and when Harry 
resist the Legilimens Spell we see it happen in a way 
that is similar to his resistance to the Imperious Curse. 

When Harry flatly does not want a memory seen, he is able 
to cut it off, to refuse to let it be seen. Now the 
Legilimens SKILL, as I have said, is much more subtle 
than the Spell. Therefore, Harry does have more trouble 
resisting the Skill as is seen in the bathroom scene 
where Snape probes his mind after the fight with Draco. 

As JKR also pointed out, and I think it comes into play 
in that scene, Harry is very honest about his emotions. 
He does suppress or repress his emotions, he is very 
willing to face them.

Because of these things, Harry will never be a very good 
Occlumens, but in every Occlumency lesson, he demonstrates 
that when he wants to, he can prevent memories from being 
seen.

> > bboyminn again:
> > 
> > We have actually seen Legilimens in TWO distinct 
> > forms. ...
> > 
> > There is the Legilimens SPELL which is quite different 
> > and unique and separate from the SKILL of Legilimens. 
> > ...
> 
> Mike again:
> Excellent point!!! It almost pains me to snip any of 
> it. Permit me to add one thing; People keep confusing 
> the two related but seperate skills. And while they are 
> related, it seems entirely possible that one could be 
> "superb" at one while being only passable at the other. 
> ...
> 
> Once again, excellent post!!!
> 
> Mike
>


bboyminn:

Also a sore point with me. People assume that because 
Snape is a Occlumens that he is automatically an equal 
Legilimens. While it is likely that having one skill 
improves the chances of having the other, being an expert 
at one does not guarantee being an expert at the other. 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminnn







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 16:54:49 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:54:49 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <echr51+ifb1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci18p+3ujb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157351

> Magpie:
> Personally, I have to admit I find it more interesting to look to 
> the answers for this in Draco and Snape rather than an outside 
twist 
> like Snape being in love with Narcissa.  If Snape is the DE Draco 
> believes he is, than he'd be a fool to trust him no matter how much 
> he's trusted him in the past.  DEs stab each other in the back for 
> glory, and DE Snape, if he exists, would want Draco to fail.  Plus, 
> if Draco's beginning to have second thoughts about the whole idea 
of 
> working for LV, he'd have lots of emotional reasons to want to run 
> from Snape.  Everything from not wanting Snape to see his doubts 
> because he's ashamed and considering Snape sort of an enemy as a 
DE. 
> Thematically, of course, I think it's just a matter of Draco 
growing 
> up and needing to do things on his own because he does, and going 
to 
> a grown-up isn't something he feels he can do.  Harry's 
demonstrated 
> this sort of thinking before.   
> 

Neri:
But Draco apparently trusts Auntie Bella to teach him Occlumency. Why 
her and not Snape? Granted, Bella is a relative, but she also kills 
relatives and proud of it. She's that crazy fanatic from Azkaban that 
Draco has never even met personally until a few months ago. She's 
obviously ready to sacrifice Draco's life if it's in the service of 
the Dark Lord. Dad and Mom don't like her very much. And she's not 
even in very good relationships with the Dark Lord at the moment. Why 
trust her and not Snape, the long time friend of the family, Draco's 
ally for years, who took an Unbreakable Vow to look after him, and 
indeed saves his life? 

And when Draco finally manages to fix the vanishing cabinet, whom 
does he call? Blondie, Brutal Face, Gibbon, Alecto and Amycus. Does 
he even know these uncouth fellows? Wouldn't *they* stab him in the 
back for glory? Why should he trust them but not Snape, who is in on 
the mission, authorized by the Dark Lord himself? Who is right there 
at Hogwarts? Who has to guard Draco's life under the pain of death? I 
think something doesn't add up here.

Yes, Draco is suddenly resentful towards Mom in HBP, but why is that? 
Just growing up and wanting independence? When Dad is in jail and the 
whole family is in mortal peril? Is there a reason why Draco has 
suddenly lost his trust in anyone close to him?

Neri 









From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 23 01:41:50 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:41:50 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <20060822183917.97197.qmail@web55103.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecgbou+8rin@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157352

> > Eddie  queried:
> > Does Voldemort really care if anybody is suspicious or not?
> > I can't recall the canon now, but didn't Barty Crouch Jr.
> > light the dark mark at the Quidditch on Voldemort's orders?
> > That doesn't seem in line with trying to not raise suspicions
> > about his return.
> 
> akh responds:
> That scenario was in the movie, not the book.  To our knowledge,
> LV was no more aware than anyone else that Barty Crouch didn't
> die in Azkaban, but was polyjuiced and traded for his dying mother.

Eddie:
You are completely right.  Thanks for the correction.

But... although my example was wrong, I'm still not persuaded by
_canon_ that Voldemort particularly cares whether anybody knows he's
back or not.  Any canonical evidence?

Thanks again,
Eddie






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 17:38:00 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:38:00 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <eci18p+3ujb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci3po+9t6c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157353


> Neri:
> But Draco apparently trusts Auntie Bella to teach him Occlumency. 
Why 
> her and not Snape? Granted, Bella is a relative, but she also 
kills 
> relatives and proud of it. 

Magpie:
I think he trusts both of them to the extent that they are "his 
side."  They already know things that he's hiding from others.  I 
think if Snape had offered to teach him Occlumency he would have 
jumped at that chance too--especially since this teaching would have 
happened before things started to go downhill.

I would also not be surprised if Bellatrix didn't encourage him to 
start mistrusting Snape, who is far more of a natural figure for 
Draco to challenge than Bellatrix as a stand-in father figure.  If I 
was trying to think of a reason for Bellatrix to be his main point 
of communication about the plan rather than Snape, that's what would 
come to my mind. (Though of course I don't know how much Bellatrix 
knew either.  She might not have known exactly how Draco was 
planning to get the DEs in or even that this was his plan.  We just 
don't know.)

Neri:
> And when Draco finally manages to fix the vanishing cabinet, whom 
> does he call? Blondie, Brutal Face, Gibbon, Alecto and Amycus. 
Does 
> he even know these uncouth fellows? Wouldn't *they* stab him in 
the 
> back for glory? 

Magpie:
I don't know that Draco called this group specifically or just sent 
out word to whoever he was communicating with that back-up could 
come into the school.  We know at least one of them was a surprise, 
and Draco's line about not knowing Fenrir "was coming" indicates to 
me he wasn't in charge of that.  What he's keeping from Snape during 
the year is something different, imo.  Snape is at Hogwarts.  The 
other DEs are less of a threat just by being on the outside.  Plus 
I'd guess Snape and Draco's previously close relationship makes 
Snape more of a threat.  

Neri:
> Yes, Draco is suddenly resentful towards Mom in HBP, but why is 
that? 
> Just growing up and wanting independence? When Dad is in jail and 
the 
> whole family is in mortal peril? Is there a reason why Draco has 
> suddenly lost his trust in anyone close to him?

Magpie:
He isn't suddenly resentful towards Narcissa that I remember, but 
even besides his growing up and wanting independence he's got lots 
of reasons to suddenly lose trust in authority figures close to him 
that don't immediately make me think of his worrying that Snape's 
got a thing for his mother. Now that Draco's been taken out of his 
comfortable childish fantasies of what life under LV is like I'd 
imagine he's beginning to question and mistrust every thing.
What exactly is Draco showing fear of regarding Snape and Narcissa?  
That she's she's cheating on his father?  That Snape never really 
liked him and only wanted to get to Narcissa?  We get very few 
glimpses into this sort of thing with Draco, but I can't think of 
any thing in Draco's scenes that hints at any anxiety about Snape 
and his mother, and I think JKR would have put that in.  When it 
comes to Draco's mindset about independence the line that stood out 
to me was where Snape said he knew Lucius' imprisonment had upset 
him and Draco stormed out (this after he's been challenging Snape 
throughout the conversation).  That made me think he had a lot of 
feelings about Lucius.  We know he's rebelling, and the story 
mentions a lot of things going on in his life that would connect to 
it, but I don't see where worries about Snape/Narcissa ring true in 
any of his scenes.  

-m  






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 17:55:54 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:55:54 -0000
Subject: Pixies and pasties (was Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters)
In-Reply-To: <echp3q+r8cf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci4ra+1n86@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157354

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...>
wrote:
>
>  "Geoff Bannister"<gbannister10@> wrote:
> >  
> > Cornish pixies on the other hand are mischievous little
> > characters, often portrayed as men with pointed hats and 
> > possibly distant relatives of leprechauns.
> > 
> > ...
> >
> 
> Ken:
> 
> Geoff, I admit our local schools are woefully inadequate 
> when it comes to teaching us the folklore of Cornwall. 
> Perhaps you can enlighten us further. ... Apparently our 
> good Wisconsin mines were infested with creatures known 
> as Tommyknockers .... Tommyknockers do not seem to be 
> mentioned in HP and here is where you could help. Is a 
> Tommyknocker the same thing as a Cornish Pixie, or a
> relative, perhaps?
> 
> Ken ;-)
>


bboyminn;

Wikipedia to the rescue...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommyknocker

Knockers, Knackers, Bwca (Welsh),Knockers, Bucca 
(Cornish) or Tommyknockers (US) are the Welsh and 
Cornish equivalent of Irish leprechauns and English & 
Scottish brownies. About two feet tall and grizzled, 
but not misshapen, they live beneath the ground and are 
most active in and around the mines. Here they wear 
tiny versions of standard miner's garb and commit 
random mischief, such as stealing unattended tools 
and food.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie_%28folklore%29

Pixies are mythical creatures of English folklore, 
considered to be particularly concentrated in the areas 
around Devon and **Cornwall**, suggesting some Celtic 
origin for the belief and name. In regional dialect, 
these mischievous little folk are sometimes referred to 
as piskies/piskeys or the little people. They are usually 
depicted as wingless, with pointed ears, and often 
wearing a green outfit and pointed hat. Sometimes their 
eyes are described as being pointed upwards at the temple 
ends.

So, it seems that JKR did not simply make up 'Cornish 
Pixie', pixies have always been associated with Cornwall.

Whether they are one in the same, I can not say, but it 
doesn't seem like it.

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn 







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 01:48:08 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:48:08 -0000
Subject: Draco vs. Dumbledore or What was V thinking?!? (was: Re: Spinner's End...)
In-Reply-To: <ecft40+iu3u@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecgc4o+oseo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157355

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote:
> Betsy Hp:
> Ah, but remember, Draco waited to call in the Death Eaters until 
> *after* Dumbledore had left the building. <snip>
> 
> Oh I totally agree that we saw the Brute Force Squad of the Death 
> Eaters.  Voldemort sent in his beserkers, not because he *wanted*  
> to get rid of them, but because they would cause the most damage  
> and they were, in the end, expendable.
> 
> Remember, Draco is being set up to fail here.  This is a plan born 
> of rage, as per Snape, and Voldemort's main goal is to punish 
> Lucius.  A dead Draco does that much better than a live Draco 
> covered in Death Eater glory.  So Voldemort sends through his 
> bloodiest, most violent, loves kids in *all* the wrong ways, Death 
> Eaters not to back Draco up, but to cause untold havoc.
> 
> Sure, the teachers of Hogwarts are no easy pickings, but they  
> should have been taken completely by surprise.  The Death Eaters  
> shouldhave been able to spread through the school, not get   
> bunched up in one section of hallway. <snip>
> 
> Sure in the end, Dumbledore and the teachers would have prevailed, 
> but at what cost?  Would any kind of body-count be acceptable to  
> the WW?  Talk about a psychological coup.

Mike:
OK, I get it. This was a terrorist action. From the beginning, Draco 
(or an accomplice) was to signal when DD was out and the connection 
between cabinets was ready. Then, after raising a little hell, 
someone sends up the Dark Mark to lure DD back, whereupon Draco 
heads off to meet his doom. Is that right, Betsy?

But, LV appears to be running low on DEs and to sacrafice 6-8 of 
them for this seems like a poor trade-off. More importantly, 
including Fenrir in the raid has the very real drawback of scaring 
the bejesus out of even the Slytherins (presuming the attack went 
off as planned), which would quite probably seriously damage future 
recruitment efforts. Trade a tactical win for a strategic blunder? 
You don't think he recruits followers to sacrafice them so easily, 
do you?

> Betsy Hp:
> And Draco would have been distracting Dumbledore.  With the added 
> bonus of possibly forcing Dumbledore to kill a child (something I 
> think Voldemort would realize Dumbledore would be loath to do).

Mike:
LV *knows* that DD wouldn't kill Draco, wouldn't even come close to 
needing to. Much more likely that Draco would be captured, which I 
suppose is still a disgrace to the Malfoy name, right?
 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Snape wasn't part of the plan because he wasn't supposed to take 
> part in it.  Snape (as Ceridwen points out in a part I snipped) is 
> not a beserker.  He's not cannon fodder.  So Voldemort would  
> expect him to stay out of the way.  Snape will know that Draco   
> has a mission to kill Dumbledore (Snape was probably there, based 
> on some of his comments, during the rage fest that led to this 
> plan) but he won't know the nitty-gritty because he doesn't need 
> to know the details. 
>
> Once the poop hit the fan Snape would realize what was going on  
> and act accordingly (which was probably to lay low, *maybe* take  
> out Dumbledore if the chance arose.) <break, cont. below>

Mike:
OK, I follow you up to here. Not sure Snape was in on the rage-fest 
based on what we heard in Spinner's End, but not important here.

> Betsy Hp continued:
> But really, the mad-dog crazies attack Hogwarts was Bellatrix's 
> show. This was her chance to show Voldemort that she could get 
> it done. (Sly Snape manages to steal her thunder.  Wonder how
> that's going to go down?) <break, cont. below> 

Mike:
OK, lost me here. Are you saying it was Bella's plan and Snape's 
intervention saved the day for Bella's plan that would have failed 
otherwise? Cause, Bella wasn't in the attack party.

> Betsy Hp continued:
> So Snape knew enough to keep him out of trouble and to keep him
> from completely screwing up the plan.  But he didn't know the 
> exact details because he didn't need to know.

Mike:
I don't understand these two sentences at all. Which "him" are you 
referring to? I didn't snip anything here, I only put in line breaks 
at the places where you lost me.
 
I did snip the rest because I both followed and agreed with your 
assessment. (I didn't mind the *ruthless* snipping <g> But then 
again I wrote lots of what got snipped, so I knew their original 
layout. You may still have to stand trial for indescent composure, 
<a little Groucho grin>) 







From jlcaron at gmail.com  Wed Aug 23 18:07:54 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:07:54 -0400
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecgulq+i2cn@eGroups.com>
References: <ecgulq+i2cn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E74C4914-AF2B-425E-91A2-7B66578797A2@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157356


littleleahstill wrote:

"So, I think impersonation would be possible, though whether it would be
good enough to fool DD is another question. Perhaps we are meant to
assume that DD is too preoccupied with the hosting of the tournament
and pondering on Diary!Tom to give the DADA teacher his full
attention."

This seems to be addressed directly in canon when Crouch Jr., after  
transforming back to himself and given Veritaserum to spill his guts,  
says:

"Then I packed up Moody's clothes and Dark detectors, put them in the  
trunk with Moody, and set off for  Hogwarts. I kept him alive, under  
the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question him. To find out  
about his past, learn his habits, so that I could fool even  
Dumbledore. I also needed his hair to make the Polyjuice Potion." (GOF)

Dumbledore doesn't contradict him and says himself he didn't figure  
Moody to be an imposter until he led Potter away from the scene of  
the crime.

Jaime


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






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 19:04:57 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:04:57 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eca5pp+3lr5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci8sp+mh4r@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157357


> Carol wrote:
> 
> Another continuity error that jumps out at me, even though no one else
> seems to care about it, is Ron's reference, months before Draco lets
> the DEs into Hogwarts, to "Malfoy's Hand of Glory." How did Ron know
> about that? Harry never mentioned it, and even he didn't see Draco
> buying it. Draco asked his father if he could have it and Borgin
> recommended it as an aid to thieves and plunderers, but Lucius sneers
> that he hopes his son becomes something better than a thief or a
> plunderer, and besides, Lucius is *selling* Dark artifacts, not buying
> them. So Draco himself must have bought the Hand of Glory at some
> point, but neither Harry nor Ron could know that.
> 

Ken:

I've been bothered by it to the extent that I have been trying without
success to find the earlier reference where Draco brags about getting
his Hand of Glory. It's nice to know that other's can't find such a
reference either. I suppose that Lucius could have relented at some
point or as you suggest that Draco bought it himself. It might be
considered a bit sloppy not to include a scene where Draco brags about
it. We can assume that Draco *did* brag about it when he got it even
though we don't see that happening in the text. I'd stop short of
calling it an error, but then I don't believe that *everything* has to
be, or is, called out explicitly in canon. I can accept that she would
expect us to make that connection on our own, the clues were all there.

Ken






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 23 19:23:41 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:23:41 -0000
Subject: Copyediting Errors - Listed? (was:Voldemort killed personally?)
In-Reply-To: <eci8sp+mh4r@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci9vt+datf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157358

> > Carol wrote:
> > 
> > Another continuity error that jumps out at me, even though no one else
> > seems to care about it, is Ron's reference, months before Draco lets
> > the DEs into Hogwarts, to "Malfoy's Hand of Glory." How did Ron know
> > about that?  [... snippage ...]
>
> Ken:
> I've been bothered by it to the extent that I have been trying without
> success to find the earlier reference where Draco brags about getting
> his Hand of Glory. It's nice to know that other's can't find such a
> reference either.

Eddie:
The logical place/time for Draco to have acquired the HoG was when he
was in B&B in the beginning of HBP, trying to get the 2nd cabinet
fixed.  HRH would have learned about Draco's acquisition of the HoG
then.  Harry would have known what it was from when he was hiding in
the cabinet and Draco took an interest in it (the HoG) in CoS (or was
it PS/SS?).

Since that's the place/time that makes the most sense to me, I can
only assume that these details were lost to JKR's self-editing or
later copyediting errors.  Too bad JKR/Bloomsbury/Scholastic didn't
ask me.  :-)

Eddie







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 19:24:28 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:24:28 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <eci3po+9t6c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecia1c+6aau@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157359

> Magpie:
> He isn't suddenly resentful towards Narcissa that I remember <snip>

Neri:
Er
 Draco apparently doesn't tell his mother anything about the 
vanishing cabinet plan, although he is quite desperate and she might be 
able to help him with knowledge of how to fix it, or at least find 
someone who has such knowledge. This is very strange considering Draco 
is trying to save his mother's life as well as his father's and his 
own. It doesn't look like teenage problem with authority figures is 
quite enough to explain this. It also appears that he doesn't tell her 
about the necklace and poisoned wine schemes, or she would have told 
Snape. In fact, the more I think about it, even before asking "what 
does Draco have against Snape in HBP?" I should have asked "what does 
Draco have against his own mother in HBP?"

Neri








From foodiedb at optonline.net  Wed Aug 23 19:19:08 2006
From: foodiedb at optonline.net (David)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:19:08 -0000
Subject: Switching Spells (was Re: Which Dumbledore ?)
In-Reply-To: <ebt532+63pf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eci9nc+4i24@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157360

 "raymond300659"<raymonddavenport@> wrote:
> >
> > Which Dumbledore died at top of the tower? <SNIP>
> bboyminn wrote:

> Also, Harry saw Aberforth at Dumbledore's funeral and
> recognises him as such. Harry doesn't know that the
> barman is Dumbledore's brother, but he does know that
> he is the barman of The Hog's Head, and recognises him
> as being so.

> If JKR were really going to make this switch, she would
> have dropped some clues. <SNIP>

foodiedb writes:
I was wondering if switching spells may have something to do with
this and/or have an important role to play in book 7.  Switching
spells are mentioned numerous times through the series, however, not
much is ever explained about them and how they work.








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 19:50:34 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:50:34 -0000
Subject: Pixies and pasties (with some astronomy on the side)
In-Reply-To: <eci4ra+1n86@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecibia+k3js@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157361

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch@>
> wrote:
> >
> >  "Geoff Bannister"<gbannister10@> wrote:
> > >  
> > > Cornish pixies on the other hand are mischievous little
> > > characters, often portrayed as men with pointed hats and 
> > > possibly distant relatives of leprechauns.
> > > 
> > > ...
> > >
> > 
> > Ken:
> > 
> > Geoff, I admit our local schools are woefully inadequate 
> > when it comes to teaching us the folklore of Cornwall. 
> > Perhaps you can enlighten us further. ... Apparently our 
> > good Wisconsin mines were infested with creatures known 
> > as Tommyknockers .... Tommyknockers do not seem to be 
> > mentioned in HP and here is where you could help. Is a 
> > Tommyknocker the same thing as a Cornish Pixie, or a
> > relative, perhaps?
> > 
> > Ken ;-)
> >
> 
> 
> bboyminn;
> 
> Wikipedia to the rescue...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommyknocker
> 
> Knockers, Knackers, Bwca (Welsh),Knockers, Bucca 
> (Cornish) or Tommyknockers (US) are the Welsh and 
> Cornish equivalent of Irish leprechauns and English & 
> Scottish brownies. About two feet tall and grizzled, 
> but not misshapen, they live beneath the ground and are 
> most active in and around the mines. Here they wear 
> tiny versions of standard miner's garb and commit 
> random mischief, such as stealing unattended tools 
> and food.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixie_%28folklore%29
> 
> Pixies are mythical creatures of English folklore, 
> considered to be particularly concentrated in the areas 
> around Devon and **Cornwall**, suggesting some Celtic 
> origin for the belief and name. In regional dialect, 
> these mischievous little folk are sometimes referred to 
> as piskies/piskeys or the little people. They are usually 
> depicted as wingless, with pointed ears, and often 
> wearing a green outfit and pointed hat. Sometimes their 
> eyes are described as being pointed upwards at the temple 
> ends.
> 
> So, it seems that JKR did not simply make up 'Cornish 
> Pixie', pixies have always been associated with Cornwall.
> 
> Whether they are one in the same, I can not say, but it 
> doesn't seem like it.
> 
> Just passing it along.
> 
> Steve/bboyminn
>

Ken again:

You must see more difference between the Wikipedia entries than I do.
Geoff says the Pixies are related to Leprechauns and our tour guide at
Mineral Point said the same of Tommyknockers, as does Wikipedia.
Wikipedia says Pixies are also known as the little people and I
believe that is how the Irish describe Leprechauns. I admit I did not
think to consult Wikipedia but I was hoping to tap into Geoff's more
local knowledge. For all we know the Wikipedia article was written by,
gasp, an American! Of course if Tommyknocker is a US corruption of the
Cornish term Geoff won't be able to help us.

I also confess that Wikipedia's credibility took a tumble for me when
I read this in their entry on the Black Family Tapestry:

"A very large number of the Black family are named after stars,
constellations and other heavenly objects (for example, Sirius,
Arcturus, Alphard, Regulus, and Pollux are stars, while Andromeda is a
galaxy, and Orion, Cassiopeia, and Cygnus are constellations)."

Andromeda is a constellation, not a galaxy. There *is* a large, bright
galaxy located in the constellation Andromeda and it *is* often called
the Andromeda Galaxy in honor of the constellation it appears to lie
in. From a dark sight you can glimpse it with your naked eyes as a
fuzzy patch. In fact it is the most distant object that you can see
with your naked eyes. It is a spiral galaxy like our own Milky Way and
perhaps twice as large. Together with the Milky Way galaxy it
dominates the Local Group, a small cluster of galaxies that are
gravitationally bound together. These are the sorts of things I wish
Hogwarts taught their astronomy students rather than having them
tediously plot the positions of stars and planets. They could buy
tremedously accurate and detailed star charts in any decent London
Muggle bookshop. Muggle computer stores have excellent planetarium
programs that will plot planetary positions over a 50,000 year period,
or they could download Cartes Du Ciel free from the internet. Better
yet Hogwarts could buy a few modern Muggle goto telescopes and the
students could view anything they liked at the touch of a button like
Muggle children can. It's almost like magic!!

Oh well, I've drifted considerably from the topic of the thread but
I'd trust Geoff's opinion over Wikipedia's in this case.

Ken






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 23 19:50:46 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:50:46 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecia1c+6aau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecibim+ocji@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157362


> > Magpie:
> > He isn't suddenly resentful towards Narcissa that I remember <snip>
> 
> Neri:
> In fact, the more I think about it, even before asking "what 
> does Draco have against Snape in HBP?" I should have asked "what does 
> Draco have against his own mother in HBP?"

Eddie:
I'm surprised that Narcissa didn't tell Draco to _SEEK OUT_ Snape for
help and guidance... that he could be trusted.

Eddie








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 20:03:46 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:03:46 -0000
Subject: Draco and occlumency - WAS Re: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ech05b+ib6t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecicb2+lud7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157363

Eddie wrote:
> 
> > All this makes sense except I can't reconcile any of it with
Draco's ability to block out Snape's Legilimens.
> 
> <snip>
> 
Aida responded: 
> <snip> The Mugglenet/Leaky Cauldron interview explains it:
> 
> http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview2.shtml
> 
> JKR: <snip> 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. <snip> 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. <snip>

Carol responds:
I've snipped most of the stuff on Harry, who had other reasons for not
learning Occlumency besides an inability to compartmentalize emotions,
notably, he distrusted Snape and he wanted to have the dream, not
block it, not to mention that he was exceptionally angry and
uncooperative all that year, not even trusting Dumbledore, who had
ordered Snape to give the lessons. (I don't think that there was
anything wrong with Snape's teaching methods: He told Harry to use any
means he could think of to block the Legilimens spell and actually
praised him when he accidentally cast a Protego that bounced the spell
back onto the caster. He also implied to Harry that he was standing in
for LV--"You are handing me weapons!"--which I believe is his usual or
at least frequent teaching method with Harry. We see it again in HBP
in the DADA lesson and in "the Flight of the Prince." He wants to
provoke Harry into defending himself. Or so it seems to me.)

As for Draco, I think JKR's response is somewhat misleading since
"good at Occlumency" *seems* to mean that he's mastered the skill, yet
he clearly hasn't reached the same level as Snape. I *think* she means
that Draco has a natural aptitude for Occlumency and has learned how
to do it fairly quickly (over the summer). But he certainly isn't "a
superb Occlumens" like Snape, able to block the penetration of his
mind without being detected. It takes Draco a moment to block Snape
("I know what you're doing! I can block you!") and he can't conceal
the barrier he's created in his mind from Snape by showing other
thoughts and memories. (He'd be very foolish to attempt such crude
Occlumency on his "master," the Dark Lord.) IMO, Bellatrix, who seems
to have taught Draco, is probably not a "superb Occlumens" like Snape,
either, given her propensity for revealing her feelings. I'm surprised
that she ever learned it. (Why would she? Who would she be concealing
her emotions and memories from? Surely not her beloved master, Voldemort.)

Anyway, Draco didn't block Snape's "Legilimens," only his attempt at
Legilimency through eye contact. I think that Snape could have used
the Legilimens *spell* to blast through the crude barrier of Draco's
Occlumency and reveal the thoughts he was concealing but that he chose
not to do so because it would undermine Draco's trust in him
completely and ruin the fragile relationship he still had with his
favorite pupil (whose faith in him Bellatrix had probably undermined,
given that he had learned Occlumency to keep Snape from interfering
with his plans).

As I've mentioned to Eddie offlist and as Steve has also mentioned,
there are degrees of skill in Occlumency, and Draco at sixteen is
still just learning. If he survives to adulthood (and I don't mean
seventeen, since he's apparently just days away from his birthday in
the tower scene), maybe he'll become a "superb Occlumens" like Snape,
who can lie to a powerful Legilimens like LV undetected, but Draco
isn't there yet, IMO.

On a side note, I see a gleam of hope for Draco's redemption in JKR's
words "the good side of himself." She said something similar about
Snape on her website, IIRC (Sirius Black is unable to see the good in
Snape, which, by implication, does exist).

Carol, apologizing to Eddie for essentially repeating what she's
already said offlist







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 23:48:12 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 23:48:12 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore apparating
In-Reply-To: <ecff8b+pb01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecg53s+g1v5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157364

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amiabledorsai" 
<amiabledorsai at ...> wrote:
>
> Jane Penhaligon:
> 
> > I think that it is quite true that Dumbledore apparates 
silently. It
> > is my belief that the more powerful and gifted a wizard or witch 
is,
> > the more quietly that wizard or witch apparates. 
> 
> AD:
> Or perhaps it's a question of care and practice.
> 
> The night Harry arrived at the Burrow in HBP, he and Mrs. Weasley
> watched Arthur's hand on the clock go from "mortal peril" to
> "traveling" and back when Arthur arrived at the Burrow, but 
although
> he clearly must have appeared just outside the door, no mention is
> made of an Apparition crack.
> 
<snip> 
> 
Carodave:

Maybe Arthur is more powerful than we've been shown?  Or maybe the 
Weasley doors are soundproofed (that seems likely given the noises 
coming from Fred and George...)

Carodave
>








From sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk  Wed Aug 23 11:56:30 2006
From: sallyaltass at yahoo.co.uk (Sally Altass)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:56:30 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <echd5c+7i2h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <echfpe+9i5b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157365

> >>Lynn:
> > <snip>
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

> >>Aussie:
> My kids know there are some "Parental Guidance" sections so I have
> to read each new book first. So there is no joy reading through
the first time ... just proof reading (LOL).  <SNIP>


I started reading the series in 2001 when I'd bought the four (as it
was then) books for my nephew's christmas present.  I only thought
it sensible that I 'proof read' them, and as I was studying
Journalism at the time, and all the hype for PS the movie, I thought
it only prudent, and good research...

I have now lost count of the amount of times I've read all 6 books.
And at last my husband has started to read the series for the first
time, he's on POA, and he only started the series a week ago (my
husband is not a big reader).  The books are just so colourful, so
emotional and so 'realistic' to how a teenagers mind works.  I can't
wait until I 'have' to start reading them to my daughter outloud!!!!

Sally






From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Wed Aug 23 20:19:38 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:19:38 -0000
Subject: Pixies and pasties and Knockers
In-Reply-To: <echp3q+r8cf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecid8q+bson@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister"
> <gbannister10@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Cornish pixies on the other hand are mischievous little characters, 
> > often portrayed as men with pointed hats and possibly distant 
> > relatives of leprechauns.
> > 
> > I do wish you non-UK people would get up to speed.As Professor 
> > Kirke remarks in 'The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe', "I wonder 
> > what they do teach them at these schools." Mark you, Gilderoy 
> > Lockhart could probably cope with a room full of flying pasties 
> > better he did with the pixies....
> > :-)
> >
> 
> Ken:
> 
> Geoff, I admit our local schools are woefully inadequate when it comes
> to teaching us the folklore of Cornwall. Perhaps you can enlighten us
> further. My wife and I just got back from a short trip to southwestern
> Wisconsin. One of the places we visited was Mineral Point, a former
> mining town that once had a large population of transplanted Cornish
> miners. Apparently our good Wisconsin mines were infested with
> creatures known as Tommyknockers who were blamed for being the cause
> of lost tools and other mining mishaps. Smart miners were always
> careful to leave behind offerings of food to appease them.
> Tommyknockers do not seem to be mentioned in HP and here is where you
> could help. Is a Tommyknocker the same thing as a Cornish Pixie, or a
> relative, perhaps?

Geoff:
I wonder whether they've modified the name because of Stephen 
King's book?

Among a tranche of small beings, there are indeed Knockers (sounds a 
bit rude actually!) and Pixies (sometimes rendered as Piskies).

May I point you to www.cornishfolklore.com/small_people2.htm 
for pixies and www.cornishfolklore.com/small_people3.htm for 
knockers?







From jlcaron at gmail.com  Wed Aug 23 18:16:34 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:16:34 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <ecgbou+8rin@eGroups.com>
References: <ecgbou+8rin@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <C1C1D8DF-3D25-437B-BFDF-A802AE094543@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157367

> Eddie said:
> "But... although my example was wrong, I'm still not persuaded by
> _canon_ that Voldemort particularly cares whether anybody knows   > he's back or not. Any canonical evidence?"


Jaime:

Well, we know from Order of the Phoenix that he didn't want
Dumbledore to know, as per this exchange when Harry first arrives at the Order:

###

"How come he's stopped killing people?" Harry asked. He knew
Voldemort had murdered more than once in the last year alone.

"Because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself," said
Sirius. "It would be dangerous for him. His comeback didn't come off quite the way he wanted it to, you see. He messed it up."

"Or rather, you messed it up for him," said Lupin, with a satisfied
smile.

"How?" Harry asked, perplexed.

"You weren't supposed to survive!" said Sirius. "Nobody apart from
his Death Eaters was supposed to know he'd come back. But you survived to bear witness."

"And the very last person he wanted alerted to his return the moment he got back was Dumbledore," said Lupin. "And you made sure Dumbledore knew at once."

"How has that helped?" Harry asked.

"Are you kidding?" said Bill incredulously. "Dumbledore was the
only one You-Know-Who was ever scared of!"

###

So the Order believes Voldemort didn't want Dumbledore to know. Is
that how Voldemort truly felt? Is he really as afraid of DD as
everyone thinks he is? Does he predict that if he makes his return
quietly DD will be slandered in the way he was by the MoM or was that just a bonus? If Voldemort is really trying to make a quiet theft from the DoM, it would be easier without the whole wizarding world on red alert that the Big Bad has returned.

Jaime






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 23 20:34:33 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:34:33 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecia1c+6aau@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecie4p+hldp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157368

> > Magpie:
> > He isn't suddenly resentful towards Narcissa that I remember <snip>
> 
> Neri:
> Er
 Draco apparently doesn't tell his mother anything about the 
> vanishing cabinet plan, although he is quite desperate and she might 
be 
> able to help him with knowledge of how to fix it, or at least find 
> someone who has such knowledge....In fact, the more I think about 
it, even before asking "what 
> does Draco have against Snape in HBP?" I should have asked "what 
does 
> Draco have against his own mother in HBP?"

Magpie:
But you've only come to that question via the answer you already 
want.  "What does Draco have against Snape?" is asked by Harry within 
canon. We don't ask what Draco has against his mother because he's 
trying to protect his threatened mother in the story. There's no 
indication that Narcissa's not being in on the plan with Draco is due 
to Draco's resenting her.  He's trying to protect her and she's cut 
off, out of the story, away from Hogwarts. There's no reason to think 
Draco ought to be going to her with questions about how to fix a 
broken Vanishing Cabinet or that she has access to cabinet-fixers any 
more than he does (he asks Borgin).  He's trying to be the man here--
Narcissa's not even supposed to know about the task.  He has to fix 
the cabinet himself because he's the one at Hogwarts, whatever advice 
on the subject he's getting from books or correspondence.  Narcissa's 
in danger and he has to protect her, not go running to her and get her 
more involved.  That, I think, is the most important reason he's not 
going to Snape as well.  His father's just been taken away.  He's got 
to become the man of the family or not.  I think if he could go to 
Narcissa or Snape for help he'd be a different character.

I don't see anything in canon indicating that Draco is angry at 
Narcissa, much less suggest he's angry at her because something 
recently happened that made him suspect Snape was in love with her.  
There's nothing that rules out Snape being in love with Narcissa that 
I can find, but nothing that made me particularly think he did.  (I 
did start to get definite inklings about Snape/Lily in HBP, but it's 
just a feeling that's the way the author's leading at this point.)

Eddie:
I'm surprised that Narcissa didn't tell Draco to _SEEK OUT_ Snape for
help and guidance... that he could be trusted.

Magpie:
Draco knows know that Snape is trusted as far as Narcissa's concerned--
he even knows about the UV.  I think fears of Snape "stealing his 
glory" are at least somewhat a garbled version of his real fear, the 
fear that he is as inadequate as everyone believes.

Mike:
But, LV appears to be running low on DEs and to sacrafice 6-8 of
them for this seems like a poor trade-off. More importantly,
including Fenrir in the raid has the very real drawback of scaring
the bejesus out of even the Slytherins (presuming the attack went
off as planned), which would quite probably seriously damage future
recruitment efforts. Trade a tactical win for a strategic blunder?
You don't think he recruits followers to sacrafice them so easily,
do you?

Magpie:
Voldemort's happy to rule based on fear or Imperius if need be.  I 
don't think he'd care about scaring the Slytherins.  Being able to 
induce fear means he's powerful, which is attractive to some.

Mike:
LV *knows* that DD wouldn't kill Draco, wouldn't even come close to
needing to. Much more likely that Draco would be captured, which I
suppose is still a disgrace to the Malfoy name, right?

Magpie:
LV doesn't know DD wouldn't kill Draco.  DD even says (perhaps as part 
of that "you can't kill what's already dead" line that's not in all 
editions) that LV would expect DD's side to kill Draco in response to 
this.  It's the classic weakness of evil, that it can't imagine good's 
deicisions, like the decision to offer mercy to someone trying to kill 
you.

-m







From shirleejuly31 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 20:18:49 2006
From: shirleejuly31 at yahoo.com (shirleejuly31)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:18:49 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <EXCHANGE01jSDWBerZh00000925@compdevsys.com>
Message-ID: <ecid79+7ckv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157369

> >>lynn:
> > <snip>
> > I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.
> > <snip>
> > My husband thinks I'm a nutter for rereading HP books. Anyone
> > else?

> >>Michelle:
> I am also new.  My husband thinks I'm a complete freak for my
> addiction and love of Harry Potter.
> <snip>
> I've read the first 4 books 3 times (I'm such a novice compared to
> most here!)... but am really struggling to re-read 5... it just
> wasn't my favorite at all.  The angst in the book.... yuck...
> <snip>


Hello, I'm new as well, and it looks like we are in the same boat
with the husbands thinking we are all nutters. ; ) Perhaps they
should get together to discuss our addiction  while we talk about
our love for them.

I've read the first 4 books about 5 times each, the 5th one about 3
times and the 6th twice. I find I get really emotional reading the
last two. My heart seems to go out to this tormented character and I
just want to run over and give him a hug. The tears still flow from
my eyes whenever I read about Cedric, Sirius, or Dumbledore. In fact
I feel a little sad just writing this.

I am re-reading the fifth book right now, just so I can refresh my
memory, But it is with difficulty. Kudos to JKR for making such
wonderful books that not only make me not want to put them down, but
also continue reading them as tears run down my face.

And Honestly, I'm not that emotional. Just ask my Hubby..although he
may just roll his eyes like always whenever the Harry Potter subject
comes up.

Shirlee
P.s. Sorry if this is replied wrong, I'm still getting used to all
this. ;) Please have mercy...





From lovingly_black at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 13:07:51 2006
From: lovingly_black at yahoo.com (Michelle Hindman)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Missing OWL??
In-Reply-To: <eceos2+a871@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060822130752.47301.qmail@web39815.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157370


Sylvia <sgreybe at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I seem to be missing a subject
 Can anyone help me discover what
the last subject is that Hermione took for her OWLs?

It says at the end of PoA that she drops Muggle Studies so that she
can have a normal time table. Earlier in the year she drops
Divination because it is "woolly" to her. But if there are only 12
subjects in total, how does she manage to get 11 OWLs without Muggle
Studies and Divination? Or am I missing a subject? <snip>

<snip list of subjects>

(Hermione is said to drop Divination and Muggle Studies. How then
did she manage to get 11 OWLs?) <<


Michelle:
Hello,  I believe she got 11 OWLs because she did not drop Muggle
Studies until after term. She took the exam and passed with three
hundred and twenty percent but wanted to have a normal schedule
again. So she dropped Muggle Studies at the end of the school year.
Check out page 541 in PoA.
Happy reading!

Michelle






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 21:00:32 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:00:32 -0000
Subject: OOTP made me angry - WAS Re: I'm new here so sorry if thi...
In-Reply-To: <3ae.72335d8.321da71e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eciflg+o3ld@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157371

Sandy wrote:
<snip> I have always taken the stance that OOP is the worst writing
she had done prior to HBP, but I am always willing to rethink things
and I believe you are right. To make you physically and emotionally
react to a book like that the writing has to be pretty brilliant. 

Carol responds:
Good for you, Sandy. I think this is the right view of the matter--she
wants the reader to hate Umbridge and she succeeded. (I don't actually
hat Umbridge herself, though I dislike her intensely, but those scense
where she's making Harry write lines in her own blood make me
angry--at Umbridge, not at JKR, who has brilliantly created a
Dickens-style character who beautifully illustrates Sirius Black's
statement that the world isn't divided into good people and Death
Eaters. And Umbridge, of course, is not the whole book. I wonder if it
would help to read the rest of the book but skip "Detention with
Delores" and other scenes with Umbridge. And if you find yourself
getting angry or otherwise find the scenes disturbing, you might ask
yourself if that's how JKR wants you to feel. (Molly's Boggart
disturbs and worries me because I'm afraid that it's foreshadowing a
loss for the Weasley family, but that doesn't make me hate the book or
consider it bad writing. OTOH, I had a similar reaction to the end of
HBP because I felt tricked and betrayed. How dare JKR create a
character like Snape that I believed was loyal to Dumbledore and
destined to be redeemed and have him end up as a murderer, a mere plot
device whose sole purpose was to kill Dumbledore so Harry would have
to face Voldemort alone? It took me about three days to cool down,
rethink the situation, and reread those last few chapters, as well as
"Spinner's End," to see that there's more to the situation than Harry
understands. So, not bad writing, just JKR creating an emotional
reaction in her readers, even though in my case, it wasn't the
reaction she probably intended to create since I seldom see things
from Harry's pov.)
> 
Sandy:
> Back to the number of times reading the books. I have only read HBP
once. I have to admit that I was very disappointed with it. I was
expecting to learn so much and have many questions answered but it
fell well short of what I expected. She wasted so much page space on
the entire first chapter and all of the shipping that could have been
so much better used. <snip>
>I am having a very difficult time getting into HBP again. I will
finish it though, and hopefully I will appreciate it better when I do.
Despite thinking the first chapter was wasted page space I did enjoy
reading it more this time.

Carol:
I tend to think that the shipping is for the kids who identify with
the stage Harry is going through and are waiting for Harry to figure
out that he likes Ginny and Ron to realize that he's always been
attracted to Hermione. Considering how long ago I went through that
phase, I agree with you that it's tiresome, but at least that
particular plot thread has been dealt with.

But the unanswered questions are another matter. JKR has said that HBP
is really the first half of the final book, so we're only about
halfway through. The tension between Harry and Snape has been
ratcheted up to the highest possible point and must be resolved before
Harry can move on to dealing with Voldemort. And Dumbledore had to
teach Harry everything he could about LV before he died (as I think he
knew he was going to do). JKR certainly can't answer our questions
about Snape, the same questions that Harry has been asking since at
least GoF, when he found out that Snape had been a Death Eater, until
the last book.

About the first chapter--although you didn't like it, probably because
it wasn't what you were expecting, JKR seems to think that it's
important and she's been planning to include a version of it since
PoA, IIRC. I like it, actually. Of course, I'm interested in things
like the pov and where it fits into the chronological sequence (IMO,
the first four chapters occur almost simultaneously), but I also like
getting the Muggles' perspective from someone other than the Dursleys
and the humorous, affectionate portrait of Fudge, who IMO redeems
himself by reverting to the bumbling but well-intentioned bureaucrat
he was before Umbridge temporarily turned him against Harry by using
his fear of Dumbledore's power against him. I liked the humorous
little touches like turning the Prime Minister's teacup nto a gerbil,
and it was also a means of conveying information (e.g., the murders of
Madam Bones and Emmeline Vance) without having Harry and Hermione read
about them in the Daily Prophet. Maybe it still won't be your favorite
chapter, but IMO it's worth reading on its own terms without imposing
your expectations on it.

I understand perfectly the how-dare-she-do-this reaction, but I thinks
that if we dismiss everything that disappoints us or doesn't meet our
expectations as bad writing, we'd all be throwing our books into
Lupinlore's compost thingy (I can't remember what it's called).

Carol, who's really glad that she read and reread HBP because she
loves the irony of Harry identifying with Teen!Severus and the
conflicting roles of Snape the Dark Arts expert and Snape the Healer






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 23 21:21:19 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:21:19 -0000
Subject: Crouch!Moody and the Goblet of Fire -- why so complicated?
In-Reply-To: <C1C1D8DF-3D25-437B-BFDF-A802AE094543@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecigsf+9hl5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157372


> > Eddie said:
> > "But... although my example was wrong, I'm still not persuaded by
> > _canon_ that Voldemort particularly cares whether anybody knows  
> > he's back or not. Any canonical evidence?"
> 
> Jaime:
> 
> Well, we know from Order of the Phoenix that he didn't want
> Dumbledore to know, as per this exchange when Harry first arrives at
the Order:
> 
> ###
> 
> "How come he's stopped killing people?" Harry asked. He knew
> Voldemort had murdered more than once in the last year alone.
> 
> "Because he doesn't want to draw attention to himself," said
> Sirius. "It would be dangerous for him. His comeback didn't come off
quite the way he wanted it to, you see. He messed it up."
> 
> "Or rather, you messed it up for him," said Lupin, with a satisfied
> smile.
> 
> "How?" Harry asked, perplexed.
> 
> "You weren't supposed to survive!" said Sirius. "Nobody apart from
> his Death Eaters was supposed to know he'd come back. But you
survived to bear witness."
> 
> "And the very last person he wanted alerted to his return the moment
he got back was Dumbledore," said Lupin. "And you made sure Dumbledore
knew at once."
> 
> "How has that helped?" Harry asked.
> 
> "Are you kidding?" said Bill incredulously. "Dumbledore was the
> only one You-Know-Who was ever scared of!"
> 
> ###

Eddie:
Wow, that was amazingly on point.  Stupified by canon again.

Thank you, I'm convinced.

Eddie








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 21:18:39 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike Crudele)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 14:18:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
Message-ID: <20060823211839.64726.qmail@web53008.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157373

--- In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157206 
  > hickengruendler wrote:
 
> Nowwhere it is said in Canon, that any magic needs to be done 
> for your soul to split. It splits when you murder somebody.< break>
   
  Mike:
I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking about a series with wizards and magic, aren't we? You aren't really suggesting that the *magical splitting of your soul* can be accomplished without using magic to commit the murder, are you? Does that sound consistent with this book series?
   
  > hickengruendler cont.:
> When Voldemort poisoned Mrs Smith, his soul splitted, because 
> he commited murder. He has to do some spell to make the Horcrux,
> but this is after the killing (and could probably be done anytime 
> once your soul is split). His soul splits anyway, with or without 
> any spell. <break, again>
   
  Mike:
First off we don't know that Voldy poisoned Hepzibah, we only know that Hokie was *blamed* for poisoning her mistress. We, like DD, believe that Voldy killed Hepzibah and planted the *poisoning* story in Hokie's mind. Combined with the Ministry's bent towards eschewing forensics, it is quite possible that Voldy didn't poison Ms. Smith.
   
  Secondly, a poison potion does require magic to make. JKR has confirmed this. Despite all this, I'm still not convinced that Voldy either did use this murder to create a Horcrux or could have used a poisoning murder to create one.
 
> hickengruendler cont.:
> I agree with Carol. The Basilisk is IMO nothing but the murder 
> weapon. Voldemort killed Myrtle. He killed her as if he used a 
> dagger and stabbed her to death. Just that the "dagger" was 
> a magical creature. <break, again>
   
  Mike again:
See above, I cannot conceive that non-magical murder will achieve the same results re the soul as magical murder. Not in this WW. Granted, this murder required a special language to accomplish. But if Tom had used a train hit-hippogryff, commanding him in English, would you change your opinion? Based on your contention of using the *dagger*, I would say not.
  
> > Mike previously:
> > I don't see how you work out that "Kill her!" *operates* exactly the 
> > same way as "AK". One is a command to another entity, the second is 
> > spell casting which, we have been told, requires powerful magical 
> > abilities behind it. Besides, "Kill him!" doesn't ensure the desired 
> > outcome, whereas a properly cast AK (unless it's cast at Harry) 
> > does seem to do the trick every time, doesn't it?
> 
> Hickengruendler again:
> 
> I still don't see much of a difference. If you say "kill him" to a 
> dangerous monster, that is under your control, I would argue that the 
> outcome is pretty much ensured. Admittingly, the attack could still 
> fail, but an AK doesn't have to hit, either. Many AK's in the DoM 
> missed their aim. So I think the first has as good a chance to 
> succeed as the later.
  
 
  Mike:
  I would say that you missed my main point, but first let's tackle probabilities. I counted three AKs cast in the MoM battle between LV and DD. Two were foiled by DD, blocked and dodged, one was swallowed by Fawkes. Compare that to Harry's second year where four kids and one cat were attacked by the Basilisk and none died. In the second case, none of the attacks were defended by DD, they were on their own. 
   
  Furthermore, we have two cases where LV (once as Diary!Tom) commanded deadly poisonous *monsters* to kill someone and both of them survived. And both of these "attacks" were successful, in as much as both creatures managed to inject deadly poison into their "intended" victims. In fact, the only successful murder commanded of deadly *monster* AFAIK was Myrtle's and hers may have been accidental in as much as Tom may not have been targeting her.
   
  
But my main point, and perhaps I wasn't clear, was that the killing method matters in the Potterverse. A properly cast AK, that *hits the target*, is an investment of powerful magic. Creating a horcrux is against nature, so it makes sense that it would require powerful magic in each step to accomplish this. Also, the murder would have to be of another human soul possessor (I don't think I'm out on a limb with this assertion). Slughorn told us that one would have to "commit murder". This is very straight forward IMO, use one's own magical abilities to cause the death of another human.
   
  An AK also has an immediacy quality that confirms the intent matched the outcome. "The wizard intent upon creating a horcrux" (Slughorn, HBP) is left with no doubt that he has split his soul. And if, as I have postulated on other threads, the horcrux encasement spell needs to be cast prior to committing the *intended murder*, there is no doubt that the *intent* to create a horcrux was successful. But even if you are in the encasement spell comes after camp, the wizard stills knows immediately that his soul was split.
   
  Conversely, commanding a *monster* to kill (or brewing a potion) does not require the investment of powerful magic. Equally important, there is no immediacy. The command is made then the wizard has to see if the attack is successful and if that success resulted in the death of the victim. Using the attack on Arthur, the attack was successful but he didn't die immediately. Let's say St. Mungos couldn't find a cure and he died six months later. Would that scenario seem conducive to horcrux creation? I think not, but by your example, the 'murdering' wizard has a split soul sometime in the future after the *commanded* attack. 
   
  IOW, splitting the soul, especially for the purpose of horcrux creation, would require the powerful magic and the immediate impact of a killing curse cast by a wizard "intent" upon "committing" murder. Accidental homicide would not qualify, neither would commissioning a contract murder. The murder must be committed by the "hand" of the wizard to cause that wizard's soul to split. Remember the universe this is operating in.
   
  IMO, this has interesting ramifications vis-a-vis Harry and Voldemort. Is killing a wizard that is guilty of multiple murders (including your own parents) considered murder in the Potterverse?  Or is he satisfying something akin to a life debt by bringing the guilty party to justice?  Does Vlodemort have enough of a soul left to call killing him a murder of another human with a soul?

 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1?/min.

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




From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 03:24:18 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:24:18 -0000
Subject: The Ancient Riddle - what does JKR know?
In-Reply-To: <ecgfi2+255m@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecghp2+gdhd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157374

Tonks:
> Finishing my Alchemy 101 studies I have discovered this interesting 
> point.  Apparently the stone can NOT be destroyed.  I wonder if JKR 
> knows this.  DD must have figured it out somewhere between book 1 
> and book 2.  But does Rowling know??

zgirnius:
I think Rowling may know this fact, I agree with your (snipped) 
evidence that she has some familiarity with alchemy. However, Rowling 
takes elements of familiar/real things out there and alters them to 
suit her own purposes in various ways. So she could be doing this here.







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 21:39:13 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:39:13 -0000
Subject: Voldemort's transformations (Was: The Summer of his 16th Year)
In-Reply-To: <44EBB3B1.8020300@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ecihu1+mtao@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157375

KJ wrote:
> 
>     I was in agreement with this for a while, and considered that 
> Voldemort might have made contact with Grindlwald prior to making
his first horcruxes.  Unfortunately, he was already showing red
flashes in his eyes in the cup and locket memory. He was working for
B&B at that time and it must have been within the first two years
after leaving school. <snip>

Carol responds:
Yes, but Grindelwald died in 1945, the same year that Tom left
Hogwarts, so Tom could have had contact with him before he died (and
before Dumbledore destroyed his one Horcrux, if that's what happened).

I agree that the red gleam in his eyes indicates that he's made at
least one Horcrux, certainly converting the diary to a Horcrux and
possibly making the ring into one as well, placing a curse on it and
hiding it in the Gaunt's hovel. Or the ring Horcrux could have been
created and hidden right before he skipped the country with the locket
and the cup, having murdered Hepzibah Smith and framed Hokey to obtain
them. Harry notes that Tom is thinner and paler when he visits
Hepzibah when he's working at B and B, the first hint that his
appearance is changing but perhaps a hint that he's only made the
first Horcrux since the change is so subtle. But the red eyes make it
clear that he's made either one or two at that point, perhaps two or
three years after the death of Grindelwald--the time frame isn't
perfectly clear.

Ten years later, when he shows up to apply for the DADA position, he's
barely recognizable, primarily because his features are blurred, a
sign that he's made at least four Horcruxes (the diary, the ring, the
cup, and the locket) and that he's losing what humanity (or make that
"humanness") he ever had--his human appearance and identity along with
his name and the parts of his soul that he's encased in Horcruxes.
(The narrator's remark that he was not yet "as snakelike" as he would
later become *may* be Harry's perception based on hindsight--he knows
what the future Voldemort will look like. I still think that Nagini as
Horcrux could affect his appearance, but only if she became a Horcrux
before GH.)

By the time of Godric's Hollow, he must have made at least one more
Horcrux because he's fully snakelike (note his appearance in the back
of Quirrell's head and the lack of surprise at his appearance on the
part of the Death Eaters in GoF). I believe that he had made not only
his Ravenclaw Horcrux (the tiara in the RoR?) but the sixth Horcrux,
Nagini, at this point, perhaps because he'd given up on finding a
Gryffindor object to complete his collection, but the argument that he
became snakelike as he lost his humanity is also feasible. (I'm not
going to go into that here, as people seem to think that
Nagini!Horcrux is inconsistent with their Harry!Horcrux theory,
whereas it's actually possible that both could be true. As for me,
I'll take the list of remaining Horcruxes that Harry recites near the
end of HBP as canonical for now: "the locket, the cup, the snake,
something from Gryffindor or Ravenclaw," to quote from memory.)

To return to the time frame, there's a gap of about fifteen years
between the DADA visit and LV's return to England around the time that
Severus Snape and MWPP started attending Hogwarts, at which time DD
tells us in Cos, I believe, that LV was changed beyond recognition. I
think that LV made either one or two Horcruxes in that time but was
still waiting to create the last one until he had a suitable object.
Godric's Hollow occurred eleven years later, when SS/MWPP were
twenty-two. At that point, he probably intended, as DD said, to make
his last Horcrux with Harry's death, but it's not clear what he would
have used to contain that last soul bit. Maybe he still had hopes of
killing Dumbledore and stealing the Sword of Gryffindor. After all, if
he'd killed Harry, "the one with the power" to defeat him, he'd be
invincible--or so he would believe.

Carol, wondering if LV would then devote his attention to making his
body immortal to match his soul









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 21:57:31 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:57:31 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <20060823211839.64726.qmail@web53008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecij0b+kk5a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157376

> >>hickengruendler: 
> > Nowwhere it is said in Canon, that any magic needs to be done 
> > for your soul to split. It splits when you murder somebody.      
> > <snip>
 
> >>Mike:
> I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking about a series 
> with wizards and magic, aren't we? You aren't really suggesting   
> that the *magical splitting of your soul* can be accomplished     
> without using magic to commit the murder, are you? Does that sound 
> consistent with this book series?

Betsy Hp:
Well, I don't want to speak for hickengruendler, but I *do* think 
that JKR meant murder, any kind of murder, splits or rips the soul.  
The magical bit comes in when a wizard rips that split piece of soul 
away and stuffs into some sort of container.

And I think that fits in perfectly with the Potter series.  JKR uses 
magic to turn things up a notch.  But she doesn't totally disconnect 
her magical folks from the ordinary.

Ghosts are a good example.  Everybody dies, whether muggle or 
wizard.  But only wizards can refuse to move on and become ghosts.  
So, murder hurts the murderer's soul.  But only a wizard can make 
dark use of that injury.

Honestly, I think it'd be a bit odd if JKR suggested that *only* a 
magical murder splits the soul.  That would suggest that if young 
Tom had taken an axe to his estranged family his soul would be just 
fine, thank you very much.  I don't think JKR is going in that sort 
of "off on a technicality" direction.

Which, hmmm...  I guess that could go towards the question of 
Mirtle.  Did Tom *feel* that he'd murdered her?  If so, than his 
soul split.  Just something to consider.

Betsy Hp 







From bobhawkins at rcn.com  Wed Aug 23 02:44:14 2006
From: bobhawkins at rcn.com (zeroirregardless)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 02:44:14 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <eceono+gec3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecgfdu+nf6l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157377

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

> Tinktonks (Who is now totally overthinking every tiny little thing and
> hoping that someone out there thinks I'm not crazy!)
>
    Do you ever get the feeling that, when you finish Book 7, every
sentence in Book 1 will turn out to have hidden significance?

                               Zero Irregardless









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 22:27:09 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:27:09 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <echmnn+79n1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eciknt+t08b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157378

Neri wrote:
> <snip> I actually believed so before HBP, when I thought Lucius's
good word was necessary for Snape to regain his place at the Dark
Lord's side. But I have serious trouble seeing what reason it could be
now. Surely not another Horcrux when Lucius had already lost the first? 

Carol responds:
>From a DDM!Snape perspective, the Malfoys' goodwill would be
necessary, at least until Lucius's arrest, for Snape to keep up the
appearance of loyalty to Voldemort and for him to obtain information
(such as Lucius seeing Sirius Black on Platform 9 3/4) directly from
the Malfoys. But I think that he actually likes them as well, possibly
because Lucius, six years older than Severus, was the first to
recognize the younger boys talents. I take "Lucius's old friend" to be
a statement of the truth, even though I think Snape is, against his
natural inclinations, Dumbledore's man through and through. So maybe
the plan has always been for Snape to convert the Malfoys to
Dumbledore's side when the time came to defeat Voldemort. He can only
do that by being their friend and earning their trust, even, it seems,
their affection. (You don't hold the hands of someone you dislike,
place your face near theirs, and shed tears on their chest. 

IMO, Snape is Narcissa's and Lucius's trusted friend, but he's also
reminding Narcissa what it means to lose the Dark Lord's favor and
what a dangerous position she's placing herself in by trying to thwart
LV's plans for Draco. and yet, Snape, as their friend, cares about
both Narcissa and Draco, and as Dumbledore's man already intends to
watch over and protect Draco. All this to say that a romantic
attachment is unnecessary to explain Snape's reactions. At the same
time, we see his caution, his unwillingness to directly confront LV.
His role as double agent, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and his real
concern for the Malfoys place him in a very uncomfortable position in
this chapter. He makes what he thinks to be the right choice with the
UV finds himself bound with ropes of fire to a weeping Narcissa,
forced by fate or the DADA curse to take that unanticipated third
provision. (It felt to me like Snape's death knell. I think that's
what he thought, too. I don't think he thought that he would kill DD
or that it was even possible--not that DD would kill *him* but that
the vow would.)

> Neri:
<snip>
> And another question I don't remembered being answered: what did
Draco have against Snape during HBP, anyway? Snape *was* Draco's
favorite teacher for five years, more than just a favorite teacher, he
was Draco's constant ally at Hogwarts. And suddenly in HBP, just when
Draco needs Snape the most, he refuses any help? Why does Draco all of
the sudden convince himself that Snape is out "to steal his glory"?
> Draco is desperate, to the point of crying in bathrooms more than
> once. Wouldn't it be worth to share a bit of glory to save his life
> and his family? His own mother wants him to. And Draco does believe
> that Snape was on Voldemort's side, and yet even after Snape saves
his life from the Sectumsempra, he doesn't trust Snape enough to share
his plan with him.  How come? Don't you think that Draco's attitude
> towards Snape in HBP just smacks of teenager hurt feelings? Is this
> because Draco has this uneasy hunch about Snape and his mother? Or
> maybe more than just a hunch?

Carol responds:
First, Draco is not at the point of crying in bathrooms when Snape
confronts him just before Christmas. He's getting desperate enough to
try cursed necklaces and poisoned mead, tactics that Snape warns him
against (he doesn't know about the mead, but he lets Draco know that
he's suspected of involvement with the necklace, and Draco doesn't try
any more tricks of that sort after the mead also fails). 

But things have changed for Draco. First, he's stopped caring about
classes and doesn't even expect to return to Hogwarts next year
because he's a DE now, doing important work for the Dark Lord. And
even Potions, his favorite class till now, has changed, with Slughorn
as teacher. (Can it be that Draco, like Hermione, did better in
Snape's class with Snape's improved Potions directions than with
Slughorn's fifty-year-old textbook? Just a thought.) And Snape is
teaching *Defense Against* the Dark Arts, a class that Draco doesn't
think he needs: "As if we need protection against the Dark Arts!" Just
the fact that Snape would teach such a course probably knocks Snape
down a notch in Draco's estimation.

But the real reason, or the main reason, why Draco no longer trusts
Snape (aside from teenage rebellion against authority and all that) is
almost certainly Bellatrix. She's taught Draco Occlumency (or the
rudiments of it) specifically to keep Snape from interfering with
Draco's plan. She's probably also put the idea into his head that
Snape would want to steal his glory. I doubt that it would have
occurred to him otherwise. Perhaps she's told him that Snape is now
LV's most trusted advisor, the position his father used to hold, which
could be why Draco bursts out of the room in anger when Snape brings
up his feelings about his father, whereas when Snape says that he
promised Draco's mother that he'd protect him, even taking the
Unbreakable Vow, Draco's reaction is that he'd better just break the
vow. Nothing to do with his mother--he just seems indifferent to the
consequences to Snape--the kind of unthinking reaction a teenager
would have to an adult authority figure trying to interfere with his
plans. I don't think he really wants Snape to die, just to leave him
alone and let him do his "job."

So, IMO, Draco's reaction to Snape in HBP, which mirrors Harry's
reaction to Dumbledore in OoP, has nothing to do with uncanonical
suspicions of an attraction between Snape and his mother, lovely as
that idea is as a premise for fanfic. IMO, it boils down chiefly to
adolescent rebellion and the interference of Aunt Bellatrix, who may
well have Imperio'd Rosmerta, if she can disguise herself, or at least
arranged for the Imperius to be performed.

Carol, not at all sure that this is a coherent post but unable to
spend any more time on it






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 23 22:47:22 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:47:22 -0000
Subject: Draco vs. Dumbledore or What was V thinking?!? (was: Re: Spinner's End...)
In-Reply-To: <ecgc4o+oseo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eciltq+4fag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157379

> >>Mike:
> OK, I get it. This was a terrorist action. From the beginning,     
> Draco (or an accomplice) was to signal when DD was out and the     
> connection between cabinets was ready. Then, after raising a      
> little hell, someone sends up the Dark Mark to lure DD back,      
> whereupon Draco heads off to meet his doom. Is that right, Betsy?

Betsy Hp:
Yup. <g>

> >>Mike:
> But, LV appears to be running low on DEs and to sacrafice 6-8 of 
> them for this seems like a poor trade-off.

Betsy Hp:
Why would Voldemort assume they wouldn't flee for the hills the 
moment Dumbledore shows up?  Also, why do we think Voldemort is 
running low on Death Eaters?  Is there canon for that?

> >>Mike:
> More importantly, including Fenrir in the raid has the very real   
> drawback of scaring the bejesus out of even the Slytherins        
> (presuming the attack went off as planned), which would quite      
> probably seriously damage future recruitment efforts.

Betsy Hp:
Voldemort will kill off the very best of the purebloods if he wants 
to.  Why would he give two hoots if a few Slytherins are scared or 
scarred or killed?  (It's not like Slytherins are natural Death 
Eaters after all. <eg>)

> >>Magpie:
> Voldemort's happy to rule based on fear or Imperius if need be. I
> don't think he'd care about scaring the Slytherins. Being able to
> induce fear means he's powerful, which is attractive to some.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly.  Voldemort is who he is, and those who agree with him, or 
enjoy the chaos he sows will join him.  Voldemort is not trolling 
for recruits that I've seen.

> >>Mike:
> Trade a tactical win for a strategic blunder? You don't think he   
> recruits followers to sacrafice them so easily, do you?

Betsy Hp:
I sure do.  Voldemort may have a few (a *few*) followers he deems 
necessary enough to not out and out kill.  Lucius may well be one of 
them.  (Hence the kill the son but keep the father, thinking.)  But 
that's the whole point of Voldemort.  He'll kill you in a second if 
he sees the slightest gain for himself in it.  Years of loyal 
service not withstanding.  (And I honestly don't see the strategic 
blunder here.  Not from Voldemort's point of view.)

> >>Mike:
> LV *knows* that DD wouldn't kill Draco, wouldn't even come close   
> to needing to.

> >>Magpie:
> LV doesn't know DD wouldn't kill Draco. DD even says (perhaps as   
> part of that "you can't kill what's already dead" line that's not 
> in all editions) that LV would expect DD's side to kill Draco in   
> response to this. It's the classic weakness of evil, that it can't 
> imagine good's deicisions, like the decision to offer mercy to     
> someone trying to kill you.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly. <g>

> >>Mike:
> Much more likely that Draco would be captured, which I suppose is 
> still a disgrace to the Malfoy name, right?

Betsy Hp:
Voldemort isn't interested in the Malfoy name.  He wants Lucius to 
bleed.  Actually, there's a certain logic in what Voldemort is 
doing.  Lucius caused a piece of Voldemort (the diary!horcrux) to 
die, so Voldemort will cause a piece of Lucius (Draco) to die.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But really, the mad-dog crazies attack Hogwarts was Bellatrix's 
> > show. This was her chance to show Voldemort that she could get 
> > it done. (Sly Snape manages to steal her thunder.  Wonder how
> > that's going to go down?) 

> >>Mike:
> OK, lost me here. Are you saying it was Bella's plan and Snape's 
> intervention saved the day for Bella's plan that would have failed 
> otherwise? Cause, Bella wasn't in the attack party.

Betsy Hp:
Sorry!  I assumed access to my mind <bg>.  I see Bellatrix as pretty 
much running Draco.  I think Voldemort assigned her the job of 
training Draco up (Occlumency, an Unforgivable or two) and being 
Draco's contact.  (I seriously doubt Voldemort wanted to waste his 
time on Draco and his doomed mission.)  I think Bellatrix hoped to 
have Draco actually succeed, whereupon Bellatrix would take instant 
credit.

So I think it was Bellatrix who arranged for the Death Eaters to go 
through the cabinet (with either Voldemort's approval or with 
Voldemort saying, "send so and so").  She didn't have to actually 
*be* there, but she does get the credit of it being her plan.  
(Honestly, I doubt she'd have let Draco get any credit for the 
cabinet in the end.)

Even if Draco were killed, Bellatrix would still get some glory if 
the Death Eaters actually caused havoc or if Dumbledore was wounded 
or even killed himself in the chaos.

But when Snape swooped in, took the lead, killed Dumbledore, etc., 
he basically stole the air (I suspect) from Bellatrix.  Instead of 
being the mastermind behind the ravaging of Hogwarts, she's the 
teacher of the kid who failed completely.  And in fact, she's the 
chick with plan that was totally failing until Snape came along and 
saved the day.  (And you just *know* that's how Snape is going to 
spin it.)

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So Snape knew enough to keep him out of trouble and to keep him
> > from completely screwing up the plan.  But he didn't know the 
> > exact details because he didn't need to know.

> >>Mike:
> I don't understand these two sentences at all. Which "him" are you 
> referring to? I didn't snip anything here, I only put in line     
> breaks at the places where you lost me.

Betsy Hp:
Oops.  "Huh?" is never the desired reaction. <g>  Let me try again.  
Basically I think Snape *did* know (and most likely from the 
beginning) that Voldemort was sending Draco in to kill Dumbledore.  
But I think that's *all* Snape knew.  How Draco was going to do it, 
who all was helping Draco, none of the was Snape's concern (per 
Voldemort).

I think Voldemort shared the *existence* of the plan because Snape 
is smart and would most likely have figured out that something was 
up.  And an uninformed Snape might have thrown things off if he'd 
felt the need to investigate.  Especially since Snape is Draco's 
head of house and a friend of the family to boot.  

However, Snape did not get to hear the details because Snape was not 
supposed to *take part* in the plan.  Snape was merely to keep out 
of the way and was told enough to allow him (Snape) to do so.

(Honestly, I think this was more because Voldemort didn't care about 
the details, himself.  I don't think this was a big deal for 
Voldemort, more of a side show really.  Let Bellatrix take care of 
any pesky details and point Draco in the right direction.  But this 
wasn't something to either risk or bother Snape with.  Snape had 
bigger fish to fry.  "What the heck is Dumbledore up to? etc.") 

> >>Mike:
> (I didn't mind the *ruthless* snipping <g> But then again I wrote 
> lots of what got snipped, so I knew their original layout. You may 
> still have to stand trial for indescent composure, <a little       
> Groucho grin>)

Betsy Hp:
Ha!  I hand you a cigar, sir.  And wish I had a sharper wit <g>.

Betsy Hp







From lovingly_black at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 14:32:33 2006
From: lovingly_black at yahoo.com (lovingly_black)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:32:33 -0000
Subject: Other relatives of Harry Potter!?
Message-ID: <ecf4i1+vnit@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157381

What I don't understand is why hasn't anyone said anything about
Harry's father and or mother's family besides Aunt Petunia? Sirius
said he used to spend holidays with James and his family sometimes
but we don't know any thing about them. All his family on both sides
are dead? Was James an only child? We know Lily had a sister of
course, but what of his grandparents? (Not saying they're not dead.)
But how did they die? Who were they? I keep thinking of the Mirror of
Erised. All those people staring back at him.

I don't know. If I was Harry I would be very interested in my own
heritage. Maybe it's the lack of information on this that intrigues
me. Sorry for any misspelling, it's never been a strong point of mine;
hoping it does not reflect on my ability to still be intelligent. I
would go back to my copy of SS but I've lent it out as I have done
many times before trying to captivate my friends with the the tale of
Harry Potter hoping they will not continue to see me as a nutter for
I could never stop rereading these wonderfully entrancing novels.

Michelle








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 00:54:41 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 00:54:41 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <20060823211839.64726.qmail@web53008.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ecitch+hdgd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157382

    
>   Mike:
> I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking about a series 
with wizards and magic, aren't we? You aren't really suggesting that 
the *magical splitting of your soul* can be accomplished without using 
magic to commit the murder, are you? Does that sound consistent with 
this book series?

zgirnius:
Yes, to me it does. I believe that in her world Muggles and wizards 
share a common humanity. In particular, Muggles also have souls. And, 
since Muggles are quite capable of committing the ultimate evil of 
murder with no magic at all, it makes sense to me that within that 
world the consequences to them ought to be the same.

By extension, a wizard or witch who commits a murder without using 
their magic in any way should likewise experience the same consequence.






From MadameSSnape at aol.com  Thu Aug 24 01:04:36 2006
From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 21:04:36 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Other relatives of Harry Potter!?
Message-ID: <596.362394c.321e5524@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157383

 
In a message dated 8/23/2006 8:56:31 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
lovingly_black at yahoo.com writes:

What I  don't understand is why hasn't anyone said anything about 
Harry's father  and or mother's family besides Aunt Petunia? Sirius 
said he used to spend  holidays with James and his family sometimes 
but we don't know any thing  about them. All his family on both sides 
are dead? Was James an only  child? We know Lily had a sister of 
course, but what of his grandparents?  (Not saying they're not dead.) 
But how did they die? Who were they? I keep  thinking of the Mirror of 
Erised. All those people staring back at  him.


==============================
Sherrie here:
 
JKR has actually commented on this.  IIRC, she said that all Harry's  
grandparents are dead, that James' parents were quite elderly and had him late  in 
life (yes, an only child - seems to be rather prevalent in the WW).  She  also 
said that the grandparents (& their deaths) aren't important to the  story (so 
we probably won't find out anything more about them).
 
Sherrie


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




From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 01:08:13 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:08:13 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <echpri+bvtl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eciu5t+mf85@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157384

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tonks" <tonks_op at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy@> wrote:
> >
> > When I was browsing through Wikipedia, I came across an 
> interesting tidbit about Leo the Lion in Astronomy and Alchemy.
> >  
> > Harry is born under the astrological sign of Leo the Lion (an 
> > excellent sign for a Gryffindor). According to Wikipedia..."in 
the 
> symbolism of Alchemy, Leo denoted the absorption or assimilation 
of 
> one substance by another."
> > 
> > What if Harry can survive by absorbing the bits of Voldemort 
into 
> > himself before Voldemort can assimilate Harry?  Harry would have 
> to come to terms with his Dark Shadow figure, but Voldy would have 
> to understand Love to overcome Harry.  (Snip)
> > This fits the Jungian philosophy of coming to terms with your 
> Shadow personality to become whole.  I think Harry has been on a 
> > psychological journey throughout the series.  
> 
> 
> Tonks:
> This is exactly what I have been saying in all of my Alchemy 101 
> post. I didn't think anyone was listening. So there are at least 3 
> of us that think that this is the way that Harry will vanquish LV. 
> Nice to know that I am not alone here.
> 
> When you read the prophesy, it is the only way that makes sense 
when 
> you understand that Harry will not kill.  And as others here have 
> said the "boy who lived" will probably not become the "man who 
> died".  It is the only way to make sense of it all. LV will 
> be "vanquished", not killed. The fact that LV has Harry's blood 
will 
> make it possible for LV to be absorbed into Harry in a way that 
was 
> not able to happen before. And JKR doesn't think anyone can figure 
> it out!!  Well I think that we have.  In my not so humble opinion, 
> of course.   ;-)
> 
> Tonks_op
>

I think you have nailed this one too!  

In chapter 22 of Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore uses some 
instrument which creates puffs of smoke that becomes a snake that 
then divides into two snakes.  Dumbledore comments "But in essence 
divided?"

If Harry and Voldy are joined but in essence divided, they cannot 
become whole if the other exists because they are two parts divided 
from the same whole.  The prophesy then sheds light on this 
predicament as you mentioned.  Neither can be a whole while the 
other half exists.  If a wizard was split between his two 
personalities, he would always be less than the whole.  Lily did 
something to Voldy when he tried to kill Harry that somehow joined 
the two of them, but they separated or dissolved into two distinct 
beings.  This sounds alot like the Alchemy stuff you mentioned.  
Combining and dissolving into essence and recombining to make the 
whole.

I think the imagery is lost on most people and they don't find it 
interesting.

Randy










From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 01:09:19 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:09:19 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <ecij0b+kk5a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eciu7v+j1ta@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157385

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote:
> > Mike previously:
> > I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking about a  
> > series with wizards and magic, aren't we? You aren't really    
> > suggesting that the *magical splitting of your soul* can be      
> > accomplished without using magic to commit the murder, are you? 
> > Does that sound consistent with this book series?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Well, I don't want to speak for hickengruendler, but I *do* think 
> that JKR meant murder, any kind of murder, splits or rips the   
> soul. The magical bit comes in when a wizard rips that split piece 
> of soul away and stuffs into some sort of container.
> <"ruthless" rearrangement>
> 
> Honestly, I think it'd be a bit odd if JKR suggested that *only* a 
> magical murder splits the soul.  That would suggest that if young 
> Tom had taken an axe to his estranged family his soul would be  
> just fine, thank you very much.  I don't think JKR is going in 
> that sort of "off on a technicality" direction.

Mike responds:
Ouch! I wasn't thinking that graphically. And I think you are 
reading too much into my post. Did Lizzy Borden get a tarnished soul 
from her escapade? I suppose so. Would a wizard get a tarnished soul 
from doing the same? I would say, yes. By NO means would I suggest 
that JKR wouldn't find non-magical murder reprehensible. And I don't 
think I was even coming close to suggesting that. 

But, I'm postulating on what the requirements are to perform *Dark 
Magic* in a *magical* universe, not making moral judgements on 
degrees of barbarity. We are discussing a magical concept: splitting 
the soul. Specifically, splitting the soul for the purpose of making 
a horcrux. And when it comes to magical requirements, I do think JKR 
is specific, or as you said "off on a technicality". 

"Swish and flick", "Concentrating hard on your happy memory?", 
"Arvada Kadevra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic behind 
it.", "...you need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it", "No 
Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!"; yeah, JKR is "technical" 
when it comes to her brand of magic. And while the concept of murder 
is a moralistic, "splitting the soul" is a magical concept that I 
can't imagine doesn't require  magical input to perform.

> Betsy Hp: 
> <snip> 
> So, murder hurts the murderer's soul.  But only a wizard can make 
> dark use of that injury.

Mike:
I don't disagree, murder does *hurt* the soul, and it does appear 
that "tarnishing" ones soul has it's own consequences. But it takes 
magic to "split" the soul. Dumbledore said Harry's soul is   
"untarnished and whole", not just untarnished and not just whole.






From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 01:21:48 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:21:48 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <ecgfmn+ivbs@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eciuvc+hh3l@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157386

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Randy" <estesrandy at ...> wrote:
>
> When I was browsing through Wikipedia, I came across an 
interesting 
> tidbit about Leo the Lion in Astronomy and Alchemy.
> 
> 
> Harry is born under the astrological sign of Leo the Lion (an 
> excellent sign for a Gryffindor).
> 
> According to Wikipedia..."in the symbolism of Alchemy, Leo denoted 
> the absorption or assimilation of one substance by another."
> 
> What if Harry can survive by absorbing the bits of Voldemort into 
> himself before Voldemort can assimilate Harry?  Harry would have 
to 
> come to terms with his Dark Shadow figure, but Voldy would have to 
> understand Love to overcome Harry.  We have been told that Voldy 
> does not understand Love, and this gives Harry a great advantage.  
> This battle to absorb the other would be somewhat analogous to the 
> Priori Incantatem scene in GOF where both fight each other to 
> overcome the wand emanations.
> 
> This fits the Jungian philosophy of coming to terms with your 
Shadow 
> personality to become whole.  I think Harry has been on a 
> psychological journey throughout the series.  He has had to deal 
> with Pride, Greed, Sloth, Anger, Gluttony and soon will deal with 
> Envy.  Each was represented by a person in one of the books.  I 
> think Snape is the one who represents Envy.  Voldy has all of the 
> bad qualities wrapped up into one person. He is inside Harry's 
mind 
> in several scenes.  Harry must deal with this Dark Voice in his 
head 
> to become whole?   He must absorb Voldy bits!!!  Resistance is 
> Futile!
> 
> Randy
>


I also noticed a quote in Wikipedia:

"In the symbolism of alchemy, Cancer is related to the process of 
dissolution, i.e., a process by which a substance is dissolved in a 
liquid like an acid."

Does anyone know what characters are born between June 21 and July 
22 during the sign of Cancer?

Who would represent the dissolution process?  

Randy








From monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com  Thu Aug 24 01:03:57 2006
From: monicaboukhalfa at tmail.com (Monica Boukhalfa)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:03:57 -0600
Subject: Other relatives of Harry Potter!?
In-Reply-To: <ecf4i1+vnit@eGroups.com>
References: <ecf4i1+vnit@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1156381444.27998DCB@fc6.dngr.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 157387


On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 6:54pm, lovingly_black wrote:
> What I don't understand is why hasn't anyone said anything about
> Harry's father and or mother's family besides Aunt Petunia? Sirius
> said he used to spend holidays with James and his family sometimes
> but we don't know any thing about them. All his family on both sides
> are dead? Was James an only child? We know Lily had a sister of
> course, but what of his grandparents? (Not saying they're not dead.)
> But how did they die? Who were they? I keep thinking of the Mirror of
> Erised. All those people staring back at him.
>
> I don't know. If I was Harry I would be very interested in my own
> heritage. Maybe it's the lack of information on this that intrigues
> me. Sorry for any misspelling, it's never been a strong point of mine;
> hoping it does not reflect on my ability to still be intelligent. I
> would go back to my copy of SS but I've lent it out as I have done
> many times before trying to captivate my friends with the the tale of
> Harry Potter hoping they will not continue to see me as a nutter for
> I could never stop rereading these wonderfully entrancing novels.
>


I believe they covered all of this in one of the interviews with JKR.

Although I don't have the link on me it was something to the effect of
James being an only child and his parents died of natural causes. Jo
wanted it to be understood that 1) yes Harry DID have to live w/ the
Dursleys and 2) that he was all alone.

This is all part of the hero's quest, he loses those who guide him and
he has to face his task alone, foreshadowed in the first book while
getting through all of the barriers to get the stone.

So yeah. Sorry. Its Harry, just Harry!

Professor B.
Charms
Gryffindor.

--Monica M. Boukhalfa






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 22 21:57:47 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 21:57:47 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecfiu5+hgup@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfukr+610q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157388

> >>wynnleaf:
> > <snip>
> > Yet, if he's (Lupin) an occlumens/legilimens himself, 
> > why didn't he volunteer or even mention it? In other words, 
> > if Lupin is an occlumens or legilimens, he's keeping it a 
> > secret.
> > <snip>
> > Last, although it is possible that an occlumens or 
> > legilimens Lupin could be good, if Lupin *can* do this 
> > kind of magic, it lends a lot of weight to ESE!Lupin.

> >>bboyminn:
> <snip>
> I agree, JKR is dropping giant sized hints that Lupin 
> is certainly skilled in Legilimency, and possibly even 
> skilled at Occlumency. But I don't think that makes 
> Lupin 'Ever So Evil'. Though, I admit, I can't imagine 
> how that is going to come into play in the last book.
> <snip>
> I think that Lupin didn't volunteer to teach Harry 
> because, as I said, he recognised Snape's superior 
> skill. But further, that Snape was at Hogwarts and Lupin 
> wasn't. It would have looked suspicious if Lupin had shown 
> up at the school to talk to Harry several times a month. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, except... Lupin *can* apperate.  And the Shrieking Shack *is* 
available.  And Harry *does* have an invisibility cloak.  I agree 
that being a Legilimens doesn't in and of itself make someone ever 
so evil (though I also agree with Magpie that JKR sees it as 
indicitive of a shady or secretive character).  But it's just one 
more thing that Lupin is keeping a secret.  

He keeps *a lot* of secrets.  And it seems he keeps a lot of secrets 
at the expense of Harry.  Why can't Lupin, the last surviving friend 
of Harry's father, find an excuse to hang with Harry?

Oh sure, there are tons of excuses *against* Lupin teaching Harry 
Legilimency [grabbing some from Steve]: werewolf, Sirius (care and 
feeding of), Dumbledore picked Snape so Snape's it, busy with other 
Order stuff, is so gosh darn tired all the time.  Actually, these 
are probably the very same excuses that Lupin would throw up to 
explain why he doesn't express any interest in Harry unless Harry is 
right in front of him.  And they're similar to the excuses Lupin 
throws at Tonks.  Very good with the excuses, our Mr. Lupin.

And perhaps the reason Dumbledore chose Snape for the job of 
Legilimency teacher is that Lupin (the man of many excuses) does not 
have Dumbldore's complete trust.

Betsy Hp (who's finding that the more and more she looks at Lupin 
the shakier and shakier his good guy status becomes -- hanging by 
the interviews here, folks. <g>)






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 01:34:09 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 01:34:09 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <echmnn+79n1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecivmh+49ar@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157389

> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > There's the ACID POPS answer.  Snape is madly in love with      
> > Narcissa and couldn't resist her heartfelt pleas.  I have a     
> > couple of problems with that idea.  For one, Snape doesn't *act* 
> > like he's madly in love, IMO.

> >>Neri:
> Er... I'm curios now. How *would* MadlyInLove!Snape act, in your   
> opinion?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Waay too hot for a children's book, that's for sure! <g> Honestly, 
with adult Snape I'd imagine *incredibly intense* focus.  No "enough 
exposition to choke a horse".  No "let's discuss the psychological 
make up of the Dark Lord, shall we?".  It'd be all Narcissa from 
beginning to end.  Very "my love is in pain and I will fix it" 
thinking and acting. 

But that's my opinion and I agree that JKR takes a very different 
direction with her romances.  But at this point I haven't really 
seen Snape acting out of an interest of Narcissa and *only* 
Narcissa.  The rest of the Malfoys keep crowding in.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > For another, Narcissa brings up Lucius and Snape being old      
> > friends.  Which strikes me as an odd way for a woman to go about 
> > seducing someone.

> >>Neri:
> She brings this up once, in a very mild way. It's second place to
> Snape being Draco's favorite teacher: 
> 
> ************************************************************
> "I only meant. . . that nobody has yet succeeded. . . .           
> Severus . . . please . . . You are, you have always been, Draco's 
> favorite teacher. . . . You are Lucius's old friend. ... I beg     
> you. .. . You are the Dark Lord's favorite, his most trusted      
> advisor. . . . Will you speak to him, persuade him ? ?"
> ************************************************************

Betsy Hp:
Right.  Narcissa starts with her son and moves onto her husband.  
The entire Malfoy family is represented here.  I do concede that 
it's possible to give this a romantic spin.  But, given the theme of 
the books, I feel like the family has a better chance of being 
important than a great love.

> >>Neri:
> <snip of quote>
> This Lucius bashing strikes me like a strange way to earn the good
> will of the Malfoy *family*.
> <snip of more quotes>
> A bit repetitive of you, Severus, and not very diplomatic either, 
> if you are interested in the good will of the Malfoy family.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ah, but Snape isn't interested in *praising* the Malfoy family.  
He's pointing up that they're up poo creek, and ooh, hey look... 
Snape's got a paddle.

Of course it *is* possible to interpert Snape's dialogue to 
imply, "should've married *me*, wench."  But (and I think Magpie's 
done a good job pointing this out) it doesn't fit in with the rest 
of the Potterbooks.

But family -- gosh, that's what it's all about isn't it?  And the 
Malfoys are the second most important surviving family in the 
books.  At least, after the Weasleys they're the ones we get the 
most glimpses of.

> >>Neri:
> Well, this depends on what the point *is*, isn't it? Was it        
> thematic for Merope to fall in love with Tom Sr., the tragic      
> affair that started it all?

Betsy Hp:
Yes, in that it caused her to leave her family, it tore Tom from his 
family and it left Tom Jr. with no family at all.

> >>Neri:
> The name "Spinner's End" hints that Snape was finally caught in his
> own web of lies. And thematically you don't get caught because you
> were jockeying for this or that advantage. You get caught because 
> of a tragic flaw.

Betsy Hp:
And perhaps that tragic flaw is similar to Draco's?  Perhaps Snape 
feels a strong connection to the Malfoy family.  His twitch when 
Lucius is named as a Death Eater suggests an exposed and quickly 
hidden emotion, IMO.  So I do see Snape acting in a manner that goes 
beyond mere manipulation.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But what about the Malfoy family?  What if there's a reason for 
> > Snape to try and earn (or keep) the goodwill of the Malfoy 
> > *family*?

> >>Neri:
> I actually believed so before HBP, when I thought Lucius's good   
> word was necessary for Snape to regain his place at the Dark      
> Lord's side. But I have serious trouble seeing what reason it     
> could be now. Surely not another Horcrux when Lucius had already   
> lost the first? 

Betsy Hp:
I agree that it's not about Snape looking good to Voldemort.  
Actually, in taking the Vow and (if I'm right) trying to draw the 
Malfoys *away* from Voldemort, Snape is compromising his place in 
the Death Eater hierarchy.

I'm not really sure why the Malfoys might be important.  I can see 
thematic reasons (they're the Slytherin counterpart to the Weasley 
Griffindors), but interior plot reasons...  I suppose Horcruxes 
could be it.  Lucius is a master networker from what we've seen.  He 
might have some fairly shrewd ideas of who's been entrusted with 
precious items of Voldemorts.  (Draco may have picked up similar 
ideas, actually, just by keeping his ears pricked.) 

> >>Neri:
> Ah, yes. Can you imagine how much animosity towards Lucius would   
> Snape accumulate if he had to pretend all these years to be       
> Lucius's lapdog while being in love with Narcissa?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It'd make an interesting romance, but that's not the sort of story 
JKR is writing is it?  Take out the "in love with Narcissa" bit and 
why would we think Snape disliked hanging with Lucius?  Everything 
in the books suggests that Lucius was a good friend to Snape.  I 
don't recall any hints that suggest Snape doesn't like him.  And if 
Snape *does* like Lucius it might hurt him to see someone he likes 
being led badly astray by a deeply flawed philosophy.  

Can you imagine the risk Snape might take to draw this family away 
from Voldemort?

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 02:01:11 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:01:11 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <eciu7v+j1ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecj197+60rm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157390

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 
> > Honestly, I think it'd be a bit odd if JKR suggested that *only* 
> > a magical murder splits the soul.  That would suggest that if    
> > young Tom had taken an axe to his estranged family his soul      
> > would be just fine, thank you very much.  I don't think JKR is   
> > going in that sort of "off on a technicality" direction.

> >>Mike responds:
> Ouch! I wasn't thinking that graphically. And I think you are 
> reading too much into my post. Did Lizzy Borden get a tarnished   
> soul from her escapade? I suppose so. Would a wizard get a         
> tarnished soul from doing the same? I would say, yes. By NO means 
> would I suggest that JKR wouldn't find non-magical murder          
> reprehensible. And I don't think I was even coming close to       
> suggesting that. 

Betsy Hp:
I wasn't suggesting that that was what you were suggesting. (Say 
that five times fast. <g>)  I was saying that I think you're over 
complicating things.  Slughorn tells us "murder splits the soul" (to 
paraphrase).  He doesn't quantify the *type* of murder.  So why 
should we?

> >>Mike:
> But, I'm postulating on what the requirements are to perform *Dark 
> Magic* in a *magical* universe, not making moral judgements on 
> degrees of barbarity.

Betsy Hp:
Right.  The dark magic is the bit where you seperate that ripped bit 
of soul from yourself and stick it somewhere else.  I don't see 
where it's suggested that the rip itself needs dark magic (or magic, 
period) to happen.  The only requirement is murder.

> >>Mike:
> We are discussing a magical concept: splitting the soul.

Betsy Hp:
I guess I don't recall the text that states splitting the soul is a 
magical act.

> >>Mike:
> Specifically, splitting the soul for the purpose of making a      
> horcrux. And when it comes to magical requirements, I do think JKR 
> is specific, or as you said "off on a technicality".  
> "Swish and flick", "Concentrating hard on your happy memory?", 
> "Arvada Kadevra's a curse that needs a powerful bit of magic      
> behind it.", "...you need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy 
> it", "No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!"; yeah, JKR         
> is "technical" when it comes to her brand of magic.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I *totally* disagree.  Does it take magic to enjoy causing pain 
in others?  Does it take magic to use happy thoughts to fight 
depression?  That's exactly what I'm talking about.  JKR takes 
something we all are familiar with (sadism, depression) and turns it 
up a notch with magic.  But at its core, sadism and depression are 
not something only wizards can experience.  And I'd imagine that 
murdering someone can rip at your soul.

(Honestly, I think the really dark part of the horcrux is that it 
prevents healing.  Just as Crucio encourages sadism and Dementors 
trap you in depression.)
 
> >>Betsy Hp: 
> > <snip> 
> > So, murder hurts the murderer's soul.  But only a wizard can    
> > make dark use of that injury.

> >>Mike:
> I don't disagree, murder does *hurt* the soul, and it does appear 
> that "tarnishing" ones soul has it's own consequences. But it     
> takes magic to "split" the soul. Dumbledore said Harry's soul is   
> "untarnished and whole", not just untarnished and not just whole.

Betsy Hp:
But Dumbledore doesn't say Harry's soul is untarnished because he 
hasn't murdered.  I don't think anyone says "murder tarnishes your 
soul".  But they *do* say "murder splits your soul".  I think it's 
safe to take JKR at her word here.

Betsy Hp







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 02:53:20 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 02:53:20 -0000
Subject: Punishments for Snape and Umbridge (more on the funny side)
Message-ID: <ecj4b0+phmv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157391

Yes, I know we had been through that topic many times, but since I 
just chatted with one very funny person, whose name is Ceridwen, 
please blame her for that post :) ( which me being an elfy type is 
not even sure totally okay for the main list, but since we are 
talking about canon characters, I think I can talk myself into 
thinking that this is on topic enough ;))

So, yes, I want Snape punished, blah, blah, blah, but I figured that 
as a condition for Snape's pardon for what he did ( whatever he did, 
am not going into specifics now, but of course to be punished he 
needed to have done something bad, so insert here whatever you 
prefer), the best punishment just may be Snape serving as a tutor 
for Harry and Ginny twelve children :), you know - be the tutor or 
go to Azkaban ( I wonder if Snape may just choose Azkaban ;))

Just imagine the juicy stories Snape may have to tell the kids about 
mom's and dad's school years. :)

Oh, year and Ceridwen suggested that Umbridge may have been of use 
also as a tutor either for Twins' children or for Lupins' children ( 
you know, 24/7 live in tutor and *no" days off on the full moon).

Heeeee, the alternative punishment would be the Choir of Centaurs 
singing Lulabies to her everyday before bed. :)

Any other punishments?

Alla and Ceridwen ( sorry, dear, don't kill me :))









From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 03:18:33 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:18:33 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecie4p+hldp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecj5q9+jdth@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157392

> Magpie:
> But you've only come to that question via the answer you already 
> want.  "What does Draco have against Snape?" is asked by Harry within 
> canon. We don't ask what Draco has against his mother because he's 
> trying to protect his threatened mother in the story. <snip>

Neri:

******************************************************
HBP, Ch. 6, p. 126:

"Not a word to anyone, Borgin, and that includes my mother, understand?"
******************************************************

This doesn't sound to me like Draco trying to protect his mother. It
sounds like Draco trying to protect himself from her.

Snape tells him that he promised his mother to look after him, and he
lies to Snape. He doesn't just hide information from Snape ? he
actively lies to him, claiming he had nothing to do with the Katie
nearly dying. Which means he probably lies about this to his mother
too, because he knows that if he'll tell her the truth, she'll tell Snape.


Neri








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 03:39:00 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:39:00 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecfukr+610q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecj70k+fp3g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157393

> Betsy Hp wrote:
<snip>
> Oh sure, there are tons of excuses *against* Lupin teaching Harry 
> Legilimency [grabbing some from Steve]: werewolf, Sirius (care and 
> feeding of), Dumbledore picked Snape so Snape's it, busy with other 
> Order stuff, is so gosh darn tired all the time.  Actually, these 
> are probably the very same excuses that Lupin would throw up to 
> explain why he doesn't express any interest in Harry unless Harry is 
> right in front of him.  And they're similar to the excuses Lupin 
> throws at Tonks.  Very good with the excuses, our Mr. Lupin.
> 
> And perhaps the reason Dumbledore chose Snape for the job of 
> Legilimency teacher is that Lupin (the man of many excuses) does not 
> have Dumbldore's complete trust.
> 
> Betsy Hp (who's finding that the more and more she looks at Lupin 
> the shakier and shakier his good guy status becomes -- hanging by 
> the interviews here, folks. <g>)
>
Carol responds:
I don't think that Lupin's ability as a Legilimens (if it exists) has
anything to do with his giving or not giving Harry lessons in OoP.

But it's *Occlumency* that Snape, a "superb Occlumens" according to
Lupin (who doesn't praise Snape lightly) is supposed to teach Harry,
so it wouldn't matter whether Lupin is a Legilimens or not. I imagine
that Snape and lupin are approximately equal in that department while
Snape is better at Occlumency (as he has to be to survive lying to
Voldemort). also, of course, snape is already at Hogwarts, is not a
werewolf, and has Dumbledore's absolute trust. Altogether the best man
for the job, just as he is (IMO) the best man to teach DADA in HBP
(unfortunately for him given the curse on the post).

I admit that I have trouble with Lupin's willingness to let a man he
thinks is out to murder Harry sneak into the school without telling DD
that Black is not only an Animagus but knows about all the secret
passages. wanting to keep Dumbledore's trust is a very feeble excuse,
especially because he's keeping that trust by keeping important
secrets (and keeping the Marauder's Map, once it falls into his
hands). And surely he knows that the lie he tells himself, that Sirius
learned Dark Arts from Voldermort, is feeble as well. He wouldn't need
Dark Arts to sneak past the Dementors or hide on the school grounds
and Lupin knows it. There's not even a guard watching the front doors
until Flitwick finally teaches the doors to recognize Black, and Black
gets into the school twice, slashing up a portrait and wielding a
twelve-inch knife (not exactly Dark Arts but pretty darned deadly) and
Lupin says nothing. Weak, Lupin weak! Wimpy! Cowardly! Valuing your
secrets more than Harry's life! I don't think that Lupin is evil, but
he's terribly irresponsible, not to mention that if he'd told
Dumbledore that Black is an Animagus to begin with, they'd know how he
slipped by the Dementors in the first place and quite possibly the
Dementors wouldn't have been sent to guard the school, putting Harry
and others in worse than mortal danger.

No, I don't think Lupin is ESE! but he's dangerously weak (as Snape
insinuates to Tonks in HBP) and even if he could teach Occlumency (not
Legilimency), I can see why Dumbledore didn't choose him. (BTW, if
Harry had trusted Snape and had done what he was told, not to mention
staying out of that Pensieve, I think he would have learned enough
Occlumency to block LV's intrusions into his mind, but since he
didn't, the enterprise was doomed from the outset.)

Carol, who really only wanted to point out that being a Legilimens
wouldn't in itself qualify Lupin to teach Occlumency







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug 24 03:53:28 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:53:28 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
References: <ecj5q9+jdth@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <007e01c6c730$df6195f0$2e8c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157394

Neri:

******************************************************
HBP, Ch. 6, p. 126:

"Not a word to anyone, Borgin, and that includes my mother, understand?"
******************************************************

This doesn't sound to me like Draco trying to protect his mother. It
sounds like Draco trying to protect himself from her.

Magpie:
It sounds like a 16-year-old boy knowingly getting involved in something 
Mother doesn't want him involved in.  We've seen Narcissa showing how upset 
she is about Draco being involved in this.  We hear that Draco himself is 
eager to prove himself as a DE. "Not a word to anyone including my mother" 
follows logically from that alone.  The protecting of Narcissa becomes 
important when Voldemort threatens her.  "He'll kill my whole family."

Neri:
Snape tells him that he promised his mother to look after him, and he lies 
to Snape. He doesn't just hide information from Snape - he actively lies to 
him, claiming he had nothing to do with the Katie
nearly dying. Which means he probably lies about this to his mother too, 
because he knows that if he'll tell her the truth, she'll tell Snape.

Magpie:
A 16-year-old lying to his mother is not out of the ordinary.  The reasons 
for his lying in this case are especially understandable given that he's 
taken a job as a secret assassin.  He is trying to do the job alone. 
Narcissa wants him to go to Snape. Draco does not want to go to Snape.

Something as huge as an assassination assignment for a terrorist 
organization and a madman is going to explain a lot of motivation throughout 
the book.  There's nothing about him being upset that his teacher is going 
to start dating his mom. What exactly is Draco supposed to have experienced 
(completely outside of what's written in the book and with no direct 
references to it) that's driving him here?

-m






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 06:18:27 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:18:27 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul - Actually Tearing the Soul
In-Reply-To: <eciu7v+j1ta@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecjgbj+hef3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157395

"Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
>
> "horridporrid03" wrote:
> > > Mike previously:
> > > I don't mean to sound flippant, but we are talking 
> > > about a series with wizards and magic, aren't we? 
> > > You aren't really suggesting that the *magical 
> > > splitting of your soul* can be accomplished without 
> > > using magic to commit the murder, are you? 
> > > Does that sound consistent with this book series?
> > 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > ... I *do* think  that JKR meant murder, any kind of 
> > murder, splits or rips the soul. The magical bit comes 
> > in when a wizard rips that split piece of soul away 
> > and stuffs into some sort of container.
> > <"ruthless" rearrangement>
> > 
> > ...
> 
> Mike responds:
> Ouch! ...edited...
> 
> ... We are discussing a magical concept: splitting 
> the soul. Specifically, splitting the soul for the 
> purpose of making a horcrux. ...
> 
> ... while the concept of murder is a moralistic, 
> "splitting the soul" is a magical concept that I 
> can't imagine doesn't require  magical input to 
> perform.
> 
> > Betsy Hp: 
> > <snip> 
> > So, murder hurts the murderer's soul.  But only a 
> > wizard can make dark use of that injury.
> 
> Mike:
> I don't disagree, murder does *hurt* the soul, and ... 
> has it's own consequences. But it takes magic to "split" 
> the soul. Dumbledore said Harry's soul is "untarnished 
> and whole", not just untarnished and not just whole.
>


bboyminn:

Perhaps we need to define our terms. To my knowledge that books never
use the phrase 'splitting the soul'. It refers to it as 'tearing the
soul'.

Minus a clarification on terms, I'm incline to agree with Betsy_HP.
Any willful harm to a fellow human being injures the soul. Further any
form of willfully taking the life of a fellow human being tears the
soul. No magic needed.

However, to split that torn section of soul off and separate it from
the core-soul for the purpose of encasing it in a external physical
object (horcrux) does require magic. 

That is my fair and reasonable belief. Though, how that fits in with
the terms and opinions you are expressing, I don't know.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From phil at pcsgames.net  Thu Aug 24 11:11:46 2006
From: phil at pcsgames.net (Phil Vlasak)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 07:11:46 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
References: <eciuvc+hh3l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <016801c6c76e$1c548930$6600a8c0@phil>

No: HPFGUIDX 157396

Randy said:
>I also noticed a quote in Wikipedia:

"In the symbolism of alchemy, Cancer is related to the process of 
dissolution, i.e., a process by which a substance is dissolved in a 
liquid like an acid."

Does anyone know what characters are born between June 21 and July 
22 during the sign of Cancer?

Who would represent the dissolution process?  

Randy

Now Phil:
The only character Jo has announced on her web site between those dates is Dobby,
28 June

Phil who now thinks Dobby  may heal the split between Harry and Draco Malfoy.
 

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




From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Thu Aug 24 13:46:03 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:46:03 -0000
Subject: Karkaroffs hearing
In-Reply-To: <echnb1+7o8f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eckair+65lf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157397

zgirnius wrote:
> The organization may have what is called a 'cell structure' like
some > Real Life terrorist/underground organizations. Some A-listers 
> may be leaders of small groups of B-listers. The B-listers would know 
> only the indetity of the other members of their 'cell' and the leader.

There seems to be strong evidence for this. Some Order member says
they were outnumbered 30:1 (or was it 20:1?) by Death Eaters and there
is around 20 Order members. Some fans have speculated this meant 600
supporters. Since Harry says the circle around Voldemort contained
some thirty people with the largest gap being six (again I'm not sure)
that doesn't add up to 600. So seems to have been an 'inner circle'.

How the heck the Order member knew how many Death Eaters there were is
beyond me.

Abergoat






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 24 14:28:57 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:28:57 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <ecj197+60rm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eckd39+g0dq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157398


> > >>Mike:
> > But, I'm postulating on what the requirements are to perform *Dark 
> > Magic* in a *magical* universe, not making moral judgements on 
> > degrees of barbarity.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Right.  The dark magic is the bit where you seperate that ripped bit 
> of soul from yourself and stick it somewhere else.  I don't see 
> where it's suggested that the rip itself needs dark magic (or magic, 
> period) to happen.  The only requirement is murder.


Ken:

I agree, Betsy. All Slughorn says is that you split your soul by
committing murder. He did not qualify how you commit the murder. It
seems to me that in the Potterverse anyone who commits murder by any
means splits (or rips for those who prefer that) their soul into two
pieces. I assume that this is true of Muggles as well as witches and
wizards. It is only the latter who may be aware that this happens and
can potentially make use of it. 


> 
> Betsy Hp:
> 
> (Honestly, I think the really dark part of the horcrux is that it 
> prevents healing.  Just as Crucio encourages sadism and Dementors 
> trap you in depression.)
>  

Ken:

I agree again. The horcrux reference that Hermione finds describes
them as extremely wicked. I think it would be fair to say that to
create a horcrux is essentially to curse your own soul. My sense is
that the split caused by a murder will eventually heal but the
creation of a horcrux makes the split permanent. Rowling has not yet
discussed the afterlife and maybe she never will but I wonder if the
split in your soul isn't eternal when you create a horcrux. Slughorn
makes a point that the soul is supposed to remain whole for some
reason. I think there may be more to it than what we have seen so far
although the changes in LV are pretty grim in themselves.

The concept of cursing your own soul, which I think is implied by
canon but not explicitly stated, is the reason I think that Harry
could be an accidental Horcrux. Some here feel that you *must* split
your soul and *then and only then* perform the horcrux spell to send
one of the pieces into an external object. That is logical to be sure,
and allowed by canon. It is not the only logical methodology allowed
by canon and it is not explicitly stated in canon or even implied as
far as I can see. If you view the horcrux spell as a curse on your own
soul you can see that curses can be cast before, even long before,
they take effect. Examples are the cursed necklace, Marvolo's ring,
and Hermione's cursed parchment listing the members of Dumbledore's
Army. We don't know if a ripped soul heals or not. I lean towards the
notion that it does heal. If it does heal we don't know how long that
takes. It could be a fraction of a second or years and years. If the
horcrux spell can be cast before the murder to take effect only when
the soul is split then we don't need to worry about how fast the soul
heals, the horcrux will be created as soon as the split occurs. But
that also means that when LV cast the AK at GH that fateful night
something unexpected could have happened. 

I would rate the following at perhaps a 5-10% chance of turning out to
be true. We've seen at least one horcrux that was cursed. Perhaps the
horcrux spell itself allows one to put a curse on the horcrux as it is
created. I admit this is pure speculation on my part. If Harry's scar
is an accidental horcrux it might also be cursed to kill whoever trys
to destroy it. Going into their final confrontation LV may have one
horcrux that neither he nor Harry knows about. He may hit Harry right
between the eyes with an AK. That AK could conceivably kill the
horcrux instead of Harry. The curse on the horcrux could then kill the
now mortal LV. My point is that Harry/horcrux does not necessarily
doom Harry to either die or to commit murder as so many fear.

I have another thought on the soul splitting process. Being a
Christian JKR might well be aware of the following passage from
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASV):

"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY';
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her
has already committed adultery with her in his heart. "

Rather than getting all bogged down in discussions about agents versus
instruments I wonder if the process isn't more like the above. It
isn't the manner in which the death is caused, it is the intent to
kill which splits the soul. When LV hissed "kill the spare" he might
have split his own soul and Pettigrew undoubtedly split his by
carrying out the order.

Ken









From barefootpuppets at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 14:24:31 2006
From: barefootpuppets at yahoo.com (barefootpuppets)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:24:31 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <eciuvc+hh3l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eckcqv+k53e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157399

"Randy" wrote:
> >
> > When I was browsing through Wikipedia, I came across an
> interesting
> > tidbit about Leo the Lion in Astronomy and Alchemy.
> >
> >
> > Harry is born under the astrological sign of Leo the Lion (an
> > excellent sign for a Gryffindor).
> >
> > According to Wikipedia..."in the symbolism of Alchemy, Leo denoted
> > the absorption or assimilation of one substance by another."

> Does anyone know what characters are born between June 21 and July
> 22 during the sign of Cancer?
>
> Who would represent the dissolution process?
>
>

Another interesting note about Leo the Lion is that the star Regulus
is part of this constellation...According to Wikipedia, Regulus in, in
fact, "the brightest star in the constellation Leo and one of the
brightest stars in the nighttime sky."

And one more thing: "Its name is Latin for "prince." It is also known
as Al Qalb Al Asad, from Arabic  ; al-qalb[u] al-?asad,
meaning "the heart of the lion."

If this has already been discussed, my deepest apologies! I take this
as evidence that RAB is Regulus and that he will play a role in Book
7. Perhaps Regulus is the one you are looking for??

My two cents,
Heidi R.










From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 16:09:10 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:09:10 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <eciu5t+mf85@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eckiv6+31jt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157400

> Randy:
> In chapter 22 of Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore uses some 
> instrument which creates puffs of smoke that becomes a snake that 
> then divides into two snakes.  Dumbledore comments "But in essence 
> divided?"
> 
> If Harry and Voldy are joined but in essence divided, they cannot 
> become whole if the other exists because they are two parts 
divided from the same whole.  The prophesy then sheds light on this 
> predicament as you mentioned.  Neither can be a whole while the 
> other half exists.  If a wizard was split between his two 
> personalities, he would always be less than the whole.  Lily did 
> something to Voldy when he tried to kill Harry that somehow joined 
> the two of them, but they separated or dissolved into two distinct 
> beings.  This sounds alot like the Alchemy stuff you mentioned.  
> Combining and dissolving into essence and recombining to make the 
> whole.
> 
> I think the imagery is lost on most people and they don't find it 
> interesting.


Tonks:
Randy, I have been thinking about our theory. There is one small 
glitch, which if anyone else was reading our posts they would have 
jumped on, so maybe no one is reading.  ;-(

Harry's soul is untarnished and whole.  DD says that Harry is "pure 
of heart".  (Which is an important idea in Christian thought.) LV on 
the other hand is very tarnished, and very broken and I don't think 
that even DD, with his loving attitude toward everyone, would see 
anything pure in LV's heart, if he even still has one.  So what will 
this do to Harry when he takes LV into himself?  

Here is a thought.  Love is the greatest of all the powers, magical 
or otherwise, in the universe.  Harry has Lily's blood and now so 
does LV.  If we combine Alchemy, Jung and Christianity here this is 
what we get:  Lily's sacrificial Love not only saves her only son 
(Just as God's Love brings about the resurrection of His only Son) 
but it redeems the most evil among us as personified in LV.  When 
Harry takes LV into himself he is not only doing the Jungian thing 
of taking in his "shadow", but he is, through Lily's blood sacrifice 
and through the compassion that he  might at this point feel for 
Tom, redeeming Tom.  Not we have a bit of a problem with free will 
here. (Which, that one person who is reading this will tell us at 
this point.)

What if, the memory in the cave was Tom's?  I have often wondered 
about this.  I know it is contrary to everything we think we know 
about LV.  But what IF it somehow is Tom's memory?  This will give 
us the permission we need to the job.  What if a part of Tom wants 
to die? Since no one is expecting this, it just might be one of the 
things that JKR is going to surprise us with.  

Now we have the scene where Harry takes Tom into himself.  I expect 
it will be very dramatic with others watching.  Perhaps Snape is 
watching and even Snape knows that Harry's eyes are green like his 
mothers.  Snape also knows the color of LV's eyes and for some 
reason I think Tom's were brown. (Can't remember where in the books, 
but aren't we told that Tom's eyes are brown somewhere?)  Snape, 
because he is an occlumens, will be one to remember eye colors.  
Picture it:  Harry takes Tom into himself, there is a struggle and 
we see Harry's eyes turn to yellow slits and Snape is ready to AK 
him when we see Harry's eyes turn to brown.  Snape pauses, looks 
deeply, and just before Snape AK's Tom, Harry's eyes become green 
and look at Snape deeply.  Snape lowers his wand as he remember Lily 
and her Love, even for him.  And Snape lives too.

If anyone other than Randy is reading this, what do you all think?

Tonks_op








From aida_costa at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 22 20:19:12 2006
From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (Aida Costa)
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 20:19:12 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Spell vs Skill
In-Reply-To: <ecfl5r+e901@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecfos0+6alb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157401

Eddie wrote:

> All this makes sense except I can't reconcile any of it with Draco's
> ability to block out Snape's Legilimens.

<snip>

JKR explains how in the Mugglenet-Leaky Cauldron interview.

  http://www.mugglenet.com/jkrinterview2.shtml


MA: "I wanted to go back to Draco."

JKR: "OK, yeah, let's talk about Draco."

MA: "He was utterly fascinating in this book."

JKR: "Well, I'm glad you think so, because I enjoyed this one. Draco
did a lot of growing up in this book as well. 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. 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.
And I think that that is an accurate depiction of how some people fall
into that kind of way of life and they realize what they're in for. I
felt sorry for Draco. Well, I've always known this was coming for
Draco, obviously, however nasty he was.

Harry is correct in believing that Draco would not have killed
Dumbledore, which I think is clear when he starts to lower his wand,
when the matter is taken out of his hands."

Aida









From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 18:15:07 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:15:07 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <eckd39+g0dq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eckqbb+g0nj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157402

Ken wrote:
> <snip> All Slughorn says is that you split your soul by committing
murder. He did not qualify how you commit the murder. It seems to me
that in the Potterverse anyone who commits murder by any means splits
(or rips for those who prefer that) their soul into two pieces. I
assume that this is true of Muggles as well as witches and wizards. It
is only the latter who may be aware that this happens and can
potentially make use of it. 

Carol responds:
I agree. As I've argued elsewhere I think that Myrtle's death
qualifies as murder and was used for the first Horcrux. I would add
that a murder can apparently be committed years before the Horcrux is
created, so the soul split apparently remains unhealed (unless
possibly it can be healed by repentance, and Tom/Voldemort never
repents his evil deeds. He doesn't even consider them to be evil. In
Quirrell's words, he (Voldemort) believes that "there is only power,
and those too weak to use it" (quoted from memory from SS/PS). 

Another point, related not to what Ken and Betsy said but to Mike's
belief that the soul is only split when a wizard intent on creating a
Horcrux commits murder: Even if you discount Myrtle (and I don't--
there's nothing in canon to indicate that the murderer must use an
AK), Tom must surely have used the most important murder that we know
he committed, that of his father, to make a Horcrux (probably the
ring). He *obtained* the ring either just before or just after he
committed the murder (when he Stunned Morfin and later modified his
memory), but he didn't know how to encase his split soul in the object
at that point. (He was wearing the ring when he asked slughorn about
Horcruxes.) He ws intent upon committing revenge at that point, by his
own admission in GoF, not "intent upon making a Horcrux." Horrible as
it may be (is), he had already committed four murders (counting
Myrtle) when he asked Slughorn that question. So he only needed to
commit two more to have enough murders for his intended six Horcruxes.
And he would not have placed any preliminary spell on the Horcrux
objects since he didn't have any of them yet except the diary and the
ring. The cup and the locket were obtained some two or three years
after he left Hogwarts when he killed Hepzibah Smith. Yes, he was
"intent upon making a Horcrux" at that point--actually, two more--but
he was also intent upon stealing the objects, one that he lusted for
as belonging to a founder of Hogwarts and one that he viewed as
rightfully his as well as belonging to a founder. As far as we can
tell from canon, it was the murder that split his soul, not the
intention of creating a Horcrux, and Hepzibah's murder would have
created only one new soul piece. He'd have had to use another murder
(a grandparent's) for the locket, assuming that he used Hepzibah's for
the cup. (I won't get into the unanswerable question of how a multiple
murderer chooses which soul piece goes into which object. Maybe
there's a complex incantation like "Bone of the father, you will
restore your son!")

Betsy Hp:
> > (Honestly, I think the really dark part of the horcrux is that it
 prevents healing.  Just as Crucio encourages sadism and Dementors 
trap you in depression.)
> >  
> 
> Ken:
> I agree again. The horcrux reference that Hermione finds describes
them as extremely wicked. I think it would be fair to say that to
create a horcrux is essentially to curse your own soul. My sense is
that the split caused by a murder will eventually heal but the
creation of a horcrux makes the split permanent. Rowling has not yet
discussed the afterlife and maybe she never will but I wonder if the
split in your soul isn't eternal when you create a horcrux. Slughorn>
makes a point that the soul is supposed to remain whole for some
reason.  <big snip>

Carol responds:
And yet we do know some things about the afterlife as JKR conceives it
in the HP books. First, it exists, as indicated by the voices beyond
the Veil, it does exist. Dumbledore calls death "the next great
adventure." It isn't the end of everything, so Voldemort's fear of
death is irrational. The worst fate is not to die, even to die
horribly, but to have your soul sucked by a Dementor and irrecovably
lost. (Which leads me to wonder what the now soulless Barty Jr. is
like now--not a zombie since he isn't dead or a vegetable since his
brain still works, but missing all memories, all sense of self, all
humanity, all hope? Voldemort has, it appears, either one sevenths or
two sevenths of a soul, setting aside the headache-inducing mechanics
of soul-splitting, and he seems to have lost all human emotions except
anger, hatred, sadistic pleasure, and a fierce, selfish sort of joy
when he scores a triumph. Would someone who had lost his entire soul
would be even less human, devoid of joy and pleasure altogether,
hungry for what had can't experience himself, like the Dementors? Is
there a special ward for the Dementors' victims in St. Mungo'?)

To return to the point, and to Ken's question, I think that a person
who has created a Horcrux, like the victims of the Dementors, is
denied access to the afterlife. The difference is that he's anchoring
his own soul to the earth, permanently, he hopes, so that he can
continue to live on earth forever (more of a cursed half-life, really,
which is why most wizards, even murderers, don't try to create
Horcruxes). Nearly Headless Nick says of Sirius Black, "He will have
gone on" (OoP, quoted from memory)--on to what, Nick doesn't know, but
whatever is beyond the Veil.

JKR as a Christian would view the soul as immortal. The soul can be
sucked by a Dementor and be lost, falling into eternal darkness and
isolation, apparently, but it is not destroyed by death, nor would a
soul bit be destroyed when the object encasing it is destroyed. It
would, IMO, be released to return to its eternal home beyond the Veil.
Two bits of Voldie's soul are already there. (I any soul bits were
floating loose at Godric's Hollow, they would be there as well. In my
view, they can't be encased in an object, including a person or his
scar, without an encantation.)

Why is creating a Horcrux wicked, aside from requiring a preliminary
act of murder? Because it's unnatural. It violates the natural order,
which says that when a person dies, his soul goes on to eternal life
(whatever is beyond the Veil). Splitting your soul through murder is
bad enough, but separating the pieces, placing them in an object or
objects to hold them on earth so that you can't die, is evil. Look
what Voldemort becomes as he creates his Horcruxes, becoming less
human in both appearance and emotions with each one. No act is too
evil for him to contemplate. All he lacks at the moment is power
(allies and minions to do his dirty work). Look what he becomes when
he's hit by the rebounding AK, "less than the meanest ghost" as he
says in GoF--evil but powerless to do anything except possess small
creatures like rats and snakes, sucking out their life force to
sustain his own, a parasite. Later, he does the same thing to
Quirrell, turning him evil in the process. Perhaps Quirrell is whole
now, his soul restored to its original purity beyond the Veil, but
Voldemort is denying himself that healing, that restoration, with the
division of his soul into seven parts to hold himself on earth. (Two
parts are now, in his view, lost, but perhaps their loss is a step
toward healing. If there's a God in the Potterverse, surely He would
believe in mercy, and even an Unforgiveable Curse wouldn't be
unforgiveable. It's the wizards who hold that view.)

What Voldemort has done is unnatural, IMO. and if he succeeded in
killing Harry and retaining even one Horcrux hidden and protected,
perhaps he'd discover the heinousness of what he'd done through the
deterioration of his body. Like Tithonus in the Greek myth, his body
would age while his fraction of a soul lived on. If anything happened
to that body, he'd be vaporized again. He'd have to spend his "life"
seeking immunity to old age and disease rather than seeking power.
Earthly immortality, unlike eternal life beyond the Veil, isn't a
blessing. It's a curse.

Carol, not claiming that this interpretation is correct, just
presenting it for discussion







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 18:56:12 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 18:56:12 -0000
Subject: Voldy must be assimilated...Resistance is Futile!
In-Reply-To: <eckcqv+k53e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecksoc+cjn7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157403

Heidi wrote:
> Another interesting note about Leo the Lion is that the star Regulus
is part of this constellation...According to Wikipedia, Regulus in, in
fact, "the brightest star in the constellation Leo and one of the
brightest stars in the nighttime sky."
> 
> And one more thing: "Its name is Latin for "prince." It is also
known as Al Qalb Al Asad, from Arabic
&#1604;
 al-qalb[u] al-?asad, meaning "the
heart of the lion."
> 
> If this has already been discussed, my deepest apologies! I take
this as evidence that RAB is Regulus and that he will play a role in
Book 7. Perhaps Regulus is the one you are looking for??

Carol responds:
Yes, we've had lots of posts on Regulus as a star and the meaning of
his name as "prince" or "petty king." (I believe it's a diminutive of
"rex, regis," meaning king or ruler, and related to "rego, regere," to
rule, and, by extension, to regulate. Geoff will correct me if I'm wrong!)

You can find the previous discussions of Regulus and the Black
family's tradition of naming children after stars or constellations
using the Advanced link on our search engine. I don't think that
anyone has attempted to include the Arabic before--I'd suggest
transliterating it so that it doesn't look like cartoon cursing. (Just
realized that you did that already--sorry.)

I'd guess that if Regulus's birthday is relevant, he's a Leo like
Harry--"the heart of the Lion" in the constellation Leo,
right?--rather than a Cancer.

Regarding Regulus as meaning "prince"--I think that Severus Snape, a
year or two ahead or Regulus and also in slytherin, must have known
Latin or he couldn't have invented spells with names like Sectumsempra
and Levicorpus. That being the case, he'd have known that Regulus
meant Prince. Maybe they were friends: the Half-Blood Prince and the
Pure-Blood Prince?

Carol, who has always thought that Regulus's death was one factor in
Severus's decision to "return to our side"






From terrianking at aol.com  Wed Aug 23 22:00:14 2006
From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:00:14 EDT
Subject: Pixies and pasties and Knockers
Message-ID: <c47.6988a6.321e29ee@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157404

> Ken:
> <snip> One of the places we visited was Mineral Point, a former
> mining town that once had a large population of transplanted 
> Cornish miners. Apparently our good Wisconsin mines were infested 
> with creatures known as Tommyknockers who were blamed for being 
> the cause of lost tools and other mining mishaps. Smart miners 
> were always careful to leave behind offerings of food to appease 
> them.
> Tommyknockers do not seem to be mentioned in HP and here is where 
> you could help. Is a Tommyknocker the same thing as a Cornish 
> Pixie, or a relative, perhaps?

Geoff:
>> <snip> Among a tranche of small beings, there are indeed 
Knockers (sounds a bit rude actually!) and Pixies (sometimes 
rendered as Piskies).

May I point you to www.cornishfolklore.com/small_people2.htm
for pixies and www.cornishfolklore.com/small_people3.htm for
knockers? <<


Robert:
http://www.americanfolklore.net/folktales/ca4.html
 
California folklore:
"Tommy Knockers are the spirits of departed miners that help miners 
find ore. They also knock on the walls of the mines right before a 
cave-in. When you hear a Tommy Knocker knocking, it's best to depart 
the area right quick. They have saved the life of many a miner who 
has been in a danger."
  
When I was a kid we were told they were the spirits of miners lost 
and unrecovered in cave ins who knocked on the sealed mine entries 
wanting to come out and go home. 
I guess the definition depends on the part of the country you come 
from. 
Montana folklore.
 
Robert
 








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 20:06:54 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:06:54 -0000
Subject: Karkaroffs hearing
In-Reply-To: <eckair+65lf@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecl0su+mp79@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157405

 "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> zgirnius wrote:
> > The organization may have what is called a 'cell 
> > structure' likesome Real Life terrorist/underground 
> > organizations. Some A-listers  may be leaders of 
> > small groups of B-listers. The B-listers would know 
> > only the indetity of the other members of their 'cell' 
> > and the leader.

> Abergoat:
> 
> There seems to be strong evidence for this. Some Order 
> member says they were outnumbered 30:1 (or was it 20:1?) 
> by Death Eaters and thereis around 20 Order members. Some 
> fans have speculated this meant 600 supporters. ...
> How the heck the Order member knew how many Death Eaters 
> there were is beyond me.
> 
> Abergoat
>

bboyminn:

While I generally agree with what is being said here, I want to bring
in a point of clarification.

We seem to be assuming that Death Eaters and Voldemort Supporters are
one and the same thing. Certainly Death Eaters are Voldemort
Supporters, but Voldemort supporters are not necessarily Death Eaters.

I believe true 'branded' Death Eaters are very few. Best guess, maybe
50 to perhaps an unlikely 100 in number. 

Then there are the primary and secondary Voldemort Supporters. Yet
even these two types come in two types. 

The Primary Supporters are working for Voldemort voluntarily. They may
believe in his (alleged) cause or they may simply be seeking power and
wealth. Either way they choose to actively support Voldemort, but are
never important enough to be taken into his inner circle of Death Eaters.

The Secondary Supporters are like the Blacks, they support what they
preceive Voldemort's philosophy and agenda to be, but they don't take
an active role. Though they might on rare occasion slip him some
information on something or speak out in favor of Voldemort, but
overal they don't take an active role in the fight.

Then we have the rank and file soldiers. Most of whom are cursed,
coerced, blackmailed, extorted, and threatened into doing Voldemort's
will. Socially, they can be at any level, but funtionally they are the
unwilling cannon fodder. 

I suspect there are a certain smaller number among the Primary and
Secondary Supporters who are compelled or coerced into doing Voldemort
will for a variety of reasons. But given a choice these appearent
supporter would prefer to stay out of it. Perhaps like Wormtail, they
are acting out of fear, aligning themselves with the biggest bully on
the block. Perhaps they are reacting to real or preceived threats, but
they are making a conscious choice to act. Naturally, there are those
who are surely and truly being compelled to act against their will
like Rosemetta. 

Of course, there are those with their own personal agenda who really
don't care about Voldemort or his cause, but see cooperation as a way
of getting what they truly want. For example, the Dementors, the
giants, and Greyback-the werewolf.

What we see mostly in the books are the small number of branded Death
Eaters and perhaps a few Primary willing unbranded supporters.
Certainly everyone in the graveyard was a branded DE, but it is
possible, though factually unknown, that some at the top of the tower
were willing unbranded Supporters.

My key point is that we are wrong to assume all Voldemort Supports, or
those cooperating with, are automatically Death Eaters. 

I think true DE's represent Voldemort's inner circle. 

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn






From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 20:08:22 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:08:22 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <007e01c6c730$df6195f0$2e8c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ecl0vm+2dkk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157406

 
> Magpie:
> It sounds like a 16-year-old boy knowingly getting involved in 
something 
> Mother doesn't want him involved in.  We've seen Narcissa showing 
how upset 
> she is about Draco being involved in this.

Neri:
Mother doesn't want him involved, but he *is* involved and they both 
know it, so I don't see the point of hiding it from her.

> Magpie:
> We hear that Draco himself is 
> eager to prove himself as a DE. "Not a word to anyone including my 
mother" 
> follows logically from that alone.  The protecting of Narcissa 
becomes 
> important when Voldemort threatens her.  "He'll kill my whole 
family."
> 

Neri:
Exactly. The threat to Narcissa is Voldemort killing her if the 
mission fails. She isn't threatened by the mission itself since she's 
not situated at Hogwarts and can only participate in planning. So 
Draco excluding Narcissa from the plan doesn't protect her from any 
threat. On the contrary, it increases the chances of failure and with 
it the main threat to Narcissa. I don't see the logic in the argument 
of protecting Narcissa by excluding her. And indeed, AFAIK we have no 
canon that Draco's reason for excluding his mother is protecting 
her.  

> Magpie:
> A 16-year-old lying to his mother is not out of the ordinary.

Neri:
He's not exactly lying to her about the Penthouse magazines under his 
bed, you know. It's also her life on the line as well as his father's.

> Magpie:
> The reasons 
> for his lying in this case are especially understandable given that 
he's 
> taken a job as a secret assassin.  He is trying to do the job 
alone. 
> Narcissa wants him to go to Snape. Draco does not want to go to 
Snape.
> 

Neri:
So Draco insists on doing this alone even if it kills his all family 
and Snape too? Sounds weirder and weirder. Lets look at this 
situation in more general terms:

Person D who is a teenager has to take a job as a secret assassin. He 
hides this from another person N in his family, and lies to her about 
it ? completely understandable.

However, N already knows about the assassination job. She knows D had 
to take it or pay with his life. Moreover, if D fails in carrying out 
the assassination, N dies too, so in fact N and D are in this 
together. Furthermore, N is a grownup with some experience in 
scheming. Excluding N becomes less and less understandable.

Now person N, being older and wiser than D, has a great idea: she 
enlists the help of a third person S. S is a professional in this 
business and an old acquaintance of both N and D. Moreover, N makes S 
take a vow to guard D with his life. It's now pretty obvious that D, 
N and S are all in this together. D failing the assassination job 
would have dire consequences for all three of them. Yet D not only 
excludes S (whom he used to like a lot during the past five years) 
and N (who is his own family) but he also lies to them, although the 
situation of the mission is desperate.

I'd say it's pretty obvious that D has something against both N and 
S. Something that must have occurred lately. 


Neri







From lilyp at superig.com.br  Thu Aug 24 03:11:16 2006
From: lilyp at superig.com.br (lilypo2007)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 03:11:16 -0000
Subject: Other relatives of Harry Potter!?
In-Reply-To: <1156381444.27998DCB@fc6.dngr.org>
Message-ID: <ecj5ck+qa6v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157407

Michelle:
> All his family on both sides are dead? Was James an only child?
> We know Lily had a sister of course, but what of his grandparents?
> (Not saying they're not dead.) But how did they die? Who were they?
> I keep thinking of the Mirror of Erised. All those people staring
> back at him. <snip>

See the interview with Emerson and Melissa - Part three about James
and his parents. You can see it on TLC, Mugglenet or in
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm

Lilyp








From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Thu Aug 24 06:38:44 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 06:38:44 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <ecgfdu+nf6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecjhhk+41a3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157408

Tinktonks <spookedook@> wrote:
> > Tinktonks (Who is now totally overthinking every tiny little
> > thing and hoping that someone out there thinks I'm not crazy!)

Zero Irregardless:
> Do you ever get the feeling that, when you finish Book 7, every
> sentence in Book 1 will turn out to have hidden significance?


Laurawkids:

YES!  Therefore, most sentences in #7 will clear something up!  And
I think I will also be able to find people reading #7 just by
listening:  "OOOHH, yes,.....yes, uh huh, riiight!  man! got that
wrong.  Whooo hoooo!  Yes!  I knew all along!".  Because we are all
so invested, have gone over so many ideas and clues, and JKR has so
much to clear up per page.

It will be almost like being in the best buffet line ever, after
helping someone build a deck - non-stop satisfaction.

Laurawkids, who wants the resolution of the story, but does not want
the fun of this all to end.









From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Aug 24 20:49:09 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:49:09 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecl0vm+2dkk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecl3c5+n77o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157409

> Neri:
> [... lots of excellent logical reasoning snipped ...]
> I'd say it's pretty obvious that D has something against both N and 
> S. Something that must have occurred lately. 

Eddie:
Unless Voldemort -- er, person V, aka V-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, aka
VHSNBN -- ordered Draco to keep it to himself, otherwise V would kill
D.

Eddie






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug 24 20:51:53 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:51:53 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecl0vm+2dkk@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecl3h9+u0hp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157410


> Neri:
> Mother doesn't want him involved, but he *is* involved and they 
both 
> know it, so I don't see the point of hiding it from her.

Magpie:
But you're resistance to this doesn't make it a plot point.  He 
wants to do it by himself and he isn't going to ask her how he's 
supposed to do it.  

> Neri:
> Exactly. The threat to Narcissa is Voldemort killing her if the 
> mission fails. She isn't threatened by the mission itself since 
she's 
> not situated at Hogwarts and can only participate in planning. So 
> Draco excluding Narcissa from the plan doesn't protect her from 
any 
> threat. 
On the contrary, it increases the chances of failure and with 
> it the main threat to Narcissa. I don't see the logic in the 
argument 
> of protecting Narcissa by excluding her. And indeed, AFAIK we have 
no 
> canon that Draco's reason for excluding his mother is protecting 
> her. 

Magpie:
I didn't mean to suggest he was protecting her *by* excluding her.  
You claimed that the book shows Draco having something against 
Narcissa.  I said that no, the story centers more on Narcissa being 
valuable to Draco, not Draco being angry at her.  His exclusion of 
her is what he thinks he needs to do--he's blocking her plans.

Neri:
> He's not exactly lying to her about the Penthouse magazines under 
his 
> bed, you know. It's also her life on the line as well as his 
father's.

Magpie:
So if you were writing the story you would have had Draco asking his 
mother for help and it doesn't work for you that he's not doing 
that. That's something to take up with the author. Nobody in canon 
questions this at all (this is the first time I've heard anyone in 
fandom question it either), or seems to think the fact that Draco's 
not going to Narcissa for help means he must have some personal 
problem with her, such as resenting her because he thinks Snape's in 
love with her.  Harry and his friends have been in trouble in the 
past and not gone to their parents either.  It's a story about kids, 
a coming of age story.  Nobody wants to need their mother.


> Neri:
> So Draco insists on doing this alone even if it kills his all 
family 
> and Snape too? Sounds weirder and weirder. 

Magpie:
Yeah, he does.  That's canon.  And Narcissa isn't even ever shown to 
have anything much to offer here at all, making it even less weird 
that Draco isn't asking her for help.

Neri:
Lets look at this 
> situation in more general terms:
> 
> Person D who is a teenager has to take a job as a secret assassin. 
He 
> hides this from another person N in his family, and lies to her 
about 
> it ? completely understandable.
> 
> However, N already knows about the assassination job. She knows D 
had 
> to take it or pay with his life. Moreover, if D fails in carrying 
out 
> the assassination, N dies too, so in fact N and D are in this 
> together. Furthermore, N is a grownup with some experience in 
> scheming. Excluding N becomes less and less understandable.
> 
> Now person N, being older and wiser than D, has a great idea: she 
> enlists the help of a third person S. S is a professional in this 
> business and an old acquaintance of both N and D. Moreover, N 
makes S 
> take a vow to guard D with his life. It's now pretty obvious that 
D, 
> N and S are all in this together. D failing the assassination job 
> would have dire consequences for all three of them. Yet D not only 
> excludes S (whom he used to like a lot during the past five years) 
> and N (who is his own family) but he also lies to them, although 
the 
> situation of the mission is desperate.
> 
> I'd say it's pretty obvious that D has something against both N 
and 
> S. Something that must have occurred lately. 

Magpie:
And it's pretty obvious that what occurred lately is Lucius was 
imprisoned in Azkaban.  Draco is a teenager with lots of conflicting 
feelings about what he's doing, which leads to him feeling that he's 
alone in this and must do this alone.  There is nothing canon at all 
suggesting that he's ignoring any resource in Narcissa.  Snape is 
the helper he's rejecting, and that rejection is linked directly to 
their relationship as DEs and teacher and student.  As is common in 
HP, it's Draco, the child, who surprises the adults.  In many ways 
the worst thing Draco could have done both in terms of his character 
and in terms of, I suspect, the outcome of the story, would be to go 
to his mother and Snape for help.  I think canon tries to give Draco 
understandable motivations for his actions so that they aren't a 
mystery and don't need us to come up with complications to explain. 
If it's so crazy of Draco to not be going to Narcissa and Snape for 
help given all the lives on the line, how does it become less crazy 
through Acid Pops?  If the only thing keeping him from letting the 
two of them take care of it is that he has an inkling Snape had a 
thing for Narcissa, why doesn't he eventually go to one of them?

-m







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Aug 24 21:06:31 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:06:31 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <ecgfdu+nf6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecl4cn+s8ei@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157411

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zeroirregardless" <bobhawkins at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "spookedook" <spookedook@> wrote:
> >
> 
> > Tinktonks (Who is now totally overthinking every tiny little thing and
> > hoping that someone out there thinks I'm not crazy!)

Zeroirregardless:
>     Do you ever get the feeling that, when you finish Book 7, every
> sentence in Book 1 will turn out to have hidden significance?

Geoff:
I suspect you are guilty of exaggerating slightly....

For example, what hidden significance would you place on the 
following Book 1 sentences?

'"Thanks," said Harry, pushing his sweaty hair out of his eyes.'
(PS "The Journey from Platfrom Nine and Three-quarters" p.71 
UK edition)

or 

'"Who?"'
(ibid. p.73)

or even

'"Absolutely not."'
(PS "The Man with Two Faces" p.218 UK edition)
:-))







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug 24 21:36:54 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:36:54 -0000
Subject: Arsene Lupin
Message-ID: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157412

Not so long ago there was a fast and furious thread about mystery 
novels, unreliable narrators and Agatha Christie---with a little 
Harry Potter tossed in. I've read "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and 
now I'm reading Agatha Christie's autobiography. Great stuff!

Eons ago Agatha and her sister were discussing mystery novels and 
which tricks were fair and which weren't for an author to use and 
this was years before AC began writing----sort of brings me up, not 
only have we HP fans rehashed HP issues over and over, we've re-
hashed issues from days gone by. Oh well.

One of Agatha Christie's favorite mystery series concerned Arsene 
Lupin, a French series. From what I can tell, Arsene is nothing like 
Remus. Is anyone familiar with that series? Opinions? Everything I 
know I found at Google. 

I'm guessing at the very least JKR may have been familiar with the 
character, or do you think she plucked the name out of her garden?

Potioncat, who also found a Trelawney in AC's autobiography.








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 21:55:26 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:55:26 -0000
Subject: Arsene Lupin/ with the sprinkles of Harry Potter on the side
In-Reply-To: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecl78e+nivm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157413

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...> 
wrote:
<SNIP>
> One of Agatha Christie's favorite mystery series concerned Arsene 
> Lupin, a French series. From what I can tell, Arsene is nothing like 
> Remus. Is anyone familiar with that series? Opinions? Everything I 
> know I found at Google. 
> 
> I'm guessing at the very least JKR may have been familiar with the 
> character, or do you think she plucked the name out of her garden?

Alla:

Hmmm, I have read Arsene Lupan ( putting a here, since it seems closer 
to how it was spelled in russian translation) stories long, long time 
ago, so long that I may not even able to remember the gist of his 
character straight. Wasn't he the noble thief who became private 
investigator?

Um, does not seem to look like Remus to me at all. :) Although come to 
think of it, maybe we will learn that Remus was not afraid to use some 
rather dirty tricks  in order to help Light side?

On the other hand, Lupan as far as I remember always drawed the line 
and did not go further than the certain degree of dirtiness, in other 
words I would not call him evil :) Dark creature maybe, but not evil.

But again, please keep in mind that I have a **very** vague 
recollection of these stories. Maybe I am completely confused. I seem 
to remember that at the time I read them, I liked them a lot. But 
usually I remember the books I loved and rather vividly at that, so I 
guess I have to rethink whether the stories are that good.


 
> Potioncat, who also found a Trelawney in AC's autobiography.
>

Alla:

LOL.






From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Aug 24 23:18:52 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:18:52 -0000
Subject: Dumbledore's scar
In-Reply-To: <ecgfdu+nf6l@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclc4s+l8il@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157414

> Zero-Irregardless:
> Do you ever get the feeling that, when you finish Book 7, every
> sentence in Book 1 will turn out to have hidden significance?

Eddie:
Just the opposite, actually.  I think we're going to get to the end
and there are going to be a lot of unanswered questions.  I'm not sure
whether I should be happy or glad.  I like to be have some unanswered
questions so we can continue to speculate ad nauseam.

Eddie








From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 24 23:23:36 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:23:36 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <echmrt+7h9n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclcdo+g1np@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157415

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Carodave wrote:
> > Which brings up a new question - if Mundungus is keeping an eye 
on 
> > Harry, and he is already in the Hogs Head when HRH arrive - how 
does 
> > he know they will be there?
> 
> Abergoat writes:
> Thanks for the correction - does Mundungus not wear a dress in HBP?
> Sirius is dead there so Harry has to recognize him or someone else
> tells him. It could be that Sirius told him the first time but once
> you expect Mundungus in a dress you can recognize him. But from 
your
> answer I'm guessing we don't see Mundungus in the dress in HBP.
> 
> Are we certain that Mundungus is keeping an eye on Harry? I'm
> suspicious that Hog's Head is one of Dumbledore's information 
networks
> and the barman needs to get the information he gathers back to
> Dumbledore. I suspect this may be Mundungus's purpose and the 
reason
> he is seen talking to the barman.
> 
> Abergoat

Carodave:
I don't remember Mundungus wearing a dress or disguise in HBP (not 
to say it didn't happen!).  I was referring to the first DA meeting 
at the Hogs Head in OotP, when HRH sees the witch in the Hogs Head.  
Sirius tells them later (with his head in the Gryffindor fire) that 
the witch was Mundungus.  He says that Mundungus was barred from the 
Hogs Head 20 years ago and the barman has a long memory.  Since 
Moody's spare invisibility cloak was taken when Sturgis was 
arrested, Dung needs to wear the disguise in order to keep an eye on 
Harry in the pub.

So if I understand correctly, and Dung is there keeping watch over 
Harry, how did he know that Harry would be in the Hogs Head that 
day?  It was a secret meeting, relatively, and no one from the order 
was told.  Dung was already there when HRH arrived.  Hmmm...maybe 
Flitwick informed the Order that Hermione was asking about the Hogs 
Head?  It's not a huge leap to figure that Hermione will be 
accompanied by Harry and Ron...

Carodave, who wants to know if others wonder about this,,
>








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 00:07:33 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:07:33 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecl3c5+n77o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclf05+da86@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157416

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > Neri:
> > [... lots of excellent logical reasoning snipped ...]
> > I'd say it's pretty obvious that D has something against both N and 
> > S. Something that must have occurred lately. 
> 
> Eddie:
> Unless Voldemort -- er, person V, aka V-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, aka
> VHSNBN -- ordered Draco to keep it to himself, otherwise V would kill D.
> 
> Eddie
>
Carol responds:
LOL, Eddie! But also, lest we forget, Draco (I mean, person D) is
sixteen, and that last thing a sixteen-year-old boy wants is help from
his mother, especially on an important mission that he thinks marks
him as a man. He doesn't want his father-figure Head of House
interfering, either, IMO, for more complex reasons that I've indicated
in another post. "It's my job. He gave it to *me,*" Draco tells Snape
in "the Unbreakable Vow." 

He rejects "interference" both from his mother and from his former
favorite teacher *before* person V starts putting the pressure on and
threatening him with death if he fails. And by that time, it's too
late to ask for help. "No one can help me," he tells Moaning Myrtle
when he's crying in the bathroom some four or five months after Snape
tries to talk to him. 

What Snape would or could have have done if Draco had asked him for
help, we can only guess. But it's quite possible that by the time
Snape saves Draco's life, LV has made it clear that Snape must not
know what  Draco is trying to do with the Vanishing Cabinets. Either
that or Bellatrix has succeeded in convincing Draco that Snape is not
to be trusted. Otherwise, surely, Draco would have gone to the teacher
he has always trusted, the man who saved him from bleeding to death,
even at the (supposed) cost of having his "glory" stolen--a delusion
Draco clings to even on the tower.

None of this has anything to do with Snape and Narcissa having an
illicit romantic attachment, or surely Draco would have confronted
Snape with an accusation. (He doesn't hesitate to interrupt or
contradict him, in marked contrast to his behavior in earlier books.)
The change does not reflect anything that Snape has done (other than
try to get Draco to talk to him) though IMO the switch from Potions
master to DADA teacher does nothing to increase Draco's respect for
Snape and may diminish it. The change is in Draco himself. At first,
he's proud of his assignment, not realizing its danger and difficulty.
School and anything to do with it, including school-associated
authority figures like his Head of House, have lost their importance.
The Dark Lord has given him an important job, a man's job, and he
doesn't need busybody adults helping (or hindering) him. Let old Snape
die from breaking his Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco. What does
Draco care? Then, when Draco seems certain to fail, losing sleep,
looking ill, and so desperate that he's crying in a girls' bathroom,
he either can't bring himself to ask Snape for help or has been
ordered not to on pain of death.

Carol, who forgot to mention in her astronomy post how sad she feels
that poor Pluto has been demoted to the status of little oddball







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 00:03:32 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:03:32 -0000
Subject: Arsene Lupin
In-Reply-To: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecleok+dhvn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157417

> Potioncat wrote:
> <snip>
> One of Agatha Christie's favorite mystery series concerned Arsene 
> Lupin, a French series. From what I can tell, Arsene is nothing like 
> Remus. Is anyone familiar with that series? Opinions? Everything I 
> know I found at Google. 
> 
> I'm guessing at the very least JKR may have been familiar with the 
> character, or do you think she plucked the name out of her garden?
> 


Neri:
I very dimly recall that I've read an Arsene Lupin story once, or
anyway I tried to. I believe I had to stop in the middle because
Monsieur Lupin was quite possibly the worst Gary Stu I have ever had
the misfortune to meet in any book. Just to give you a notion, there
was a British detective in that book and his name was Herlock Sholmes
(yes, you read correctly). And of course, Monsieur Lupin repeatedly
put Mr. Sholmes in his place and showed him who was the real ace
detective around, which was (surprise! surprise!) Arsene Lupin. It was
quite disgusting. Of course, it might have been a very clever parody
that just went over my head.  

Also I suspect  that Arsene Lupin's last name is pronounced very
differently from that of our Remus Lupin, but I won't take further
chances with the francophiles around here ? let them enlighten us.

Neri








From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Fri Aug 25 00:20:46 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:20:46 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arsene Lupin
In-Reply-To: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
References: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <700201d40608241720j5e0e0b54td718ea39be9840ff@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157418

potioncat wrote:
>
> Not so long ago there was a fast and furious thread about mystery
> novels, unreliable narrators and Agatha Christie---with a little
> Harry Potter tossed in. I've read "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd" and
> now I'm reading Agatha Christie's autobiography. Great stuff!
>
>... snip ...
>
> One of Agatha Christie's favorite mystery series concerned Arsene
> Lupin, a French series. From what I can tell, Arsene is nothing like
> Remus. Is anyone familiar with that series? Opinions? Everything I
> know I found at Google.
>
> I'm guessing at the very least JKR may have been familiar with the
> character, or do you think she plucked the name out of her garden?
>
> Potioncat, who also found a Trelawney in AC's autobiography.
>
> 

Kemper now:

I heard Arsene was based on the French anarchist, Marius Jacob.
(Many people have a misconception of the philosophy of Anarchy.  It is
not the absent of rules; it is the absent of rulers.  For more info on
social anarchy, read the works of MIT's Linguistic professor, Noam
Chomsky or the works of the social historian who flew in WWII bomb
missions, Howard Zinn.)

Now... how to keep this on-topic...?
If JKR read the Arsene series than she may know of whom he was based off of.
However, Lupin seems closer to lupine than to Arsene.  I'm sure it's
coincidence.
But maybe not.

Can anyone else link Lupin's personal philosophy with anarchy or
Arsene (the gentleman burglar)?

Kemper



From rarpsl at optonline.net  Fri Aug 25 00:21:38 2006
From: rarpsl at optonline.net (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 20:21:38 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Arsene Lupin
In-Reply-To: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
References: <ecl65m+mlbi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p062404c0c113df8fa38c@[192.168.1.11]>

No: HPFGUIDX 157419

At 21:36 +0000 on 08/24/2006, potioncat wrote about [HPforGrownups] 
Arsene Lupin:

>One of Agatha Christie's favorite mystery series concerned Arsene
>Lupin, a French series. From what I can tell, Arsene is nothing like
>Remus. Is anyone familiar with that series? Opinions? Everything I
>know I found at Google.

Check Out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsene_Lupin. He is a 
Gentleman Thief of the Robin Hood, Green Hornet and Saint mold (ie: 
An "outlaw" who prayed on other outlaws and was in essence a "Good 
Guy"). He was created by Maurice Leblanc.

There is a long running Japanese Anime called Lupin III who is 
supposed to be Arsene Lupin's Grandson (similar to Brett "Green 
Hornet" Reid being the Grandson of Dan "The Lone Ranger's Brother" 
Reid).

>I'm guessing at the very least JKR may have been familiar with the
>character, or do you think she plucked the name out of her garden?

Lupin is French for "Wolf" and was Arsene Lupin's pseudonym (although 
I seem to remember in one of the stories his real name [or at least 
his original name before he assumed his Arsene Lupin identity] was 
revealed). His use of this name is similar to Don Diego de la Vega 
assuming an alter-ego/crime-fighting identity as [El] Zorro (Spanish 
for "[The] Fox"). JKR could have just gotten the name from its 
original source (ie: Fox) and it may not be a reference to Arsene 
Lupin.



From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 00:27:59 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 00:27:59 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <eclcdo+g1np@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclg6f+c0f7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157420

Carodave wrote:
> I don't remember Mundungus wearing a dress or disguise in HBP (not 
> to say it didn't happen!).  I was referring to the first DA meeting 
> at the Hogs Head in OotP, when HRH sees the witch in the Hogs Head.  
> Sirius tells them later (with his head in the Gryffindor fire) that 
> the witch was Mundungus.  He says that Mundungus was barred from the 
> Hogs Head 20 years ago and the barman has a long memory.  Since 
> Moody's spare invisibility cloak was taken when Sturgis was 
> arrested, Dung needs to wear the disguise in order to keep an eye on 
> Harry in the pub.
> 
> So if I understand correctly, and Dung is there keeping watch over 
> Harry, how did he know that Harry would be in the Hogs Head that 
> day?  It was a secret meeting, relatively, and no one from the order 
> was told.  Dung was already there when HRH arrived.  Hmmm...maybe 
> Flitwick informed the Order that Hermione was asking about the Hogs 
> Head?  It's not a huge leap to figure that Hermione will be 
> accompanied by Harry and Ron...
> 
> Carodave, who wants to know if others wonder about this

Carol responds:
Mundungus isn't wearing a dress when Harry sees him with the barman,
whom I'm sure is Aberforth. Whether Aberforth is a fence buying
Mundungus's stolen goods or they're both undercover spies for
Dumbledore, I don't know. Maybe the locket Horcrux exchanged hands at
that point. I'm also not sure what Mundungus would be doing in a bar
he was kicked out of, but maybe that's a cover story.

As for the scene in OoP where Mundungus is dressed as a witch, the
Hog's Head is a hangout for shady characters, including one Willie
Widdershins, the person who hexed the Muggle toilets, who happens to
be wrapped in bandages and is also listening in on the students'
meeting. I'm guessing that both are there by coincidence--Mundungus
may be spying on Willie for all we know. Mundungus reports to the
Order; Willie reports to Umbridge. I don't see how either could have
known the plans for the meeting Hermione arranged, but both would have
found it interesting and reported it to their superiors. Shades of a
certain young eavesdropper fifteen years earlier.
>
Carol, who thinks that DD's line about not being sure that Aberforth
can read is just an example of Dumbledorian whimsy







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 02:37:00 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:37:00 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <eclg6f+c0f7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclnoc+6nre@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157421

> Carodave wrote:
> > > Sirius tells them later (with his head in the Gryffindor fire) 
that the witch was Mundungus.  He says that Mundungus was barred 
from the Hogs Head 20 years ago and the barman has a long memory.  > 

Carol:> 
> As for the scene in OoP where Mundungus is dressed as a witch, the
> Hog's Head is a hangout for shady characters, including one Willie
> Widdershins, the person who hexed the Muggle toilets, who happens 
to be wrapped in bandages and is also listening in on the students'
> meeting. I'm guessing that both are there by coincidence--

Tonks:
I agree with Carol that Mundungus was just there spying in gereral, 
not there to spy on Harry.

As to the barman. I hate to put a damper on such an interesting idea 
as Aberforth currently being a goat, but the quote by Sirius implies 
that the bar man is currently the same one as 20 years ago. So 
unless the bartender is a goat, I think that Aberforth was not 
transformed.  

Another reason for this is that the barman only caught the 
eavesdropper.  The eavesdropper was there and heard far more than 
the barman did.  It would make sense for LV to assume that Snape 
heard all that could be heard and that the barman only caught him 
with his ear to the door.  This doesn't imply that the barman heard 
anything.  So I don't see any reason for LV to come after the barman 
at all.

I am sure that Albus Dumbledore was the man on the tower. And he is 
really dead. 

Tonks_op






From juli17 at aol.com  Fri Aug 25 02:41:50 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:41:50 EDT
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
Message-ID: <266.eab4e1e.321fbd6e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157422

 
Carol wrote:

JKR as a  Christian would view the soul as immortal. The soul can be
sucked by a  Dementor and be lost, falling into eternal darkness and
isolation,  apparently, but it is not destroyed by death, nor would a
soul bit be  destroyed when the object encasing it is destroyed. It
would, IMO, be  released to return to its eternal home beyond the Veil.
Two bits of  Voldie's soul are already there. (I any soul bits were
floating loose at  Godric's Hollow, they would be there as well. In my
view, they can't be  encased in an object, including a person or his
scar, without an  encantation.)



Julie:
The thing that confuses me is, if the soul bits that have already been  
released
from the Diary and the Ring horcruxes are floating around beyond the  Veil,
then why didn't the part of Voldemort's soul that didn't die with his body  at
Godric's Hollow end up beyond the Veil too? Why did it remain earthbound,  but
the other released pieces didn't? Is it because it is the "primary" soul  
piece
only that will remain earthbound? (Though how does the primary soul  piece
*know* it is the primary one?)
 
Or could both the now released soul bits also be earthbound?  Or caught 
somewhere "in limbo"--not earthbound where Voldemort could access
them and re-encase them, but not able to go beyond the Veil until all 
the soul bits are released and can be rejoined, only then  going beyond the
Veil? Then again, can those soul pieces *be* rejoined into a  whole (albeit 
damaged) soul, or would they just stick to each other as if magnetized 
but not able to actually reform into a single entity? 
 
Julie, making herself more confused, which is not difficult when it  comes
to this very vaguely explained (so far)  subject!


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




From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 03:15:08 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:15:08 -0000
Subject: DEs - Who's left? (was Re: Karkaroffs hearing)
In-Reply-To: <ecl0su+mp79@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclpvs+q4sl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157423

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

> > zgirnius wrote:
> > > The organization may have what is called a 'cell 
> > > structure' likesome Real Life terrorist/underground 
> > > organizations. Some A-listers  may be leaders of 
> > > small groups of B-listers. The B-listers would know 
> > > only the indetity of the other members of their 'cell' 
> > > and the leader.

Mike:
Did you read the post by pharnabazus on livejournal? If anyone is 
interested, it's an excellent dissertion on LV's cell structure.

http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/3265.html

I highly recommend it, but be warned, it's a little old and looong.

> > Abergoat:
> > 
> > There seems to be strong evidence for this. Some Order 
> > member says they were outnumbered 30:1 (or was it 20:1?) <snip>

Mike:
Yeah, that was Lupin and it was 20:1. But, I think we've all learned 
to take Lupin's take on things with a shaker of salt.

> 
> bboyminn:
> 
<snip> 
> I believe true 'branded' Death Eaters are very few. Best guess, 
> maybe 50 to perhaps an unlikely 100 in number. 

Mike:
If I could add on here, I think your estimation of 50 *branded* DEs 
is pretty accurate. We have Harry in the graveyard thinking he would 
be outnumbered "by at least 30 to 1" (GoF, Ch. 33). Harry was pretty 
stressed here and could be unreliable, but if JKR meant for us to 
think there were 40 or more, why wouldn't she use that number?
No, I think she used 30 because that is the right number.

Then, as Voldemort walks around the group he only mentions 7 by 
name, of the DEs present, 3 dead in his service, 2 absent and 1 
returned to his service (most assume the 2 absent to be Snape and 
Karkarov, with Crouch Jr of course returned to service). This would 
put the count of *free* DEs at 33 or more, plus the 10 who escaped 
from Azkaban in OotP, makes the count 43+. Round numbers, I'd put 
the DE count at four dozen.

So what does Voldemort have available to him now in the way of DEs? 
Well, I think Crouch Jr is off the board. He lost 11 to Azkaban from 
the MoM battle, only Bella escaped, and Karkarov's name can be 
crossed off. Then he lost another 5 plus Fenrir at the end of HBP. 
(Calculation: only 3 escaped with Snape, Blondie, Alecto, and 
Amycus. Gibbon, dead man, brutal face, stunned on the tower, and an  
unnamed 3, captured, that were in the battle with the 3 that escaped 
against the 7 good guys fighting them.)

By my calculations that's 48 minus 17 leaving LV with about 30 give 
or take a few. And that includes Snape. Of course this supposes no 
new recruits, but quite frankly, I don't think there is a lot of 
recruiting going on these days. Coercion, yes, but he's not 
increasing his DE ranks.

And although this last batch don't appear to be the A Team, he did 
seem to lose a lot of A Teamers at the MoM. At this rate, Voldemort 
won't have enough DEs left to raise havoc very much longer. Hence, 
my reason for calling into question LVs strategic planning vs his 
tactical planning.







From drcarole71 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 03:47:27 2006
From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:47:27 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
Message-ID: <eclrsf+a74v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157424

Sirius had a bloody nose at the end of GOF.  Dumbledore's nose had been 
broken at least once.  Both these characters are presumably dead.
Voldy has only slits where his nose (mortality) used to be.  He can't 
be killed in the normal way.
Can we use the state of a character's nose to predict his or her 
lifespan?






From rarpsl at optonline.net  Fri Aug 25 03:37:35 2006
From: rarpsl at optonline.net (Robert A. Rosenberg)
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:37:35 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Arsene Lupin
In-Reply-To: <ecleok+dhvn@eGroups.com>
References: <ecleok+dhvn@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <p062404c3c1141d3315fe@[192.168.1.11]>

No: HPFGUIDX 157425

At 00:03 +0000 on 08/25/2006, Neri wrote about [HPforGrownups] Re: 
Arsene Lupin:

>I believe I had to stop in the middle because
>Monsieur Lupin was quite possibly the worst Gary Stu I have ever had
>the misfortune to meet in any book. Just to give you a notion, there
>was a British detective in that book and his name was Herlock Sholmes
>(yes, you read correctly). And of course, Monsieur Lupin repeatedly
>put Mr. Sholmes in his place and showed him who was the real ace
>detective around, which was (surprise! surprise!) Arsene Lupin. It was
>quite disgusting. Of course, it might have been a very clever parody
>that just went over my head.

Herlock Sholmes was named Sherlock Holmes in the original pulp story 
publication but the name was changed in the reprints (and inclusion 
in Lupin story collections) due to Conan Doyle complaining. It was 
meant as a parody and homage (something that Conan Doyle himself did 
in at least one of his Holmes stories when he mentioned another 
author's detective as being in the Holmes universe [ie: An actual 
off-stage character not just as a fictional character]).

See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsene_Lupin which 
has this to say on the Herlock Sholmes/Sherlock Holmes issue:


>Arsne Lupin and Sherlock Holmes were bound to meet and, in an 
>unprecedented act of literary pastiche and cross-over, Leblanc 
>introduced Holmes in the short story Sherlock Holmes arrive trop 
>tard in Je Sais Tout No. 17, 15 June 1906. In it, Holmes meets a 
>young Lupin for a brief time, unaware that he is, in fact, Lupin. 
>After legal objections from Conan Doyle, the name was changed to 
>"Herlock Sholmes" when the story was collected in bookform in Volume 
>1.
>
>Holmes returned in two more stories collected in Volume 2, Arsne 
>Lupin contre Herlock Sholmes, and then in a guest-starring role in 
>the prodigious battle for the secret of the Hollow Needle in 
>L'Aiguille Creuse, where he accidentally shoots Lupin's fiance.



From CliffVDY at juno.com  Fri Aug 25 04:21:24 2006
From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:21:24 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <eclf05+da86@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eclts4+lpv0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157426

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

> Carol responds:
> Then, when Draco seems certain to fail, losing sleep,
> looking ill, and so desperate that he's crying in a girls' bathroom,
> he either can't bring himself to ask Snape for help or has been
> ordered not to on pain of death.
> 
> Carol, who forgot to mention in her astronomy post how sad she feels
> that poor Pluto has been demoted to the status of little oddball
>

Cliff here
I agree that Draco took on the job thinking he would be held in high
esteem with the DEs and LV, but wound up not being able to accomplish
the job. That turned out to be a bit of Wile E. Coyote running off the
cliff. (no pun intended).

I still love Pluto, the Disney character. He reminds me of someone.

Cliff










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 06:19:47 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:19:47 -0000
Subject: DEs - Who's left? Megalomaniacs and Heros
In-Reply-To: <eclpvs+q4sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecm4q3+p4bo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157427

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > I believe true 'branded' Death Eaters are very few. 
> > Best guess, maybe 50 to perhaps an unlikely 100 in 
> > number. 
> 
> Mike:
> If I could add on here, I think your estimation of 50 
> *branded* DEs is pretty accurate. ...edited... This 
> would put the count of *free* DEs at 33 or more, plus 
> the 10 who escaped from Azkaban in OotP, makes the 
> count 43+. Round numbers, I'd put the DE count at four 
> dozen.
> 
> ...
> 
> By my calculations that's 48 minus 17 leaving LV with 
> about 30 give or take a few. And that includes Snape. 
> ... I don't think there is a lot of recruiting going 
> on these days. Coercion, yes, but he's not increasing 
> his DE ranks.
> 
> And although this last batch don't appear to be the A 
> Team, he did seem to lose a lot of A Teamers at the MoM. 
> ... Hence, my reason for calling into question LVs 
> strategic planning vs his tactical planning.
>


bboyminn:

First, I think you are right about coercion vs recruitment.
It has been many years since Voldemort was last in power, 
and I think the wizard world has gotten used to a peaceful
and prosperous life. So, while Voldemort is forcing a lot
of people to work for him, I don't think he is getting
many volunteers. Of course, he might gain some of the
disenfranchised like the giants and werewolves, but
beyond that, I think the volunteers are few.

Next, regarding Voldemort's strategic and tactical planning.
I think Voldemort suffers from the same problem that all
megalomaniacal evil overlords suffer from; an absolute
unshakeable belief in his own infalability. In Voldies mind
any plan he comes up with is the absolute perfect plan. No
DE dare challenge that plan even if they see flaws in it
because the /price/ of opposing an evil overlord in even
the smallest way is very very high. So, they do their best
to muddle through an ill-conceived plan. 

Naturally, when things go wrong, it's not because Voldemort's
plan wasn't pure genius (at least in his mind), it's because 
the blundering incompetent DE's didn't do it right. Which is 
probably true, but it doesn't account for the fact that the 
plan was ill-conceived to begin with. 

Also, when you work for an evil overlord megalomanic like 
Voldemort, there is no room for individual thinking. You do
exactly what he said, so you can't be blamed personally when
it all goes wrong. Even if along the way, you see a better way
of accomplishing your goal, the safe choice is to just stick 
to the plan. 

Partly you don't express superior ideas because that threatens
Voldemort's power. If for one small moment he thinks you are 
smarter or more capable than him, he will kill you to eliminate
the competition. It's all a very paraniod thing. Not at all 
condusive to winning wars.

Really, like all tyrannical organizations, Voldemort and the
gang are hopelessly disfunctional, which is why nut cases like
this never stay in power for long. Eventually a 'Harry-The Hero'
comes along and kicks their butt.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 06:53:14 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:53:14 -0000
Subject: DEs - Who's left? (was Re: Karkaroffs hearing)
In-Reply-To: <eclpvs+q4sl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecm6oq+ov48@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157428

Mike:
My bad. zgirnius just pointed out that I posted the wrong link in my 
previous post. I just reviewed pharnabazus' post again and it is 
really, really long. Ten parts and an appendix. It is good, though.
These are dated (pre HBP) but Parts 1-5 aren't affected by that. 
Anyway here's the link to Part 1 - Patronage System:

http://pharnabazus.livejournal.com/715.html

Change the post number as follows to get the other parts:

 799 - Part 2 - Fudge and the MoM
1105 - Part 3 - DD, LV, Malfoy & Crouch
1420 - Part 4 - Percy searching for a patron
1607 - Part 5 - Voldemort & terrorist cells  **this is the one I 
meant to post**  
1862 - Part 6 - Voldy & conquering death
2135 - Part 7 - Voldy's network after G.H.
2450 - Part 8 - Malfoy, money, & the founder's rift
2677 - Part 9 - Harry, a new patron?
2856 - Part 10- Ministry power & limitations
3265 - Appendix - Wizengamot

He wanted them read in order, but I don't think that is necessary, 
although part 1 does lay a good foundation for the rest of the parts.
If you do want to read them in order, use the link at the bottom of 
each essay, NOT the arrows at the top.








From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 10:36:59 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:36:59 -0000
Subject: JKR's Top Children's Books list
Message-ID: <ecmjsb+m37h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157429

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, so I thought I'd put it up as
a public service.  This is from the latest issue of the Royal Society
of Literature's magazine, which asked several authors, including JKR
and Philip Pullman, to list their top 10 books they recommed for young
people.  Here's JKR's list:

1. Wuthering Heights
2. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
3. Robinson Crusoe
4. David Copperfield
5. Catch-22
6. To Kill a Mockingbird
7. Animal Farm
8. Two Bad Mice
9. Catcher in the Rye
10. Hamlet 

Geez, "Animal Farm" AND "Catch-22" AND "Catcher in the Rye" AND
"Hamlet"?  I can see where Harry gets his Angst from!  Those adults
are all phonies, man, phonies!!  

"The Tale of Two Bad Mice" is class, though; I always hear thrash
metal in my head when they trash the dollhouse (oh, yay, you can read
it online!:  http://wiredforbooks.org/kids/beatrix/bm0.htm ).  And
hurray for Robinson Crusoe!

Final note-- dude, it's a bit rich for her to be cautioning the
kiddies against falling for Bad Boys, and then putting "Wuthering
Heights" at the top of her list for impressionable young minds. 

-- Sydney








From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 25 11:39:33 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:39:33 -0000
Subject: JKR's Top Children's Books list
In-Reply-To: <ecmjsb+m37h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecmnhl+kk49@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157430

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" <sydpad at ...> wrote:

<snip> 
> Final note-- dude, it's a bit rich for her to be cautioning the
> kiddies against falling for Bad Boys, and then putting "Wuthering
> Heights" at the top of her list for impressionable young minds. 
> 
> -- Sydney
>

Dungrollin:
I suspect that if ACID POPS or LOLLIPOPS end up as canon, Heathcliff 
will be unceremoniously turfed off his throne by a strong new 
contender for 'Most Troubled Romantic Lead (Male)' at the next Annual 
BookWorld Awards (Bookies).









From KLMF at aol.com  Fri Aug 25 13:05:14 2006
From: KLMF at aol.com (klmf1)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:05:14 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <266.eab4e1e.321fbd6e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ecmsia+65c4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157431

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:

> Julie:
> The thing that confuses me is, if the soul bits that have already been  
> released
> from the Diary and the Ring horcruxes are floating around beyond the  Veil,
> then why didn't the part of Voldemort's soul that didn't die with his body  at
> Godric's Hollow end up beyond the Veil too? Why did it remain earthbound,  but
> the other released pieces didn't? Is it because it is the "primary" soul  
> piece
> only that will remain earthbound? (Though how does the primary soul  piece
> *know* it is the primary one?)
>  
> Or could both the now released soul bits also be earthbound?  Or caught 
> somewhere "in limbo"......
>snip

Karen F here---

Could it be that when bits of soul are released from their encasement they aren't actually 
destroyed at all but return back to their original source? Could it be that once all the bits 
are back where they came from, the original owner of the soul bits can then be truly 
mortal again?  Will we maybe start to see Voldemort start to return to an aged Tom Riddle 
in appearance?

Karen F






From harryp at stararcher.com  Fri Aug 25 13:25:09 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:25:09 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <eclrsf+a74v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecmtnl+3a0t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157432

> drcarole71:
> Sirius had a bloody nose at the end of GOF.  Dumbledore's nose had been 
> broken at least once.  Both these characters are presumably dead.
> Voldy has only slits where his nose (mortality) used to be.  He can't 
> be killed in the normal way.
> Can we use the state of a character's nose to predict his or her 
> lifespan?
>

Eddie:
Also, Mad-Eye Moody's nose has several chunks taken out of it.  Yet he
lives.... for the time being.  If he dies in HP7 then I'd see that as
confirmation of your theory!

Who else has nose damage?

Eddie








From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 13:11:24 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:11:24 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <eclrsf+a74v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecmsts+n70q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157433

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "drcarole71" <drcarole71 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Sirius had a bloody nose at the end of GOF.  Dumbledore's nose had 
been 
> broken at least once.  Both these characters are presumably dead.
> Voldy has only slits where his nose (mortality) used to be.  He 
can't 
> be killed in the normal way.
> Can we use the state of a character's nose to predict his or her 
> lifespan?
>

Carodave:

Your theory is bad news for Harry - his nose was broken by Malfoy in 
the beginning of HBP!

Carodave








From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 13:28:06 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:28:06 -0000
Subject: Punishments for Snape and Umbridge (more on the funny side)
In-Reply-To: <ecj4b0+phmv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecmtt6+feo7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157434

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
<SNIP>
> 
> Any other punishments?
> 
> Alla and Ceridwen ( sorry, dear, don't kill me :))
>

For Snapey-poo and Umbridge, hmmm?  Well, I've already given a list 
for Umbridge, so for Snapey-poo:

1) As a reward for his actions during the war, he merits his own 
personal servant.  Kreacher is assigned to the job.

2)  Being fitted with a collar that gives an electric shock 
everytime he says something abusive.

3)  Taking up a career in musical theater as a female impersonator, 
starting with old clothes borrowed from Neville's grandmother.

4)  Having to go into hiding at 12 Grimmauld Place where the 
Dursleys are also in residence.

5)  Having his wand broken and being sentenced to teach chemistry at 
a modern muggle school

6)  As there are no full teaching posts available at Hogwarts, he is 
assigned as an assistant to the new potions teacher -- Neville 
Longbottom.

7)  As there are no full teaching posts available at Hogwarts, he is 
assigned as an assistant to the new DADA teacher -- Harry Potter.

8)  Unemployed, he has to take the only job available, as a stock 
clerk at Weasley's Wizard Wheezes.



Just a few ideas,


Lupinlore










From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 13:54:45 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:54:45 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecl3c5+n77o@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecmvf5+nc9k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157435

 > Eddie:
> Unless Voldemort -- er, person V, aka V-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, aka
> VHSNBN -- ordered Draco to keep it to himself, otherwise V would kill
> D.

Neri:
Could be, but I don't know any canon for this, and considerable canon
against it. Snape tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that he is in on the
mission, and it looks like he tells the truth. Draco doesn't use this
argument against Snape: "I'm not allowed to talk to you about it". He
practically admits before Snape that he's on a mission. Note how easy
it would have been for JKR to use this reason at this point to explain
why Draco excludes Snape. It could have been done in just one sentence
or two, and there wouldn't be any questioning of Draco's strange
behavior. But JKR didn't use it. Is she dropping a hint?


> Magpie:
> So if you were writing the story you would have had Draco asking his 
> mother for help and it doesn't work for you that he's not doing 
> that. That's something to take up with the author.

Neri:
Oh, I wouldn't want to write this any different. I think it's very
good writing and can be an awesome clue. When JKR shows us a character
behaving in an unreasonable and atypical way, we're supposed to ask why. 

> Magpie:
> Nobody in canon 
> questions this at all

Neri:
In Diagon Ally both Harry and Ron note that Draco looks like he gave
his mother the slip, and a short time later it turns out they were
correct, when Draco warns Borgin not to tell his mother. However,
Harry and Ron didn't see Narcissa together with Snape in Spinner's
End. We did.

> Magpie:
> (this is the first time I've heard anyone in 
> fandom question it either)

Neri:
Well then, this just goes to show you who are the fandom, which
characters they prefer not to investigate and what questions they
prefer not to ask <g>. The change in Draco's attitude towards Snape
and towards his mother in HBP is more drastic than the change in
Ginny's character in OotP, which was jarring to many fans, and has
considerably more potential as a clue for Book 7. 

> Magpie:
> Harry and his friends have been in trouble in the 
> past and not gone to their parents either.  It's a story about kids, 
> a coming of age story.  Nobody wants to need their mother.
> 

Neri:
Well, you are certainly right about Harry ? he has never gone to his
parents in the past. As for Ron and Hermione, when I'll see them
hiding from their parents (or even worse ? lying to their parents)
regarding information that put their parents too in great risk, I'll
be very alarmed. 

> Magpie:
> And Narcissa isn't even ever shown to 
> have anything much to offer here at all, making it even less weird 
> that Draco isn't asking her for help.
> 

Neri:
On the contrary, Narcissa has by far the best offer to help Draco. She
immediately goes and enlists an expert, somebody with power and
authority at Hogwarts, who could have given Draco great help. And she
even obtains an Unbreakable Vow from that expert to look after Draco.
By refusing help from Snape Draco is refusing help from his mother.
Help that may easily save both himself, his mother *and* his father. 

So, does Draco change his attitude towards Snape so drastically and so
irrationally just "because he's a teeeeeenager"? Is this the ultimate
explanation that's supposed to make every paradox work? I think JKR
has shown in the past a bit more insight and less contempt for
teenager psych. 

Neri









From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 25 14:23:03 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:23:03 -0000
Subject: Punishments for Snape and Umbridge (more on the funny side)
In-Reply-To: <ecmtt6+feo7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecn147+7su0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157436

Alla and Ceridwen:
> > Any other punishments?

Lupinlore:
> 6)  As there are no full teaching posts available at Hogwarts, he is 
> assigned as an assistant to the new potions teacher -- Neville 
> Longbottom.
> 
> 7)  As there are no full teaching posts available at Hogwarts, he is 
> assigned as an assistant to the new DADA teacher -- Harry Potter.

Ceridwen:
*IF* JKR writes Snape as ultimately ESE! or OFH!, a very big *IF* in my 
opinion, then how about another academic post:

Headmaster of Smeltings.

Ceridwen.






From foxmoth at qnet.com  Fri Aug 25 14:23:19 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:23:19 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecj70k+fp3g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecn14n+6hkh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157437

> > Betsy Hp wrote:
<snip>
> > And perhaps the reason Dumbledore chose Snape for the job of 
> > Legilimency teacher is that Lupin (the man of many excuses) does not 
> > have Dumbldore's complete trust.
> > 
> > Betsy Hp (who's finding that the more and more she looks at Lupin 
> > the shakier and shakier his good guy status becomes -- hanging by 
> > the interviews here, folks. <g>)

Pippin:
Ah, those interviews. No, Lupin is definitely not going to be the sort of
villain that makes you hiss and throw popcorn at the screen. But there's
villainy of another kind,  evil that moves in the most exalted circles,
and has only the very finest friends. There's evil that makes you look
uneasily down the table and ask, "Is it I?"


> >
> Carol responds:
> I don't think that Lupin's ability as a Legilimens (if it exists) has
> anything to do with his giving or not giving Harry lessons in OoP.
> 
> But it's *Occlumency* that Snape, a "superb Occlumens" according to
> Lupin (who doesn't praise Snape lightly) is supposed to teach Harry,
> so it wouldn't matter whether Lupin is a Legilimens or not. I imagine
> that Snape and lupin are approximately equal in that department while
> Snape is better at Occlumency (as he has to be to survive lying to
> Voldemort). also, of course, snape is already at Hogwarts, is not a
> werewolf, and has Dumbledore's absolute trust. Altogether the best man
> for the job, just as he is (IMO) the best man to teach DADA in HBP
> (unfortunately for him given the curse on the post).

Pippin:
I think werewolves are supposed to be naturally resistant to legilimency.
Snape hints at something like that. Of course that would be a  great
help to agent Lupin, whichever side he is on. He wouldn't have to
be so good at occlumency that a legilimens can't even tell he's being
blocked, as must be the case with Snape. It would also be a reason that
the werewolves might think they could hold their own against a 
victorious Voldemort if he ever reneged on his promises. 

Of course if Lupin is thought to be a natural occlumens, he wouldn't be
expected to teach the technique any more than a bird could teach 
how to fly a broom.


Carol: <snipped>
> No, I don't think Lupin is ESE! but he's dangerously weak (as Snape
> insinuates to Tonks in HBP)> 

Pippin:
But this is semantic. "I am flawed, you are weak, he is ever so evil." Why
don't we say that Snape's sadism or Draco's xenophobia is just a weakness?

There's a Heinlein story that might explain Lupin psychologically. Take a 
pup, chain him up and kick him every day, and he'll grow to be a savage 
cur and snap at anyone who comes near him. Take the same pup, rear him 
tenderly instead, and he'll be a gentle family pet. But if you pet that pup on 
Tuesdays and kick him on Thursdays, he'll grow up to be a shivering, 
neurotic mess, and he'll bite you without warning.  That's Lupin, IMO. 

He's been scorned by society, but he's also been indulged, perhaps too
much, by his friends. It's a recipe for disaster.

And no one dares admit, not even Dumbledore, not Lupin himself, 
(though to give him credit, he keeps trying), and least of all the trusting
readers, that Lupin cannot be trusted, because that would abet prejudice  
against werewolves. Dumbledore emotionally, recklessly, asked Lupin 
to do a job that would have tried the loyalties of a far more stable 
person, and Lupin took it on. Of course  it wouldn't be long  before 
Voldemort discovered Lupin's weakness and exploited it. The only question,
IMO, is how much time has Voldemort had.
 
Honestly, people act like there's some rule that Voldemort can only take 
advantage  of weaknesses that are socially unacceptable. And I guess 
there is a rule like that in a lot of popular fiction, but I wouldn't bet that 
JKR intends to honor it.

Wanting to be liked is considered nicer  than sadism or xenophobia.
but if wanting to be liked leads you to renege on your commitments and 
put innocent people at risk, then maybe it shouldn't be. JKR won't make 
herself popular by saying so -- who is she to tell us that we ought to 
change our ideas about what's acceptable? But I doubt that she's worried 
about that.

That Lupin's weakness is one that his friends would have pardoned is the
real tear-jerker, IMO. It should have been so easy for him to turn back
to the light when his errors were still relatively small. Prejudice
magnified his sins and made them seem mountains when they were still
molehills. A lot of people are hoping that they are molehills after all.  But I 
think it's too late now. I notice he's not on JKR's A-list for dinner
companions any more. And it can't be because he's going to be dead. <g>

Pippin







From bridge13219 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 15:00:35 2006
From: bridge13219 at yahoo.com (bridge13219)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:00:35 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <ecmtnl+3a0t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecn3aj+mch7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157438

> Eddie:
> Also, Mad-Eye Moody's nose has several chunks taken out of it.  Yet 
he
> lives.... for the time being.  If he dies in HP7 then I'd see that as
> confirmation of your theory!
> 
> Who else has nose damage?
> 
> Eddie
>
 bridge13219:
Ludo Bagman was mentioned as looking like his nose had been broken in 
GoF (I'm in the middle of reading in again for the ?th time).  But I 
had assumed he was out of the story as he is on the run from some 
goblins.






From jlcaron at gmail.com  Fri Aug 25 15:33:58 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:33:58 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <ecmsts+n70q@eGroups.com>
References: <ecmsts+n70q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1CBD5EEE-6D2D-452A-B234-AFB45B3E779F@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157439

>
>
> Carodave:
>
> Your theory is bad news for Harry - his nose was broken by Malfoy in
> the beginning of HBP!
>
Jaime:

Interesting question. In addition to other cases people have  
mentioned...

-- Malfoy's nose doesn't break but in Chamber of Secrets, it does  
swell up, does that count at all? :)

Goyle's potion exploded, showering the whole class. People shrieked  
as splashes of the Swelling Solution hit them. Malfoy got a faceful  
and his nose began to swell like a balloon... (COS)

-- Krum may have gotten a broken nose at the Quidditch World Cup in  
Goblet of Fire:

There was a deafening groan from the crowd; Krum's nose looked  
broken, there
was blood everywhere, but Hassan Mostafa didn't blow his whistle. (GOF)

-- Harry and the twins may have broken Malfoy's nose in Order of the  
Phoenix:

Malfoy was curled up on the ground, whimpering and moaning, his nose  
bloody... (OOP)

-- Neville's nose is broken in the Department of Mysteries battle in  
OOP:

"Whaddever you do, Harry," said Neville fiercely from under the desk,  
lowering his hands to show a clearly broken nose and blood pouring  
down his mouth and chin, "don'd gib it to him!" (OOP)

Of course, noses seem to be prominent in the books. Everyone's nose  
is described from Dumbledore's crooked one to Snape's hooked one and  
McGonagall's pointy one. Tonks can transform her nose at will and  
some of the Weasley's twins earliest inventions included Nosebleed  
Nougats.

Jaime





From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 25 16:27:59 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:27:59 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <eckqbb+g0nj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecn8ef+c196@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157440

> 
> Carol wrote:
> He *obtained* the ring either just before or just after he
> committed the murder (when he Stunned Morfin and later modified his
> memory), but he didn't know how to encase his split soul in the object
> at that point. (He was wearing the ring when he asked slughorn about
> Horcruxes.) 

Ken:

I don't think that we know for sure that Tom had not created a horcrux
at the time he asked Slughorn about them. My sense is that the point
of that line of questioning was not to learn about horcruxes but to
sound Slughorn out on the notion of multiple horcruxes. I think it is
fairly obvious that Tom already knew what they were and Slughorn gave
him no information on how to create one (Tom would certainly already
know that a spell was involved!) yet he was very happy at the end of
the interview to the point of looking non-human. I think the thing
that made him happy was that he heard nothing to dissuade him from
making multiple horcruxes other than it was too evil to contemplate.
Tom never seems to have had any difficulty contemplating evil. DD
agrees that the multiple horcrux question was his real purpose behind
the interview.

My impression is that Tom had already made one horcrux when he
questioned Slughorn and was on the verge of making a second. At the
beginning of the memory Slughorn says of Tom "What with your uncanny
ability to know things you shouldn't,...". The sentance is about his
possible rise to Minister of Magic but I think it is no accident that
Slughorn points out Tom's knowledge of things that are beyond his
years. Another, tenuous I admit, indication of this is that less human 
happiness at the end of the memory. True, much the same language is
used way back in the orphanage scene but it seems slightly stronger
here to me. Perhaps the first horcrux does not change you all that
much and changes in a teenager are be expected anyway.

In the end I suppose it may not matter if he had or hadn't already
made a horcrux at this point. He is clearly on the verge of making
either another, or his first two, horcrux(es). We would probably agree
that he would use Myrtle's death to make the diary horcrux and his
father's to make the ring horcrux assuming that the means to sort out
the soul bits from one another exists. At the very least I suppose
this indicates that a split soul can remain split for some time. I
think that you could be right, repentance or something akin to it on
the part of the murderer might be required to heal the split.

> Carol again:

> And he would not have placed any preliminary spell on the Horcrux
> objects since he didn't have any of them yet except the diary and the
> ring.

Ken:

We have a different view of how the horcrux spell could work. I would
just point out that if it works the way I envision it you don't *have*
to cast the spell before the murder but you *can*. Your picture of how
it works is a subset of mine. Your's denys that Harry/horcrux is
possible, mine allows it and that is the chief difference between them.


> 
> Carol again:
> And yet we do know some things about the afterlife as JKR conceives it
> in the HP books. 

Ken:

I agree. My statement about the afterlife was only in regard to how a
horcrux would affect the eternal fate of its creator. I should have
been more clear about that. I don't think we have any canon to support
an opinion on the manner but since I support those who are willing to
speculate on the new canon that will appear in book 7 I can hardly
fault you for indulging in the practice!

> Carol again:

> To return to the point, and to Ken's question, I think that a person
> who has created a Horcrux, like the victims of the Dementors, is
> denied access to the afterlife. The difference is that he's anchoring
> his own soul to the earth, permanently, he hopes, so that he can
> continue to live on earth forever (more of a cursed half-life, really,
> which is why most wizards, even murderers, don't try to create
> Horcruxes). 

Ken:

First, I have to disagree with you about the fate of the "demented",
subject to the following condition. IFF Rowling intends that the
Potterverse be compatible with Christian theology we have some Canon
on which to base an opinion about the fate of those who suffer a
demontor's kiss. From John 10:27-28 (NASV) we have:

"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no
one will snatch them out of My hand." 

And from Romans 8:38-39 (NASV) we have:

"For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."

Dementors attack the innocent and the guilty alike, often with MoM
blessing and aid in both cases. They cannot snatch the souls of the
former out of God's hands. I don't really know what they are able to
do with the latter. As a Christian I personally believe that our
souls' fates are determined by our own choices and cannot be affected
by outside forces. Of course we have no firm basis on which to say how
Christian Rowling intends the Potterverse to be.

We all believe that Harry will succeed in sending LV's soul piecemeal
into the afterlife whether Harry survives the experience or not. I
call that killing the soul bits, you and several others seem to prefer
to call it sending them through/beyond the veil. It is the same thing
to me, the soul is eternal, when I speak of killing it I mean
detaching it from its Earthly abode and sending into the next life. I
don't have the image of souls and soul bits literally flying through
that veil in the DoM as many of you seem to have. I view that as
simply an artifact created to study death, not the one and only portal
to the next life. But that matters little, the result is the same.

My question was about the eternal fate of the horcruxed once all their
separate soul bits are finally separated from the Earth and reside in
the afterlife. I suspect that it is different from those who make the
journey with whole souls or in the case of common murderers with all
the soul bits passing beyond at the same time. Beyond that I suppose
your speculation is as good as anyone's. I would guess that book 7
will say something about the matter.

Ken







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Fri Aug 25 16:48:46 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 16:48:46 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecmvf5+nc9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecn9le+rm9c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157441

> snip<
> Neri:
> Well then, this just goes to show you who are the fandom, which
> characters they prefer not to investigate and what questions they
> prefer not to ask <g>. The change in Draco's attitude towards Snape
> and towards his mother in HBP is more drastic than the change in
> Ginny's character in OotP, which was jarring to many fans, and has
> considerably more potential as a clue for Book 7. 
> 
> > Magpie:
> > Harry and his friends have been in trouble in the 
> > past and not gone to their parents either.  It's a story about 
kids, 
> > a coming of age story.  Nobody wants to need their mother.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Well, you are certainly right about Harry ? he has never gone to his
> parents in the past. As for Ron and Hermione, when I'll see them
> hiding from their parents (or even worse ? lying to their parents)
> regarding information that put their parents too in great risk, I'll
> be very alarmed. 
>snip snip<
> Neri:
> On the contrary, Narcissa has by far the best offer to help Draco. 
She
> immediately goes and enlists an expert, somebody with power and
> authority at Hogwarts, who could have given Draco great help. And 
she
> even obtains an Unbreakable Vow from that expert to look after 
Draco.
> By refusing help from Snape Draco is refusing help from his mother.
> Help that may easily save both himself, his mother *and* his 
father. 
> 
> So, does Draco change his attitude towards Snape so drastically and 
so
> irrationally just "because he's a teeeeeenager"? Is this the 
ultimate
> explanation that's supposed to make every paradox work? I think JKR
> has shown in the past a bit more insight and less contempt for
> teenager psych. 
> 
> Neri
>
Laurawkids:

By the words you have used, this suddenly seemed like a situation 
that has RW parallels:  a kid in a gang and/or heavy into drugs or 
sex.  Maybe more so the kid on drugs.  You all have probably gone all 
over this before, but...

You know the profile, kid withdraws and good Mom goes snooping.  Kid 
says, "Leave me alone, you do not know what drives me, and you can't 
imagine how yukky I feel inside that makes me want and need to do 
these things!"  Whereas Mom knows how to help if given the chance, 
and even calls in the pro's to council with the child or forces him 
into rehab.  It may work or horribly backfire.

This goes on all the time, and because of the teenage psyche, is hard 
to play the right way.  The parents may have even done the very same 
thing, but were saved out of it, and still the kid will not stop and 
listen long enough to see that there are other ways out of the 
situation. 

But, that said, when Draco tells Myrtle that no one can help him, it 
could mean that LV has constrained him in some way to have to do this 
alone, or there will be hell to pay.  

If I were LV, I would think that kids blab and brag too much.  That 
would make me want to keep Draco silent somehow, so the talking won't 
foil the walking.  

I'm not totally sold on an UV, but it *could* be that we were told 
about innocent Ron and his UV near-miss, and then Snape, an ultra-
intelligent adult having a tricky time of one, so that we will 
believe that Draco, in his need to vault himself into DE maturity, 
falls for the smooth words of LV and vows to rely only upon himself 
to fullfill his task.  

Or LV slipped him a convincer by crucio'ing him to be quiet about the 
task. 

Another thought is that the necklace and poisoned drink seem alot 
like those half-hearted first attempts of suicidal people to draw 
help to themselves.  Is it possible that Draco thought that Snape or 
DD would figure out that he did them quickly and then remove him to 
the safety of Azkaban, or expell him for being a danger and snap his 
wand(like his favorite, Hagrid)?  

I know that goes against how bad Draco seems, but it would also be a 
selfish way out, because Narcissa would still be in danger.  

Sorry if this has all come out before.

Laurawkids 















From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 17:10:02 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:10:02 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <1CBD5EEE-6D2D-452A-B234-AFB45B3E779F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecnata+l85j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157442

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jlcaron at ..." <jlcaron at ...> 
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Carodave:
> >
> > Your theory is bad news for Harry - his nose was broken by 
Malfoy in
> > the beginning of HBP!
> >
> Jaime:
> 
> Interesting question. In addition to other cases people have  
> mentioned...
> 
> -- Malfoy's nose doesn't break but in Chamber of Secrets, it does  
> swell up, does that count at all? :)
> 
> <much snipping of examples> 
> 
> -- Krum may have gotten a broken nose at the Quidditch World Cup 
in  
> Goblet of Fire
> 
>> -- Harry and the twins may have broken Malfoy's nose in Order of 
the  
> Phoenix:
> 
> -- Neville's nose is broken in the Department of Mysteries battle 
in  
> OOP:

> Of course, noses seem to be prominent in the books. Everyone's 
nose  
> is described from Dumbledore's crooked one to Snape's hooked one 
and  
> McGonagall's pointy one. Tonks can transform her nose at will and  
> some of the Weasley's twins earliest inventions included 
Nosebleed  
> Nougats.
> 
> Jaime
>
Carodave:

That's alot of broken noses.  I had forgotten some of them.  I think 
Dr Carole is on to something here.  All those broken noses must be 
more than a coincidence...maybe they are a predictor...of death 
maybe, at least of 
someone who will be very involved in the final battle.  
(Because I am sure that Neville is instrumental in Book 7...)

Carodave






From belviso at attglobal.net  Fri Aug 25 17:30:43 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:30:43 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <ecmvf5+nc9k@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecnc43+1d4d@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157443


> > Magpie:
> > So if you were writing the story you would have had Draco asking 
his 
> > mother for help and it doesn't work for you that he's not doing 
> > that. That's something to take up with the author.
> 
> Neri:
> Oh, I wouldn't want to write this any different. I think it's very
> good writing and can be an awesome clue. When JKR shows us a 
character
> behaving in an unreasonable and atypical way, we're supposed to 
ask why. 

Magpie:
An awesome clue that the story that seems like it fits in with the 
author's themes and a coming of age story is actually...what?  
You're taking away the stronger story to replace it with a story 
that so far seems to have only one advantage: that it's a 
complication that nobody had seen before.  Snape/Lily at least 
relates to the Harry/Snape relationship in dramatic ways.  

> Neri:
> In Diagon Ally both Harry and Ron note that Draco looks like he 
gave
> his mother the slip, and a short time later it turns out they were
> correct, when Draco warns Borgin not to tell his mother. However,
> Harry and Ron didn't see Narcissa together with Snape in Spinner's
> End. We did.

Magpie:
They do not question it in the way you're implying.  They take the 
fact that he's given his mother the slip as a sign that he's up to 
something, which he is.  


> Neri:
> Well then, this just goes to show you who are the fandom, which
> characters they prefer not to investigate and what questions they
> prefer not to ask <g>. 

Magpie:
Actually, I think it goes to show that given a long time between 
books fandom grows bored with the canon and starts making up new 
stories.

Neri:
The change in Draco's attitude towards Snape
> and towards his mother in HBP is more drastic than the change in
> Ginny's character in OotP, which was jarring to many fans, and has
> considerably more potential as a clue for Book 7. 

Magpie:
The change in Draco's attitude is also given canonical reasons--his 
father's imprisonment, the important task, the pressure from 
Voldemort, the almost-murderers.  

> Neri:
> Well, you are certainly right about Harry ? he has never gone to 
his
> parents in the past. As for Ron and Hermione, when I'll see them
> hiding from their parents (or even worse ? lying to their parents)
> regarding information that put their parents too in great risk, 
I'll
> be very alarmed. 

Magpie:
Ginny didn't tell anyone about a rather dangerous secret in CoS when 
she almost killed a couple of people.

> Neri:
> On the contrary, Narcissa has by far the best offer to help Draco. 
She
> immediately goes and enlists an expert, somebody with power and
> authority at Hogwarts, who could have given Draco great help.

Magpie:
That's Snape who's the big help there, not Narcissa.  And Draco 
rejects him for reasons all connected in canon to the things I 
mentioned before, none of which include any hint of Draco's being 
angry at Snape or Narcissa for having a thing for his mother. 
Narcissa doesn't need to enlist Snape--he's already enlisted and 
Draco knows it.

Neri:
 And she
> even obtains an Unbreakable Vow from that expert to look after 
Draco.
> By refusing help from Snape Draco is refusing help from his mother.

Magpie:
Ultimately true, but an unnecessary stretch to make for your 
purposes.  It's not getting you any closer to proving that Draco's 
got any specific anxieties over Snape being in love with Narcissa. 
Snape was always a resource for Draco, with or without Narcissa 
going to him.  

Neri:
> Help that may easily save both himself, his mother *and* his 
father. 

Magpie:
So we still have to toss out one of the main themes of canon, which 
is young people growing up and Draco specifically feeling he has to 
do this himself.  When this subject comes up in canon Draco 
says "nobody can help me," not "Snape and Narcissa could help me, if 
only there wasn't sexual tension between them that makes me angry at 
them."  

Neri:> 
> So, does Draco change his attitude towards Snape so drastically 
and so
> irrationally just "because he's a teeeeeenager"? Is this the 
ultimate
> explanation that's supposed to make every paradox work? 

Magpie:
No, though I don't see why you're that dismissive of the idea that 
being a teeeeeeeenager is important in a coming of age story.  Draco 
is a very specific teenager who feels he has to prove himself by 
doing this.  It's not a paradox in canon, it's completely 
consistent.  The character starts out feeling that it's important 
for him to do this and prove himself, and winds up paranoid and 
isolated with two almost-murders on his conscience.  Neither of 
those attitudes lend themselves to him going to Narcissa or Snape to 
make things right.  The almost-murders themselves, imo, have far 
more power to make him turn away from these two than any vague 
problems connected to Snape/Narcissa I can imagine.

Neri:
I think JKR
> has shown in the past a bit more insight and less contempt for
> teenager psych. 

Magpie:
And since this part was snipped, how does more insight and less 
contempt for the teenager psych translates into the idea that Draco 
didn't go to Narcissa and Snape because he thinks Snape likes his 
mother?  Finding fault with the story as written doesn't support 
this other storyline.  Draco isn't any smarter or less logical by 
your definition in your story, he's not acting any less like an 
adolescent cliche.  In fact, it makes his smaller, not bigger, imo, 
all but shoving Draco aside in his own story for the real stars, 
Snape and Narcissa.

-m






From drcarole71 at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 17:53:38 2006
From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:53:38 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <ecnata+l85j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecndf2+jssa@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157444

Is Ginny's Bat Bogey Hex a lethal weapon?






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Fri Aug 25 18:07:54 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:07:54 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <ecmsia+65c4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecne9q+bsch@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157445

> 
> > Julie:
> > The thing that confuses me is, if the soul bits that have already
been  
> > released
> > from the Diary and the Ring horcruxes are floating around beyond
the  Veil,
> > then why didn't the part of Voldemort's soul that didn't die with
his body  at
> > Godric's Hollow end up beyond the Veil too? Why did it remain
earthbound,  but
> > the other released pieces didn't? Is it because it is the
"primary" soul  
> > piece
> > only that will remain earthbound? (Though how does the primary
soul  piece
> > *know* it is the primary one?)
> >  
> > Or could both the now released soul bits also be earthbound?  Or
caught 
> > somewhere "in limbo"......
> >snip
> 
> Karen F here---
> 
> Could it be that when bits of soul are released from their
encasement they aren't actually 
> destroyed at all but return back to their original source? Could it
be that once all the bits 
> are back where they came from, the original owner of the soul bits
can then be truly 
> mortal again?  Will we maybe start to see Voldemort start to return
to an aged Tom Riddle 
> in appearance?
> 


Ken:

There is a tradition that humans are three-part (we are created in
God's image) as is the God of Abraham. People often speak of "body,
soul, and spirit". The body is the obvious physical container of the
other two. The soul is our eternal essence. The spirit? To me it is
our conscious self. Voldemort and Slughorn seem to confirm this view
in the Horcruxes chapter of HBP (p 497, US HB):

******************************************

"Well, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of
it in an object outside the body. Then, even if one's body is attacked
or destroyed, one cannot die, for part of the soul remains earthbound
and undamaged. But of course existence in such a form..."

Slughorn's face crumpled and Harry found himself remembering words he
had heard nearly two years before: "I was ripped from my body, I was
less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost...but still, I was alive."

"...few would want it, Tom, very few. Death would be preferable."

*****************************

Notice that body, soul, and spirit are all mentioned above. Later on
DD says "Never forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged
beyond repair, his brain and his magical powers remain intact" (p
509). DD can't mean his physical brain since that is long gone, he
must mean his intellect which along with his magical powers must be
part of LV's spirit. I take this all to mean that while his physical
body may be destroyed (and regenerated) LV's spirit remains active in
the world as long as part of his soul remains in the world.

Notice something else that I only noticed today: Slughorn says that if
the body is destroyed *part* of the soul remains undamaged and
Earthbound. I think the implication is that the part encased in the
horcrux(es) remains, the part that was in the body is sent on. This is
enough to keep the bodiless and apparently weakened spirit Earthbound
too. This suggests that unless one of his soul fragments is embedded
in Harry's scar all of the fragments in LV's body that night at GH
have been sent through the veil. It kind of implies that LV's
regenerated body has no soul inside it, doesn't it? He appears to be
running on the soul bits in his scattered (or not) horcruxes. 

That leads to another question. How could LV's soulless body have
created any horcruxes at the Riddle place in Harry's 5th year or at
any time since then? The answer appears to be that he could not, he
would seem to have no soul in either his babyMort or regenerated body
from which to create them. I don't know if Carol will buy the
reasoning that leads to this conclusion but it seals the deal on her
Nagini/horcrux belief. IF Nagini is a horcrux, she must have been a
horcrux before GH.

It seems to me that there is a huge mistake here. Either Slughorn is
wrong when he says only the horcruxed part(s) of the soul remains
behind, DD is wrong about LV being able to make a horcrux from Frank
Bryce's death, or JKR did not see the implication of the words she put
into Slughorn's mouth. If Slughorn is wrong then you must have to kill
all of the soul bits at once to kill LV or Karen's theory above is
correct, which gets us to pretty much the same result. I rather like
Karen's theory, I think it has a nice symmetry to it. But if it were
true with two, possibly three, horcruxes destroyed LV should be
starting to look less reptilian by now and he is not. It would also
contradict DD's statement above that LV's soul is damaged beyond repair.

I can believe that JKR missed this implication and if she did it will
spoil her conclusion somewhat for me, I expect. That is, it will
unless one of you can explain how LV's new body can have a resident
soul fragment. I suppose he could have pulled one from a horcrux, that
would make Harry's job easier except he would not know that one more
was accounted for. Perhaps Hermione will figure that out for him.

However we know that DD made one mistake in his Frank/Nagini/horcrux
theory: It was LV not Nagini that killed Frank. Here we have a second
possible mistake. It is looking more and more like DD was trying to
plant some inconsistencies in Harry's mind to give him the clues to
figure out that he is a horcrux too. Having partially regained Carol's
respect by finding a way to confirm her Nagini theory I now put myself
beyond the Pale again.

Ken







Julie:
The thing that confuses me is, if the soul bits that have already been
released
from the Diary and the Ring horcruxes are floating around beyond the Veil,
then why didn't the part of Voldemort's soul that didn't die with his
body at
Godric's Hollow end up beyond the Veil too? Why did it remain
earthbound, but
the other released pieces didn't? Is it because it is the "primary" soul
piece
only that will remain earthbound? (Though how does the primary soul piece
*know* it is the primary one?)

Or could both the now released soul bits also be earthbound? Or caught
somewhere "in limbo"--not earthbound where Voldemort could access
them and re-encase them, but not able to go beyond the Veil until all
the soul bits are released and can be rejoined, only then going beyond the
Veil? Then again, can those soul pieces *be* rejoined into a whole (albeit
damaged) soul, or would they just stick to each other as if magnetized
but not able to actually reform into a single entity?

Julie, making herself more confused, which is not difficult when it comes
to this very vaguely explained (so far) subject!







From aida_costa at hotmail.com  Fri Aug 25 17:21:49 2006
From: aida_costa at hotmail.com (Aida Costa)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:21:49 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecn14n+6hkh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecnbjd+oicr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157446

Pippin wrote:

<huge snip>

>I notice he's [Lupin] not on JKR's A-list for dinner companions any
>more. And it can't be because he's going to be dead. <g>


Huh?  Did I miss something in one of her interviews?

Aida










From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Aug 25 18:26:00 2006
From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:26:00 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose
In-Reply-To: <ecnata+l85j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecnfbo+q8kn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157447

Carodave:

That's alot of broken noses.  I had forgotten some of them.  I think Dr
Carole is on to something here.  All those broken noses must be more
than a coincidence...maybe they are a predictor...of death  maybe, at
least of someone who will be very involved in the final battle. Because
I am sure that Neville is instrumental in Book 7...)

Tinktonks:

I like this thread very much. And I particularly want nose breaking to
be a predictor of Death as Dumbledore's nose looks like it has been
broken at least twice, which would mean he would have to die at least
twice and will come back with a phoenix like rebirth!!

Tinktonks (LONG LIVE DUMBLEDORE!!! The barmy old codger!)










From sydpad at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 21:19:19 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:19:19 -0000
Subject: JKR's Books list, and ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ecmnhl+kk49@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecnpgn+6v1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157448

--Sydney:
> > Final note-- dude, it's a bit rich for her to be cautioning the
> > kiddies against falling for Bad Boys, and then putting "Wuthering
> > Heights" at the top of her list for impressionable young minds. 

> Dungrollin:
> I suspect that if ACID POPS or LOLLIPOPS end up as canon, Heathcliff 
> will be unceremoniously turfed off his throne by a strong new 
> contender for 'Most Troubled Romantic Lead (Male)' at the next Annual 
> BookWorld Awards (Bookies).


Sydney:
Hee!  I have to say I prefer ACID POPS for fanfic, because it's just
so hot... I mean, icily beautiful aristocratic married woman,
friendless and alone... chip-on-shoulder lower-class Northern lad made
good with roiling passions.. somebody hand me a fan!  *fans self*  

Sooo much hotter than Dead Perfect Lily and the whole Victorian
Madonna on a Pedestal inspiring the sinner to goodness.. sigh.  But
hey!  We're about *melodrama* around here, not hotness, so I better
get back on the wagon. I think Snape is more Sydney Carton than
Heathcliff (I've posted this before, but what the heck I'll do it
again-- could Carton BE more Snapey than in the original
illustrations:   
http://www.victorianweb.org/art/illustration/phiz/2b.html ), being
generally a more inscrutable and oblique character, and one whose arc
with the hero, IMO, goes upwards.

Out of interest, I'm trying to make out the titles on the bookshelf in
her author picture on HBP.  Of interest I see:

"The Well of Loneliness", a lesbian coming-of-age story, so at least
we can say she's no homophobe...

A big book labelled "Freud"

Jane Austen's letters, natch,

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, also natch (one of the few
other examples I can think of where the story tries to mature along
with the protagonist)

Something by Trollope, which looks like "The Way We Live Now", which
if she got through it I take my hat off.  Goes to the whole
'corruption of society' thing.

Can anybody make anything else out?

-- Sydney, squinting





  






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Fri Aug 25 23:22:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 23:22:37 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <266.eab4e1e.321fbd6e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <eco0nt+a8ra@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157449

--- juli17 at ... wrote:

> Julie:
> The thing that confuses me is, if the soul bits that 
> have already been released from the Diary and the 
> Ring horcruxes are floating around beyond the Veil,
> then why didn't the part of Voldemort's soul that 
> didn't die with his body at Godric's Hollow end up 
> beyond the Veil too? 

bboyminn:

When ever you encounter a bit of the story that's 
confusing do what I do, make up and explanation that's 
not confusing.

Some are speculating that the Soul-Bit move behind the 
Veil when they are released. Of course, 'behind the Veil' 
is figurative, the implication is that they have moved 
on to the afterlife. However, I think that is a false 
assumption.

Voldemort's Core-Soul remains earthbound, anchored by 
the Soul-Bits. Logically, the Soul-Bits are equally earth-
bound anchored by the /other/ Soul-Bit and by the Core-
Soul. The Soul does want to remain in one piece, or if 
not one piece then at least all together. So, no part 
of the Soul can or will leave this earthly life unless 
the rest of the Soul come with.

So, I speculate that those free Soul-Bits are indeed 
still on the earth, BUT they are no longer tied to a 
corporeal form; tied neither to body nor object. Because 
they are generally free, even if not specifically free to 
leave the earth, they do not count in Voldemort's Horcrux 
protection. They are Soul-Bit that are prevented from 
crossing over, they are generally earthbound by the other 
Horcruxes, but they are not specifically and personally 
anchored to the earth by a physical form. 

As far as Dementors, I don't think any of us can say for 
sure what happens to a soul that is 'sucked' by a Dementor. 
Is it consumed? Is it destroyed? Does it remain trapped in 
the Dementor, so the Dementor can feed of its torment? If 
it remain in the Dementor, is it tied to the earth by being 
encased in a physical form: the Dementor? I don't think we 
can actually say for sure. First of all, can we consider the 
Dementor a 'physical form'? I don't know. 

But with respect to the soul-bits, were they are is somewhat
irrelavant. The fact they they are no longer tied to a 
physical form means they no longer act as Horcruxes, even if
by some chance they must still remain on earth until Voldemort
finally dies.

It could be, as I said, before that there existance still 
counts toward the Seven. Voldemort doesn't seem to be 
replacing them. So specifically toward the lucky number Seven, 
they still exist even if they no longer exist as Horcruxes. 
Pure speculation, of course.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sat Aug 26 00:44:00 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:44:00 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <eco0nt+a8ra@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eco5gg+10b74@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157450

bboyminn:

> Voldemort's Core-Soul remains earthbound, anchored by 
> the Soul-Bits. Logically, the Soul-Bits are equally earth-
> bound anchored by the /other/ Soul-Bit and by the Core-
> Soul. The Soul does want to remain in one piece, or if 
> not one piece then at least all together. So, no part 
> of the Soul can or will leave this earthly life unless 
> the rest of the Soul come with.

Ceridwen:
I'm taking just this part because it gave me ideas.  What if Harry 
doesn't have to do anything more to vanquish LV than release all six 
soul bits?  I think the soul bits will want to move on to wherever 
souls are at home without their bodies.  It's perfectly possible that 
they can only go so far, like the ghosts, while another, heavier, 
piece of soul or pieces of soul, hold them back.

Since LV split his soul into seven pieces, equal or not, and removed 
six of them, maybe this is a real danger to the core soul piece still 
inside, or still being, LV.  As pieces of soul are removed, the core 
soul gets 'lighter'.  But, since there are anchors in the forms of 
other soul bits encased in objects (I see them as something like tent 
pegs), the core soul remains anchored or bound to the earth.

In this idea, each soul piece that is liberated from its container 
will try to find a home.  A nearby warm body would do, but the 
perfect place for a bodiless soul is the Afterlife, and this is where 
the soul bits will want to go.  They can't get there in pieces, but 
as each soul bit is freed, it joins the others which are already 
free, tugging at the core soul delicately to try and get it to join 
them.  A body's fine temporarily, but that isn't a soul's final home.

So, maybe all that needs to be done is for Harry to release the six 
soul bits from their containers, and the sheer weight of six against 
one will pull the core soul from LV and, as a whole entity again, his 
soul will pass beyond the veil.  This will leave a body for people to 
examine and to see, to prove beyond any doubt that LV is dead, and 
which will be laid to rest, to the closure of the entire WW.

Ceridwen, speculating.







From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug 26 01:04:42 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:04:42 -0000
Subject: Achilles heel and wizard's nose (list so far)
In-Reply-To: <ecn3aj+mch7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eco6na+1076s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157451

> > Eddie:
> > Also, Mad-Eye Moody's nose has several chunks taken out of it.  
> > If he dies in HP7 then I'd see that as confirmation of your 
> > theory!
> > 
> > Who else has nose damage?
> >
>  bridge13219:
> Ludo Bagman was mentioned as looking like his nose had been broken 
in 
> GoF (I'm in the middle of reading in again for the ?th time).  But I 
> had assumed he was out of the story as he is on the run from some 
> goblins.
>
aussie:
nose victims so far:

Sirius Black (deceased)
Dumbledore (deceased)
Ludo Bagman (Message 155478 showed he may have been the big un-named 
DE defending the Tower)
Draco Malfoy
Mad-Eyed Moody
Viktor Krum
Neville Longbottom

Maybe:
Harry
Zacharias Smith (Ginny's Hex victim)









From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 01:16:36 2006
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:16:36 -0000
Subject: JKR's Books list, and ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ecnpgn+6v1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eco7dk+ea6f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157452

> Sydney:
>SNIP> 
> Out of interest, I'm trying to make out the titles on the 
bookshelf in her author picture on HBP.  Of interest I see:
> "The Well of Loneliness", a lesbian coming-of-age story, so at 
least we can say she's no homophobe...
> 
> A big book labelled "Freud"
> 
> Jane Austen's letters, natch,
> 
> Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, also natch (one of the few
> other examples I can think of where the story tries to mature along
> with the protagonist)
> 
> Something by Trollope, which looks like "The Way We Live Now", 
which if she got through it I take my hat off.  Goes to the whole
> 'corruption of society' thing.
> 
> Can anybody make anything else out?
> 
> -- Sydney, squinting
>
hpfan_mom now:

And of course there are the books on the shelf at the Links page on 
her website.  Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Emma . . . 
two (identical?) Dorothy Sayers books . . . and a bunch of books 
which only exist in the Potterverse.

hpfan_mom






From iam.kemper at gmail.com  Sat Aug 26 01:30:13 2006
From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:30:13 -0700
Subject: Voldemort: to eliminate or not to eliminate Snape
Message-ID: <700201d40608251830t600120c8ucc788912e53812e3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157453

> bboyminn:
>
>  ...
> ..., regarding Voldemort's strategic and tactical planning.
> I think Voldemort suffers from the same problem that all
> megalomaniacal evil overlords suffer from; an absolute
> unshakeable belief in his own infalability. ...
>
> ...
>
> ... when you work for an evil overlord megalomanic like
> Voldemort, there is no room for individual thinking. You do
> exactly what he said, so you can't be blamed personally when
> it all goes wrong. Even if along the way, you see a better way
> of accomplishing your goal, the safe choice is to just stick
> to the plan.
>
> Partly you don't express superior ideas because that threatens
> Voldemort's power. If for one small moment he thinks you are
> smarter or more capable than him, he will kill you to eliminate
> the competition. ...
> 


Kemper now:

So where does this leave Snape?

Voldemort feared Dumbledore.  Snape killed Dumbldore.
Yes, Dumbledore was wandless and weak.  But did the DE's on the tower
believe Dumbledore to be weak or that he was wandless?  (Seriously.
I'm not being rhetorical, I'm at work and HBPless.)  IIRC, I think the
DE's believed him to be wandless.

Dumbledore's easy conversation and the lack of fear in his voice with
the DE's and Draco may have left all the baddies on the tower with the
impression that he was, in fact, strong though without wand. "Good
work, Draco."  or something like that from some DE.

Dumbledore's seemingly wandless strength would get back to Voldemort
through verbal or Legilimens debriefing.  So what will Voldemort do
with that?  Allow him to live and be the one who bested Voldemort's
feared foe?

Perhaps Snape's anger towards Harry calling him a coward has nothing
to do with saving Harry and Draco by killing Dumbledore.  Rather, the
anger could be because he risks being killed by Voldemort in order to
help Harry vanquish the Dark Lord.

But Snape is slick.  Maybe his slippery words will sooth Voldemort's
mega-ego enough to slither away... to become the asp to Voldemort's
breast.  (Ship that!)

Kemper



From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 01:42:15 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 01:42:15 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <ecne9q+bsch@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <eco8tn+109a6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157454

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote:
> > Karen F here---
> > 
> > Could it be that when bits of soul are released from their
> > encasement they aren't actually destroyed at all but return
> > back to their original source? Could it be that once all the   
> > bits are back where they came from, the original owner of the 
> > soul bits can then be truly  mortal again? Will we maybe 
> > start to see Voldemort start to return to an aged Tom Riddle
> > in appearance?

Mike:
I'd like to postulate a slight variation. I, too, think that all the 
soul bits are trying to return to the *spiritual* home base, or the 
main/primary soul piece, if you prefer. The variation: by seperating 
the soul bits and forcing them to exist away from home, these bits 
can no longer be reincorporated to form a complete soul. 

I analogize this to cutting up a magnet then trying to put it back 
together. First, you lose something in the cutting. Then, each piece 
becomes it's own magnet with both poles, but much weaker than the 
original and the original is diminished. Finally, the magnet pieces 
are attracted to each other, but they will never be one whole magnet 
again, and will never regain their original strength/capacity.
 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> There is a tradition that humans are three-part (we are created in
> God's image) as is the God of Abraham. People often speak of "body,
> soul, and spirit". The body is the obvious physical container of 
> the other two. The soul is our eternal essence. The spirit? To me 
> it is our conscious self. Voldemort and Slughorn seem to confirm 
> this view in the Horcruxes chapter of HBP (p 497, US HB):
> 
> ******************************************
> <snipping the canon>
> ******************************************
> 
> Notice that body, soul, and spirit are all mentioned above. Later 
> on DD says "Never forget, though, that while his soul may be 
> damaged beyond repair, his brain and his magical powers remain 
> intact" (p 509). DD can't mean his physical brain since that is 
> long gone, he must mean his intellect which along with his magical 
> powers must be part of LV's spirit. I take this all to mean that 
> while his physical body may be destroyed (and regenerated) LV's 
> spirit remains active in the world as long as part of his soul 
> remains in the world.
>
> Notice something else that I only noticed today: Slughorn says 
> that if the body is destroyed *part* of the soul remains undamaged 
> and Earthbound. I think the implication is that the part encased 
> in the horcrux(es) remains, the part that was in the body is sent 
> on. This is enough to keep the bodiless and apparently weakened 
> spirit Earthbound too. This suggests that unless one of his soul 
> fragments is embedded in Harry's scar all of the fragments in LV's 
> body that night at GH have been sent through the veil. It kind of 
> implies that LV's regenerated body has no soul inside it, doesn't 
> it? He appears to be running on the soul bits in his scattered 
> (or not) horcruxes. <snip>

Mike:
Man, I really like this theory. It makes a lot of sense to me!! If I 
could add my analogy from above, the soul is like the magnet that 
binds the spirit to the body. When the AK rebounded onto LV, his 
body was destroyed. To be fair, his soul and spirit could still be 
together, but it plays better if the connection between his soul and 
spirit was severed. Either you believe this soul piece went into 
Harry (like I do) or that soul piece was lost to this world. I have 
my opinion, but all of these work as consequences of the rebounded 
AK and none of them violate canon, IMO.

This magnet has it's own qualities, it is not simply glue for 
holding the spirit and body together. As Lupin told Harry in PoA, 
responding to Harry's question regarding 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 anymore, 
no memory, no ... anything. There's no chance of recovery. You'll 
just -- exist. As an empty shell.
***********************************************************

Now Lupin is prone to hyperbole, but if the soul is the magnet, then 
removing it from the body would also disengage the spirit. This 
would leave the body with no intellect, as well as no sense of self 
nor memories. Either the spirit remains attached to the soul or, 
barring any seperated, earthbound soul bits, the spirit departs this 
world.

Horcruxes seem to embody not only a truncated "sense of self" but 
also seems to contain some intellect, some of the spirit. So when LV 
lost his body at GH, he was "less than spirit, less than the meanest 
ghost". It appears that parts of his spirit were also torn away and 
included in the Horcruxes. Notice he was not only less than the 
meanest ghost, he was also less than spirit.


> Ken again:
> 
> unless one of you can explain how LV's new body can have a resident
> soul fragment. I suppose he could have pulled one from a horcrux, 
> that would make Harry's job easier except he would not know that 
> one more was accounted for. Perhaps Hermione will figure that out 
> for him.

Mike again:
Exactly. Why did Voldemort's spirit go to Albania? Granted, there 
probably weren't a lot of aurors there, but there weren't any DEs to 
help him there either. What was in Albania that he needed? How about 
one of his Horcruxes. If he could just get one of his DEs to come to 
rescue him, he could instruct him/her on how to make a rudimentary 
body, but he needed a piece of soul to bind his spirit to that body. 
We all know the rest of that story.

Maybe that particular Horcrux was well hidden, but not protected by 
the kind of defences the ring or the locket had. He knew where and 
wouldn't have a problem retreiving it. Can you imagine Vapormort 
trying to retreive the locket Horcrux from the cave? Or trying to 
get a DE to do it in a way that would still leave him/her functional 
to perform the magic he needed afterward? And DD almost died trying 
to retrieve the ring. What chance did anyone but LV have at 
retrieving either of these two? Besides, hanging around Britain in 
his Vapormort state must not have looked too appealing to him.

> Ken again:
> However we know that DD made one mistake in his 
> Frank/Nagini/horcrux theory: It was LV not Nagini that killed 
> Frank. Here we have a second possible mistake. It is looking more 
> and more like DD was trying to plant some inconsistencies in 
> Harry's mind to give him the clues to figure out that he is a
> horcrux too. Having partially regained Carol's respect by finding 
> a way to confirm her Nagini theory I now put myself beyond the 
> Pale again.

Mike:
I agree with you, but let's leave it here, shall we? Not much sense 
in getting Carol mad at us. <g>







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug 26 02:08:16 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:08:16 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <eclnoc+6nre@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecoaeg+qt70@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157455

Tonks_op wrote:
> As to the barman. I hate to put a damper on such an interesting idea 
> as Aberforth currently being a goat, but the quote by Sirius implies 
> that the bar man is currently the same one as 20 years ago. So 
> unless the bartender is a goat, I think that Aberforth was not 
> transformed.

Abergoat writes:
Ah, but we are in a pickle because I agree that Sirius states (I'll go
with something stronger than implies) that Mundungus needs to wear an
invisibility cloak or a dress to hide from the barman that banned him
because of the barman's long memory. But here is the pickle: This
statement doesn't fit with Mundungus talking with the same barman in
the street not in disguise. 

Did the barman give up the 20 year ban? Sure it can be said that it
was all for show, but I think that is rather weak - why wouldn't
Sirius have known? Twenty years is a long time to keep up an act and
Sirius was a member of both Orders. The street is a public place - why
risk 20 years of subterfuge? Why not wear a disguise just in case?
Still stranger, Sirius has MET Aberforth but avoids talking about
Albus's brother when he talks about this ban - very odd, but we've
seen Sirius do this type of thing before. Think Belletrix.

Sirius is artful at dodging uncomfortable truths, Belletrix is the
perfect example. Sirius made a reference in GoF to the 'Lestrange
couple' becoming Death Eaters. He chose to overlook the inconvenient
fact that the female member of said couple was Sirius's own cousin and
Harry didn't know that. Albus's brother as a goat would be an
uncomfortable truth, one that people might delicately avoid
discussing. Because everyone thinks it is Aberforth's fault, not
Voldemort's (Albus excepted).

I think Sirius's words are a deliberate clue that the HBP barman not
the same barman that banned Mundungus. Sirius's words fit the goat
theory better, Mundungus is still hiding from a barman with a long
memory...who just happens to be a goat and lives at the Hog's Head
bar. And Sirius knows this. Mundungus isn't hiding from a goat, he is
hiding from a man trapped in goat form so Sirius is truthful saying
that Mundungus is hiding from a barman, if the theory is true... From
the smell we can guess goats have the run of the place - or at least
one particular goat does. So when Mundungus is OUTSIDE the bar he
doesn't need a disguise, explaining lack of desguise during the street
meeting perfectly.

Tonks_op wrote:
> Another reason for this is that the barman only caught the 
> eavesdropper.  The eavesdropper was there and heard far more than 
> the barman did. 

Abergoat asks:
Do we know that? The only reason we know that Aberforth (and yes, I
think that barman was Aberforth) was there is because of Trelawney -
and she saw both Snape and Aberforth. For all we know they arrived
together and the bickering started because of what they overheard. I
suspect that Aberforth heard as much of the prophecy as Snape did (for
another theory on the reason Snape told Voldemort the prophecy) but it
isn't necessary here. Even if Aberforth heard nothing I still think
Voldemort would want to legilimens him because he was there when the
prophecy ended and visually saw the participants.

Tonks_op wrote:
> It would make sense for LV to assume that Snape 
> heard all that could be heard and that the barman only caught him 
> with his ear to the door.  This doesn't imply that the barman heard 
> anything.  So I don't see any reason for LV to come after the barman 
> at all.

Abergoat asks:
But why wouldn't Voldemort want confirmation of Snape's story?
Voldemort is a careful man. If he really did think the prophecy was
important I imagine he wanted all the information he could get even if
it was only to verify what Snape heard or the conditions under which
Snape heard it.  We even see this with Wormtail at Spinner's End.
Voldemort is most likely 'checking' the loyalty of someone that is
supposedly loyal. Voldemort trusts no one. I'm sure he would have
wanted to make sure Aberforth's story matched with Snape's even if it
was just how Dumbledore and Trelawney looked at the end.

Tonks_op wrote:
> I am sure that Albus Dumbledore was the man on the tower. And he is 
> really dead. 

Abergoat writes:
Sadly, I have to confess to highjacking some other poster's topic. I
believe Albus Dumbledore died on the tower (or at the very least when
he hit the ground). But the whole goat theory owes its origins to
someone else's speculation that Fawkes is Aberforth. I didn't buy that
either but it made me think about other possibilities and the goat
idea came out of it. I'm just thrilled about how the 'goat theory'
tidies up Aberforth's story.

Sorry for the long post - normally people ignore the goat idea so I'm
taking advantage... ;)

Abergoat








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug 26 02:20:38 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:20:38 -0000
Subject: JKR's Books list, and ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ecnpgn+6v1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecob5m+vb0n@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157456

Sydney wrote:
> Hee!  I have to say I prefer ACID POPS for fanfic, because it's just
> so hot... I mean, icily beautiful aristocratic married woman,
> friendless and alone... chip-on-shoulder lower-class Northern lad 
> made good with roiling passions.. somebody hand me a fan!  *fans 
> self*  

Abergoat writes:
I have absolutely no idea what ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS is but your
post above was a side-splitter! If you prefer Snape attracted to
Narcissa (although I, like you, seriously doubt he will do anything
about it, these are children's books as you say. Not to mention
Narcissa would never go for it. Well, perhaps if Snape defeated
Voldemort and everyone began calling him the greatest wizard alive and
started showering money on him...but I digress.) Where was I? Ah, yes.
If you prefer Snape attracted to Narcissa rather than Snape attracted
to Lily, count me in!

I've heard the Sydney Carton reference before...I vaguely recall a
Lucy. Would you refresh my memory?

Abergoat







From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sat Aug 26 02:29:24 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:29:24 -0000
Subject: Voldemort: to eliminate or not to eliminate Snape
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608251830t600120c8ucc788912e53812e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecobm4+a4c2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157457


Kemper wrote:
> Dumbledore's seemingly wandless strength would get back to Voldemort
> through verbal or Legilimens debriefing.  So what will Voldemort do
> with that?  Allow him to live and be the one who bested Voldemort's
> feared foe?

Abergoat wrotes:
Fun thread! I suspect that Voldemort cannot have people talking about
'powerful Snape' but I believe there is one thing that will keep Snape
alive - Harry being alive. When Harry dies (or loses his hatred for
Snape) then Snape's days are numbered. 

I suspect Voldemort needs Harry wallowing in hate, so he needs Snape
alive. It is far more important that Voldemort personally handle Harry
than anyone else - Snape or Dumbledore. The pip-squeak as defied him
so many times it has become a major embarrassment...and even Rufus is
talking about the 'chosen one'. 

Which nicely explains why Voldemort didn't have Death Eaters kill
Harry. Voldemort must do that himself. So if Snape keeps Harry alive
then he himself remains alive.

Abergoat








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 02:54:43 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:54:43 -0000
Subject: JKR's Books list, and ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ecob5m+vb0n@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecod5j+qu58@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157458


> Abergoat writes:
> I have absolutely no idea what ACID POPS vs. LOLLIPOPS is but your
> post above was a side-splitter!

zgirnius:
It is an entertaining custom on this list to give one's theories 
acronymic names. 
ACID POPS: Alas, Cissy is Despondent. Perhaps Old Pal Severus? 
LOLLIPOPS: Love of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus

A list of such acronyms may be found at "Inish Alley" in the Database 
links.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=28.

(Gee, I JUST got the pun, now I feel slow...Inish Alley. Tee hee.)

Abergoat:
> I've heard the Sydney Carton reference before...I vaguely recall a
> Lucy. Would you refresh my memory?

zgirnius: 
Yes, Lucy is the right association. They are characters from Charles' 
Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities".
SPOILER WARNING for that classic novel, a favorite of mine:
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
Lucy loves and marries Charles Darnay. She is pretty, caring, 
fiednly, and just all around way too perfect (my opinion). Sydney 
Carton, whose client and friend Darnay is, also loves her, but is 
beneath her socially, economically, and also because he drinks too 
much and is somewhat disreputable as a consequence. She is friendly 
to him. (I have seen it suggested Snape's unpleasant manner is the 
modern-day equivalent of this fault of Carton's, possibly by Sydney 
in the earlier post she mentions).

Anyway, Carton happens to be the spitting image of Darnay physically, 
so when Darnay is arrested in Paris during the Terror (he is a 
Frenchman of aristocratic lineage), and less drastic means of 
obtaining his release fail, Carton takes his place in prison (and 
thus on the guillotine) to assure Lucy's happiness. MAJOR tearjerker.

Lily is, of course, dead, so the story of Snape is bound to be 
different in some particulars. However, I was really struck by the 
comparison and it is yet another reason I am picking up a box of 
Kleenex on my way to the local Barnes and Noble next summer.









From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Sat Aug 26 02:58:09 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:58:09 -0000
Subject: Why did Snape take the UV? / Role of the Malfoys
In-Reply-To: <eclf05+da86@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecodc1+esmm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157459

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp@> wrote:
> >
> > > Neri:
> > > [... lots of excellent logical reasoning snipped ...]
> > > I'd say it's pretty obvious that D has something against both N and 
> > > S. Something that must have occurred lately. 
> > 
> > Eddie:
> > Unless Voldemort -- er, person V, aka V-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named, aka
> > VHSNBN -- ordered Draco to keep it to himself, otherwise V would kill D.
> > 
> > Eddie
> >
> Carol responds:
> LOL, Eddie! But also, lest we forget, Draco (I mean, person D) is
> sixteen, and that last thing a sixteen-year-old boy wants is help from
> his mother, especially on an important mission that he thinks marks
> him as a man. He doesn't want his father-figure Head of House
> interfering, either, IMO, for more complex reasons that I've indicated
> in another post. "It's my job. He gave it to *me,*" Draco tells Snape
> in "the Unbreakable Vow." 
> 
> He rejects "interference" both from his mother and from his former
> favorite teacher *before* person V starts putting the pressure on and
> threatening him with death if he fails. And by that time, it's too
> late to ask for help. "No one can help me," he tells Moaning Myrtle
> when he's crying in the bathroom some four or five months after Snape
> tries to talk to him. 
> 
> What Snape would or could have have done if Draco had asked him for
> help, we can only guess. But it's quite possible that by the time
> Snape saves Draco's life, LV has made it clear that Snape must not
> know what  Draco is trying to do with the Vanishing Cabinets. Either
> that or Bellatrix has succeeded in convincing Draco that Snape is not
> to be trusted. Otherwise, surely, Draco would have gone to the teacher
> he has always trusted, the man who saved him from bleeding to death,
> even at the (supposed) cost of having his "glory" stolen--a delusion
> Draco clings to even on the tower.
> 
> None of this has anything to do with Snape and Narcissa having an
> illicit romantic attachment, or surely Draco would have confronted
> Snape with an accusation. 

Ken:

I think Carol has given a plausible reason for D's distance from S 
and N. However Neri could be right even if there is no S/N romance.
Every time Voldemort's Amazing Band Of Screw-Ups lives up to its 
billing S seems to profit by it. S probably has not been diplomatic
about L's fate when discussing it with D. D idolizes his father, this 
would be all it would take to make him angry with S.

As for N, well don't ask me how I know but wives can be unsympathetic
with husbands who have been hoist with their own petards. Again, D 
would not take this well. None of this precludes a S/N romance, it just
says that one is not necessary to produce the behaviour we see. I'd not
be surprised either way.

As for LV, if he really means to rule the world he should consider hiring
a better class of minion.

Ken







From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Sat Aug 26 04:36:25 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:36:25 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Top Children's Books list
In-Reply-To: <ecmjsb+m37h@eGroups.com>
References: <ecmjsb+m37h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1739442515.20060825213625@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157460

<<Book List snipped>>

What??  She lists Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, and Orwell, but
*nothing* from her idol, Jane Austen???

-- 
Dave, shocked Janeite.




From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 04:44:58 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:44:58 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecnpgn+6v1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecojka+m4q5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157461

> Sydney:
> Hee!  I have to say I prefer ACID POPS for fanfic, because it's just
> so hot... I mean, icily beautiful aristocratic married woman,
> friendless and alone... chip-on-shoulder lower-class Northern lad made
> good with roiling passions.. somebody hand me a fan!  *fans self*  
> 
> Sooo much hotter than Dead Perfect Lily and the whole Victorian
> Madonna on a Pedestal inspiring the sinner to goodness.. sigh.  But
> hey!  We're about *melodrama* around here, not hotness, so I better
> get back on the wagon. <snip>

Neri:
Well, I can tell you that if before HBP someone would have told me
that JKR will write lines like "His black eyes were fixed upon
Narcissa's tear-filled blue ones" or "her face close to his, her tears
falling on his chest, she gasped
" or "she slid off the sofa into a
kneeling position at Snape's feet, seized his hand and pressed her
lips to it" I would have told that someone that he/she had read too
much fanfic. Too much *bad* fanfic.

Also, while many of us did predict that Dumbledore will die in HBP,
how many of us even considered seriously that Snape will AK him off
the highest tower in Hogwarts? If someone had predicted that before
HBP, would you not have told him that he had read too many anti-Snape
fanfics? I would. But there you have it. Not often, but from time to
time JKR beats the fanfiction writers in their own game.

However, here I'll have to dissapoint Sydney and Dungrollin: I'm
afraid that I don't predict many sizzling ACID POPS moments in Book 7.
Simply put, Snape and Narcissa aren't that important to JKR, and their
romance must not distract us from the main storyline. It's more likely
that their SHIP will be like the Lupin/Tonks SHIP or the Merope/Tom
SHIP (both of which have fanfic potential too). That is, the most we
get will be rare ACID POPS flashes here and there where they help to
propel the main plot, and we'll have to use our sick imagination to
fill in all the rest. If, as I suspect, the main melodrama between
Snape and Harry will be about James (tons of foreshadowing and buildup
throughout the series) then either LOLLIPOPS or ACID POPS would be
redundant as melodrama generators. In that case ACID POPS would have
the advantage over LOLLIPOPS that she's much more compact and modular,
easy to fit into any kind of plot. If JKR merely requires a thematic
tragic flaw to trigger Snape's tragic fall, then ACID POPS is perfect,
and it can also be made to generate almost any Malfoy family subplot
that JKR might need to serve the main plot of Book 7. So overall I
won't even be very surprised if we have already seen the hottest ACID
POPS moment of the series in Spinner's End, and I note that at least
it's considerably hotter than Lupin and Tonks holding hands in a
funeral.  


> 
> Magpie:
> <snip> When this subject comes up in canon Draco 
> says "nobody can help me," not "Snape and Narcissa could help me, if 
> only there wasn't sexual tension between them that makes me angry at 
> them."  
> 

Neri:
Yes, well, that would kind of give things away, don't you think? But
you have to see that "nobody can help me" is totally OOC for Draco.
This is the kid who is used to get everything he wants and needs from
his parents and Snape. Special treatment at school, expensive race
brooms, a place in the Quidditch team, revenge on the hippogriff who
attacked him, protection against Potter and his gang. Draco believes
it is his birthright to get all these. So just when he's desperate and
needs the most help from his mother and Snape, Draco suddenly decides
it's the time for independence? There should be some reason for this
sudden change besides hormones.

> Magpie:
> The character starts out feeling that it's important 
> for him to do this and prove himself, and winds up paranoid and 
> isolated with two almost-murders on his conscience.  Neither of 
> those attitudes lend themselves to him going to Narcissa or Snape to 
> make things right.  The almost-murders themselves, imo, have far 
> more power to make him turn away from these two than any vague 
> problems connected to Snape/Narcissa I can imagine.
> 

Neri:
Not from Draco's PoV. From Draco's PoV Snape is a DE who would have no
qualms about killing Dumbledore to "steal Draco's glory", and Narcissa
is the one who told Harry in public that he doesn't have much time
left. It is also quite possible that Draco had heard something about
his mother's part in the Kreacher plot and death of Sirius. Draco has
no reason to be ashamed of Snape or his mother that he had almost
killed a blood-traitor like Ron Weasley and a Gryffindor girl like
Katie Bell. At most he should be ashamed that he had botched the killings.


> Magpie:
> And since this part was snipped, how does more insight and less 
> contempt for the teenager psych translates into the idea that Draco 
> didn't go to Narcissa and Snape because he thinks Snape likes his 
> mother?  Finding fault with the story as written doesn't support 
> this other storyline.  Draco isn't any smarter or less logical by 
> your definition in your story, he's not acting any less like an 
> adolescent cliche.  In fact, it makes his smaller, not bigger, imo, 
> all but shoving Draco aside in his own story for the real stars, 
> Snape and Narcissa.
> 

Neri:
In your version Draco's attitude towards his mother and Snape in HBP
is completely irrational. He was given a very difficult mission by the
Dark Lord, with a sentence of death on him and his family if he can't
complete it. He is offered considerable assistance from Narcissa and
Snape ? the first his own mother and the second someone he liked a lot
for five years. And yet even when he is desperate enough to cry in
bathrooms, even after Snape saves his life, Draco wouldn't trust him
for help (and apparently not his mother, because if he had told her
she would have told Snape). The fact that his father is also in mortal
peril if the mission fails only makes accepting Snape's help more
logical and more urgent. So in order to explain Draco's irrational
behavior here you must introduce the Teenage Irrationality Factor.
That is, you must assume that Draco being a teenager will make him
"want to do it himself" and "have problems with authority figures",
and generally act against his own interests even if it kills him and
his family. IOW you have to assume that an angsty teenager equals a
complete idiot. I don't see JKR falling for this clich?.

In my version Draco has a rational reason to mistrust both his mother
and Snape. He has a rational reason to suddenly have problems with
authority figures. He feels betrayed by the important adults in his
life. He's afraid that his mother and Snape have reasons of their own
in helping him, that they might be manipulating him. He suspects that
they are conspiring together against his father, who is in jail so
Draco can't contact him. Maybe he even has suspicions that they
somehow engineered his father being caught and jailed. Maybe he isn't
sure to whom he even wants to be loyal ? to his mother or to his
father. He is angry and jealous at Snape. In short, in this version
Draco is an angsty teenager with real, rational reasons to act like an
angsty teenager. We have just been told that Hamlet is one of JKR's
favorites readings. Don't you see the parallels?


Neri

--------------------------------------------------------------
ACID POPS references for new guys:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138593
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/138790
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139141








From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 04:56:04 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:56:04 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecoaeg+qt70@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecok94+mcbl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157462

> Abergoat writes:
> Ah, but we are in a pickle because I agree that Sirius states 
(snip) that Mundungus needs to wear an invisibility cloak or a dress 
to hide from the barman that banned him because of the barman's long 
memory. But here is the pickle: This statement doesn't fit with 
Mundungus talking with the same barman in the street not in 
disguise. 
> 

Tonks:
I think that there is a simple explanation for this. Mundungaus was 
banned from the bar. I don't know if we know the reason why. Anyway 
he is not allowed in the bar for some transgression. That doesn't 
mean that the barman can't have dealings with him outside the bar. 
It doesn't mean that the barman never wants to see him again or 
can't work with him on Order business. It just means that Dung can't 
go in the bar. Whatever he did it was bad for business, and he isn't 
going to be given the chance to do it again. 

Abergoat said:
>From the smell we can guess goats have the run of the place - or at 
least one particular goat does. So when Mundungus is OUTSIDE the bar 
he doesn't need a disguise, explaining lack of desguise during the 
street meeting perfectly.
> 

Tonks:
I have to admit that even if I don't agree, that I like this idea. 
;-) Maybe he only transforms on a full moon.

But seriously, I don't think that LV takes any prisoners, so to 
speak. If he wanted informantion he would get it and then kill the 
man. Course you could argue that DD came to his brother's aid and LV 
could do no more. If that is the case then LV will come after 
Alberforth again now that DD is dead. Or maybe not, since Harry is 
uppermost in his mind.

By the way, I love your name. I almost hope you are right.

Tonks_op









From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 07:12:31 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:12:31 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecojka+m4q5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecos8v+qqb5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157463

--- "Neri" <nkafkafi at ...> wrote:


> ...substantial editing...
> 
> Neri:
> In your version Draco's attitude towards his mother and 
> Snape in HBP is completely irrational. ... he is desperate 
> enough to cry in bathrooms, even after Snape saves his 
> life, Draco wouldn't trust him for help .... The fact that 
> his father is also in mortal peril if the mission fails 
> only makes accepting Snape's help more logical and more 
> urgent. So in order to explain Draco's irrational behavior 
> here you must introduce the Teenage Irrationality Factor.
> ...
> 
> In my version Draco has a rational reason to mistrust 
> both his mother and Snape. He has a rational reason to 
> suddenly have problems with authority figures. He feels 
> betrayed by the important adults in his life. He's afraid
> that his mother and Snape have reasons of their own
> in helping him, that they might be manipulating him. ...
> 
> 
> Neri


bboyminn:

I think you have both touched on aspects of the situation 
with Draco, but I also think you are both missing the most 
critical aspect - Secrecy.

When you swear an oath of loyalty to Voldemort and accept 
his brand, you are also swearing an oath of secrecy. It 
is not Draco's position to divulge any information to 
anyone other than those that Voldemort has assigned to 
assist Draco. You violate that secrecy on forfeit of your 
life.

Draco is playing with the big boys now, he is not keeping 
'schoolboy secrets' any more, these are high stakes life 
and death secrets. It is not Draco's position to tell 
Snape anything. It is not Draco's position to tell his
 mother anything. That task is left up to Voldemort. 

If Snape had come to Draco and said that he was under 
Voldemort's order to help Draco, then Draco would have 
had no choice but to gladly  spill his guts. But Snape 
never said that and neither did his mother. So Draco is 
stuck. If he fails, he dies. If he asks for help from 
the wrong person, he dies. If he gives away the 'secret', 
he dies. Not a lot of choices for poor old Draco.

Voldemort is forcing an impossible standard of adult 
behavior on to Draco, and Draco is not carrying the load 
well. Other more experienced DE's might have found a way
to ask for help. They may have understood that Voldemort's 
plans are not always the most rational, and sometimes, 
you need a little 'secret' help to pull them off. But 
Draco is taking it very serious and VERY VERY LITERAL, 
and he can't ask for help, because to do so would be a 
betrayal of Voldemort and an early death sentence 
probably for himself and for the rest of his family.

So under that circumstance, even factoring in the other 
aspect brought up by others, Draco simply can divulge 
the secret of his mission to anyone other than those 
specifically assigned to him by Voldemort.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug 26 07:28:21 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:28:21 -0000
Subject: Voldemort: to eliminate or not to eliminate Snape
In-Reply-To: <700201d40608251830t600120c8ucc788912e53812e3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecot6l+vee7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157464

> > bboyminn: <EDITTED>
> > ... when you work for an evil overlord megalomanic like
> > Voldemort, there is no room for individual thinking. You do
> > exactly what he said, so you can't be blamed personally when
> > it all goes wrong. Even if along the way, you see a better way
> > of accomplishing your goal, the safe choice is to just stick
> > to the plan.
> >
> > ...If for one small moment he thinks you are
> > smarter or more capable than him, he will kill you to eliminate
> > the competition. ...
> > 
> Kemper now:
> 
> So where does this leave Snape?
> Voldemort feared Dumbledore.  Snape killed Dumbldore.
> Dumbledore's seemingly wandless strength would get back to 
> Voldemort through verbal or Legilimens debriefing.  
> 
> But Snape is slick.  Maybe his slippery words will sooth 
> Voldemort's mega-ego enough to slither away... to become the 
> asp to Voldemort's breast.  

aussie:
Crucio Snape! - at the very least.

LV had plans beyond plans to deal with Draco after he'd torn his 
soul. The death of Dumbledore may not have been the ultimate 
objective of Draco's task. Snape may have foiled LV's plan.

If the 7th book starts with Snape meeting LV, that may be Snapes 
last chapter. But true, he may say he had no choice because of the 
UV, putting the blame on Bellatrix instead.

aussie






From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Sat Aug 26 08:05:08 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 08:05:08 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <ecn8ef+c196@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecovbk+22f1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157465

> Ken:
> I agree. My statement about the afterlife was only in regard to 
> how a horcrux would affect the eternal fate of its creator. I 
> should have been more clear about that. I don't think we have any 
> canon to support an opinion on the manner but since I support 
> those who are willing to speculate on the new canon that will 
> appear in book 7 I can hardly fault you for indulging in the 
> practice!
> 
> > Carol again:
> 
> > To return to the point, and to Ken's question, I think that a 
> > person who has created a Horcrux, like the victims of the 
> > Dementors, is denied access to the afterlife. The difference is 
> > that he's anchoring his own soul to the earth, permanently, he 
> > hopes, so that he can continue to live on earth forever (more of 
> > a cursed half-life, really, which is why most wizards, even 
> > murderers, don't try to create Horcruxes). 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> Of course we have no firm basis on which to say how
> Christian Rowling intends the Potterverse to be.
> 
> We all believe that Harry will succeed in sending LV's soul 
> piecemeal into the afterlife whether Harry survives the 
> experience or not. 
> 
> My question was about the eternal fate of the horcruxed once all 
> their separate soul bits are finally separated from the Earth and 
> reside in the afterlife. I suspect that it is different from those 
> who make the journey with whole souls or in the case of common 
> murderers with all the soul bits passing beyond at the same time. 
> Beyond that I suppose your speculation is as good as anyone's. I 
> would guess that book 7 will say something about the matter.

aussie: 
I doubt JKR will use Horry Potter as a platform to speak on 
Christian redemption, Politics, nor Homosexual Relationships.

They are too narrow and heated views with devisive appeal to too 
limited a target audience.

I am sure she would invite anyone wanting to use popular book series 
as a propaganda vehicle to start writing their own series. Just 
don't demand a different auther to adopt views important to you.

In canon, JKR has included ghosts, Inferius, the Mirror of Erised, 
and portraits with essence of the dead speaking to people. Some 
concepts may come from Greek mythology, but she invents a whole new 
World. A Wizarding World ... that those that call themselves witches 
and worlocks have little to do with. It is part of JKR's 
immagination and her reseach from other cultures' mythology.

One platform she may speak on is that of Amnesty International. Her 
emphasis on the descrimination from some purebloods is similar to 
the prejudice AI tries to overcome in some countries.

IMOO, God is not suprised by any man-made horcruxes or so 
called "Unforgiveable" acts. They are not something impossible from 
His original design. Whether a soul goes to the post-terrestrial 
life all at once or needing to be super-glued together does not 
alter His original order of things.

aussie






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 10:02:26 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 10:02:26 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecojka+m4q5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecp67i+f2em@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157466

Neri:
> Also, while many of us did predict that Dumbledore will die in HBP,
> how many of us even considered seriously that Snape will AK him off
> the highest tower in Hogwarts? If someone had predicted that before
> HBP, would you not have told him that he had read too many anti-Snape
> fanfics? 

Sydney:

-*raises hand*- I did.  Well, I didn't predict he'd blast him off the
tower, but was certain that Snape would be heavily implicated in
D-dore's death in some way, and blamed for it by Harry.  Because I
knew whatever happened Snape had to finish Book VI in a state of
maximum suspicion.  I confess Dumbledore having to beg Snape to kill
him never entered my head, and was waaaay cooler than anything I could
have come up with myself.

Neri:
> Not often, but from time to
> time JKR beats the fanfiction writers in their own game.

Sydney:

This is a bit beside your point, but I would just like to revel in the
fact that HBP was a *bonanza* for every Snape fan and Draco fan I used
to think were a bit over the top.  Snape for instance was so much
cooler than I ever had any idea JKR would let him be-- he's a crazy
potions genius!  he invents dozens of spells!  werewolves cower before
him!  He sits in a book-lined study sipping red wine and being
enigmatic!  And Draco got angst up the wazoo, which is what all Draco
fans seem to crave for him, so there you go.  I for one foresee the
last book as one big Snape fan candy shop.


Neri:
> However, here I'll have to dissapoint Sydney and Dungrollin: I'm
> afraid that I don't predict many sizzling ACID POPS moments in Book 7.
> Simply put, Snape and Narcissa aren't that important to JKR, and their
> romance must not distract us from the main storyline.

Sydney:

-*dryly*-  I'll try to endure my disappointment.  I could have told
you Snape and Narcissa weren't important to the main storyline myself,
obviously. Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the
whole shebang, at least theirs is the central relationship.  It's
absolutely amazing to me that you don't see that this is where the
whole potential energy of the story is balanced.  Everything that is
left about Snape has to be about Harry, tie back into Harry, affect
Harry emotionally in some major way, force some movement out of Harry.
 The two characters are tied togther. 

Neri:

>If, as I suspect, the main melodrama between
> Snape and Harry will be about James (tons of foreshadowing and buildup
> throughout the series) then either LOLLIPOPS or ACID POPS would be
> redundant as melodrama generators. In that case ACID POPS would have
> the advantage over LOLLIPOPS that she's much more compact and modular,
> easy to fit into any kind of plot. If JKR merely requires a thematic
> tragic flaw to trigger Snape's tragic fall, then ACID POPS is perfect,
> and it can also be made to generate almost any Malfoy family subplot
> that JKR might need to serve the main plot of Book 7. 

Sydney:

I honestly have no idea how you comprehend story.  Snape has millions
of flaws.  It's a character we already know quite well.  His downfall
already seems assured from every possible angle (though the birthday
cake suggests he'll live, I have no idea how JKR intends to dig him
out of this hole).  Introducing some overwhelming passion for Narcissa
at this stage-- a hitherto unsuspected character flaw--  would be
beyond weird.  It's not 'more compact' than Snape/Lily-- it's
extraneous to the main action of the books, so it's all dangly and
appendix-y.  And it's something she didn't even make explicit when she
could have, so as to provide the 'tragic flaw catalyst' for the reader
that you mention.  Now it would just be one more piece of exposition
that Harry couldn't give a rat's ass about.  

Surely what we don't know about Snape is something Harry should *care*
about?  


> > Magpie:
> > <snip> When this subject comes up in canon Draco 
> > says "nobody can help me," not "Snape and Narcissa could help me, if 
> > only there wasn't sexual tension between them that makes me angry at 
> > them."  
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> Yes, well, that would kind of give things away, don't you think?

Sydney:

Yes, but why *wouldn't* JKR give things away if there was a
Snape/Narcissa thing going on?  It would be one more for the
'Spinner's End Exposition Party'-- reasons for the reader to
understand how evil!Snape would theoretically work.  'Ah', they would
say to themselves, 'this is how the downfall of Snape starts.  He's in
love with Narcissa'.  Then when JKR pulls out the lifedebt thing or
whatever you think is going on, they can go, 'Ah!  He was in love with
Narcissa, BUT there's this other mystery factor!'.  I don't understand
what is to be gained from making this one more Mystery about Snape
when the big chance to make it explicit was there.  The only reason to
make a Snape thing mysterious is so that Harry can find out and go
"What?!?"  Telling something in a story is always better than not
telling something, unless it can work for suspense, which
Snape/Narcissa doesn't.

Neri:

 But
> you have to see that "nobody can help me" is totally OOC for Draco.
> This is the kid who is used to get everything he wants and needs from
> his parents and Snape. 

Sydney:

Yeah but that's the *whole point of the storyline*. It's Draco's
coming-of-age, for crying out loud.  Magpie puts it so much better
than me:

> > Magpie:
> > The character starts out feeling that it's important 
> > for him to do this and prove himself, and winds up paranoid and 
> > isolated with two almost-murders on his conscience.  Neither of 
> > those attitudes lend themselves to him going to Narcissa or Snape to 
> > make things right.  The almost-murders themselves, imo, have far 
> > more power to make him turn away from these two than any vague 
> > problems connected to Snape/Narcissa I can imagine.


> Neri:
> Not from Draco's PoV. From Draco's PoV Snape is a DE who would have no
> qualms about killing Dumbledore to "steal Draco's glory", and Narcissa
> is the one who told Harry in public that he doesn't have much time
> left. It is also quite possible that Draco had heard something about
> his mother's part in the Kreacher plot and death of Sirius. Draco has
> no reason to be ashamed of Snape or his mother that he had almost
> killed a blood-traitor like Ron Weasley and a Gryffindor girl like
> Katie Bell. At most he should be ashamed that he had botched the
killings.

Sydney:

But this about Draco realizing that he's *not* a killer.  That he's
horrified by it.  That it leaves him a nervous wreck crying in the
bathrooms.  He's trying to be a stone-cold killer and instead he's
just a normal kid.  Of course he's going to be ambivalent about going
up to the guy who *is* a stone-cold killer and going, 'hey, maybe I'm
not emotinallly cut out for this outfit, could you kill him for me?'.
 Draco going to Snape would not just be admitting that he's having a
hard time with the practicalities, it's owning up to the fact that
he's going to fail ahead of time, because he doesn't have it in him--
so Voldemort might as well just go ahead and kill him right then. Is
that not what Snape meant by, "What thoughts are you trying to hide
from your Master?" 

Draco's coming of age is his separating himself from the Death Eater
fantasy he had.  Snape has been his Death Eater role model.  It would
be like a kid who was realizing he didn't really want to be a Nazi
going to his SS officer and saying he wasn't sure about this whole
killing thing.  What Draco is trying to do is to suck it up, let no
one see that he's actually this creampuff, and become the DE his dad
always wanted him to be.  

And, I hate to cast aspersions on teenagers, but Draco's behaviour is
entirely normal, as you would see if you opened the newspaper any day
of the week.  How many parents with perfectly healthy relationships
with their kids only find out something is wrong when the police show
up?  I never found anything strange with Draco's behaviour under the
circumstances.  I thought it was an incredibly compelling plot (that I
rather wish we could have broken the Harry PoV for). Neither did any
Draco fan I know, who have made a protracted study of the subject. 
Neither has anybody on this or any other list.  It's the "missing five
hours" of Draco theories-- another one of yours, I think-- something
that doesn't bother anybody in the universe of readers but you.  

-- Sydney, realizing that none of this will convince Neri but feeling
it ought to be put down anyways.







From fairwynn at hotmail.com  Sat Aug 26 10:37:42 2006
From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 05:37:42 -0500
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecn14n+6hkh@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <BAY104-F169DCC187530B19354DAD9DD3A0@phx.gbl>

No: HPFGUIDX 157467


> > > Betsy Hp wrote:
><snip>
> > > And perhaps the reason Dumbledore chose Snape for the job of
> > > Legilimency teacher is that Lupin (the man of many excuses) does not
> > > have Dumbldore's complete trust.
> > >
> > > Betsy Hp (who's finding that the more and more she looks at Lupin
> > > the shakier and shakier his good guy status becomes -- hanging by
> > > the interviews here, folks. <g>)

wynnleaf
Well, Lupin is still a good teacher, regardless what kind of person he is.  
Many readers want to say "Bad teacher equates to evil character," but that's 
certainly not true.  Snape is probably DDM, yet he's mean to his students.  
Because the books revolve around a school there's a tendency to assume that 
the good teachers *are* good.  FakeMoody was a pretty good teacher, too.  
JKR saying that she'd like a teacher like Lupin for her daughter means, imo, 
very little about his goodness as a character.

>Pippin:
>Ah, those interviews. No, Lupin is definitely not going to be the sort of
>villain that makes you hiss and throw popcorn at the screen. But there's
>villainy of another kind,  evil that moves in the most exalted circles,
>and has only the very finest friends. There's evil that makes you look
>uneasily down the table and ask, "Is it I?"

wynnleaf
If Lupin turns out to be a traitor, I see him as being far more conflicted 
as a traitor.

The biggest flaw, imo, of the theory that Lupin is a traitor is that he was 
one of the Order members that was at 12 Grimmauld Place when Snape alerted 
the Order to go to the Ministry of Magic during OOTP, as well as tell them 
to alert Dumbledore.   Yet in the Spinners End chapter of HBP, Bellatrix 
knows nothing of Snape's alerting the Order and he certainly doesn't mention 
it and, by his silence, implies that he had nothing to do with it.  His 
action completely thwarted Voldemort's plan to get the prophecy.  So if 
Lupin was a traitor, he did not reveal Snape's action to Voldemort.  Yes, 
yes, I know there's this ridiculously convoluted theory about how Snape is 
really ESE and this was all Voldemort's plan.  In addition to the obvious 
arguments against that, it would also seem highly unlikely JKR would have 
both Snape and Lupin be traitors to DD.  So if Lupin's a traitor, Snape is 
probably not, yet Lupin didn't "out" Snape.

This would make Lupin a character acting on both sides.  An OFHLupin, or 
more likely, just a very, very conflicted character -- weeping over 
Dumbledore's death, partly from the guilt of his own involvement in it.


>Carol: <snipped>
> > No, I don't think Lupin is ESE! but he's dangerously weak (as Snape
> > insinuates to Tonks in HBP)>
>
>Pippin:
>But this is semantic. "I am flawed, you are weak, he is ever so evil." Why
>don't we say that Snape's sadism or Draco's xenophobia is just a weakness?
(snips)
>Wanting to be liked is considered nicer  than sadism or xenophobia.
>but if wanting to be liked leads you to renege on your commitments and
>put innocent people at risk, then maybe it shouldn't be. JKR won't make
>herself popular by saying so -- who is she to tell us that we ought to
>change our ideas about what's acceptable? But I doubt that she's worried
>about that.

wynnleaf
I find it amazing how Lupin could be guilty of (for all he knew) putting 
every child in Hogwarts at risk from a crazed murderer for 9 months and all 
of us readers (me too for years) are willing to forgive him because he's 
"nice," a "good teacher," and he's "sorry."  His excuse of being unwilling 
to tell Dumbledore about risks and mistakes he made as a teenager -- about 
20 years previously! -- is held up as an understandable excuse.  Why do we 
think this?  Because we like Lupin and his niceness.  Most importantly, he 
seems to support Harry.

There's a flaw in this support of Harry, btw.  Why is it that Sirius could 
write to Harry even while on the run, but Lupin -- for all his vaunted 
concern -- can never write him?  I remember wondering in GOF, "where's 
Lupin?  Why's he not contacting Harry, too?"  And then in HBP, as the close 
friend of now-dead Sirius, the person who would have known how Sirius' death 
affected Harry -- but he never writes Harry.  He says at Christmas that he 
couldn't write.  Can't?  At all?  Not even just after Sirius' death?  But of 
course, he never did, even during OOTP and GOF.  JKR has a number of people 
write Harry, including Hagrid, over the course of the books.  Why not Lupin?

By the way, the real importance of the clues about legilimency aren't how 
Lupin could use it, or how well he can do it, or *anything* regarding plot.

The real importance, if Lupin is a legilimens, is that it means that JKR is 
holding back important info from us about Lupin.  You have to ask yourself 
why.  When an author holds back info on a character for this long -- over 4 
books -- then the payoff is usually going to be pretty Big.  Not just an 
"oh, by the way, Lupin can to legilimency."  If he can do it, I'd think it 
means JKR wants there to be some big surprises about Lupin in Book 7.  The 
question is what those surprises are.

wynnleaf

_________________________________________________________________
Call friends with PC-to-PC calling -- FREE   
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=wlmailtagline




From drcarole71 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 14:19:11 2006
From: drcarole71 at yahoo.com (drcarole71)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:19:11 -0000
Subject: pigs and hogs again
Message-ID: <ecpl8v+t65c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157468

Have we ever figured out the significance of pigs and hogs?  The topic 
was brought up a while back.






From belviso at attglobal.net  Sat Aug 26 15:52:26 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 11:52:26 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
References: <ecojka+m4q5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <003701c6c927$a1a0b810$5c8c400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157469

Neri:
Yes, well, that would kind of give things away, don't you think? But
you have to see that "nobody can help me" is totally OOC for Draco.

Magpie:
It wouldn't give things away, it would just put things in the story.  It's 
not like there's a mystery here we're wondering about Snape and Narcissa. 
In fact, if there is Snape/Narcissa going on it's the two of them who are 
acting OOC when they don't refer to it (except through author narration that 
fits the non-romantic but equally intense scene just as well)--and even more 
strange for Draco himself not to refer to it.

Draco himself is not acting OOC, he's reacting to new circumstances.  (Not 
that help has much helped him in the past--the character is perpetually 
disappointed in canon.) Things have changed for Draco, his storyline in HBP 
is all about isolating him so that he has to be alone with his thoughts and 
ultimately be able to learn who he really is and make a decision standing on 
his own (I got this far...they all thought I'd die).  In the story there are 
plenty of reasons give for this that are far more connected to the plot and 
things Harry can relate to than a minor love subplot.  Even Voldemort's own 
plan is designed to keep Draco isolated (for LV's own reasons): He's got to 
do it.  In the last scene Draco's literally surrounded by DEs who don't act 
because the Dark Lord says Draco's got to do it. And he doesn't ask any of 
them for help either, despite their not having an affair with his mother.

> Magpie:
> The character starts out feeling that it's important
> for him to do this and prove himself, and winds up paranoid and
> isolated with two almost-murders on his conscience.  Neither of
> those attitudes lend themselves to him going to Narcissa or Snape to
> make things right.  The almost-murders themselves, imo, have far
> more power to make him turn away from these two than any vague
> problems connected to Snape/Narcissa I can imagine.
>

Neri:
Not from Draco's PoV. From Draco's PoV Snape is a DE who would have no
qualms about killing Dumbledore to "steal Draco's glory", and Narcissa
is the one who told Harry in public that he doesn't have much time
left.

Magpie:
Yes, from Draco's pov.  Snape's being a DE who would have no qualms about 
killing Dumbledore should make him threatening to Draco as the year goes on. 
That's what's so compelling about Draco's storyline.  He's always claimed he 
was going to grow up to be this one thing--that he WAS this thing, and his 
whole childhood's been pointing towards that.  Now he's realizing he isn't 
that person and he's surrounded by adults who are and think he's one of 
them--he's beginning to realize he's in the enemy camp. He's spent so much 
of his life creating this persona of who he is that there's no one for him 
to talk to when he realizes he isn't that.

Neri:
It is also quite possible that Draco had heard something about
his mother's part in the Kreacher plot and death of Sirius. Draco has
no reason to be ashamed of Snape or his mother that he had almost
killed a blood-traitor like Ron Weasley and a Gryffindor girl like
Katie Bell. At most he should be ashamed that he had botched the killings.

Magpie:
I think the storyline is there to make you revise your previous thinking 
about Draco rather than your previous thinking about Draco being there to 
revise the storyline.  Both Draco's botching of the attempts and his shame 
at almost killing would isolate him from Snape and Narcissa.  He's not who 
he feels he should be, which is not who you think he is.

Neri:
In your version Draco's attitude towards his mother and Snape in HBP
is completely irrational.

Magpie:
Not irrational so much as emotional rather than strictly utilitarian.  Lots 
of characters in HP operate under similar motivations.

Neri:
 He was given a very difficult mission by the
Dark Lord, with a sentence of death on him and his family if he can't
complete it. He is offered considerable assistance from Narcissa and
Snape - the first his own mother and the second someone he liked a lot
for five years. And yet even when he is desperate enough to cry in
bathrooms, even after Snape saves his life, Draco wouldn't trust him
for help (and apparently not his mother, because if he had told her
she would have told Snape). The fact that his father is also in mortal
peril if the mission fails only makes accepting Snape's help more
logical and more urgent. So in order to explain Draco's irrational
behavior here you must introduce the Teenage Irrationality Factor.

Magpie:
I introduced the Draco Emotional factor. Most characters in HP have an 
emotional factor that is a bigger motivation than the logical thing to do. 
Of course, HP is also fond of "teenagers are idiots" being an important 
thing to remember.

Neri:
That is, you must assume that Draco being a teenager will make him
"want to do it himself" and "have problems with authority figures",
and generally act against his own interests even if it kills him and
his family. IOW you have to assume that an angsty teenager equals a
complete idiot. I don't see JKR falling for this clich.

Magpie:
In order to think that it comes down to just a generic idea of a teenager 
acting like an idiot and wanting to do things himself (both of which on 
their own are powerful motivators for actual teenagers) you have to ignore 
the storyline that the author actually wrote where this specific teenager is 
being motivated by a set of circumstances that encourage him to behave this 
way.  It's Draco's own self-realizations that isolate him more than anything 
else.

Neri:
In my version Draco has a rational reason to mistrust both his mother
and Snape. He has a rational reason to suddenly have problems with
authority figures. He feels betrayed by the important adults in his
life.

Magpie:
So a major emotional trauma like Lucius going to prison isn't enough of a 
reason for Draco to lose faith in his former authority figures, but he can 
lose faith in his former authority figures based on a feeling that Snape 
loves Narcissa?  Seems to me you've got the exact same story, only you 
prefer Draco to be motivated by a modern domestic teenager cliche rather 
than the cliches of epic tales.  I think my motivation fits what's written 
far better.  One of the things you seem to see as proof for your motivation 
is that it explains away any thing that seems like a fundamental change in 
Draco as a character.  I think the whole storyline is about a fundamental 
change in Draco as a character.  He's not only reacting to outside 
complications, he's left alone with himself--his true self--for the first 
time.

Neri:
He's afraid that his mother and Snape have reasons of their own
in helping him, that they might be manipulating him. He suspects that
they are conspiring together against his father, who is in jail so
Draco can't contact him. Maybe he even has suspicions that they
somehow engineered his father being caught and jailed. Maybe he isn't
sure to whom he even wants to be loyal - to his mother or to his
father. He is angry and jealous at Snape. In short, in this version
Draco is an angsty teenager with real, rational reasons to act like an
angsty teenager. We have just been told that Hamlet is one of JKR's
favorites readings. Don't you see the parallels?

Magpie:
Parallels to Hamlet are already there without the use of the adultery thread 
of the plot--that's there to get Hamlet to his dilemma.   Hamlet's 
suspicions about his father's murder are in the actual text.  In HBP the 
story is that Lucius was put into prison due to the events at the MoM and 
there's no hint from Draco or anyone else that they think Snape or Narcissa 
had anything to do with it--or how they even could have anything to do with 
it.  Narcissa herself is loyal to her husband, lashing out at Bellatrix when 
she suggests Lucius screwed up.

In order to make Draco's fear "rational" you had to invent more and more 
details for your own plot that aren't in the text.  Instead of proving the 
main thing you need to prove (that Snape and Narcissa are having an affair, 
or Draco thinks they are, or that Snape likes Narcissa) you've assumed it's 
true that Draco suspects them and then invented further things that Draco 
feels because of that.  And yet none of this is in the story.  Draco has a 
long conversation with Dumbledore at the end of the book about his 
motivations and none of this comes up at all.  Nor does it get hinted at in 
the conversation between Snape and Draco or Draco and Myrtle--there's the 
three major conversations Harry overhears and JKR forgot to put the story in 
any of them.

Frankly, the story JKR wrote is just plain better.  Draco's not a spoiled 
brat who likes people to do things for him but now feels his Mummy has been 
plotting against him and his father because she wants to marry his teacher. 
He's always aspired to stand on his own--this storyline is foreshadowed way 
back in PoA when, in the one conversation where Harry and Draco almost 
connect, he says if it were his family Sirius Black killed, he'd want 
revenge.

If Draco's been betrayed by a family member that family member would be 
LUCIUS.  The one whose claims about what it was like being a Death Eater 
were completely false, the one who got himself arrested, the one who got 
Voldemort focused on killing Draco to begin with, the one who didn't prepare 
Draco for what he was going to face.  The one whose place he's got to take. 
Draco has been betrayed by the adults in his life, but not by Narcissa 
fooling around on Lucius.

Sydney:

This is a bit beside your point, but I would just like to revel in the fact 
that HBP was a *bonanza* for every Snape fan and Draco fan I used to think 
were a bit over the top.

Magpie:
Oh god, yes.  I'd been wailing for exactly this type of storyline for Draco 
for years and was completely shocked when it actually happened.

Sydney:
Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the whole shebang, at 
least theirs is the central relationship.

Magpie:
Yup, and Lily is beginning to seem like the last missing link, since 
everything else has come back to Snape, now that he was the eavesdropper. 
We got the connection/life debt to James back in PS/SS.  It makes sense that 
we'd get the romantic connection of Snape/Lily, if it exists, after Harry 
himself has grown up.  Snape/Narcissa has no bang for Harry--or even much 
for Draco without retroactive explanations for how it made him somehow think 
Narcissa got Lucius put in jail and is now trying to get Draco killed 
because of it.

Sydney:
Introducing some overwhelming passion for Narcissa
at this stage-- a hitherto unsuspected character flaw--  would be beyond 
weird.  It's not 'more compact' than Snape/Lily-- it's extraneous to the 
main action of the books, so it's all dangly and appendix-y.

Magpie:
Right--where as Snape/Lily goes right back into the flaws we already know 
are his downfall.  He lost her to James, he got her killed, he couldn't save 
her, he called her a Mudblood.  If Snape loved Lily he chose to let his hate 
win.  If Snape loves Narcissa he's actually been surprisingly good about the 
way he's handled it, hasn't he?  It seems far more Snape-ish to hate the son 
of the woman he loves with another man than to be the far better father 
figure he's been to Draco.

-m







From CliffVDY at juno.com  Sat Aug 26 14:58:48 2006
From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 14:58:48 -0000
Subject: Splitting the Soul (was: Voldemort killed personally)
In-Reply-To: <eco8tn+109a6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecpnj8+7ruf@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157470

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mcrudele78 at ...> wrote:
> Ken:
> 
> There is a tradition that humans are three-part (we are created in
> God's image) as is the God of Abraham. People often speak of "body,
> soul, and spirit". The body is the obvious physical container of 
> the other two. The soul is our eternal essence. The spirit? To me 
> it is our conscious self. 

Cliff:
Then the spirt is often referred to being the will to live.  

IMO, the Horcrux is a place to keep part of the soul when the body is
gone. TMR puts his soul into the many places and uses one when the AK
backfired on him in trying to kill HP. Thus his soul and spirit remain
outside the Veil, but he appears weak and needs help with unicorn
blood and Quirrell's head. But that existence also takes its toll in
the possible merging of Horcruxes. However, and this is the reason TMR
sought information on Horcruxes, when a body is totally rebuilt in
GoF, then the use of the Horcruxes are lost as body, soul and spirit
are now combined into a whole. He is again mortal and can be kill like
anyone else. He jeopardized his own life by living. Don't we all?

Cliff, sticking his broken nose where it don't belong.









From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Sat Aug 26 05:48:37 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:48:37 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Other relatives of Harry Potter!?
In-Reply-To: <ecj5ck+qa6v@eGroups.com>
References: <1156381444.27998DCB@fc6.dngr.org> <ecj5ck+qa6v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608252248k786240a7vb8ed00ea0717550f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157471

Michelle:

All his family on both sides
are dead? Was James an only child? We know Lily had a sister of
course, but what of his grandparents? (Not saying they're not dead.)
But how did they die? Who were they? I keep thinking of the Mirror of
Erised. All those people staring back at him.


Lynda:

JKR has always confirmed that indeed all of Harry's family, other than the
Dursley's are dead.  That allowed Harry to be put into a situation in which
he was raised by people who treated him differently than they would someone
they cared about, which is a terrible way to be brought up, but it gave
Harry a separateness, a reliance on self that has stood him in good stead at
times.

Lynda


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






From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Aug 26 18:39:40 2006
From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 18:39:40 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Books list
In-Reply-To: <1156555977.3596.45925.m28@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060826183940.40039.qmail@web25605.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157472

Sydney wrote:
>Out of interest, I'm trying to make out the titles on the bookshelf in
>her author picture on HBP.  Of interest I see:
>
>"The Well of Loneliness", a lesbian coming-of-age story, so at least
>we can say she's no homophobe...
>
>A big book labelled "Freud"
>
>Jane Austen's letters, natch,
>
>Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man, also natch (one of the few
>other examples I can think of where the story tries to mature along
>with the protagonist)
>
>Something by Trollope, which looks like "The Way We Live Now", which
>if she got through it I take my hat off.  Goes to the whole
>'corruption of society' thing.
>
>Can anybody make anything else out?
>
>-- Sydney, squinting
 
Tried to make them out when OoP first came out but without too much success, here's what I came up with
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/71423
 
hwyl
 
Ffred



From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 20:56:21 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 20:56:21 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <BAY104-F169DCC187530B19354DAD9DD3A0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <ecqchl+d88e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157473

> >>wynnleaf
> Well, Lupin is still a good teacher, regardless what kind of      
> person he is. Many readers want to say "Bad teacher equates to     
> evil character," but that's certainly not true.  Snape is probably 
> DDM, yet he's mean to his students. Because the books revolve     
> around a school there's a tendency to assume that the good        
> teachers *are* good.  FakeMoody was a pretty good teacher, too.  
> JKR saying that she'd like a teacher like Lupin for her daughter   
> means, imo, very little about his goodness as a character.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, that's *very* true.  I think Dean even praises Fake!Moody as a 
teacher in OotP. (Not very sensitive to poor Neville, but then I 
doubt Dean knows the history there.)  And of course, the prime 
example of bad teacher but good guy is Hagrid.  I don't think 
there's any doubt that Hagrid is on the side of the angels.  And 
it's pretty obvious that he's a horrible teacher (at the moment). 

> >>wynnleaf:
> <snip>
> So if Lupin's a traitor, Snape is probably not, yet Lupin         
> didn't "out" Snape. 
> This would make Lupin a character acting on both sides.  An       
> OFHLupin, or more likely, just a very, very conflicted character --
> weeping over Dumbledore's death, partly from the guilt of his own 
> involvement in it.

> I find it amazing how Lupin could be guilty of (for all he knew)   
> putting every child in Hogwarts at risk from a crazed murderer for 
> 9 months and all of us readers (me too for years) are willing to   
> forgive him because he's "nice," a "good teacher," and            
> he's "sorry."

Betsy Hp:
Which makes me wonder...  Perhaps Lupin hasn't been an *active* 
traitor.  Maybe his passiveness is the issue.  For example: He had 
solid proof that one of the Marauders was a traitor but failed to 
come forward, and James and Lily died.  He had knowledge that some 
sort of Death Eater attack was going to go down on the night 
Dumbledore died, but he failed to come forward, and Dumbledore died.

So, it's not that Lupin has sought out Voldemort or has even been 
working for him but, much like his inaction putting the entire 
student body of Hogwarts in danger in PoA, his inaction has 
seriously hurt the fight against Voldemort and possibly caused good 
people (James and Lily?) to die.

Or, maybe he's only just been "recruited" by Voldemort at the 
beginning of HBP?  Voldemort (through Peter, I suppose?) finds out 
Lupin's dirty little secret (a crucial moment of inaction) and is 
pressuring Lupin to either look the other way (easy and natural for 
Lupin) or possibly even take a type of action Lupin is ill prepared 
for (shades of Draco, I suppose).  
 
> >>Pippin:
> > Ah, those interviews. No, Lupin is definitely not going to be   
> > the sort of villain that makes you hiss and throw popcorn at the 
> > screen. But there's villainy of another kind,  evil that moves   
> > in the most exalted circles, and has only the very finest       
> > friends. There's evil that makes you look uneasily down the     
> > table and ask, "Is it I?"

Betsy Hp:
And we know (per canon and interview) that Lupin is a people-
pleaser.  I don't get the sense that JKR is big on people-pleasers.  
For the most part her favorite characters are those that openly buck 
the system, are strange or different and fine with it.  That's why 
Lily (I don't care *how* popular you are) comes off so much better 
than Lupin (please, please remain my friends) in the pensieve memory.

So yeah, I have a feeling that *if* Lupin's done wrong (or doing 
wrong, or going to do wrong) it's going to be in a tragic, tear-
jerking sort of way.  One that will cause Harry to cry "Why?" rather 
than "Crucio you!"  And I suspect Lupin will be neither pleased with 
himself nor hopeful of Voldemort winning.

> >>wynnleaf:
> <snip>
> There's a flaw in this support of Harry, btw.  Why is it that     
> Sirius could write to Harry even while on the run, but Lupin --    
> for all his vaunted concern -- can never write him?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That's been the second dangling shoe since PoA, hasn't it?  Lupin is 
bizzarely detached from Harry.  Always has been.  I think with every 
single book release there's been a collective holding of breath that 
*this* time Lupin will get actively involved.  After all, he seems a 
much more stable and steady father-figure than Sirius.  But Lupin 
*never* steps forward.  He promises things, but he never delivers.  
And I think Harry sees this.  At least, Harry doesn't seem to lean 
on Lupin all that much.  Which might turn out to have been wise. 

> >>wynnleaf:
> <snip>
> The real importance, if Lupin is a legilimens, is that it means    
> that JKR is holding back important info from us about Lupin.  You 
> have to ask yourself why.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And JKR *has* kept Lupin at the forefront hasn't she?  I mean, 
compare him to Hagrid, who's around but not all that involved 
plotwise.  That whole side bit with the Tonks/Lupin sub-plot seems 
to have something left to tell doesn't it?  JKR has said that she 
was pleased with how tight HBP was, so I think Lupin must have 
something still left to do.

Betsy Hp (glad that her Occlumency/Legilimency foul up didn't 
completely throw off Pippin's and wynnleaf's main points <g>)







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 22:23:25 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:23:25 -0000
Subject: Snape and Lily Was: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <003701c6c927$a1a0b810$5c8c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ecqhkt+8q1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157474


> Magpie:

> Right--where as Snape/Lily goes right back into the flaws we already
know 
> are his downfall.  He lost her to James, he got her killed, he
couldn't save 
> her, he called her a Mudblood.  If Snape loved Lily he chose to let
his hate 
> win.  If Snape loves Narcissa he's actually been surprisingly good
about the 
> way he's handled it, hasn't he?  It seems far more Snape-ish to hate
the son 
> of the woman he loves with another man than to be the far better father 
> figure he's been to Draco.

Sydney:

Yes, exactly!  When people seem taken aback by Snape/Lily, they always
seem to say, 'But Snape *hates* Harry!  What kind of sick person hates
the son of the woman they loved?'  Well, Snape, that's who.  Snape is
exactly the sort of sick person who *would* channel his feelings that
way.  *Especially* as Snape is guilty of starting the chain of events
that led to her death-- which I think is the real root of Snape's
obsession with James.  JKR even sets up an identical parallel with
Snape's foil, Harry:

"Harry [...]felt a savage pleasure in blaming Snape, it seemed to be
easing his own sense of dreadful guilt, and he wanted to hear
Dumbledore agree with him."(OoP)

And doesn't Snape just have a savage pleasure in blaming James, and
isn't he desperate for people to agree with him!  I really think these
events are being built up as a deliberate mirror.  Harry's guilt over
Sirius' death, in which he played a role not dissimilar to Snape's
role in Lily's death, is being deflected obsessively onto the
convenient target, the figure he already hates, the figure who can in
some way, however oblique, be made the real cause of the disaster.  

Of course in Snape's case the deflection-object is split into James
and Sirius;  Snape in Harry's story fills both parts.  First the guy
he transfers the guilt onto in an overtly unjust way: Snape goaded
Sirius!  He didn't let Harry know he understood his message!  James
was arrogant and trusted Sirius against all advice!  And second the
guy who is 'obviously' guilty and the object of a righteous vendetta:
If I run into Severus Snape, so much the better for me and so much the
worse for him!, Harry says at the end of HBP.  How I hoped I'd be the
one to catch you! says Snape in PoA.

So, yeah, the whole Snape/Lily storyline runs right through the center
of Snape's character and books themes, guilt and hate and repression
and projection of negative feelings and bad blood going down the
generations. And love-- mustn't forget the love.


Neri:
 We have just been told that Hamlet is one of JKR's
> favorites readings. Don't you see the parallels?

So, obviously Draco thinks Narcissa is having an affair with
Dumbledore!  Because that's what Hamlet is about, isn't it, he's
supposed to kill the guy who's having an affair with his mom?  I mean,
it's certainly not about Hamlet angsting over going for help to
Claudius, at least how I remember that story.  Yeah, I see the
parallels, but it seems a bit literal-minded to be going, 'how can we
get adultery into this?  The indecision over killing people just isn't
dramatic enough!'

-- Sydney







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 26 22:34:29 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 22:34:29 -0000
Subject: Voldemort: to eliminate or not to eliminate Snape
In-Reply-To: <ecot6l+vee7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqi9l+srjj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157475

Aussie:

> LV had plans beyond plans to deal with Draco after he'd torn his 
> soul. The death of Dumbledore may not have been the ultimate 
> objective of Draco's task. Snape may have foiled LV's plan.

Sydney:

Going by Snape's opinion, he DID foil LV's plan.  Snape says that he
thinks Voldemort intends Snape to 'do it' in the end, but that Draco
should try first.  Dumbledore tells Draco (presumably from Snape's,
his spy's, understanding of the situation) that Voldemort never
intended Draco to succeed and that the whole plan was to kill Draco to
punish Lucius.  If it had worked it was a rather good plan, as it
would had forced the 'good side' to kill a kid, and a prominent
Slytherin kid at that, in the middle of Hogwarts.  PR disaster!  Come
to think of it, that's the only decent plan anyone ever on either side
has come up with in any of the books.  

In any case I find it hard to believe that Voldemort ever thought
there was a .00001% chance of Draco succeeding in killing Dumbledore
when he couldn't even do it himself, so I think Snape's opinion was
correct. 

Aussie:

> If the 7th book starts with Snape meeting LV, that may be Snapes 
> last chapter. But true, he may say he had no choice because of the 
> UV, putting the blame on Bellatrix instead.

Sydney:

Oho!  Quite true, and it does give Snape a good out.  


-- Sydney






From celizwh at intergate.com  Sat Aug 26 23:09:13 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:09:13 -0000
Subject: Rowlings, Eco, and the licitness of laughter ( was Lupin vs Snape)
In-Reply-To: <ec1kh6+bp75@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqkap+jprl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157476

Renee:

> As for fitting the evidence, in Eco's Name of the Rose, 
> all the evidence fits William of Baskerville's theory 
> about they abbey murders and yet he turns out to be wrong.

houyhnhnm:

I suppose I had better put in a little SPOILER SPACE for 
_The Name of the Rose_, although I don't think it is 
possible to spoil this book.  I just finished it for 
the fifth time (the first since reading the Harry Potter books).
*
*
* 
*
*
William says, "there was no plot and I discovered it by 
mistake" but I think it is his despair talking after the 
burning of the library.  He was not wrong about much.  
He was not wrong in believing that "Everything turns on 
the theft and possession of a book". He was not wrong in 
suspecting that Jorge was involved (even though he didn't 
believe Jorge physically capable of the murders) He 
suspected poison early on and had prepared himself with 
gloves for the final confrontation. 

William's ability to read "signs and the signs of signs" 
"to seek a design" is testified to by 1) describing Brunellus 
2) deducing that Abo did not regard Adelmo's death as a 
suicide 3) recognizing herbs in winter from the bare bush 
4) deciphering Venantius' code 5) reconstructing the design 
of the library from the outside 6) anticipating what 
Aristotle would have to say about comedy before he read 
the manuscript.  I don't think William of Baskerville is a good 
example of someone who sees patterns where they don't exist.

It just doesn't seem to me that William was diverted from 
the truth that much by the apparent apocalyptic pattern of 
the murders.  It was Jorge who really came to believe so, 
that the whole story proceeded according to a divine plan, 
in order to conceal from himself that he was a murderer.

William says to Jorge, "Naturally, as the idea of this 
book and its venomous power began to take shape, the idea 
of an apocalyptic pattern began to collapse, though I 
couldn't understand how both the book and the sequence 
of trumpets pointed to you."

Not that William doesn't make mistakes.

"And you," [Adso] said with childish impertinence, "never 
commit error?"

"Often," [William] answered, "But instead of conceiving 
only one, I imagine many, so I become the slave of none."

Very Dumbledorian is William of Baskerville, it seems to me.  
He even swears by Merlin's beard!

Unicorns, basilisks, and centaurs!  Dittany, hellebore, 
and Mandragora!  Not to mention a brother herbalist (and 
potioneer) called Severinus, and a reference to al-Razi's 
identification of amorous melancholy with lycanthropy!  
I am surprised we have not seen _The Name of the Rose_ 
on any of Rowling's book shelves or book lists.

But it is the theme of the licitness of laughter and the 
enjoyment of monstrosities which runs through _The Name of 
the Rose_ that really made me think of the Harry Potter 
books, those who criticise and defend them.  

Jorge asks, "What is the meaning of those ridiculous 
grotesques, those monstrous shapes and shapely monsters?  ... 
Those lions, those centaurs, those half human creatures, 
with mouths in their bellies, with single feet, ears like 
sails? ... Quadrupeds with serpent's tails, and fish with 
quadrupeds' faces, and here an animal who seems a horse in 
front and a ram behind, and there a horse with horns, and 
so on ...."

Jorge decries laughter because "he who laughs does not 
believe in what he laughs at, but neither does he hate it.  
Therefore, laughing at evil means not preparing oneself to 
combat it, and laughing at good means denying the power 
through which good is self propagating."

And "Aristotle"'s (Eco, that is, as Pseudo Aristotle) answer, 
as paraphrased by William is that "the tendency to laughter 
[is] a force for good, which can also have instructive value; 
through witty riddles and unexpected metaphors, though it 
tells us things differently from the way they are, it 
actually obliges us to examine them more closely, and makes 
us say: Ah, this is just how things are, and I didn't know it.  
Truth reached by depicting men and the world as worse than 
they are or than we believe them to be, worse in any case 
than the epics, the tragedies, lives of the saints have 
shown them to us."








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug 27 00:23:20 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:23:20 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecok94+mcbl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqolo+dgqj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157477

Tonks_op wrote:
> But seriously, I don't think that LV takes any prisoners, so to 
> speak. If he wanted informantion he would get it and then kill the 
> man. 

Abergoat writes:
Thanks for humoring me on this! I'm sure this will be the last post on
the subject but I just wanted to mention that Snape tells us that
Legilimens isn't as simple as 'mind reading' and there is a strong
indication that the person legilimensing sees only what the victim has
in their consciousness - hence Snape can hide things by blocking them.
Aberforth could have blocked the prophecy from Voldemort view - I
don't think that Voldemort managed to get the memory from Aberforth so
 perhaps he wasn't willing to kill Aberforth until he did.

Or perhaps Voldemort enjoyed the irony of turning his old
Transfiguration teacher's brother into a goat in such a way that
Dumbledore couldn't reverse it. This would be a daily reminder to
Dumbledore of Voldemort's power - Voldemort would like that.

Tonks_op wrote:
> By the way, I love your name. I almost hope you are right.

Thanks! I normally use 'Abbygoat' but that was taken on Yahoo.

Abergoat








From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 00:55:12 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:55:12 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecp67i+f2em@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqqhg+36rb@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157478

 
> Sydney:
> 
> <snip> Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the
> whole shebang, at least theirs is the central relationship.  It's
> absolutely amazing to me that you don't see that this is where the
> whole potential energy of the story is balanced.  Everything that is
> left about Snape has to be about Harry, tie back into Harry, affect
> Harry emotionally in some major way, force some movement out of Harry.
>  The two characters are tied togther. 
> 

Neri:
This is probably the root of our differences. I don't see at all that
Snape and Harry (the order by which you mention them is interesting)
are the central characters. I see that Harry is the central character,
with Ron and Hermione the next main characters. The story is
frequently built to serve the development of these three characters.
In all the other characters, their development (if at all) is mainly
there to serve the plot and the themes. I see Snape as a secondary
character, more important than Sirius but probably not as important as
Dumbledore. And we've seen how both Sirius and Dumbledore were used
more as plot devices than developing characters. I don't expect Snape
to be different.

In terms of relationships too I don't see that the Snape-Harry
relationship is the central relationship of the HP saga. In a saga
like this, especially in its last installation, the main confrontation
would probably be between the hero and the evil overlord, and the
internal journey of the hero. Other conflicts are not likely to
obscure it. I notice that we have already seen of Tom's childhood and
school days more than we've seen of Snape's childhood and school days,
and I suspect that Harry would meet Tom again inside himself. Same as
in the climax of LotR, Frodo is left alone with faithful sidekick Sam
and alter ego Gollum against the Dark Lord. No place for Aragorn or
Gandalf there. And naturally this was changed in the movie, because
the movie is fanon, and the fanon has rules of its own. The fans
naturally want to see more of the sexy Aragorn and less of the boring
Frodo. But it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon. The fact that
in the HP fanon Snape (and Draco) had become much more important than
Harry has no effect on JKR.   

I'd estimate that LOLLIPOPS would tend to place Snape center stage in
Book 7, practically making him the hero of the series and distracting
us from Harry and his mission. OTOH I think ACID POPS is exactly the
proper size of SHIP for a character of Snape's magnitude.

> 
> Sydney:
> 
> I honestly have no idea how you comprehend story.  Snape has millions
> of flaws.  It's a character we already know quite well.  His downfall
> already seems assured from every possible angle. <snip>

Neri:
Snape has million flaws, but he is also portrayed as a kind of super
wizard. Potions wiz, inventing spells at school, superb occlumenn,
Dark Arts expert, a double and triple agent, winning both Voldemort's
and Dumbledore's trust and never quite caught, confronting Bellatrix
with a sardonic smile. Not every flaw is thematic enough to bring down
a such a powerful man. The critical flaw is likely to involve hubris.
If Snape thought that he could engineer things so that he also wins
another man's wife he has secretly desired since his schooldays, then
this would be proper hubris to bring him down. Especially in the
Potterverse, where Love is a force that is "more wonderful and more
terrible" than any other magic, and Merpe's misplaced love was what's
started it all.

> Sydney:
> <snip>  Introducing some overwhelming passion for Narcissa
> at this stage-- a hitherto unsuspected character flaw--  would be
> beyond weird.  It's not 'more compact' than Snape/Lily-- it's
> extraneous to the main action of the books, so it's all dangly and
> appendix-y.  And it's something she didn't even make explicit when she
> could have, so as to provide the 'tragic flaw catalyst' for the reader
> that you mention.  Now it would just be one more piece of exposition
> that Harry couldn't give a rat's ass about.  
> 
> Surely what we don't know about Snape is something Harry should *care*
> about?  
> 

Neri:
Again, I suspect you tend to assign too much importance to both Snape
and his love affairs. If Snape saves Harry's life in Book 7 because of
his debt to James, especially if as a result Snape will find himself
fighting against Voldemort, and especially if Snape did kill
Dumbledore, then this would give both Harry and Snape quite enough to
care about. Snape's love affair would be redundant for making Harry
care. It would probably have another purpose (there *are* a few other
purposes for things happening in the story than making Harry care).
And while showing ACID POPS only in the sixth book may seem too late,
it is a direct extension of a flaw that we've seen in Snape since Book
1, namely his obsession about status, fame and glory. JKR also waited
until Book 6 to introduce us to Horcruxes, but they are still a direct
extension of things that were introduced since Book 1.

Besides, ACID POPS is not "hitherto unsuspected" <g>. I too have
speculated about some things before HBP, and I also have the post to
prove it. See #106729.


> Sydney:
> 
> Yes, but why *wouldn't* JKR give things away if there was a
> Snape/Narcissa thing going on?  It would be one more for the
> 'Spinner's End Exposition Party'-- reasons for the reader to
> understand how evil!Snape would theoretically work.  'Ah', they would
> say to themselves, 'this is how the downfall of Snape starts.  He's in
> love with Narcissa'.

Neri:
What? And deprive us of such a juicy theory to speculate and argue
about for two years? And since when does JKR give away things about
Snape, unless she absolutely must? It's against her official policy.

> Sydney:
> Then when JKR pulls out the lifedebt thing or
> whatever you think is going on, they can go, 'Ah!  He was in love with
> Narcissa, BUT there's this other mystery factor!'.  I don't understand
> what is to be gained from making this one more Mystery about Snape
> when the big chance to make it explicit was there.  The only reason to
> make a Snape thing mysterious is so that Harry can find out and go
> "What?!?"

Neri:
Life debt and ACID POPS give you two "What?!?" moments in Book 7
instead of just one. And since when is JKR cutting down on the number
of mysteries? We are talking about the same woman who introduced three
unregistered animagi, a werewolf and a smart half-kneazle in a single
book, aren't we? Especially since, unlike many conspiracy theories,
ACID POPS wouldn't require ten pages of confession to explain it. All
JKR has to do is write "Snape loves Narcissa" and suddenly the reason
for the UV as well as Draco's strange behavior in HBP become clear. 


> Sydney: 
> But this about Draco realizing that he's *not* a killer.  That he's
> horrified by it.  That it leaves him a nervous wreck crying in the
> bathrooms.  He's trying to be a stone-cold killer and instead he's
> just a normal kid.  Of course he's going to be ambivalent about going
> up to the guy who *is* a stone-cold killer and going, 'hey, maybe I'm
> not emotinallly cut out for this outfit, could you kill him for me?'.
>  Draco going to Snape would not just be admitting that he's having a
> hard time with the practicalities, it's owning up to the fact that
> he's going to fail ahead of time, because he doesn't have it in him--
> so Voldemort might as well just go ahead and kill him right then. Is
> that not what Snape meant by, "What thoughts are you trying to hide
> from your Master?" 
> 
> Draco's coming of age is his separating himself from the Death Eater
> fantasy he had.  Snape has been his Death Eater role model.  It would
> be like a kid who was realizing he didn't really want to be a Nazi
> going to his SS officer and saying he wasn't sure about this whole
> killing thing.  What Draco is trying to do is to suck it up, let no
> one see that he's actually this creampuff, and become the DE his dad
> always wanted him to be.  
> 

Neri:
Draco asks Borgin how to fix the cabinet, so why can't he ask Snape?
That wouldn't be admitting to failure, only asking for information.
When he succeeds in repairing the cabinet, Draco has no problem
calling in several SS officers, I mean several DEs, into a school for
an assassination mission, but he doesn't call Snape, who had taken a
UV to guard him and had just saved his life. What does Draco's have
against Snape personally that he *doesn't* have against any other DE
or bad man out there? This is not a minor question, it is a critical
one. The whole tragedy in the end of HBP would have been prevented if
only Draco, at any single point during this whole year, would have
told Snape. I think this requires a more specific reason than "it was
Draco's coming-of-age story".

**********************************************************
HBP, Ch. 27, p. 588:

"But I haven't told him what I've been doing in the Room of
Requirement, he's going to wake up tomorrow and it'll be over and he
won't be the Dark Lord's favorite anymore, he'll be nothing compared
to me, nothing!"
**********************************************************

This sounds to me like Draco has a serious grudge against Snape
personally. He doesn't want just to prove that he can do it by
himself. He wants Snape demoted. He wants to be more important than
Snape. Are we not supposed to ask why? 

> Sydney:
> And, I hate to cast aspersions on teenagers, but Draco's behaviour is
> entirely normal, as you would see if you opened the newspaper any day
> of the week.  How many parents with perfectly healthy relationships
> with their kids only find out something is wrong when the police show
> up?  I never found anything strange with Draco's behaviour under the
> circumstances.  I thought it was an incredibly compelling plot (that I
> rather wish we could have broken the Harry PoV for). Neither did any
> Draco fan I know, who have made a protracted study of the subject. 
> Neither has anybody on this or any other list.  It's the "missing five
> hours" of Draco theories-- another one of yours, I think-- something
> that doesn't bother anybody in the universe of readers but you.  
> 

Neri:
Oh, I see. If nobody thinks so, then it can't be true. How did I dare
think about it? Especially if the Draco *fans* decided that Draco's
behavior is so compelling here, then who am I to say otherwise?
Perhaps you should also notify Pippin that she's wasting her time on
ESE!Lupin, because all the Lupin fans are sure he's a good guy.

And regarding the Missing Five Hours, I'll have you know that I
convinced at least half the list members it's canon. What, don't you
believe me? Potioncat, you tell her! <g>


Neri, 
who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy SHIP
clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.








From puduhepa98 at aol.com  Sun Aug 27 01:04:14 2006
From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 21:04:14 EDT
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimma...
Message-ID: <277.ec224f9.3222498e@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157479

>aussie
I have yet to see any "cannon evidence" that 
Snape did anything with DD  or the OOTP as his motive. 

>Almost, but not quite, evidence may be:  
- Occlemancy classes for Harry (but they failed)
- Snape stopping the  curse on DD's hand (but not 100% cured)

>Non-evidence is:
-  disappearing into the Forbidden Forest for hours while DA went to 
fight in  MOM

Nikkalmati:
I know the evidence of the timeline for Snape reporting Harry's  
disappearance has been discussed, probably exhaustively, but that was before my  time.  
Can anyone summarize the arguments here or point me to the old  posts?  I am not 
sure what assumptions are being used.  Example: how  long does it take a 
threstral to fly to London?  A lot less time than it  take the Hogwarts express?
Nikkalmati
 
 
>Aussi
>Damning evidence:
- He is alive after DE's and LV quiz  him
- Trying to kick Harry out of school in POA
- Stopping Lupin and Black  from revealing pettigrew after all he saw 
and heard in the Shreiking  Shack

Nikkalmati:
Not sure that his being alive after GOF works either way.  In Spinners  End 
we get the excuses he presumably used with LV.  Might have been  convincing.
 
He did not try to kick Harry out of school.  First, he does not have  that 
authority.  Second, (in the incident I assume you are referring to) in  the 
Shrieking Shack he threatened Hermione with suspension (at 359 US  paperback).  He 
told Fudge (who probably doesn't have any authority to  expel students 
either) "Personally I try and treat him like any other student.  And any other 
student would be suspended --at the very least-- for leading his  friends into such 
danger" (at 387 US paperback).  Maybe you were  thinking of another time?
 
He did not stop Lupin and Black from revealing Pettigrew, he refused to  
listen to what they were saying.  Never did B or L say "I will transform  the rat 
right now"  and Snape stopped it.  He had no idea Peter was  supposedly there. 
He missed that part of the conversation.
 
I also do not think he was actually intending to call a dementor down to  
soul-suck Black and Lupin.  His first statement to Black and Lupin was  "two more 
for Azkaban tonight."  (at 359 US paperback). He threatened to  call a 
dementor when Black got in his face  - to try to get him to back  off.  It worked 
too. When he found Black and Harry and Hermione down by the  lake, where no one 
would know what he did, he brought them all up to the castle  to face 
"justice" or what passes for justice in the WW.
 
Nikkalmati


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




From juli17 at aol.com  Sun Aug 27 01:50:49 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (julie)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:50:49 -0000
Subject: LOLLI vs ACID--it's all about Harry (was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecqqhg+36rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqtpp+aso6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157480

 
> > Sydney:
> > 
> > <snip> Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the
> > whole shebang, at least theirs is the central relationship.  It's
> > absolutely amazing to me that you don't see that this is where the
> > whole potential energy of the story is balanced.  Everything that 
is
> > left about Snape has to be about Harry, tie back into Harry, 
affect
> > Harry emotionally in some major way, force some movement out of 
Harry.
> >  The two characters are tied togther. 
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> This is probably the root of our differences. I don't see at all 
that
> Snape and Harry (the order by which you mention them is interesting)
> are the central characters. I see that Harry is the central 
character,
> with Ron and Hermione the next main characters. The story is
> frequently built to serve the development of these three characters.
> In all the other characters, their development (if at all) is mainly
> there to serve the plot and the themes. I see Snape as a secondary
> character, more important than Sirius but probably not as important 
as
> Dumbledore. And we've seen how both Sirius and Dumbledore were used
> more as plot devices than developing characters. I don't expect 
Snape
> to be different.
> 
> In terms of relationships too I don't see that the Snape-Harry
> relationship is the central relationship of the HP saga. In a saga
> like this, especially in its last installation, the main 
confrontation
> would probably be between the hero and the evil overlord, and the
> internal journey of the hero. Other conflicts are not likely to
> obscure it. I notice that we have already seen of Tom's childhood 
and
> school days more than we've seen of Snape's childhood and school 
days,
> and I suspect that Harry would meet Tom again inside himself. Same 
as
> in the climax of LotR, Frodo is left alone with faithful sidekick 
Sam
> and alter ego Gollum against the Dark Lord. No place for Aragorn or
> Gandalf there. And naturally this was changed in the movie, because
> the movie is fanon, and the fanon has rules of its own. The fans
> naturally want to see more of the sexy Aragorn and less of the 
boring
> Frodo. But it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon. The fact that
> in the HP fanon Snape (and Draco) had become much more important 
than
> Harry has no effect on JKR.   
> 
> I'd estimate that LOLLIPOPS would tend to place Snape center stage 
in
> Book 7, practically making him the hero of the series and 
distracting
> us from Harry and his mission. OTOH I think ACID POPS is exactly the
> proper size of SHIP for a character of Snape's magnitude.
> 

Julie:
Isn't it ironic that I think LOLLIPOPS will triumph over ACIDPOPS
for the EXACT same reason you believe just the opposite--because
HARRY is the main character of the books, not Snape? As Sydney
said, everything must revolve around Harry, must affect him in
some way. Snape in love with Narcissa is totally irrelevant to
Harry and his journey, and does nothing whatsoever to illuminate 
or resolve Snape's and Harry's mutual antipathy. It's extra fodder 
that serves no real purpose, especially in Book 7, where JKR has
so much to wrap up and virtually every development will have to
count.

OTOH, Snape in love with Lily would certainly illuminate some
of Snape's antipathy toward Harry, and could easily lead to 
a resolution of the conflict between Snape and Harry--or at
least to Harry overcoming his raging hatred of Snape and 
replacing it with understanding, be it sympathy or pity. It
doesn't even matter if Snape is ESE, DDM, or OFH, or it he
loved Lily romantically from afar, considered her merely a 
friend, hatched schemes with her, promised to protect her son,
or whatever. All versions of Snape and his relationship with
Lily can lead to important revelatory moments for Harry (about
Snape, his mother, and himself). Snape and his relationship 
with Narcissa, however, leads simply to "Ho hum, who cares?"
in the midst of a story about Harry Potter.

Julie, who agrees with Sydney that Snape's relationship with
Harry will be the most important one in Book 7 in regards to
Harry's emotional development and HOW the plot plays out, not
to mention by far the most interesting one--IMO, but come on,
half the posts here wouldn't involve Snape if it wasn't so ;-)








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Sun Aug 27 02:01:10 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 02:01:10 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecqolo+dgqj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecqud6+sde1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157481

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abergoat" <adescour at ...> wrote:
>
> Tonks_op wrote:
> > But seriously, I don't think that LV takes any prisoners, so to 
> > speak. If he wanted informantion he would get it and then kill the 
> > man. 
> 
> Abergoat writes:
> Thanks for humoring me on this! I'm sure this will be the last post on
> the subject but I just wanted to mention that Snape tells us that
> Legilimens isn't as simple as 'mind reading' and there is a strong
> indication that the person legilimensing sees only what the victim has
> in their consciousness - hence Snape can hide things by blocking them.
> Aberforth could have blocked the prophecy from Voldemort view - I
> don't think that Voldemort managed to get the memory from Aberforth so
>  perhaps he wasn't willing to kill Aberforth until he did.
> 
> Or perhaps Voldemort enjoyed the irony of turning his old
> Transfiguration teacher's brother into a goat in such a way that
> Dumbledore couldn't reverse it. This would be a daily reminder to
> Dumbledore of Voldemort's power - Voldemort would like that.
> 
> Tonks_op wrote:
> > By the way, I love your name. I almost hope you are right.
> 
> Thanks! I normally use 'Abbygoat' but that was taken on Yahoo.
> 
> Abergoat
>

What if Aberforth is a (possibly unregistered) animagus? That could 
explain the goatishness that is about him and the whimsy behind
what I agree is Dumbledore's joke.

Ken







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 03:58:06 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 03:58:06 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecqqhg+36rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecr58e+mbd4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157482

> Neri:
> > This sounds to me like Draco has a serious grudge against Snape
> personally. He doesn't want just to prove that he can do it by
> himself. He wants Snape demoted. He wants to be more important than
> Snape. Are we not supposed to ask why? 
> (Snip) 
> who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy 
SHIP clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.
>

Tonks:
I was once in the Snape loves Narcissa camp until I switched to the 
Snape Loved Lily camp, so I can understand some of your POV. Chapter 
2 does easily lend itself to the ACID POPS theory. 

As to why Draco would want to dethrone Snape, isn't that normal teen 
behavior?  He would want to show the world that he was better than 
his teacher.  The student wants to outdo his mentor. Show the world 
(and himself) that he is a real man now and no longer just a  
student.  And the kid in him would want to make daddy proud for 
once. Just imagine what Lucius would say if Draco had been 
successful. I sure that Draco had that in mind as well.

Tonks_op








From catlady at wicca.net  Sun Aug 27 04:23:12 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 04:23:12 -0000
Subject: blood/FreeWill/TheProphecy/Hermione'sOWLs/Pre-Reading/Booklist/Hogs & Ferrets
Message-ID: <ecr6ng+bc0f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157483

Some weeks ago, some listie (I'm sorry I forgot who) suggested that
magic power is literally in the wizard's physical blood. Thus if it
were possible to drain all the blood out of a wizard while keeping him
alive (by putting in a synthetic blood substitute), and then fill him
back up with blood from Muggles, he wouldn't have any magic power
until his own blood grew back. And if one of us Muggles received a
large blood transfusion from Wizards, that one Muggle would have some
magic power until the transfused blood wore out.

And I realised the other night, during my usual tossing and turning,
that perhaps that explains what it is about the Bloody Baron that
makes him the only person Peeves fears. I have previously thought it
might be because the Baron is the only ghost able to do magic, so he
can properly curse Peeves, but I could never think of a good reason
why the Baron would have retained his magic power after death if no
one else does. Now the reason could be that he is the only ghost who
still has blood -- the blood showing on his exterior. I think that
works only if Sir Nick has no blood showing on the cut through his neck?

Jordan/Random wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157223>:

<< I'm curious as to why you think "the approach that time happened
only once, but Harry and Hermione happened twice" is inconsistent with
free will. >>

Okay. For me it is axiomatic (despite Martin Gardner quoting C.S.
Lewis) that for Will (Choice) to be free, the future must be
undetermined, i.e. the future must not exist yet. That gives me
problems with that Einstein stuff about space/time and no such thing
as simultaneity and time is a dimension, by the way.

So, for me, the fact that two Harries and two Hermiones exist at this
same time is possible only because of something that Harry and
Hermione do in the near future: they turn the Time-Turner. It is not
possible for them to choose NOT to turn the Time-Turner because, in a
way, it has already happened. So that one little piece of future is
already determined. Which contradicts my personal axiom.

Julie 17 wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157255>:

<< But let's get to the true heart of the matter. DD's love, for
Harry, for Severus, for Hogwarts, for whoever and for whatever, is
quite irrelevant. DD has always done exactly what he felt he had to do
the ensure Voldemort will be defeated. >>

I love your post (not only because you agreed with me!) but I nitpick
anyway: at the end of OoP, DD himself said he had allowed his love for
Harry to cause him to do something (withold the Prophecy from Harry)
which was not in the best interest of defeating LV.

Mike Crudele wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157274>:

<< My least favorite is OotP (snip good reasons) and I was
disappointed that JKR interjected the whole prophecy thingy. >> 

In PS/ss, Harry asked DD why LV had tried to kill him as a baby and DD
said he couldn't tell him yet. I was SURE that it was because it was
Prophecied that Harry would kill LV, but struggled to figure out why
DD couldn't tell Harry that then.

When listies suggested that DD only was trying to spare Harry's
feelings, I decided that the Prophecy must say that the only way to
kill LV is that he and Harry die (kill each other) at the same time.
So I was greatly disappointed when JKR's Prophecy said one of them
must kill the other, not that they must die together.

If the Prophecy HAD said that LV and Harry will kill each other, the
big reveal could have been that it had already happened at Godric's
Hollow, so the whole story that we're reading is not predicted by the
Prophecy.

Sylvia wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157283>:

<< But if there are only 12 subjects in total, how does she manage to
get 11 OWLs without Muggle studies and Divination? Or am I missing a
subject? >>

I have often wondered about that. As you indicated, Hermione received
her 11 OWLs in:

1. Astronomy
2. Care Of Magical Creatures
3. Charms
4. DADA
5. Herbology
6. History of Magic
7. Potions
8. Transfiguration
9. Ancient Runes
10. Arithmancy
11. ?????  

I posted something long, long ago about Divination and Arithmancy were
only half-day exams, so if Ancient Runes (that Hermione took while
Harry and Ron had Friday off) was also a half-day exam, she could have
taken another half-day exam that same day. Some listies have suggested
that she (and every other Muggle-born) could ace the Muggle Studies
OWL without taking the class (altho' I think they'd fail for failing
to give the erroneous answers taught in class). I suggested that the
wizarding world is so different from the Muggle world that there could
be an OWL exam that only prefects are allowed to take (so Harry
wouldn't know about it, and Ron doesn't seem the type to take any more
OWL exams than he HAS to), with questions about leadership and
discipline and authority.

I had another idea, that one History of Magic exam tests for 2 OWLs,
one for the BC History of Magic and one for the AD History of Magic. I
don't know if seeing Harry's OWL results blows that out of the water,
or if it can be argued that they don't further depress people who
failed both by telling them that they missed TWO qualifications.

In any case, I don't understand how Hermione only got 11 OWLs when
Bill and Percy got 12. She has been established as an unusually
outstanding student that doesn't come along as often as every 4 years.
If they both got both 2 History OWLs and the Prefect OWL, why didn't
she? I want to believe it's a Flint.

Aussie Hagrid wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157334>:

<< My kids know there are some "Parental Guidance" sections so I have
to read each new book first. >>

That raised my curiosity: which sections need Parental Guidance and
how do you guide? Do you put a mark in the book that the kid has to
come talk to you before continuing to read?

Dave Hardenbrook wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157460>:

<< What?? She lists Shakespeare, Dickens, Bronte, and Orwell, but
*nothing* from her idol, Jane Austen??? >>

And not THE LITTLE WHITE HORSE, which she has previously said was her
favorite book as a child.

Dr Carole asked in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157468>:

<< Have we ever figured out the significance of pigs and hogs? The
topic was brought up a while back. >>

Neither have we figured out the significance of ferrets. In CoS,
"Mortlake was taken away for questioning about some extremely odd
ferrets". In PoA, Hagrid fed Buckbeak dead ferrets. In GoF, Draco was
temporarily turned into a ferret. Even in OoP, during the
Transfiguration OWL, "poor Hannah Abbott lost her head completely at
the next table and somehow managed to multiply her ferret into a flock
of flamingos". 

I think the references to pigs are just common colloquialisms, and the
reference to hogs (like the winged boars on the gate post at the
entrance of Hogwarts' campus) are there because the school is named
Hogwarts because it is a funny name, whether Rowling was inspired by
warthog backwards, or the forgotten name of a plant she and her sister
had seen at Kew, or forgotten memory of there having been mention of a
school named Hogwarts in some other piece of writing.

But I made up a story for it. In which the mountains on whose feet
Hogwarts School is built is named Mt. Hog or Hogmount, and the Lake is
Hoglake, and the Forbidden Forest is Hogwood, and the grassy area by
the lake is Hogmeadow, and the slightly more elevated area where the
village is built is named Hogwald. In my story, the Founders got a
little confused and named the school Hogwald School even tho' it was
built on Hogmeadow. "HoGwald" School became "HoGwaRtS" School when
Salazar complained that Godric's suggested name included his initial
and Helga's, but not Salazar's or Rowena's, and Helga suggested a
compromise. Latter, that the village was named Hogsmeade (a variant
form of Hogmeadow) instead of Hogwald shows that the confusion
continued past the Founders.

And all these "hog" things were named after the Caledonian Boar, a
monstrous (perhaps winged) giant monster who was said to live in the
area, probably related to the boar Twrch Trwyth, whom King Arthur
killed in the story 'Culhwch and Olwen'.

If my story were true, the Caledonian Boar would show up in Book 7 --
presumably as a monster unleashed by Voldemort whom Our Heroes must
destroy or tame.







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Sun Aug 27 06:29:35 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 06:29:35 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad
Message-ID: <ecre4f+5b1q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157484

I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with 
nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a toad?

Can I introduce that she might be a "coldblooded" murderer who has 
made a few horcruxes?

Her nice little kitten plates, things of no value at all, which no one 
would ever be tempted to steal, could hold her most valuable 
possesions?

I think she has the cruelty necessary.

Laurawkids, who can't get Harry and the Potters' song about her out of 
my head now.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 08:06:32 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:06:32 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <003701c6c927$a1a0b810$5c8c400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ecrjq8+p8dl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157485

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > Neri:
> > Yes, well, that would kind of give things away, don't you think? 
> > But you have to see that "nobody can help me" is totally OOC for 
> > Draco.
> 
> Magpie:
> It wouldn't give things away, it would just put things in the 
> story.  It's not like there's a mystery here we're wondering about
> Snape and Narcissa. In fact, if there is Snape/Narcissa going on  
> it's the two of them who are acting OOC when they don't refer to  
> it (except through author narration that fits the non-romantic but 
> equally intense scene just as well) <snip>

Mike:
I'm not a SHIPper and therefore HBP was only half a book for me. I 
really don't care about who SHIPs with who. But even I could read 
the sensual tension in that scene between Snape and Narcissa. As 
Betsy noted, this is a children's series, JKR couldn't have written 
that scene any more lustily than she did without getting herself in 
trouble with her young audience (or more likely, their Parents).

Still, I think you must be denying the obvious to not see the S&N 
undertone. Whether you want to classify it as romantic, idolization, 
or simple lust, well, I'll leave that to the SHIP-ers. Though,  ever 
since Snapes twitch in GoF I've wondered what's going on between 
Snape and the Malfoys and ACID POPS works as well as anything else, 
for me, for now. 

> Magpie continues:
> Draco himself is not acting OOC, he's reacting to new  
> circumstances.  (Not that help has much helped him in the past-- 
> the character is perpetually disappointed in canon.) Things have  
> changed for Draco, his storyline in HBP is all about isolating him
> so that he has to be alone with his thoughts and ultimately be 
> able to learn who he really is and make a decision standing on 
> his own (I got this far...they all thought I'd die). <snip>

Mike:
I do agree with Neri in as much as I see Draco acting ooc, but I 
think that was the whole point. We are suppose to notice the 
contrast between Harry and Draco. IOW, "you need your friends" 
vs. "nobody can help me". Both of them get assigned tasks in this 
book, Draco in the beginning, Harry at the end. But Draco only sees 
the glory that will be his, while Harry only sees the peril. Draco 
won't even tell his two goon friends what he's doing, Harry tells 
Ron and Hermione everything. Draco won't accept help when it's 
offered, Harry solicits help from everybody (though he doesn't get a 
lot of cooperation).

So what is ooc for Draco? He may be a bungler but he's suppose to be 
smarter than what he's exhibiting. And he knows fixing the cabinets 
is NOT what's going to bring him glory, killing Dumbledore is. Plus, 
he has already solicited help from Borgin and whoever is suppose to 
be applying the pressure on him. Even he should be able to figure 
out that LV doesn't care who helps him fix the cabinet as long as he 
remains discrete and doesn't reveal the plan behind the repair. And 
he *knows* Snape is on his side ("he isn't working for you, you just 
think he is"). He's a Slytherin and he's a Malfoy, surely he could 
figure out how to bring Snape aboard without spilling the whole 
story.

> Magpie again:
> In the story there are plenty of reasons give for this that are 
> far more connected to the plot and things Harry can relate to 
> than a minor love subplot. <snip>

Mike:
Yes, but you've only come to that conclusion because *you* don't see 
a good reason for it, not because it isn't plausible. And how is 
the 'minor love subplot' of Tonks-Lupin suppose to be helping Harry 
at this point in the story? And since when has JKR limited the 
number of reasons for a character's actions, especially Snape's?
I'm not saying that Draco is motivated by any suspicion of a Snape-
Narcissa love affair, but that doesn't preclude it being a factor 
for Snape. (IMO there's way too mant love themes in HBP, and I don't 
think that's why most people read HP. JKR just isn't a romance 
novelist so why is she trying to play one?)

> Magpie:
> In the last scene Draco's literally surrounded by DEs who don't  
> act because the Dark Lord says Draco's got to do it. And he  
> doesn't ask any of hem for help either, despite their not having  
> an affair with his mother.

Mike:
I'm betting that you wish you hadn't written these two lines. Since 
the rest of your argument is reasoned, why add these two silly 
sentences? Draco doesn't ask this 'brutal force' to "steal his 
glory", because this IS where he would get his glory, not fixing a 
cabinet, and you know that.

<huge snip> 
> > Neri:
> > So in order to explain Draco's irrational behavior here you 
> > must introduce the Teenage Irrationality Factor.
> 
> Magpie:
> I introduced the Draco Emotional factor. Most characters in HP  
> have an emotional factor that is a bigger motivation than the  
> logical thing to do. Of course, HP is also fond of "teenagers are 
> idiots" being an important thing to remember.

Mike:
I agree with Magpie here. Far more likely that Draco's deteriorating 
emotional state has led him to act irrationally. 

<snip>
> Magpie:
> I think the whole storyline is about a fundamental change in Draco 
> as a character.  He's not only reacting to outside complications,
> he's left alone with himself--his true self--for the first time.
> 
<snip> 
> If Draco's been betrayed by a family member that family member  
> would be LUCIUS.  The one whose claims about what it was like 
> being a Death Eater were completely false, the one who got himself 
> arrested, the one who got Voldemort focused on killing Draco to   
> begin with, the one who didn't prepare Draco for what he was going 
> to face.  The one whose place he's got to take. Draco has been 
> betrayed by the adults in his life, but not by Narcissa 
> fooling around on Lucius.

Mike:
YESSS!! IMO, These two are the most important reasons and basis for 
Draco's actions throughout the book. The first is JKR contrasting 
Draco with Harry, the second is Draco's the character getting 
blindsided.



As I have admitted, I'm not a Shipper. I find the love themes 
tedious even if JKR needs them in her story, so maybe I'm going to 
show my ignorance here. See PoA is my favorite book, must have read 
it 20 times if I read it once, but if this is where LOLLIPOPS got 
started I just don't see it. OK, there, I said it. I may feel stupid 
but I also feel better. <g>

Mike, feeling glad he got that off his chest.







From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 08:16:37 2006
From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:16:37 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad
In-Reply-To: <ecre4f+5b1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecrkd5+gs6s@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157486

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with 
> nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a toad?
> 
> Can I introduce that she might be a "coldblooded" murderer who has 
> made a few horcruxes?
snip

Doddie here:

I would love to think that she is more than capable...

However...for Voldemort to remain as evil as he is...I believe that 
only Voldemort would not give much thought to the repercussions of 
creating horcruxes..

Also, I think that Dumbridge would be more the type to "kill" those 
in the wizarding world who are not "fully human"...and Dolores would 
never create a horcrux out of the killing of a "half-breed"...

I probably would classify Dumbridge as a "sadist" more than the 
power hungry psychopath Voldemort is..(Dolores simply struck me in 
someone who garnered more enjoyment from the pain of others rather 
than having power..after all she really didn't press the issue of 
gaining access to DD's office, and she didn't attempt to fire 
professors that would ensure her a "shorter" line to headmastership 
of Hogwarts).

As far as the "Toad" reference...I always associated it with Dolores 
being a "toadie"..(the tag-a-long to the bully who has lots of bark 
and little bite "offically", but probably does more "emotional 
terror than the bully themselves)

Doddie
(who is simply greatful than Harry never touched D'umbridge as he 
may have developed many warts--and oft wonders if 
Marrietta's "sneak" was not made worse by the touch of the 
Toad<Umbridge>!)







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 08:47:42 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 08:47:42 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecqqhg+36rb@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecrm7e+ekmi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157487


Neri

> This is probably the root of our differences. I don't see at all that
> Snape and Harry (the order by which you mention them is interesting)
> are the central characters. I see that Harry is the central character,
> with Ron and Hermione the next main characters.

Sydney: 

As I said, Snape and Harry have the central *relationship*.  It's the
one that has the most unresolved emotional energy going into the last
stage of the book.  It's the one with the most potential for change in
*Harry*, the central character.  It's the one, as I said, where
everything that goes on with Snape has to go back to Harry.  Ron and
Hermione are sidekicks and they can have their own stories that run
parallel to the plot, like Jane could have her own romance with
Bingley or all the little side characters in Dickens can have their
own colourful storylines.  Snape is not so free.  His story has to
loop back into Harry's.  That's why we've had so many intimate,
emotially intense scenes with the two of them, why so many
opportunities are provided for Harry to burn with rage at Snape, why
Snape has some weird thing going on with Harry that we don't know what
it is.


Neri:

> But it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon. The fact that
> in the HP fanon Snape (and Draco) had become much more important than
> Harry has no effect on JKR.   


Sydney:

Neri, please stop using "you're confusing fanon with canon" as an
argument, unless you can direct me to a point of fact upon which I am
incorrect. I have done nothing but quote canon;  I don't read that
much fanon.  I notice you did this repeatedly with the 'Pride and
Prejudice' example as well.  You  might find it instructive to come to
terms with the fact that it was you, in fact, who was misremembering
the plot.  


Neri:

> I'd estimate that LOLLIPOPS would tend to place Snape center stage in
> Book 7, practically making him the hero of the series and distracting
> us from Harry and his mission. OTOH I think ACID POPS is exactly the
> proper size of SHIP for a character of Snape's magnitude.

Sydney:

If you'll forgive me for saying so, I think you are mistaking your
preference-- your 'fanon', if you will, for 'canon' about how
important Snape and Harry's relationship is to the story. You are
therefore trying to invent stories that drain that relationship of its
energy and intensity, ignoring the fact that that energy and intesity
*is actually there in the book*, because you have such an extremely
powerful desire to remove Snape as much as possible from the story. 



> > Sydney:
> > 
> > I honestly have no idea how you comprehend story.  Snape has millions
> > of flaws.  It's a character we already know quite well.  His downfall
> > already seems assured from every possible angle. <snip>
> 
> Neri:
> Snape has million flaws, but he is also portrayed as a kind of super
> wizard. Potions wiz, inventing spells at school, superb occlumenn,
> Dark Arts expert, a double and triple agent, winning both Voldemort's
> and Dumbledore's trust and never quite caught, confronting Bellatrix
> with a sardonic smile. Not every flaw is thematic enough to bring down
> a such a powerful man. 

Sydney:

I'm really baffled here.  If Snape's hubris is meant to bring him
down, why not use some existing weakness of Snape's that we already
are familiar with and can anticipate? You're spoilt for choice: 
Snape's hysterical jealousy of Harry, Snape's resentment of what
Dumbledore demands from him, Snape's temper, Snape's tendency to think
the worst of people on his own side, Snape's ultimately untenable
position as a double-agent.  His 'hubris' could have slipped him up on
any of these points.  I don't think 'hubris' is really thematically
related to Snape, but if it was, the last thing I'd do is muddy it up
by dragging in some sort of love angle.  I mean, is he in love with
Narcissa and selflessly sacrificed himself for her peace of mind?  Or
is the hubris thing that he has some crazy plan to save Draco, kill
Dumbledore, stay out of jail, take over the world, and then get the
trophy wife?  And I don't think you'd get away, for that reason, with
your one line of dialogue explaining why Snape took the UV, because
you'd still have to explain why Snape took the UV.


> Neri:
> Again, I suspect you tend to assign too much importance to both Snape
> and his love affairs. 

Sydney:  

No, YOU are inventing Snape's love affairs and assigning them an
importance that has nothing to do with Harry.  ACID POPS and the Life
Debt and some scattered explanations leave Harry unaffected and so do
not resolve the tension.  

Neri:

If Snape saves Harry's life in Book 7 because of
> his debt to James, especially if as a result Snape will find himself
> fighting against Voldemort, and especially if Snape did kill
> Dumbledore, then this would give both Harry and Snape quite enough to
> care about. Snape's love affair would be redundant for making Harry
> care.

Sydney:

And your point is, that Snape's love affair with Narcissa would be
redudant for making Harry care.  Strange, I thought that was my point.


Neri:

> Besides, ACID POPS is not "hitherto unsuspected" <g>. I too have
> speculated about some things before HBP, and I also have the post to
> prove it. See #106729.
> 

Sydney:

Unsuspected by Harry.  The main character.  Unintroduced by the
narrator.  

> 
> > Sydney:
> > 
> > Yes, but why *wouldn't* JKR give things away if there was a
> > Snape/Narcissa thing going on?  It would be one more for the
> > 'Spinner's End Exposition Party'-- reasons for the reader to
> > understand how evil!Snape would theoretically work.  'Ah', they would
> > say to themselves, 'this is how the downfall of Snape starts.  He's in
> > love with Narcissa'.
> 
> Neri:
> What? And deprive us of such a juicy theory to speculate and argue
> about for two years? And since when does JKR give away things about
> Snape, unless she absolutely must? It's against her official policy.


Sydney:

JKR is not writing random stuff for us to spin juicy theories about. 
She is constructing a story with a strong arc that is all meant to
make sense.  Her policy about giving things away about Snape is surely
because they are important, shocking, critical to the plot, and, I
hate to keep saying this, will have an effect on Harry, the main
character,  that she doesn't want to happen until the last possible
moment.  

> Neri:
> Life debt and ACID POPS give you two "What?!?" moments in Book 7
> instead of just one.

Sydney:

And you think that's STRONGER?  And here I was looking for a grand
unified Snape theory that ties back into Harry on every unanswered
point.  Instead I should just be looking for a bunch of random stuff
that I can plug in here and there.  And how is "Snape loves Narcissa"
a WHAT? moment?  You yourself seem to think it's just a throw-away
walk-on, walk-off device for a peripheral character's decision to put
his life on the line.


> Neri:
> Draco asks Borgin how to fix the cabinet, so why can't he ask Snape?
> That wouldn't be admitting to failure, only asking for information.
> When he succeeds in repairing the cabinet, Draco has no problem
> calling in several SS officers, I mean several DEs, into a school for
> an assassination mission, but he doesn't call Snape, who had taken a
> UV to guard him and had just saved his life. 

Sydney:

Because Draco is CLOSE to Snape.  Snape was, as I said, his role
model, a father figure.  The other DE's and Borgin are guys he can use
and give orders to and doesn't really have to deal with.  Snape is
someone who is wrapped up with all the *emotional* issues that Draco
is having.  You will notice that Draco also avoids telling *his
friends*, Crabbe and Goyle, what's going on.  Because he just might
start cracking up.


Neri:

What does Draco's have
> against Snape personally that he *doesn't* have against any other DE
> or bad man out there? This is not a minor question, it is a critical
> one. The whole tragedy in the end of HBP would have been prevented if
> only Draco, at any single point during this whole year, would have
> told Snape. I think this requires a more specific reason than "it was
> Draco's coming-of-age story".
> 

Sydney:

"More specific"?  Once again I'm confused by what you want out of a
story.  Draco's 'coming of age' is a character growing and changing. 
Inventing a bunch of extrenal factors to replace that emotional growth
seems to be what you mean by 'more specific'.  "What Draco has against
Snape personally" is that Snape and Draco are, well, personal.  


Neri:

> He doesn't want just to prove that he can do it by
> himself. He wants Snape demoted. He wants to be more important than
> Snape. Are we not supposed to ask why? 

Sydney:

16-year-old boy... wants to take down father-figure a peg... wants to
be important and independent...  dang it, what's going on!?  There
must be some sort of magical device to explain all this bizzareness! 
Hey, maybe Slughorn made Draco take some sort of 'conflicted
adolescent' potion or something!  That would explain it!


> Neri:

> Oh, I see. If nobody thinks so, then it can't be true. How did I dare
> think about it? Especially if the Draco *fans* decided that Draco's
> behavior is so compelling here, then who am I to say otherwise?
> Perhaps you should also notify Pippin that she's wasting her time on
> ESE!Lupin, because all the Lupin fans are sure he's a good guy.

Sydney:

Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin,
because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. 
Because it's not emotionally satisfying.  If it WAS emotionally
satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon.

"If nobody thinks so, it can't be true".  Well, I thinks it more, "if
nobody sees it coming, it can't be foreshadowed as you say it's being
foreshadowed.  Because nobody seems to see it coming."


> Neri, 
> who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy SHIP
> clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.

Sydney:

"Strange", or "totally understandable because they're not clues". 
Your call.

--Sydney








From finwitch at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 10:06:40 2006
From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 10:06:40 -0000
Subject: blood/Hermione'sOWLs/
In-Reply-To: <ecr6ng+bc0f@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecrqrg+5ud7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157488

"Catlady:
>
> Some weeks ago, some listie (I'm sorry I forgot who) suggested that
> magic power is literally in the wizard's physical blood. Thus if it
> were possible to drain all the blood out of a wizard while keeping 
him
> alive (by putting in a synthetic blood substitute), and then fill 
him
> back up with blood from Muggles, he wouldn't have any magic power
> until his own blood grew back. And if one of us Muggles received a
> large blood transfusion from Wizards, that one Muggle would have 
some
> magic power until the transfused blood wore out.
> 
> And I realised the other night, during my usual tossing and 
turning,
> that perhaps that explains what it is about the Bloody Baron that
> makes him the only person Peeves fears. I have previously thought 
it
> might be because the Baron is the only ghost able to do magic, so 
he
> can properly curse Peeves, but I could never think of a good reason
> why the Baron would have retained his magic power after death if no
> one else does. Now the reason could be that he is the only ghost 
who
> still has blood -- the blood showing on his exterior. I think that
> works only if Sir Nick has no blood showing on the cut through his 
neck?

Finwitch:

Interesting thought. Still, I must wonder just *how* the Bloody 
Baron got to keep the blood while others did not. Anyway, Magic in 
the Blood can explain i.e. someone discovering Magic late in life. 
Voldy's Bone-Flesh-Blood also grants some credit for it as well as 
Dumbledore's Blood-protection. Also, there's a REASON why it had to 
be Harry. Because Voldy's powers were absorbed into Harry's blood 
instead of killing Harry -- So by getting *HARRY's* blood, Voldy got 
his old powers back with a bonus of Harry's magic. (which Trelawney 
noted as 'more powerful than ever before.'
 
As for the protection of the Mother's Loving Sacrifice - remember, 
Dumbledore said it was on Harry's very *skin*. So Voldy *thought* he 
got it from Harry's blood, but he didn't, because the protection was 
on Harry's skin... that's quite explanatory on Dumbledore's 
triumphant glance there...
--
> 
> I have often wondered about that. As you indicated, Hermione 
received
> her 11 OWLs in:
> 
> 1. Astronomy
> 2. Care Of Magical Creatures
> 3. Charms
> 4. DADA
> 5. Herbology
> 6. History of Magic
> 7. Potions
> 8. Transfiguration
> 9. Ancient Runes
> 10. Arithmancy
> 11. ?????  
> 

Some listies have suggested
> that she (and every other Muggle-born) could ace the Muggle Studies
> OWL without taking the class (altho' I think they'd fail for 
failing
> to give the erroneous answers taught in class). I suggested that 
the
> wizarding world is so different from the Muggle world that there 
could
> be an OWL exam that only prefects are allowed to take 

Finwitch:

Well, I'd think that Muggle Studies was Hermione's 11th OWL. She 
*did* study that for a while in order to get 'wizard's point of 
view'. And, as Ron pointed out, "Your parents are Muggles! You know 
all about them!". In addition, as the Ministry required A in Muggle 
Studies for the job - which Arthur probably has - passed, but not a 
decent grade - then yes, I'd say Hermione really *could* have gained 
an O in Muggle Studies. Really, all she'd need she certainly had:

1) W's point of wiew gained trough her third year study and all-
around socializing with Weasleys. (Just so she can explain Muggle 
World to the wizards who have never met a Muggle)

2) The knowledge of Muggle technology/medicine - which she has 
learned in her younger years at school, and no doubt from her 
parents and some books in her parents house&office. If she was lucky 
the exam had questions on Muggle dentistry, on which Hermione has 
explicit knowledge of trough her parents (who to me seem a bit over-
enthusiastic on the trade). Or there could have been an free essay 
where Hermione could have written on the subject. Enough to gain her 
a bonus like Harry's Patronus in DADA got Harry, anyway.

And considering Hermione's Boggart she probably did do something for 
bonus points in all her exams.

3)Her experience in using things like telephones, Muggle clothes, 
Matches etc.

As for the exam itself, I suppose there could have been a written 
part on the friday afternoon, and a practical part in Muggle World, 
taking place during the weekend (no other exams). Hermione could 
have introduced the examiner to her parents or something... That 
would have passed her in itself (you merely need to pass unnoticed 
by the Muggles for A, As a Muggle for E), but suppose her parents 
proudly showed Hermione's school records, Hermione acing in just 
about every subject in her previous Muggle school...

As for why Hermione would bother taking that exam? She'd ask why 
not. And maybe she wants that Ministry job -- the bureaucratic 
ministry *requiring* a pass grade on an exam which Muggleborns and 
half-bloods raised in Muggleworld who know more than any wizardborn 
having taken it, wouldn't usually take...

Finwitch






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Sun Aug 27 12:03:33 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:03:33 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecr58e+mbd4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecs1ml+rud2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157489

Neri:
> > This sounds to me like Draco has a serious grudge against Snape 
personally. He doesn't want just to prove that he can do it by 
himself. He wants Snape demoted. He wants to be more important than 
Snape. Are we not supposed to ask why?

Tonks:
> As to why Draco would want to dethrone Snape, isn't that normal teen
behavior? He would want to show the world that he was better than
his teacher. The student wants to outdo his mentor. Show the world
(and himself) that he is a real man now and no longer just a
student. And the kid in him would want to make daddy proud for
once. Just imagine what Lucius would say if Draco had been
successful. I sure that Draco had that in mind as well.

Ceridwen:
While I thought it was strange for Draco to hide things from Snape, 
the reason that immediately came to mind is what Tonks said: he's 
breaking away from his familiar childhood aids and protection and 
wanting to do it on his own.  The same thing happens in nature, with 
the younger lions challenging the older dominant male for supremacy.  
Sooner or later, one of the younger lions wins and there is a shake-
up in the pride.  It's a coming-of-age thing, and it satisfies me.

Neri: 
> > who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy  
SHIP clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.

> Tonks:
> I was once in the Snape loves Narcissa camp until I switched to the 
Snape Loved Lily camp, so I can understand some of your POV. Chapter 
2 does easily lend itself to the ACID POPS theory.

Ceridwen:
I hadn't given ACID POPS any thought at all until I read Spinner's 
End.  Then it leaped out at me like one of those young lions.  *g*  I 
think, though, that if Snape was like other children, he probably had 
crushes on a few girls during school.  He may have adored both 
Narcissa and Lily at different times.

I had friends in school who stuck with the same boy all through high 
school, but many more friends who went from one crush to another, and 
dated several boys before graduation and finally finding The One.  
Granted that the WW has a lot fewer potential mates for its citizens, 
but after school, graduates would go out into the world and meet 
other people who were older and from different houses, and therefore 
not on their in-school crush radar, for the most part.

Maybe it's my age, but I really don't see a schoolyears crush 
influencing any of the adults in the story.  People move on from 
their crushes, probably a lot faster than they move on from their 
grudges and dislikes.  Sometimes, old crushes embarrass people, even 
when no one else ever knew about them.  I'd rather go for a 
friendship between Snape and Lily (and between Snape and Narcissa).  
Friendships hold longer, and the fall-out from a broken friendship 
lasts as long as a grudge.

Ceridwen.






From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Sun Aug 27 13:34:05 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:34:05 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad
In-Reply-To: <ecre4f+5b1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecs70d+l4vq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157490

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with 
> nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a toad?
> 
>snip<

Luckdragon replies:

I've wondered as well if there could be some correlation between 
Umbridge who Looks like a toad, the portrait in the prime Ministers 
office of the "froglike little man wearing a long silver wig", and 
Neville's toad "Trevor". It seems odd that there would be three such 
references with no seeming correlation between them. Perhaps there is 
something the frog/toad represents which we are missing. 






From luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca  Sun Aug 27 15:04:37 2006
From: luckdragon64 at yahoo.ca (Luckdragon)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:04:37 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad
In-Reply-To: <ecre4f+5b1q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecsca5+nqj4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157491

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama at ...> 
wrote:
>
> I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with 
> nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a toad?
> 
> Can I introduce that she might be a "coldblooded" murderer who has 
> made a few horcruxes?
> 
> Her nice little kitten plates, things of no value at all, which no 
one 
> would ever be tempted to steal, could hold her most valuable 
> possesions?
> 
> I think she has the cruelty necessary.
> 


Luckdragon:
Apparently witches and toads have been linked for ages; usually not 
for the good of mankind. I think it interesting that the frog/toad 
exudes some properties from it's skin that could contain medicinal, 
magical, or poisonous properties. Interesting link below:

http://www.shanmonster.com/witch/familiar/toad.html
>








From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Aug 27 15:33:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 11:33:48 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
References: <ecrjq8+p8dl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004201c6c9ee$319eadc0$6f80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157492

> Mike:
> I'm not a SHIPper and therefore HBP was only half a book for me. I
> really don't care about who SHIPs with who. But even I could read
> the sensual tension in that scene between Snape and Narcissa. As
> Betsy noted, this is a children's series, JKR couldn't have written
> that scene any more lustily than she did without getting herself in
> trouble with her young audience (or more likely, their Parents).

Magpie:
The books are full of explicit romantic and sexual relationships. If we're 
supposed to see Snape and Narcissa having an affair in that scene I think 
JKR would have written something other than just a vague sense of sexual 
tension in the narrative description.  A line, a slip of the 
tongue--anything explicit.  Something a young audience could understand.

Mike:
> Still, I think you must be denying the obvious to not see the S&N
> undertone. Whether you want to classify it as romantic, idolization,
> or simple lust, well, I'll leave that to the SHIP-ers.

Magpie:
The scene has intense things going on between Snape and Narcissa.  That much 
is obvious.  But the stuff that's supposed to be so obviously sexual 
actually fits just as well with what we're told is going on in the scene--a 
desperate woman trying to save her only child going to a man who's 
emotionally involved with all of them but also must play the role of cold 
Death Eater.  I can't count how many times scenes in canon or the movies 
have been described to me as being "obviously" shippy, with no other 
explanation for them than shippiness, when they were, imo, nothing of the 
kind.

Mike:
Though,  ever
> since Snapes twitch in GoF I've wondered what's going on between
> Snape and the Malfoys and ACID POPS works as well as anything else,
> for me, for now.

Magpie:
I've wondered about the connection between them too.  But Snape/Narcissa 
working or not doesn't make it true, and canon seems to link Lucius to Snape 
far more than Narcissa.

> Mike:
> I do agree with Neri in as much as I see Draco acting ooc, but I
> think that was the whole point. We are suppose to notice the
> contrast between Harry and Draco. IOW, "you need your friends"
> vs. "nobody can help me".

Magpie:
Yes, though himself has gone through times when he hid things from 
others--in OotP, for instance, he hid the idea that he was possessed by 
Voldemort at first.  It's not Draco's character being different from Harry's 
that makes him isolated (you and Neri are both pointing out that Draco 
usually goes to others for help), it's the situation.  Sydney has explained 
this in more detail, but Draco is struggling with a fundamental problem with 
who he is.  His task, and the fears that his task has brought up, make it 
hard for him to go to the very people who have been his support system. 
It's a contrast between the life of a DE and life on the good side too.

Mike:
> So what is ooc for Draco? He may be a bungler but he's suppose to be
> smarter than what he's exhibiting. And he knows fixing the cabinets
> is NOT what's going to bring him glory, killing Dumbledore is.

Magpie:
That's your reasoned view of the situation but canonically it doesn't seem 
to be Draco's.  To him everything is wrapped up together.  And to be honest, 
I think it makes sense that Draco is more secretive about the cabinets than 
anything else. That really is the thing that he brings to the table and I 
can see why he wants to hand that over to Snape least of all. It's the thing 
he thinks he actually can do and does. Ultimately I think most of the 
decisions Draco made in HBP will be for the best.

> Mike:
> Yes, but you've only come to that conclusion because *you* don't see
> a good reason for it, not because it isn't plausible.

Magpie:
I've come to the conclusion because it's what written in the book, I think. 
JKR simply did not write HBP with Draco being motivated by feelings about 
Snape/Narcissa.  She wrote HBP with Draco driven by his desire to be a man 
like Lucius and Snape and the growing realization that he wasn't a killer. 
Snape/Narcissa is plausible in the sense that there's no proving a negative. 
They know each other and so could be fooling around off screen as much as 
Lupin/Tonks could have been, and we eventually find out were, in OotP.  But 
I don't see it as making much difference in HBP.

Mike:
And how is
> the 'minor love subplot' of Tonks-Lupin suppose to be helping Harry
> at this point in the story?

Magpie:
Yes, let's look at Lupin/Tonks in comparison to Snape/Narcissa.   First, 
it's explicit, both in there being a mystery to solve and in the solution to 
the mystery being Lupin/Tonks.  "What is wrong with Tonks?" is a question 
asked flat-out in HBP.  In the end Lupin/Tonks have a private scene (albeit 
in front of witnesses) where their affair is made clear.  This is all what 
is missing from Snape/Narcissa so far.

More importantly, Lupin/Tonks is just one of many side plots where the lives 
of people Harry knows are filled in.  He already cares about these people on 
that level.  Snape/Narcissa, by contrast, is being used in the theory I was 
arguing against to (paraphrasing Sydney's words about Snape/Harry here 
because I think the same impulse is often applied to Draco's story in HBP) 
"drain that character's story of its intensity and thematic importance." 
Rather than being a random side story of minor characters Harry likes like 
Lupin/Tonks, this theory is more like saying that there's Harry/Dumbledore 
in HBP and that explains Dumbledore's giving Harry private lessons and 
telling him about the Dark Lord etc.  Because Dumbledore's always kept Harry 
protected from this stuff in the past.  And it can't be because he's dying 
and Harry's old enough to take over because coming of age is a cliche.

Mike:
And since when has JKR limited the
> number of reasons for a character's actions, especially Snape's?

Magpie:
Snape's true motivations have been carefully hidden from us but I think 
ultimately he'll hang together in a pretty consistent way that ties together 
the things we've already seen.

Mike:
> I'm not saying that Draco is motivated by any suspicion of a Snape-
> Narcissa love affair, but that doesn't preclude it being a factor
> for Snape.

Magpie:
But to be clear, that was Neri's point and the point I was arguing against. 
I don't have a strong feeling on Snape/Narcissa one way or another--I agree 
with Sydney on its potential storywise and so lean towards Snape/Lily, but 
what I'm arguing against here is a theory of Snape/Narcissa that denies 
Draco's coming of age story in HBP.  That story, btw, will I think link to 
Harry in ways the Snape/Narcissa version doesn't.  (Really, one of the odd 
things about HBP is the way JKR doesn't allow it to start affecting Harry in 
that book, but I think she's saving all that type stuff for Book VII.)


> Mike:
> I'm betting that you wish you hadn't written these two lines. Since
> the rest of your argument is reasoned, why add these two silly
> sentences? Draco doesn't ask this 'brutal force' to "steal his
> glory", because this IS where he would get his glory, not fixing a
> cabinet, and you know that.

Magpie:
I'm not really regretting it, actually, because Neri's argument, to which I 
was responding, is different from yours.:-)  That argument claimed that 
Draco's wanting to do this himself for glory or any other reason, was 
irrational in the face of danger to his family.  You are suggesting a 
different idea, that help for the cabinet would not interfere with his glory 
the way help with the killing did.  I see the logic behind that thinking, 
but I think canon explicitly denies that Draco feels this way.  He's hiding 
from Snape, period.  Snape isn't on his side, because Draco's figuring out 
he doesn't have what it takes to be on what he thinks is Snape's side.

-m 





From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 15:32:07 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 15:32:07 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad/Trevor the Toad
In-Reply-To: <ecs70d+l4vq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecsdtn+6j3o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157493

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Luckdragon" 
<luckdragon64 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" <balrogmama@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with 
> > nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a 
toad?
> > 
> >snip<
> 
> Luckdragon replies:
> 
> I've wondered as well if there could be some correlation between 
> Umbridge who Looks like a toad, the portrait in the prime 
Ministers 
> office of the "froglike little man wearing a long silver wig", and 
> Neville's toad "Trevor". It seems odd that there would be three 
such 
> references with no seeming correlation between them. Perhaps there 
is 
> something the frog/toad represents which we are missing.
>
Carodave:
I always assumed that the portrait in the PMs office was an ancestor 
of Dolores'.  She is obviously not muggle-born with all those 
prejudices and I don't think she can be a pure-blood - was the 
Umbridge family mentioned on the Black tapestry? (I don't think so). 
One of her ancestors could be the frog-like man in the portrait, a 
muggle born wizard who served in muggle politics (the family 
business?)

I know that other posters have wondered about Trevor - he is 
mentioned alot.  It seems unlike JKR to continually mention him when 
he serves no purpose in the storyline.  I think Neville will play a 
crucial role in Book 7, maybe Trevor's secret will be revealed as 
part of that plot line?  Will it somehow relate to Neville's wand, 
the last one purchased prior to Ollivander's disappearance?

Carodave








From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 16:29:11 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:29:11 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and the Old Japanese Movie
Message-ID: <ecsh8n+jau1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157494

I found this on Wikipedia today.  It has these images from Harry 
Potter that make me wonder what is it about Youths losing their 
parents and getting scars in battles?  Why is there always a giant 
snake or a giant spider or my favorite here a giant Toad ?(Can you say 
Umbridge?)

I would love for Trevor the toad to save the day by being enlarged to 
such a size that he swallows Voldemort and let's out a resounding 
belch!

"This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper!"
I think this was TS Eliot's line.

or 

"This is the way the wizard world ends. Not with a bang but a belch!"

Randy







From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 16:30:59 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 16:30:59 -0000
Subject: Harry Potter and the Japanese Movie (I forgot the link!)
Message-ID: <ecshc3+n9ks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157495

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magic_Serpent


Silly 1960's Japanese movie story with lots of HP references!







From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com  Sun Aug 27 17:01:46 2006
From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com)
Date: 27 Aug 2006 17:01:46 -0000
Subject: Weekly Chat, 8/27/2006, 1:00 pm 
Message-ID: <1156698106.148.82848.m25@yahoogroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157496


Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups
 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal

Weekly Chat
Sunday August 27, 2006
1:00 pm - 1:00 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Notes:
Just a reminder, Sunday chat starts in about one hour.

To get to the HPfGU room follow this link:
http://www.chatzy.com/792755223574

Create a user name for yourself, whatever you want
to be called.

Enter the password: hpfguchat

Click "Join Chat" on the lower right. 

Chat start times:
11 am Pacific US
12 noon Mountain US
1 pm Central US
2 pm Eastern US
7 pm UK


Set up birthday reminders
 http://us.rd.yahoo.com/cal_us/rem/?http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal?v=9&evt_type=13

Copyright 2006 All Rights Reserved
 www.yahoo.com

Privacy Policy:
 http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us

Terms of Service:
 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://archive.hpfgu.org/pipermail/hpforgrownups/attachments/20060827/580213c2/attachment.html>

From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug 27 17:53:03 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:53:03 -0000
Subject: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ecqud6+sde1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecsm60+4i91@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157497

Ken wrote:
> What if Aberforth is a (possibly unregistered) animagus? That could 
> explain the goatishness that is about him and the whimsy behind
> what I agree is Dumbledore's joke.

Abergoat writes:
I agree it is certainly possible. A bit of support for this idea is
that Aberforth may well be one of the seven registered animagii that
Hermione mentioned in an earlier book.  We don't know Aberforth's age
relative to Albus's. Seems like a stretch that Aberforth would be 50
plus years younger, but then nothing says one has to learn how to make
an animagus transformation when one is young. Aberforth could have
been registered when he was 50+ years old. You are registered when you
learn, not as a child. James, Sirius and Peter were usual that they
learned so young.

Add to that we are told (at least twice I believe) that an animagii
transformation is dangerous but JKR hasn't yet given a concrete
example. I think dog lady at St. Mungo's may be one and it may well be
that, if Aberforth is indeed stuck in goat form, Aberforth is
considered another.

Bet Hermione knows what happened to Albus's brother....

Abergoat








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Sun Aug 27 17:59:20 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:59:20 -0000
Subject: Karkaroffs hearing
In-Reply-To: <ecl0su+mp79@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecsmho+o7ha@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157498

bboyminn writes:

> We seem to be assuming that Death Eaters and Voldemort Supporters 
> are one and the same thing. Certainly Death Eaters are Voldemort
> Supporters, but Voldemort supporters are not necessarily Death 
> Eaters.

Abergoat writes:
Great post, Steve! I agree that there are active and passive Voldemort
supporters, and I do think there is a 'special' inner-circle. But I do
recall that when we were trying to puzzle out the strange '30:1' ratio
it came up whether the ratio was for supporters or for Death Eaters
and it was confirmed that JKR used the term Death Eaters.

I don't think we should base much speculation on that ratio - it does
seem too high.

Abergoat







From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net  Sun Aug 27 18:54:31 2006
From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 18:54:31 -0000
Subject: Reminder:  HBP Chapdisc continues soon!
Message-ID: <ecspp7+ntns@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157499

Greetings, list members!  

Just a quick note to remind you all that the HBP Chapter Discussions, 
which took a little summer break, will be back up and running in the 
next 24 hours or so.  

In case you've forgotten and would like to do a re-read of the 
relevant chapter, we're ready for a discussion of Chapter 19: Elf 
Tails, which will be led by KJ.  

You can find the entire schedule of upcoming chapter discussions and 
post numbers for previous chapter summaries here:  
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=15

Shorty Elf, for the List Elves









From kjones at telus.net  Sun Aug 27 19:43:54 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 12:43:54 -0700
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
Message-ID: <1156707834.44f1f5fa9c3fd@webmail.telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157500



Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 19, Elf Tails


	It is now shortly after eight oclock on the evening of Rons birthday.  He is
still unconscious after drinking the poisoned mead, but out of danger. He is
expected to be in the hospital wing for another week taking Essence of Rue. 
With him are Harry, Hermione, Ginny, and Fred and George, who have just arrived.
 Hermione is still in considerable shock. She was described as being white-faced
and clench-jawed until she was allowed in to see Ron. She is still very quiet. 
The others are chatting comfortably about the poisoning and the reasons behind
it. [Q1] [Q2]

	Several ideas are discussed as to why Ron might have been poisoned.  Was Ron
the intended victim, was Harry, was it Slughorn or was it Dumbledore?  Ginny
reminds Harry that Slughorn had said that the bottle had been intended as a gift
for Dumbledore.  While the others consider that information, Hermione states
that the person who had poisoned the mead had not known Slughorn very well or
they would have known that he was likely to drink it himself.  Nothing is said
about how the wine might have been poisoned or when it might have been poisoned.
[Q3]

	Hagrid arrives during the conversation and suggests that perhaps someone is
trying to attack the Gryffindor Quidditch team.  The idea is considered
unlikely.  Once again, Hermione joins the discussion by stating that the attacks
are connected, and that the attacks did not reach the person for whom they were
intended.  [Q4]

	The Weasley parents arrive at this point in the conversation and are deeply
grateful to Harry for saving Rons life.  Molly also mentions that Harry saved
Ginny and Arthur as well.  Arthur agrees in a constricted voice that half of
his family owes their lives to Harry, now that he thinks of it.  Embarrassed,
and as there are now more people visiting than are allowed, Harry takes the
opportunity to leave.  Hagrid and Hermione accompany him. [Q5] [Q6]

	Hagrid advises Harry and Hermione that Dumbledore is worried sick. He believes
that Dumbledore does not know who is behind the attacks or they would have been
caught. There is a possibility that the school might be closed if they do not
catch the perpetrator soon.  Hagrid is speaking very carefully, checking the
ceiling for Peeves and ceasing to talk at all when a ghost passes them in the
hall.  Hagrid then mentions carelessly that it is no wonder that Dumbledore is
angry with Snape.  Harry immediately pounces on this statement and begins to
question Hagrid.  Hagrid reluctantly tells Harry that he over-heard a heated
argument between Dumbledore and Snape near the Forbidden Forest.  He states that
Snape told Dumbledore that he took too much for granted and that he, Snape,
might not want to do it any more. [Q7] [Q8] [Q9]

 Hagrid also states that Dumbledore replied that he, Snape, had agreed to do it
and that was that.  Hagrid explains that Dumbledore wants Snape to make searches
of his House.   Hagrid follows with a warning to Harry not to make too much of
it considering his feelings about Snape. The conversation is then interrupted by
a shadow over the wall where they are standing, and a warning from Hermione. 
Filch arrives on the scene.  When Filch attempts to give Harry and Hermione
detentions, Hagrid becomes extremely angry and calls Filch a sneaking Squib. 
Hermione and Harry are told to go and then Filch and Hagrid continue their
argument.[Q10] [Q11]

	Over the next few days Harry is prevented from following Draco, and
occasionally fails to find him on the Marauders Map. McLaggen is bothering him
about the Quidditch position and Lavender is bothering him about Ron.  Every
time she goes to see him in the hospital wing he is asleep.  Harry wonders about
this, as Ron is always awake when Harry visits him.  Harry pays a visit to Ron
before the match and tells him that he will not be replaced with McLaggen no
matter how good he is and to stop pretending to be asleep when Lavender visits.
 He suggests that Ron tell her the truth. On his way to the match, Harry sees
Malfoy coming towards him, away from the match, with two girls.  Harry is wild
to know where he is going and what he is doing but can not miss the match.  The
frustration is extremely distracting for him. [Q12] [Q13]

	  During the match, as Harry is attempting to stop McLaggen from demonstrating
how to hit a bludger, Harry is struck and knocked unconscious.  The match is
lost 320 to 60.  Harry is forced to remain in the hospital wing with Ron
overnight.  Ron asks why he had nearly been late for the match and Harry
explains about meeting Malfoy.  Ron tells Harry that he is obsessed with Malfoy
and that there are others besides Malfoy who might be to blame. Ron soon loses
interest and falls asleep. [Q14]

	During his night in the hospital wing Harry recalls his other Quidditch
injuries and remembers Dobby coming to talk to him. Thinking about Dobby gives
Harry an idea.  Excited, Harry calls Kreacher.  Kreacher arrives, but is heavily
involved in a physical fight with Dobby over his insults to Harry.  We see Harry
cast one of the Princes spells to quiet the noise and another to silence Peeves
up, who has followed the elves.  Harry demands that Kreacher follow Malfoy, spy
on him and report back what he is up to.  Harry forbids Kreacher to talk to
Draco, write to Draco, contact him in any way, or tell anyone what he is doing.
Dobby also insists on helping as well.  Ron, who was awakened by the arrival of
the elves, has a look of surprise and exasperation on his face. [Q15] [Q16]

1.	This comparison is very interesting in that Hermione appears to have gone
from hate to love in a very short time.  Has she really had an epiphany about
her feelings for Ron? Is she feeling guilty for treating him so badly?  This
description seems over-done to me, particularly in comparison to Freds and
Georges reactions.  Do we expect to see Rons family more concerned than
Hermione?  Is this emotionality in character for her?

2.	Have we been given any previous information on Essence of Rue?  As many of
the named potions in the story have been used in later books, are we likely to
see this one again or is it a Skele-gro type of potion?  What purpose might it
serve?

3.	Since the readers know more than the characters at this point, are the two
attempts to harm someone confirmation that Draco is actively, if
unenthusiastically, trying to kill Dumbledore?  Do you think that Harry has
enough information to come to the same conclusion but fails to do so? 

4.	 Do you think that Hermiones statements convince the others that Slughorn is
the intended victim?  

5.	Considering the information that we have been given on Life Debts, is this
fore-shadowing of what will come in Book 7?  Has Arthur just realized what this
could mean for the Weasley family?  Does the fact that he speaks in a
constricted voice mean anything other than his distress at nearly losing Ron? 

6.	 Does Harry understand what has been said here?  Does Hermione owe Harry
and/or Ron a life debt after the troll incident, and could Rons near-death
experience be having a magical affect on Hermione?  How many people owe Harry
their lives at this point?

7.	Why is Hagrid so careful to make sure that no one over-hears their
conversation and then blurts out to Harry that Dumbledore was angry with Snape?
 Hagrid was very clear about two of the statements, doesnt want to do it any
more and you agreed to do it, but unclear on the rest.  As the character of
Hagrid has been used to blurt out information that Harry is not supposed to
know, is this concern for security in character for someone who is about to
commit an indiscretion?  Do you think that Hagrid has been giving Harry the
information he needs at Dumbledores instruction? 

8.	Knowing what we do about the Unbreakable Vow, and assuming that Dumbledore
was told about it by Snape, is there anything he, Dumbledore, could have done to
secure the castle, or apprehend Draco early in the game, without triggering the
Vow?  Do you believe that Dumbledore was willing to risk others in order to
protect his spy and keep his plan in action? 

9.	 What would the effect on the Vow have been if Draco had been stopped and
hidden before he actually began to perform the steps necessary to complete his task?

10.	We have seen in the books that Snape had promised four things, to go back to
Voldemort as a spy, to protect Draco, to help Draco in his task, and to perform
the task if Draco is unable to do so.  Which promise do you think Dumbledore was
insisting Snape keep?   Do you think that the promise Dumbledore wanted from
Snape, in their conversation near the Forbidden Forest, was unrelated to these
prior promises?

11.	 Hagrid called Filch a sneaking Squib.  Have we ever heard Hagrid talk to
another co-worker like this before and what does it say about their
relationship? Do you think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch? 
Does this seem out of character for Hagrid?  Does Hagrid share the WW dislike of
Squibs?

12.	We are not told who the girls were who were accompanying Malfoy.  Would
Harry have recognized other students from Slytherin, or was he simply too
focused on Malfoy to realize that he did not recognize them?  Were they
strangers?  Were they Crabbe and Goyle? Is there any indication that students
are allowed to have visitors at Hogwarts? 

13.	We have seen Harry as pretty clueless when it comes to feelings, but here we
see him put two and two together and come to the right answer when it comes to
Ron and Lavender.  Is this out of character for him?  Did Harry care about the
fairness of the situation or was he only hoping that Lavender would stop
bothering him if she knew that Ron was no longer interested in her?

14.	Ron is clearly exasperated by Harrys obsession with Draco.  Why has this
changed from the first books, where Ron and Hermione bought into everything
Harry believed?  

15.	Why did Harry not call Dobby in the first place?  He knows that he can trust
Dobby, and knows full well that he can not trust Kreacher.  Has Harry done
enough to ensure Kreachers silence? 

16.	 Since Ron was surprised by this demand of Harrys for Kreacher to spy on
Draco, is it possible that this kind of behaviour is frowned on in the Wizarding
World? 
 
17.	We have been given a great deal of information in this chapter, but has
anything occurred to actually move the plot forward in this book?  Has anything
happened in this chapter which is likely to have an impact on the final book? 

KJ, giving bows and flourishes to Shorty Elf for comments and suggestions.


Note:  For more information on HPfGUs chapter discussions, please see HPfGU HBP
Chapter Discussions at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database





From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 20:49:00 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:49:00 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <1156707834.44f1f5fa9c3fd@webmail.telus.net>
Message-ID: <ect0fs+dqp5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157501

zgirnius: Hi KJ, nice summary and questions. Thanks for putting this 
together!

 > 1.	This comparison is very interesting in that Hermione appears 
to have gone from hate to love in a very short time.  Has she really 
had an epiphany about her feelings for Ron? Is she feeling guilty for 
treating him so badly?  This description seems over-done to me, 
particularly in comparison to Fred's and George's reactions.  Do we 
expect to see Ron's family more concerned than Hermione?  Is this 
emotionality in character for her?

zgirnius:
I found the description of Hermione convincing; I would have expected 
her reaction to be at least as strong as Ron's family's. I don't 
think she hates Ron at any point in HBP. Her animosity is in my view 
driven by her jealousy over Lavender, a feeling which would not 
affect her, were she not in love with Ron.

> 2.Have we been given any previous information on Essence of Rue?  
As many of the named potions in the story have been used in later 
books, are we likely to see this one again or is it a Skele-gro type 
of potion?  What purpose might it serve?

zgirnius:
I think this is one of the cases where Rowling is displaying her 
familiarity with historic RL medicinal herbs. Rue is a real plant, 
which has been used for madical purposes historically, including 
against digestive spasms, which might plausibly be a side effect of 
either poisoning or bezoar use.. I this this is similar to her 
inclusion of aconite (also known as wolfsbane) in the Potion of the 
same name. (It was historically planted to scare off werewolves; it 
is also a poison).

> 3.	Since the readers know more than the characters at this 
point, are the two attempts to harm someone confirmation that Draco 
is actively, if unenthusiastically, trying to kill Dumbledore?  Do 
you think that Harry has enough information to come to the same 
conclusion but fails to do so? 

zgirnius:
I did not figure it out myself, so I will not fault Harry on this.:D

> 5. Considering the information that we have been given on Life 
Debts, is this fore-shadowing of what will come in Book 7?  Has 
Arthur just realized what this could mean for the Weasley family?  
Does the fact that he speaks in a constricted voice mean anything 
other than his distress at nearly losing Ron? 

zgirnius:
In light of Rowling's statement that Ginny does not owe Harry a life 
debt-I doubt Ron or Arthur do either. I think Arhtur is just worried, 
relieved, and grateful, as is natural under the circumstances.

> 6.	 Does Harry understand what has been said here?  Does 
Hermione owe Harry and/or Ron a life debt after the troll incident, 
and could Ron's near-death experience be having a magical affect on 
Hermione?  How many people owe Harry their lives at this point?

zgirnius:
I think Peter is the only one with a magical Life Debt to Harry, 
again because of things Rowling has said.

> 7.	Why is Hagrid so careful to make sure that no one over-hears 
their conversation and then blurts out to Harry that Dumbledore was 
angry with Snape?  Hagrid was very clear about two of the 
statements, "doesn't want to do it any more" and "you agreed to do 
it," but unclear on the rest.  As the character of Hagrid has been 
used to blurt out information that Harry is not supposed to know, is 
this concern for security in character for someone who is about to 
commit an indiscretion?  Do you think that Hagrid has been giving 
Harry the information he needs at Dumbledore's instruction? 

zgirnius:
I did not find Hagrid's behavior odd, myself. He does not wish to be 
overheard by random people, but he is not careful of Harry himself. I 
have a lot of difficulty picturing Hagrid as a conspirator. He is 
just so straightforward as a person.

> 8.	Knowing what we do about the Unbreakable Vow, and assuming 
that Dumbledore was told about it by Snape, is there anything he, 
Dumbledore, could have done to secure the castle, or apprehend Draco 
early in the game, without triggering the Vow?  Do you believe that 
Dumbledore was willing to risk others in order to protect his spy and 
keep his plan in action? 

zgirnius:
I actually believe that Dumbledore's inaction was for Draco's 
benefit. As he himself suggests in "The Lightning-Struck Tower".

> 9.	 What would the effect on the Vow have been if Draco had been 
stopped and hidden before he actually began to perform the steps 
necessary to complete his task?

zgirnius:
I believe that if at any point Draco had given up the intention to 
serve Voldemort and kill Dumbledore, and had accepted Dumbledore's 
offer to hide him, the Vow would have been fulfilled and Snape would 
have been off the hook. My interpretation rests on the precise 
wording of the Vow. In my opinion, a decision not to try is not 
failure. The other reason Snape might be expected by the Vow to act 
would be if Draco was in danger, which he would not be in hiding.

> 10.	We have seen in the books that Snape had promised four 
things, to go back to Voldemort as a spy, to protect Draco, to help 
Draco in his task, and to perform the task if Draco is unable to do 
so.  Which promise do you think Dumbledore was insisting Snape 
keep?   Do you think that the promise Dumbledore wanted from Snape, 
in their conversation near the Forbidden Forest, was unrelated to 
these prior promises?

zgirnius:
My personal opinion on this scene is that Snape was getting nervous 
about Draco and the Vow, and wanted Dumbledore to do something about 
Draco sooner rather than later. I think what Snape agreed to do when 
the Vow and Draco's mission were discussed at the start of the year 
was play along with DUmbledore's hands-off approach and keep an eye 
on Draco. (Implicit in this is my additional opinion that Dumbledore 
knew the precise phrasing of the Vow and the nature of Draco's 
mission from Snape, of course. :D)

> 12.	We are not told who the girls were who were accompanying 
Malfoy.  Would Harry have recognized other students from Slytherin, 
or was he simply too focused on Malfoy to realize that he did not 
recognize them?  Were they strangers?  Were they Crabbe and Goyle? Is 
there any indication that students are allowed to have visitors at 
Hogwarts? 

zgirnius:
Polyjuice requires a physical piece of another person to work. For 
this reason, I assumed the two girls were younger Sytherins that 
Harry did not recognize, whose hairs Draco or a friend had obtained 
for the impersonation.

> 13.	We have seen Harry as pretty clueless when it comes to 
feelings, but here we see him put two and two together and come to 
the right answer when it comes to Ron and Lavender.  Is this out of 
character for him?  Did Harry care about the fairness of the 
situation or was he only hoping that Lavender would stop bothering 
him if she knew that Ron was no longer interested in her?

zgirnius:
I think Harry mostly just wanted Lav-Lav out of his hair, yes.
 
> 15.	Why did Harry not call Dobby in the first place?  He knows 
that he can trust Dobby, and knows full well that he can not trust 
Kreacher.  Has Harry done enough to ensure Kreacher's silence? 

zgirnius:
I think Harry called Kreacher because Kreacher is his slave. He did 
not think of calling on Dobby, as he is a free elf.

> 16.	 Since Ron was surprised by this demand of Harry's for 
Kreacher to spy on Draco, is it possible that this kind of behaviour 
is frowned on in the Wizarding World? 

zgirnius:
I would guess is was more because Ron comes from a not-so-upper-class 
family which does not have House Elves. Though he is familiar with 
the concept, it is odd for him to suddenly have a friend that has 
such an option open to him.

> 17.	We have been given a great deal of information in this 
chapter, but has anything occurred to actually move the plot forward 
in this book?  Has anything happened in this chapter which is likely 
to have an impact on the final book? 

zgirnius:
I think mostly it was the information that was important here. Though 
the precise nature of the argument in the Forest might be of 
inportance. I firmly believe DDM!Snape, and I believe the memory of 
this conversation might be a piece of evidence to support the idea of 
Snape's loyalty (though this would not be my first choice of approach 
for dealing with that subject, were I writing Book 7). This is most 
true if in fact Dumbledore WAS telling Snape to kill him if 
necessary, which I certainly consider a possibility, even though I 
suggested an alternative above.









From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 21:11:02 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 21:11:02 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <004201c6c9ee$319eadc0$6f80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ect1p6+6nq3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157502

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:

Mike:
Let me clarify my position. I am in agreement with Magpie, Sydney, 
Betsy, (I know there's more) that Draco's story is a coming-of-age 
plot first and foremost, along with a side order of betrayal. That 
betrayal coming from Lucius as Magpie pointed out so eloquently up 
thread. 

But I also see Draco as acting OOC compared to his story arc in the 
first five books. IMO, he was presented to us as a manipulator, 
plotter and planner, coercer (is that a word?) and the set-up guy. 
The false duel challenge, the Hippogriff injury ploy, the 'I'd want 
to get revenge myself' pep talk, the "Potter Stinks" badges and 
passing stories to Rita, all point to a manipulator trying to hone 
those type of skills. Now, all of a sudden, he's the cabinet repair 
guy, that won't even accept offered help much less manipulate others 
into doing at least some of the dirty work. Besides two weak and ill 
planned murder attempts, the whole the year is spent trying to fix a 
cabinet, by himself. What happened to those other attributes he 
seemed to be cultivating through five books? 

> 
> Magpie:
> The books are full of explicit romantic and sexual relationships. 
> If we're supposed to see Snape and Narcissa having an affair in 
> that scene I think JKR would have written something other than 
> just a vague sense of sexual tension in the narrative 
> description.  A line, a slip of the tongue--anything explicit.    
> Something a young audience could understand.
 
Mike:
Like I said, I'm not a Shipper. But I have only seen teenage or 
adolescent love in the first five books. And I saw no *sexual* 
relationships and certainly not explicit. This sounds like you 
reading into canon what isn't there. The first *adult* relationship 
I saw was there in HBP Ch. 2, and I didn't see Narcissa simply 
pleading with a family friend.

  
> Magpie:
> <snip>
> But the stuff that's supposed to be so obviously sexual actually
> fits just as well with what we're told is going on in the scene--a 
> desperate woman trying to save her only child going to a man who's 
> emotionally involved with all of them but also must play the role 
> of cold Death Eater. <break>

Mike:
I saw her using everything at her disposal, including a bit 
of 'implied' sexual coercion. Am I saying they are having an affair 
at this point? NO, but Narcissa is being coercively feminine as well 
as being obviously distraught. If you don't see it that way then 
we'll have to agree to disagree. Correct me if I'm wrong (yeah, like 
I need to make that request :)) isn't Spinner's End the first time 
we get dialogue from Narcissa?

>
> Magpie cont.:
> I can't count how many times scenes in canon or the movies have 
> been described to me as being "obviously" shippy, with no other 
> explanation for them than shippiness, when they were, imo, 
> nothing of the kind.

Mike:
Hey Magpie,are you an anti-shipper like me?

>
> Magpie:
> Yes, though [Harry] himself has gone through times when he hid 
> things from others--in OotP, for instance, he hid the idea that he 
> was possessed by Voldemort at first.  It's not Draco's character   
> being different from Harry's that makes him isolated (you and Neri 
> are both pointing out that Draco usually goes to others for
> help), it's the situation.  Sydney has explained this in more 
> detail, <snip>

Mike:
Yeah, I agree with Sydney's synopsis for the most part. My point is 
that the character comparison was a literary device used by JKR. She 
chose to make Draco act isolated for that purpose. And, up until HBP 
hasn't Draco always got help, one way or the other, from others? So 
Draco is acting OOC. And I believe I said this is where I agreed 
with Neri at the beginning of my post. Why is Draco the character 
OOC? Well, probably for the reasons you and Sydney have given. But 
my point was that JKR wanted us to see the parallels between Harry 
and Draco and how they handle similar situations.

What makes you say Harry hid the possession, even at first? I don't 
recall it even coming up after the MoM if that's when you're talking 
about. Harry was all wrapped up in Sirius' death. If your talking 
about the Snake attacking Arthur sequence, all the kids heard the 
possession theory at the same time on the extendable ears. Plus, 
Harry went to Sirius with his concerns as soon as he could get 
Sirius alone. I don't see Harry hiding anything regarding the 
possession. He did isolate himself when he thought he was the 
weapon, but he wasn't hiding anything, he thought he was 
*protecting* everyone. Is there something I missed?

>
> Magpie:
> That's your reasoned view of the situation but canonically it 
> doesn't seem to be Draco's.  To him everything is wrapped up  
> together. <break>

Mike:
Right, and up til now, Draco was shown to be smarter than that.

> Magpie cont.:
> And to be honest, I think it makes sense that Draco is more 
> secretive about the cabinets than anything else. That really is 
> the thing that he brings to the table and I can see why he  
> [doesn't want] to hand that over to Snape least of all. It's the 
> thing he thinks he actually can do and does. Ultimately I think 
> most of the decisions Draco made in HBP will be for the best.
 
Mike:
A cabinet repair guy is what he brings to the table? A job it took 
him all year to accomplish alone, one he thought he was destined to 
fail at? When he had someone willing to help who could probably be 
of great help? OK, I think it was irrational reasoning, but I can 
see where you're coming from. But it just begs the question: Did he 
think this whole plot through at all? Why was he repairing the 
cabinet, how would that help him to kill DD? He made those two 
feeble attempts to kill DD, but what if by some miracle one of them 
worked? Would he still have continued to repair the cabinet? 

This is why, IMO, that Draco is OOC. In the past he would not only 
have seeked help from trusted confidants, he would have asked 
himself the question, why am I doing this? You say, iirc, that he 
thought he was bringing in backup. Draco, on the tower, only told DD 
that there were DEs in the school. 

But if he thought he needed backup, why not enlist Snape? Because he 
thought Snape would step in front of him and kill DD before he got 
the chance? That's the way he presented it to DD. But if that's the 
case, why wasn't he concerned that one of the other DEs wouldn't do 
the same? He didn't seem to even know who was coming, much less 
whether one of them would try to "steal his glory". At least a Snape 
that he believed to be on his side and a friend of the family and a 
mentor to him would be easier to predict. What gave Draco the idea 
that Snape would stab him in the back? Moreover, why would he trust 
strangers over Snape?

*This* is the plot point, regarding Draco's motivation, that I'm 
hung up on. How will this affect Draco's actions in book 7? Could 
his mistrust of Snape and fear of LV's reprisals help drive him back 
to the *good* side? And all those ships can leave port and sink out 
at sea for all I care.


Mike
P.S. Magpie, I insterted words in [brackets] where it looked like 
you dropped them. I hope you don't mind, they looked like typos to 
me, I just wanted to make sure your meaning was clear. :-)









From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 22:40:10 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:40:10 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ect1p6+6nq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ect70a+ju5o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157503

> Mike:
> I saw her using everything at her disposal, including a bit 
> of 'implied' sexual coercion. Am I saying they are having an affair 
> at this point? NO, but Narcissa is being coercively feminine as 
well 
> as being obviously distraught. 

zgirnius:
I like the way you expressed that! I picked up the same ACID POPS 
overtones in reading that chapter (though I decided by the end of the 
book that LOLLIPOPS is the ship that will still be floating after the 
final storm...). She is a beautiful woman, and knows it, and she's 
trying to use any weapon at her disposal. Not because she is 
attracted to Snape, but because she is desperate.

> Mike:
> But if he thought he needed backup, why not enlist Snape? Because 
he 
> thought Snape would step in front of him and kill DD before he got 
> the chance? That's the way he presented it to DD. But if that's the 
> case, why wasn't he concerned that one of the other DEs wouldn't do 
> the same? He didn't seem to even know who was coming, much less 
> whether one of them would try to "steal his glory". At least a 
Snape 
> that he believed to be on his side and a friend of the family and a 
> mentor to him would be easier to predict. What gave Draco the idea 
> that Snape would stab him in the back? Moreover, why would he trust 
> strangers over Snape?
> 
> *This* is the plot point, regarding Draco's motivation, that I'm 
> hung up on. How will this affect Draco's actions in book 7? Could 
> his mistrust of Snape and fear of LV's reprisals help drive him 
back 
> to the *good* side? And all those ships can leave port and sink out 
> at sea for all I care.

zgirnius:
Who inserted Bellatrix into the equation? I can't find that post, but 
it had some good ideas. 

We know Bella has trained Draco over the summer (in Occlumency if 
nothing else), and we know Draco tells Snape he has better help than 
Snape, at Sluggie's Christmas party. I think Auntie Bella may be 
helping with some of the off-site stuff, like poisoning the mead, and 
rounding up Death Eaters to back Draco up. Itg would be in her 
interest for Draco to succeed in the mission as she could take credit 
for training him, and she could definitely have been harping on 
Snape's desire to steal Draco's glory.








From coverton at netscape.com  Sun Aug 27 13:11:14 2006
From: coverton at netscape.com (corey_over)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 13:11:14 -0000
Subject: She Looks Like  a Toad
In-Reply-To: <ecrkd5+gs6s@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecs5li+ggnr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157504

> >>laurawkids:
> > I tried using the advanced search on this idea and came up with
> > nothing, but has it been discussed why Umbrigde looks like a      > > toad?
> > Can I introduce that she might be a "coldblooded" murderer who
> > has made a few horcruxes?
> > <snip>

> >>Doddie:
> I would love to think that she is more than capable...
> <snip>
> I probably would classify Dumbridge as a "sadist" more than the
> power hungry psychopath Voldemort is...
> <snip>
> As far as the "Toad" reference...I always associated it with
> Dolores being a "toadie"..(the tag-a-long to the bully who has      > lots of bark and little bite "offically", but probably does         > more "emotional terror than the bully themselves)

cory_over:
Hey members. Maybe Umbridge's Patrounis is a toad. Who knows. I know
that's a little off subject, but you guys are right about her being a sadist. But a killer and having horcruxes? Highly doubtful. For one she's not smart enough and I just don't see her being that bad. She was awful, no question, but don't think she's that bad!






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Sun Aug 27 23:29:09 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:29:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <1156707834.44f1f5fa9c3fd@webmail.telus.net>
Message-ID: <ect9s5+41b1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157505

---  Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> wrote:

Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter
19, Elf Tails

KJ asks:

1. ... interesting ... that Hermione appears to have gone
from hate to love in a very short time. Has she really had
an epiphany about her feelings for Ron? Is she feeling
guilty for treating him so badly? ... Is this emotionality
in character for her?

bboyminn:

It is one thing to be very annoyed, even angry, at a
friend during normal times, but in a time of crisis, these
petty hurts are quickly forgotten. So, it's not so much a
change of heart or emotions for Hermione, but a change of
attitude brought on my circumstances. Even if she was not
in love with Ron, she certainly considers him a good
friend and would have put aside petty hurts and jealousy
while Ron was in the hospital.

At the same time, I think in her jealousy, to some extent,
she was taking Ron for granted, and his sudden near death
woke her up to this. Now she realizes that life is short
and there is little time for such things.

Notice that it was the same with Ron and Harry in GoF.
They had a row that Harry didn't see any way to mend, but 
when Ron saw the level of danger Harry was in in tackling 
the dragons, Ron quickly came to Harry's side. You rally 
round friend in time of crisis even if you are angry at 
them.


2. Have we been given any previous information on Essence
of Rue? ... What purpose might it serve?

bboyminn:

Though I don't think it is relevant, I will point out the
Rue also means 'To feel regret, remorse, or sorrow for'.
At the moment, I have to take it as a 'throw away'. It may
be related to easing stomach discomfort, and as such is
just an obscure historical fact. But beyond that I don't
think it will have any significants in the last book.



3. Since the readers know more than the characters at this
point, are the two attempts to harm someone confirmation
that Draco is ... trying to kill Dumbledore? Do you think
that Harry has enough information to come to the same
conclusion but fails to do so?

bboyminn:

I've spoken about Draco in HBP before, and I still hold by
those conclusions. Everybody knows Draco is up to
something. Why? Because Draco is /always/ up to something.
It's just that this time it is probably more serious. Yet,
how can anyone really know what Draco is up to?

Yes, Draco has a task, but his long term and more
immediate task it to fix the Vanishing Cabinet so he can
later bring Death Eaters into the castle which will at
that final time facilitate his killing of Dumbledore.

Though Snape, Dumbledore, and Harry don't know Draco's
objective. They only know that he appears to be engaged in
some on-going task, and there is nothing to indicate that
the on-going task is to kill Dumbledore. I really don't
think, in the moment, anyone but Harry makes a connection
between the two, and Harry is operating on pure suspicion
and dislike of Draco. All available evidences points to
the fact that Draco is not involved in those incidences.

I suspect that if Snape or Dumbledore did manage to catch
a glimpse into Draco's mind during the school year, they
would not see Dumbledore but instead the cabinet, so the
connection wouldn't really be there.


4. Do you think that Hermione's statements convince the
others that Slughorn is the intended victim?

bboyminn:

I'm not really sure that's what Hermione said. She implies
that who ever conceived this method didn't know Slughorn
very well. Implying just that it was a very unreliable way
to poison anyone.

As to whether the others are convinced, I think they agree
with Hermione on the unreliability aspect, but they are
all at a loss for whom the poison was actually intended.
Any of the suggested victims could just as easily have
been the target, or it may have simply been a random
attack. They are uniformly mystified.


5. Considering the information that we have been given on
Life Debts, is this fore-shadowing of what will come in
Book 7? ..

bboyminn:

I think Arthur's voice is reflecting distress at how many
of his family members have been in danger, that and the
worry of the moment. So, it is not necessarily related
specifically to Harry saving them. Certainly that is an
undeniable aspect, but I don't think the tone of his voice
fall on Harry, in a manner of speaking.

As to the Life Debts, as others have pointed out,
according to JKR, Ginny doesn't own Harry a Life Debt.
Yes, she owes him her life in the common everyday sense,
but not in the magically binding sense.

It seems that the 'life saving' has to be is a very direct
and deliberate way. Harry's information lead to Arthur
being saved, but Harry didn't save him with his own hands.
To save Ginny, Harry had to defeat young Tom Riddle, but
he did that to save his own life as well. Ginny being save
was an indirect, unintended, and unknown result of
defeating Tom Riddle.

Ron, on the other hand, is a little more unclear. It was
Harry who directly and personally administered the Bazoar,
and it seems that it made the critical difference. So,
perhaps Ron owns Harry a magically binding Life Debt, but
only JKR can confirm it for sure.


6. Does Harry understand what has been said here? Does
Hermione owe Harry and/or Ron a life debt after the troll
incident, ...

bboyminn:

It was Harry direct mercy that saved Wormtail, so that
magical life debt is undisputed. Other than the
possibility of Ron's life debt, I don't think there are
any more.

See above.

As to what Harry understand, I think is unclear since I'm
not sure even we understand.



7. Why is Hagrid so careful to make sure that no one over-
hears their conversation and then blurts out to Harry that
Dumbledore was angry with Snape? ...

bboyminn:

I think Hagrid is just being normally paranoid. 'Things'
are happening at Hogwarts; dark and dangerous things. That
is cause for worry and cause for caution. By now Hagrid
knows that somehow Harry is or will be involved in all the
unpleasant things that happen at or near Hogwarts, so he
feels comfortable taking to Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Once
he ascertains that 'the coast is clear', he reverts back
to his old casual indiscrete self and lets the
Snape/Dumbledore cat out of the bag.

8. Knowing what we do about the Unbreakable Vow, and
assuming that Dumbledore was told ..., is there anything
he, Dumbledore, could have done ..., without triggering
the Vow? Do you believe that Dumbledore was willing to
risk others in order to protect his spy and keep his plan
in action?


bboyminn:

As I pointed out earlier, Dumbledore and/or Snape had no
way of knowing what Draco's ultimate goal was, nor did
they know what his on-going goal (the cabinet) was. Yes,
everybody knew Draco was up to something, but exactly
what, and what proof they had, is very unclear to all.

I don't see how Dumbledore or Snape could have acted in
any other way under the circumstance. We have to judge not
by what we knew along the way, or what we found out in the
end, but what evidence Dumbledore personally had along the
way. Maybe Draco was involved in the foiled murder
attempts, but then maybe those were unrelated acts by
Voldemort to harrass the school.

Maybe in the end they would discover that Draco simply had
a secret girl friend (or boy friend if you so desire) that
he was meeting in the astronomy tower on a semi-regular
basis.

Yes, Draco is /always/ up to something, but what evidence
was available to tie him to this specific 'something'?
None that I can see.

On the Vow specifically, I will point out as before, that
we don't know what Snape knew when he took the Vow, and we
don't know how his knowledge at the time of the Vow
affects it. Is it constrained by Snape's limited knowledge
when he took it? Or, does the commitment implied in the
Vow expand as Snape's knowledge of the circumstances
expands? We don't know.

Snape Vowed to complete the task if Draco couldn't do it.
But, what if Snape never, until the absolute last second,
knew what the task was?

I don't think Snape and Dumbledore conspired in advance
for Snape to kill Dumbledore. But I do think they
discussed their priorities and long term goals. I think
Dumbledore was sick and fading from the 'Dead Hand Curse'.
He knew his days were numbers, so he told Snape if they
were ever in a situation were Snape was forced to choose,
Snape should select the action that had the greatest long
term potential for leading to Voldemort's defeat. But that
was the extent of it.

On the tower, when Dumbledore said 'please', he meant
please do what you know is for the greater good. Though I
confess that the Vow came into play. It would be pointless
for Snape to sacrifice himself in some pointless
unproductive but noble gesture. Better to survive the Vow,
and live to fight again some other day.



9. What would the effect on the Vow have been if Draco had
been stopped and hidden before he actually began to
perform the steps necessary to complete his task?

bboyminn:

Difficult, very difficult to determine, partly since we
don't know the intricate details of the workings of the
Vow. Is it constrained by the knowledge of the Vow maker?
Is it contrained by the intent of the active party
(Draco)? If Draco changes his mind, does the 'deed'
change, or is the 'deed' constrained by '...the deed that
the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform...'? Was the
'deed' fixing the cabinet or killing Dumbledore or both or
neither?

It is possible, I speculate, that knowing Dark Magic the
way he does, that Snape had some way to neutralize the Vow
which is why he agreed to it so quickly. It's possible
that, because of this, the Vow doesn't come into play at
all.


10. We have seen in the books that Snape had promised four
things, .... Which promise do you think Dumbledore was
insisting Snape keep? ...

bboyminn:

I think, as I said above, that Dumbledore was reminding
Snape to keep his priorities straight. That the sacrifice
of a single soldier or general is worth it if in the
circumstances it saves the army.

It's possible that Dumbledore was suspecting Draco of
being assigned the task of causing his (Dumbledore) death.
So, while he wasn't flatly asking Snape to kill him, he
was reminding Snape, that Snape had promised to do what
must be done for the 'greater good' if and when the time
came.



11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." ... Do you
think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch?
... Does Hagrid share the WW dislike of Squibs?

bboyminn:

I don't think Hagrid has ever shown any great love or
respect for Filch, but I don't think it is prejudice, I
think it is a natural dislike for an unpleasant man. Filch
is always 'at war' with the students whereas Hagrid tends
to want to please the students, more so the Trio, and
engraciate himself with them.

Further this was a very tramatic moment, and Hagrid
probably felt is was very insensitive of Filch to try and
get the kids in trouble when one of their friends nearly
died. Further, it was Filch completely discounting
Hagrid's position of authority as a professor/teacher.
Certainly students escorted by a teacher can't be punished
for being out late.

So, Filch's insensitivity to both the students and to
Hagrid were at the seat of his anger.



12. We are not told who the girls were who were
accompanying Malfoy. ... Were they Crabbe and Goyle? ...

bboyminn:

Well, I suspect they were certainly Crabbe and Goyle, but
I don't think who they were in appearance is relevant. The
relevant factor is that Draco was in the company of two
younger girls who he would likely not associate with. That
made it suspicious. Who the were specifically isn't
important.


13. We have seen Harry as pretty clueless when it comes to
feelings, but here we see him put two and two together and
come to the right answer when it comes to Ron and
Lavender. ...

bboyminn:

I think it was pretty obvious before this that Ron was
less than enthusiastic about the direction his
relationship with Lavender was taking. And Ron always
being asleep for Lavender and never being asleep for Harry
made it pretty obvious. So, I think Harry had frustration
on many levels. He was annoyed with Lavender for harrasing
him. He was annoyed at Ron for prolonging a bad situation.
He was just annoyed and he wanted it to stop.



14. Ron is clearly exasperated by Harry's obsession with
Draco. Why has this changed from the first books, where
Ron and Hermione bought into everything Harry believed?

bboyminn:

I think Ron and Hermione finally agree that Draco was up
to something, but as I said, they didn't worry about it
too much because Draco is always up to something. But, I
don't think they realize the magnitude of Draco's action,
and of course, other than Harry's suspicions, they really
had no reason to. I don't think anyone could have
predicted just how deep Draco had gotten himself in.


15. Why did Harry not call Dobby in the first place? ...
Has Harry done enough to ensure Kreacher's silence?

bboyminn:

Harry considers Dobby a friend, but he doesn't see himself
as Dobby's master even though Dobby has certainly shown
loyalty to him. I don't think he thought it fair to give
Dobby orders or to ask him to do things for him, unless
they were very small insignificant things. I think in
order to comfortably maintain his friendship with Dobby,
he has to avoid any sense of a Master/Servant
relationship.

Kreacher on the other hand is Harry's servant, whether he
likes it or not. Since Harry has no real frienship with
Kreacher, he is not as bothered by the Master/Servant
relationship. Though certainly that does bother him in
general.

Kreacher is so unreliable and so unpredictable that I
don't think anyone could ever do enough to secure Kreacher
or his silence.


16. Since Ron was surprised by this demand of Harry's for
Kreacher to spy on Draco, is it possible that this kind of
behaviour is frowned on in the Wizarding World?

bboyminn:

I think Ron is reflecting a frustration with how obsessed
Harry is with Draco. No one even remotely believe how
seriously Draco has gotten himself involved with the Death
Eaters. I'm sure Draco has a hard time believing it
himself. Harry is really acting on no evidence, so I don't
blame Ron for his frustration.

So, I don't think Ron's frustration is with Harry sending
Kreacher to spy; it's with sending Kreacher to spy /on
Draco/.


17. We have been given a great deal of information in this
chapter, but has anything occurred to actually move the
plot forward in this book? Has anything happened in this
chapter which is likely to have an impact on the final
book?

bboyminn:

Again...difficult...very difficult.

Certainly this chapter is setting the stage, dropping
clues, and developing the story toward the final
conclusion in this one book. And certainly characters like
Kreacher will appear again and be significant, I think
most of what happens in related to the one book that it is
in.

Steve/bboyminn







From belviso at attglobal.net  Sun Aug 27 23:55:28 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 19:55:28 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
References: <ect1p6+6nq3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00fe01c6ca34$46c6c660$6f80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157506

Mike:
 Besides two weak and ill
> planned murder attempts, the whole the year is spent trying to fix a
> cabinet, by himself. What happened to those other attributes he
> seemed to be cultivating through five books?

Magpie:
I was going to say they just didn't apply this this problem, but I actually 
think that the Cabinet plot is more the type of thing that comes naturally 
to Draco,  in terms of his figuring out a way to get through the security. 
That, for me, is an important element of the storyline.  Dumbledore praises 
the Cabinet plot as if it's an ambitious homework project, and Draco draws 
comfort and courage from it.  I think the Cabinet plot is important 
specifically because it is something Draco plans and succeeds at himself--I 
think it's what proves to him (Draco) that he's not just a screw up who 
failed.  He may not have done what Voldemort set him out to do, but he did 
make his own sub-plan work.  Without that I don't think he'd be in the right 
emotional place to make the choice is starts to make at the end.

> Mike:
> Like I said, I'm not a Shipper. But I have only seen teenage or
> adolescent love in the first five books. And I saw no *sexual*
> relationships and certainly not explicit. This sounds like you
> reading into canon what isn't there. The first *adult* relationship
> I saw was there in HBP Ch. 2, and I didn't see Narcissa simply
> pleading with a family friend.

Magpie:
Sorry, I was referring to the fact that there are romances in canon which 
are sometimes shown to us through things like snogging, which is explicitly 
sexual.  Remus/Tonks is an adult relationship in that they're both adults. 
I didn't mean to imply that there were many scenes that read as adult sex 
scenes. If Snape/Narcissa eventually becomes canon explicitly it will 
presumably be along those lines.

> Mike:
> I saw her using everything at her disposal, including a bit
> of 'implied' sexual coercion. Am I saying they are having an affair
> at this point? NO, but Narcissa is being coercively feminine as well
> as being obviously distraught. If you don't see it that way then
> we'll have to agree to disagree.

Magpie:
I've got no problem with anyone seeing her using feminine wiles along with 
everything else in that scene.

> Mike:
> Hey Magpie,are you an anti-shipper like me?

Mike:
Heh--well, sometimes.  But like I said I have no problem with anyone seeing 
Narcissa as using her desirability on Snape on that scene.  As a beautiful 
woman she probably does that instinctively.  That's a different argument 
that some shippy arguments I've read about such things where that's all 
that's going on.

> Mike:
> Yeah, I agree with Sydney's synopsis for the most part. My point is
> that the character comparison was a literary device used by JKR. She
> chose to make Draco act isolated for that purpose. And, up until HBP
> hasn't Draco always got help, one way or the other, from others?

Magpie:
Often he does, yes.  He snuck after the Trio to see the dragon in PS/SS 
alone, if that counts.  But I agree that Draco doesn't usually have a 
problem acting with others.  In the past Draco's usually been relegated to 
trying to use the way things are going to his advantage.   He never has any 
power himself and usually tries to get it by manipulating power outside 
himself.

Mike:
> What makes you say Harry hid the possession, even at first? I don't
> recall it even coming up after the MoM if that's when you're talking
> about. Harry was all wrapped up in Sirius' death. If your talking
> about the Snake attacking Arthur sequence, all the kids heard the
> possession theory at the same time on the extendable ears.

Magpie:
I was referring to that part, yes, where Harry thinks about distancing 
himself from everyone because he feels unclean and possessed by Voldemort. 
In GoF he wants to keep Sirius from coming back to England to help him as 
well.

Mike:
 He did isolate himself when he thought he was the
> weapon, but he wasn't hiding anything, he thought he was
> *protecting* everyone. Is there something I missed?

Magpie:
Yes, that's exactly what I meant, Harry thinking he was protecting everyone 
by isolating himself.  Draco is in a different situation and isolating 
himself for different reasons.

> Mike:
> Right, and up til now, Draco was shown to be smarter than that.

> Mike:
> A cabinet repair guy is what he brings to the table? A job it took
> him all year to accomplish alone, one he thought he was destined to
> fail at?

Magpie:
No, what he brings to the table is that he's the only person who can provide 
a secret way through Hogwarts' defenses, a job he succeeds at alone, 
shocking everyone, including Dumbledore.  If he handed that over to Snape 
right away he'd have nothing, since the murder is the part he can't do.

Mike:
But it just begs the question: Did he
> think this whole plot through at all? Why was he repairing the
> cabinet, how would that help him to kill DD? He made those two
> feeble attempts to kill DD, but what if by some miracle one of them
> worked? Would he still have continued to repair the cabinet?

Magpie:
No, I don't think he would have continued with the Cabinet in that case, 
since he'd have already succeeded in killing DD. Unfortunately what those 
attempts really did was to show him that murder was not for him.  But he 
tried, as Sydney said, to just suck it up and hide his fears, focusing on 
the Cabinet fixing itself.

The DEs were supposed to give him the ability to kill DD--which they did in 
the end.  After that, ironically, the DEs were actually Draco's undoing by 
acting like exactly what they were supposed to be: backup.  A typical Draco 
plan as described above.

Mike:
> This is why, IMO, that Draco is OOC. In the past he would not only
> have seeked help from trusted confidants, he would have asked
> himself the question, why am I doing this? You say, iirc, that he
> thought he was bringing in backup. Draco, on the tower, only told DD
> that there were DEs in the school.

Magpie:
DD, I believe, refers to them as reinforcements, understanding that they are 
supposed to be there to give Draco the opportunity to kill Dumbledore.  I'm 
sure Draco did ask himself what the DEs were there for and thought of them 
as the thing he needed to do it.

Mike:
> But if he thought he needed backup, why not enlist Snape? Because he
> thought Snape would step in front of him and kill DD before he got
> the chance?

Magpie:
Because Snape, unlike the other DEs, carries a ton more threatening baggage. 
Draco can have the other DEs as hired thug backup in ways he can't have 
Snape, his mentor and teacher. Snape is the person he has to first prove 
himself against and then hide his horror at murder from.  If he went to 
Snape he would still be the student he'd always been, and everyone would see 
it that way.  The other DEs are showing up at the last minute.  They don't 
bring the same personal issues.

Mike:
 That's the way he presented it to DD. But if that's the
> case, why wasn't he concerned that one of the other DEs wouldn't do
> the same? He didn't seem to even know who was coming, much less
> whether one of them would try to "steal his glory". At least a Snape
> that he believed to be on his side and a friend of the family and a
> mentor to him would be easier to predict. What gave Draco the idea
> that Snape would stab him in the back? Moreover, why would he trust
> strangers over Snape?

Magpie:
He wasn't worried that Snape would stab him in the back, imo, he was worried 
that Snape would do exactly what Snape was trying to do, take over.  Take 
things out of his hands because he's a child--just as Narcissa thinks he 
should.  As Sydney said, the other DEs didn't bring all these personal 
issues.  They were there to be ordered around by Draco no matter who showed 
up.  They were there to provide backup.  Snape is a far more powerful figure 
that Draco's got a ton of emotional issues with.  So it's really not 
completely about not trusting Snape, at least not in that way.

I actually think Snape understands a lot of this.  I love that in the Tower, 
when Snape gets Draco out, he picks him up by the back of his robe.  I can't 
help but feel JKR intentionally went for a physical action that called to 
mind a cat carrying off a kitten.

> Mike
> P.S. Magpie, I insterted words in [brackets] where it looked like
> you dropped them. I hope you don't mind, they looked like typos to
> me, I just wanted to make sure your meaning was clear. :-)

Magpie:
Thank you!  I do that all the time and even reading stuff over I never see 
it until it's posted.:-)

-m





From celizwh at intergate.com  Mon Aug 28 00:54:27 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:54:27 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <1156707834.44f1f5fa9c3fd@webmail.telus.net>
Message-ID: <ectes3+rr01@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157507

Kathryn Jones:

> Chapter Discussions: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood 
> Prince, Chapter 19, Elf Tails

houyhnhnm:

Thanks for stepping up.

1. This comparison is very interesting in that Hermione 
appears to have gone from hate to love in a very short time.

The love was there all the time.  It was just overshadowed 
by jealosy.  I think Hermione's anger was directed so 
much more at Ron than at Lavender because Lavender was 
an *unworthy* rival.
 
2. Have we been given any previous information on Essence of Rue?

I don't recall any previous mention of rue.  One of its 
traditional uses by RL herbalists was as an antidote to 
poison.  It was also thought to bestow second sight. I 
remember reading some speculation once upon a time that 
Ron might be a Seer, so the mention of rue really jumped 
out at me for that reason.

4. Do you think that Hermione's statements convince the 
others that Slughorn is the intended victim?

Ron roused momentarily upon hearing Hermione's voice, so 
everyone's attention was diverted.  I don't think her 
comments had a chance to register with the others for 
that reason.

5. and 6. Considering the information that we have been 
given on Life Debts,

If Ginny does not owe Harry a life debt for saving her 
from TR, I would guess that Hermione and the Weasleys 
do not owe Harry life debts either.  The consensus seems 
to have been that a life debt is only owed to someone who 
saves your life against their own inclinations or their 
own interest.

10. Do you think that the promise Dumbledore wanted 
from Snape, in their conversation near the Forbidden 
Forest, was unrelated to these prior promises?

Ah, another partially overheard conversation in the 
forest.  Yes, I think it was unrelated. The promise 
Dumbledore wanted from Snape will turn out to be something 
we don't know about yet.

11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." Have we ever 
heard Hagrid talk to another co-worker like this before 
and what does it say about their relationship? Do you 
think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch? 
Does this seem out of character for Hagrid? Does Hagrid 
share the WW dislike of Squibs?

For all of Hagrid's self-proclaimed loyalty to the Hogwarts 
staff, he seems to have some pretty choice words for those 
he really dislikes--Lockhart and Umbridge, IIRC.  I think 
it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes rather than 
the fact that he is a Squib.  And Hagrid is obviously very 
upset over Ron's poisoning.  He speaks of the possibility 
of closing the school. No doubt it is reviving all the bad
 memories of his own experience fifty some years before.

14. Ron is clearly exasperated by Harry's obsession with 
Draco. Why has this changed from the first books, where Ron and 
Hermione bought into everything Harry believed?

I thought Ron and Hermione's refusal to take Harry's 
suspicions of Draco seriously was a little bit stagey.  
But I suppose it could be argued that Ron, especially, 
was still smarting over how hard he pushed the idea of 
Draco as Heir of Slytherin in CoS, and the fact that he 
turned out to be wrong.  He's not about to be caught 
making the same mistake twice.









From catlady at wicca.net  Mon Aug 28 01:14:20 2006
From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston))
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:14:20 -0000
Subject: Bloody Baron (was: Re: re:blood/Hermione'sOWLs/ )
In-Reply-To: <ecrqrg+5ud7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ectg1c+jeqc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157508

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "finwitch" wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157488>:

> Interesting thought. Still, I must wonder just *how* the Bloody 
> Baron got to keep the blood while others did not. 

My idea is that ghosts don't have insides -- they are all surface
(exterior); only the part which is on view exists. So a ghost has no
blood *inside* him/her. But the Bloody Baron has blood on his exterior
(splashed over his clothes). I've always assumed that it was his own
blood, resulting from him being killed in a blood-gushing way. So the
reason he still has some of his blood is that it was on his exterior
when he died. And (I suppose) that the manner of his death was so
traumatic and so related to him staying on as a ghost that he retained
that sign of it. I speculate that he was stabbed through by his own
enchanted spear.

As for Sir Nick and the Headless Hunters, they each have two bits of
exterior that are normally interior - either side of the cut through
their necks. I'm sure there'd be a big spurt of blood all over the
place from cutting through the arteries that feed the head, and
probably some slow dripping between death and coagulation. So they
might have kept some of that exterior blood in their ghostly form. But
I get the impression that Sir Nick and the Headless Hunters are not
bloody, gory sights, and I suppose the reason is that their self-image
is as gentlemen with clean clothes.






From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 28 01:56:17 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 01:56:17 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <00fe01c6ca34$46c6c660$6f80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ectig1+toed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157509



Snow:

Forgive the intrusion but I've been watching this continuing debate 
and have to ask, any of you, what you think Voldemort personally 
asked Draco to do and under what capacity, because it is very 
important to the scenario? 

Did Voldemort explicitly tell Draco that he was to ask no one for 
help with his quest; only those who were informed by him of Draco's 
quest (like Bella and Narcissa) could help; or was Draco allowed to 
solicit anyone's help as long as it would not directly affect Draco's 
objective; or was it something else? 

In other words, who all was allowed to be involved in the quest, 
according to Voldemort, and what exactly was asked of Draco? 

The most that we absolutely know is that Draco was ordered to kill 
Dumbledore (and will most likely fail- nothing about cabinets or 
opening Hogwarts for the deatheaters); Narcissa knows this quest and 
was ordered by Voldemort not to open her mouth to anyone about it; 
Bella knows of the quest and also of the silence of the quest and is 
insistent that Narcissa does not open her mouth about it; Snape 
claims that he is aware of the request 
but Snape is fairly good at 
legilimence himself. 

[If Snape did not know about Draco's quest until Narcissa revealed it 
to him then I might assume that Snape was left out of the loop 
(especially since Bella was doubtful that Snape knew). If Snape were 
deliberately left out of the loop, of the persons in the know, then I 
would have to ask why?]

I think everyone is in agreement that Draco was not in any position, 
with or without help, to kill the most powerful wizard of all time 
(let alone the only wizard Voldemort ever feared)). So the more 
important question to ask is why Draco was saddled with such a quest?

What was the underlying reason for Voldemort's request from Draco? 
The reason Faith has been given is that Voldemort is really pissed 
off at Lucius. Could be but wouldn't that be a bit lame
wouldn't 
Voldemort aim a bit higher than revenge on a supporter?

Now could it be to set Snape up in a checkmate manner, Damned if you 
do and worse if you don't type of setup
 Really find out which side 
Snape was on for sure. There would only be one way out for Snape if 
he were a true supporter of Voldemort and the sub-mission would be 
accomplished in either move from Snape since his most sinister 
supporters were there as backup. 

Voldemort's plan was to flush out the internal spy by means of the 
most vulnerable area within his fold, which would be Narcissa, since 
her husband landed himself in Azkaban unable to advise her or Draco, 
and attack their only son. Love of her son will drive Narcissa to 
Snape. 

Voldemort is an excellent Legilimence and knows the ways of human 
nature (Dumbledore quoting that Voldemort expects us fools to act in 
a certain way when we love) and knew that Narcissa would act the way 
in which she did. Bella was also expected to act in the way in which 
she had. So I'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that 
Voldemort is not a fool and suspects Snape since his plans at the 
Ministry were alluded and quite a few of his dominions have been 
captured therefore there is a spy amongst his flock would be an 
accurate assumption on his part. 

In earnest, as far as ACIDPOPS, I have to go back to the assumption 
that Snape is part of the Black family in a manner. Snape and Sirius 
have had bad blood since the youngest of days. Sirius cousins are 
none other than Narcissa and Bella ergo the bond between Narcissa and 
Snape. 

End of interference

Snow







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 28 02:07:14 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:07:14 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
References: <ectig1+toed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <015701c6ca46$aea29590$6f80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157510

Snow:
What was the underlying reason for Voldemort's request from Draco?
The reason Faith has been given is that Voldemort is really pissed
off at Lucius. Could be but wouldn't that be a bit lame.wouldn't
Voldemort aim a bit higher than revenge on a supporter?

Magpie:
No, it wouldn't be lame.  It would be imo one of the best plans Voldemort's 
ever come up with.  If it puts Snape in a position to prove his loyalty all 
the better, but I see no reason for anything other than what we're given for 
Draco in HBP.  Lucius destroyed a Horcrux, a piece of Voldemort.  Voldemort 
destroys Lucius' child.  What is more dramatic than murdering a man's son in 
revenge?


-m 





From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 28 02:57:13 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:57:13 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ectes3+rr01@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ectm29+kr4e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157511





Kathryn Jones:

10. Do you think that the promise Dumbledore wanted 
from Snape, in their conversation near the Forbidden 
Forest, was unrelated to these prior promises?

houyhnhnm:

Ah, another partially overheard conversation in the 
forest. Yes, I think it was unrelated. The promise 
Dumbledore wanted from Snape will turn out to be something 
we don't know about yet.

Snow:

And yet Harry says something very similar to Snape's reprise in the 
forest:
"I've had enough, I've seen enough, I want out, I want it to end, I 
don't, care anymore-" OOP pg 824

Snape's reply to Dumbledore in the forest:

"Well-I jus' heard Snape sayin Dumbledore took too much fur granted 
an' maybe, he-Snape- didn't wan' ter do it anymore-" HBP pg 405 

Funny how both Harry and Snape responded to the same party under 
different circumstances in a very similar manner :)

Both of them wanted out! Could it be for the same reason?

Kathryn Jones:

11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." Have we ever 
heard Hagrid talk to another co-worker like this before 
and what does it say about their relationship? Do you 
think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch? 
Does this seem out of character for Hagrid? Does Hagrid 
share the WW dislike of Squibs?

Houyhnhnm snipped:

I think it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes rather than 
the fact that he is a Squib. 

Snow:

Yep! I thought that Filtch was making Hagrid feel that he was as far 
down the totem pole as Filtch always thought he was and Hagrid 
plucked a higher notch by informing Filtch that he was at the very 
least a teacher and did have magical skills even if he wasn't allowed 
to use them by his dominant statement. 







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 28 03:14:13 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:14:13 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <015701c6ca46$aea29590$6f80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ectn25+ska6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157512



Me snipped:

What was the underlying reason for Voldemort's request from Draco?
The reason Faith has been given is that Voldemort is really pissed
off at Lucius. Could be but wouldn't that be a bit lame. Wouldn't
Voldemort aim a bit higher than revenge on a supporter?


Magpie:

No, it wouldn't be lame.  It would be imo one of the best plans 
Voldemort's 
ever come up with.  If it puts Snape in a position to prove his 
loyalty all 
the better, but I see no reason for anything other than what we're 
given for 
Draco in HBP.  Lucius destroyed a Horcrux, a piece of Voldemort.  
Voldemort 
destroys Lucius' child.  What is more dramatic than murdering a man's 
son in  revenge?



Snow:

Buy then it would simply be an act of revenge! I feel confident that 
Voldemort would make more of such a situation than that. This is a 
mastermind we are dealing with. You deal with your losses and go from 
there. 

Voldemort made more than one Horcrux. Yeah he was pissed at the 
misuse of the Diary Horcrux but he could benefit from it by means of 
his (Lucius) son and better yet Narcissa! This would flush out the 
true supporters. 

Remember that Narcissa in taking the vow with Snape showed that she 
put her son above Voldemort. Narcissa was not to mention this quest 
to anyone (let alone Snape :)  )







From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 03:29:40 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 03:29:40 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecrm7e+ekmi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ectnv5+t2je@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157513

> Neri:
> 
> > But it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon. The fact that
> > in the HP fanon Snape (and Draco) had become much more important than
> > Harry has no effect on JKR.   
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Neri, please stop using "you're confusing fanon with canon" as an
> argument, unless you can direct me to a point of fact upon which I am
> incorrect. I have done nothing but quote canon;  I don't read that
> much fanon.  I notice you did this repeatedly with the 'Pride and
> Prejudice' example as well.  You  might find it instructive to come to
> terms with the fact that it was you, in fact, who was misremembering
> the plot.  
> 

Neri:
First, I never wrote "you're confusing fanon with canon". I wrote
"it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon". It was a general
statement, which I think you'll agree with me is valid, and not a
personal accusation. It is generally advisable, before accusing other
people of misremembering, to check first that you don't misquote them
in that very paragraph.

More to the point, in your previous post upthread you wrote:

>> Sydney:
>> 
>> <snip> Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the
>> whole shebang, at least theirs is the central relationship.  

You wrote this as if it was self-evident, without any proof or any
quoted canon to support it. In response I pointed out that
*personally* I don't see this as self-evident at all. I don't see that
Snape and Harry are the central characters, or that theirs is the
central relationship. I did point out that in the fanon Snape *is*
considered a central character, frequently more important than Harry,
and I mentioned that this does not affect JKR. Do you disagree with
these observations?  

I certainly did suggest that the general tendency to see the
Harry-Snape relationship as self-evidently the most important in the
series might have something to do with the state of things in the
fanon (I use the term fanon here in its broad sense, not just fanfic
but also the theories we raise here and anything HP that isn't canon).
I did *not* accuse you personally of being affected by fanon, and for
all I know you may have reached your conclusion regarding the
Harry-Snape relationship only by extensive analysis of canon and with
no fanon influence whatsoever. However, when people "prove" to me that
I'm wrong by the fact that everybody thinks differently, then it does
make me wonder if they are affected by what everybody thinks rather
than by what's actually written in the books. Luckily JKR is not
affected by what everybody thinks. She decided on her general plot and
outcome of the series long before there even was a HP fandom. 

> Sydney:
> 
> If you'll forgive me for saying so, I think you are mistaking your
> preference-- your 'fanon', if you will, for 'canon' about how
> important Snape and Harry's relationship is to the story. You are
> therefore trying to invent stories that drain that relationship of its
> energy and intensity, ignoring the fact that that energy and intesity
> *is actually there in the book*, because you have such an extremely
> powerful desire to remove Snape as much as possible from the story. 
> 

Neri:
This is certainly possible. I said this was the way I *personally* see
things. You see them differently, but this is also a personal opinion,
and just saying "it is actually there in the books" does not consist
of a proof. "Everybody thinks so" also does not consist of a proof.

I'll give you one trivial example, from the books, of what I mean
regarding the importance of central characters. Considerable page time
in HBP is spent on the Ron/Lavender SHIP. This SHIP doesn't have any
significant effect on the rest of the plot. It doesn't have any
significant effect on the development of Harry's character. It doesn't
even make for a very good comic relief. And yet it is there, and JKR
did spend considerable page time on it. Why is that? The answer is
obvious and JKR had even said it explicitly in an interview: she felt
that this SHIP was necessary for the development of Ron's character.
This is what I meant when I said that central characters are served by
the story, and this also shows that Ron is a central character, second
(together with Hermione) only to Harry. The fact that R/L was very
insignificant only shows to what length JKR would go for Ron's
character. She *likes* Ron, in the most emotional sense of the word.
His character is heavily affected by memories of her best childhood
friend. 

I don't see that Snape gets similar treatment from JKR in any of the
books. In that sense he is a secondary character, like Dumbledore or
Sirius. His character serves the story rather than the story serves
the character. If Snape indeed has a SHIP, either LOLLIPOPS or ACID
POPS or any other, it will likely be a plot device and/or because of
thematic reasons of the story.

And I suspect it's going to detract from the energy and intensity of
the story if the "central relationship" is between the hero and a
secondary character. We've seen it in OotP, when what was supposed to
be the driving relationship emotionally was the one between Harry and
Sirius, and at least personally I think it never quite worked. I
accepted as an axiom that Harry feels so strongly for Sirius, but I
never felt it myself, and ultimately this was because Sirius was a
secondary character, with his development mainly enslaved to the needs
of the plot. It would have been very different if Ron or Hermione had
died.

Romantic stories are indeed usually based on a relationship between
two central characters, but I don't think HP is primarily a romantic
story. In Good vs Evil stories the hero is usually left alone against
that evil overlord, at most with the help of a sidekick or two that
don't outshine him. His journey is an internal one, to find his own
choices and powers within himself. JKR said more than once that she
killed every grownup Harry could count on for this reason exactly (in
this sense Lupin's detachment was necessary to save his life, which I
see as a sign that JKR means him to survive). So I don't think that
the Harry-Snape relationship will be *central* (although certainly
important) and therefore I estimate that LOLLIPOPS will not happen, at
least not with any version of DDM!Snape. I do suspect that Snape will
save Harry's life, but not because he's DDM and not because of
LOLLIPOPS.    

 
> Sydney:
> 
> I'm really baffled here.  If Snape's hubris is meant to bring him
> down, why not use some existing weakness of Snape's that we already
> are familiar with and can anticipate? You're spoilt for choice: 
> Snape's hysterical jealousy of Harry, Snape's resentment of what
> Dumbledore demands from him, Snape's temper, Snape's tendency to think
> the worst of people on his own side, Snape's ultimately untenable
> position as a double-agent.  His 'hubris' could have slipped him up on
> any of these points
> 

Neri:
Snape's hysterical jealousy of Harry isn't hubris, at least the way I
understand this concept. Snape's resentment of what Dumbledore demands
from him, Snape's temper, Snape's tendency to think the worst of
people on his own side, all these aren't hubris. Even Snape reveling
in the suffering of other people (sorry, I had to add it to the list)
isn't hubris. Now, Snape's ultimately untenable position as a
double-agent would indeed be proper hubris, but only if he was very
good at it, has become very sure of himself, and then attempted to use
it in order to achieve one more thing, something really unachievable
that he desired for a long time. This one additional thing could be
Narcissa. Spinner's End certainly hints so, both the name of the
chapter and the events in it.

> Sydney:
>I don't think 'hubris' is really thematically
> related to Snape, but if it was, the last thing I'd do is muddy it up
> by dragging in some sort of love angle.  I mean, is he in love with
> Narcissa and selflessly sacrificed himself for her peace of mind?  Or
> is the hubris thing that he has some crazy plan to save Draco, kill
> Dumbledore, stay out of jail, take over the world, and then get the
> trophy wife?  And I don't think you'd get away, for that reason, with
> your one line of dialogue explaining why Snape took the UV, because
> you'd still have to explain why Snape took the UV.

Neri:
I think Snape had meant to prove to Narcissa in Spinner's End that
only he can help her, while her dear Lucius can't. I think he was
working up to exactly this point where she kneels before him convinced
that only he can save her son. At that moment she asked for a bit more
than he was planning on (but perhaps not *much* more if his primary
objective was never guarding Dumbledore's life). Refusing at this
point would have shown that he isn't really her savior after all, so
he did a quick calculation of risks and took it. This theory is based
on detailed sentence-by-sentence and word-by-word analysis of the
canon in Spinner's End, which I won't repeat here (I don't want to
send everybody running in all directions) but you can easily find it
in my previous ACID POPS posts including in this thread.  

  
> Sydney:  
> 
> No, YOU are inventing Snape's love affairs and assigning them an
> importance that has nothing to do with Harry.  ACID POPS and the Life
> Debt and some scattered explanations leave Harry unaffected and so do
> not resolve the tension.  
> 

Neri:
I have explained above and upthread why I think ACID POPS isn't
*supposed* to have much to do with Harry, except that its consequences
were Dumbledore's death and Snape's downfall. I don't accept your
axiom that Snape's love affair must have importance for Harry in
itself. Regarding the Life Debt, this is a different discussion, but I
think that if in Book 7 Snape steps between Voldemort and Harry to
save Harry's life, then it would have a huge importance to both Harry
and Snape. 

As for "inventing love affairs", I'm only theorizing. I had the
impression that this is what this list is for. ACID POPS is a theory,
same as LOLLIPOPS is a theory. And as SHIPping theories go, ACID POPS
has considerably more canons on its deck than LOLLIPOPS. 


> Neri:
> 
> If Snape saves Harry's life in Book 7 because of
> > his debt to James, especially if as a result Snape will find himself
> > fighting against Voldemort, and especially if Snape did kill
> > Dumbledore, then this would give both Harry and Snape quite enough to
> > care about. Snape's love affair would be redundant for making Harry
> > care.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> And your point is, that Snape's love affair with Narcissa would be
> redudant for making Harry care.  Strange, I thought that was my point.
> 

Neri:
This is not what I meant. The words "with Narcissa" are your addition.
I meant that Snape's love affair, *either with Narcissa or with Lily*,
would be redundant just to make Harry care, because Harry already has
quite enough things to care about in Book 7.

  
> Sydney:
> 
> JKR is not writing random stuff for us to spin juicy theories about. 

Neri:
She certainly isn't. She's writing *deliberately calculated and very
well crafted* stuff for us to spin juicy theories about.

> Sydney:
> She is constructing a story with a strong arc that is all meant to
> make sense.  Her policy about giving things away about Snape is surely
> because they are important, shocking, critical to the plot, and, I
> hate to keep saying this, will have an effect on Harry, the main
> character,  that she doesn't want to happen until the last possible
> moment. 

Neri:
According to my theory ACID POPS already had and will have a critical
effect on Harry, because it led to Dumbledore's death and burning
Snape's cover. Again, I do not buy your axiom that Snape's love affair
must be important and shocking for Harry in itself.

There are many critical events is the series that Harry would never
care about if their consequences didn't affect him personally. Harry
wouldn't have cared about Merope falling in love with Tom Sr if the
consequences weren't Voldemort's birth. Harry wouldn't have cared
about Myrtle dying if she wasn't connected with the Chamber of
Secrets. He wouldn't have cared about Voldemort killing Hepzibah Smith
if it weren't for the creation of the Hufflepuff Cup Horcrux. He
doesn't care now about Regulus Black and wouldn't care about him in
Book 7 unless Regulus turns out to be RAB. In short, Harry doesn't
have to care *directly* about every important event in the books.

I suspect you think that Harry must care about any Snape revelation
because *you* care about it, but this isn't true either. For example,
Harry doesn't care much that Eileen Prince married Tobias Snape. It's
mainly a biographic detail required to solve a certain Snape mystery ?
the origin of the nickname "Half-Blood Price" ? but it didn't make
Harry fall off his chair or start running in circles. 

> 
> > Neri:
> > Life debt and ACID POPS give you two "What?!?" moments in Book 7
> > instead of just one.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> And you think that's STRONGER?  And here I was looking for a grand
> unified Snape theory that ties back into Harry on every unanswered
> point.  

Neri:
I am not familiar with any grand unifying Snape theories, and
LOLLIPOPS certainly isn't one. LOLLIPOPS doesn't explain why Snape
took the UV and it doesn't explain several other Snape mysteries. I
doubt it is possible to find any single motivation of Snape that would
explain each and every thing he did in the books. We probably need
more than one motivation, which is why I'm using a combination of two
theories (though they don't necessarily depend on each other).


> Sydney:
> <snip>  And how is "Snape loves Narcissa"
> a WHAT? moment?  

Neri:
You say yourself that LOLLIPOPS is much more popular than ACID POPS.
In fact I'd say any HP reader above the age of 12 probably had thought
about LOLLIPOPS by himself/herself early in the series (I certainly
did, and I had zero connection with the fandom at the time). So for
most readers ACID POPS will be a much bigger "WHAT?" moment than
LOLLIPOPS. Of course, for the few who had the misfortune to read my
ACID POPS posts it won't be such a big "WHAT?" moment.

> Sydney:
> 
> Because Draco is CLOSE to Snape.  Snape was, as I said, his role
> model, a father figure.  The other DE's and Borgin are guys he can use
> and give orders to and doesn't really have to deal with.  Snape is
> someone who is wrapped up with all the *emotional* issues that Draco
> is having.  You will notice that Draco also avoids telling *his
> friends*, Crabbe and Goyle, what's going on.  Because he just might
> start cracking up.
> 

Neri:
Draco has absolutely no logical reason to tell Crabbe and Goyle. With
their intellectual level they certainly can't tell him how to fix the
cabinet. And what's more, Crabbe and Goyle are under pressure from
Snape, including detentions and likely additional tactics that Snape
excels in when he needs to get information out of students. By not
telling Crabbe and Goyle Draco is protecting himself, again, from
Snape. So we are back to the original question: why does Draco have to
protect himself from Snape?
	
And here's another canon clue for you. Why does Draco cut his talk
with Snape (the one Harry overhears after the slug club party) and
storms out? What was the specific point in Snape's words that made
Draco so angry he wouldn't continue the conversation? Want to place a
bet first? Here it goes:


******************************************************
HBP, Ch. 15, p. 324:

"Then why not confide in me, and I can ?"

"I know what your up to! You are out to steal my glory!"

There was another pause, then Snape said coldly, "you are speaking
like a child. I quite understand that your father capture and
imprisonment has upset you, but ? "

Harry had barely a second's warning; he heard Malfoy's footsteps under
the door and flung himself out of the way just as it burst open;
Malfoy was striding away down the corridor.
*******************************************************

Interesting. Snape mentions *Lucius* for the first time in that
conversation, and Draco storms out within a second. And it wasn't the
"your acting like a child" part, because Snape had made the point
about Draco's clumsiness and foolishness several times before in that
conversation and it didn't send Draco out. Sounds to me like Draco has
an ugly suspicion about Snape conspiring against his father, but for
some reason it's too embarrassing to say out loud. But if these are
Draco's suspicions, why won't JKR make them obvious so we know what
Draco has against Snape? Maybe because it's a clue to something that
is kept for Book 7?

> Sydney:
> 
> "More specific"?  Once again I'm confused by what you want out of a
> story.  Draco's 'coming of age' is a character growing and changing. 
> Inventing a bunch of extrenal factors to replace that emotional growth
> seems to be what you mean by 'more specific'.  "What Draco has against
> Snape personally" is that Snape and Draco are, well, personal.  
> 

Neri:
Draco's coming-of-age is a thematic, meta-thinking reason. I generally
agree with it, but it cannot replace proximal reasons inside the plot.
Even a coming-of-age teenager needs to have specific reasons to
completely turn against a person he liked a lot for five years.
Certainly in a mystery story where the readers are generally supposed
to guess the hidden motivations of suspected characters by their
behavior. 

> Sydney:
> 
> 16-year-old boy... wants to take down father-figure a peg... wants to
> be important and independent...  dang it, what's going on!?  There
> must be some sort of magical device to explain all this bizzareness! 
> Hey, maybe Slughorn made Draco take some sort of 'conflicted
> adolescent' potion or something!  That would explain it!
> 

Neri:
No need for a potion. I've already suggested upthread the universal
Teenage Irrationality Factor. Absolutely *anything* that a teenager
does or says, however illogical, can be explained away with it. It's a
very efficient way to beat any argument based on canon. No need to
even open the book and search for canonical counterarguments <g>.
 
> Sydney:
> 
> Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin,
> because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. 
> Because it's not emotionally satisfying.  If it WAS emotionally
> satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon.
> 

Neri:
The problem with the "emotionally satisfying" argument is that
emotions tend to be subjective, and we don't always know what does the
*Author* find emotionally satisfying.  I don't believe in ESE!Lupin
myself, and I don't find it emotionally satisfying, but when I'm
arguing against it I usually try to use canon and rational arguments.
I certainly wouldn't try to convince Pippin that I know better than
her because I'm a Lupin fan. If anything, being  Lupin fan would make
me a *less* objective judge of any Lupin theory, especially theories
that Lupin is evil. 


> Sydney:
> "If nobody thinks so, it can't be true".  Well, I thinks it more, "if
> nobody sees it coming, it can't be foreshadowed as you say it's being
> foreshadowed.  Because nobody seems to see it coming."
> 

Neri:
Hmmm. And you think it is impossible that JKR will actually *want* to
come up, in the last book, with something that nobody has seen coming?

> 
> > Neri, 
> > who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy SHIP
> > clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> "Strange", or "totally understandable because they're not clues". 
> Your call.
> 

Neri:
Or maybe, just maybe, "totally understandable because the clues point
in a direction you don't like"?


Neri








From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 28 03:37:30 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 23:37:30 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
References: <ectm29+kr4e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <019001c6ca53$4af8bf30$6f80400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157514

> Kathryn Jones:
>
> 11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." Have we ever
> heard Hagrid talk to another co-worker like this before
> and what does it say about their relationship? Do you
> think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch?
> Does this seem out of character for Hagrid? Does Hagrid
> share the WW dislike of Squibs?
>
> Houyhnhnm snipped:
>
> I think it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes rather than
> the fact that he is a Squib.

Snow:

Yep! I thought that Filtch was making Hagrid feel that he was as far
down the totem pole as Filtch always thought he was and Hagrid
plucked a higher notch by informing Filtch that he was at the very
least a teacher and did have magical skills even if he wasn't allowed
to use them by his dominant statement.

Magpie:
I wasn't going to reply to this, but just in case...we do all realize that 
what you described is classic bigotry, right?  That Hagrid is asserting his 
"dominance" by reminding Filch of his inferior circumstances of birth? It's 
the same way that Malfoy responds to Hermione when Hermione makes him feel 
low on the Quidditch Pitch. Whether or not Hagrid hates Filch for being a 
Squib doesn't matter as much as the fact that he expresses his hatred by 
going straight for "Squib."

-m 





From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 05:44:09 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:44:09 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <019001c6ca53$4af8bf30$6f80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ectvr9+a42c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157515

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > Kathryn Jones:
> >
> > 11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." ...
> >
> > Houyhnhnm snipped:
> >
> > I think it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes 
> > rather than the fact that he is a Squib.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Yep! I thought that Filch was making Hagrid feel that he 
> was as far down the totem pole as Filch always thought 
> he was and Hagrid plucked ... inform(ed) Filch that he 
> was at the very least a teacher ...
>
 
> Magpie:
> ...we do all realize that what you described is classic
> bigotry, right?  That Hagrid is asserting his  "dominance" 
> by reminding Filch of his inferior circumstances ....
> 
> -m
>


bboyminn:

No, I don't personally think that Hagrid's actions are bigoted. He is
responding to an insult with an insult, but it is Filch who levels the
first insult. 

Would Filch have taken the same attitude with any of the other
teachers? I don't think so. 

Filch is showing complete disrespect for Hagrid and for Hagrid's
position as a teacher. As a teacher, Hagrid would have the authority
to escort students around the school after hours. Filch should and
does know this. 

Further it is an moment of crisis, and exceptional moment, and Filch
certainly should have made an allowance for that. But Filch is so
caught up in his 'war' with the students that he momentarily forgets
that Harry has an excuse for being out of bed and that Hagrid is a
teacher with authority.  

In a way though I understand Filch's mistake. He has little power in
his war against the students and against Peeves, and it must be
extremely frustrating to be charged with after-hours order and the
general up-keep of the castle. So, I can see his overenthusiasm at
finally having caught someone. I imagine anyone working with that many
students in a boarding school would be frustrated, and that is
probably, most surely, compounded by the fact that the students are
magical. 

None the less though, Filch actually started the incident when he
failed to recognise the circumstances and to recognise Hagrid's authority.

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 05:44:23 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 05:44:23 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco/ some LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ectnv5+t2je@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ectvrn+etuj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157516

Neri:
<SNIP>
> I don't see that Snape gets similar treatment from JKR in any of 
the
> books. In that sense he is a secondary character, like Dumbledore 
or
> Sirius. His character serves the story rather than the story serves
> the character. If Snape indeed has a SHIP, either LOLLIPOPS or ACID
> POPS or any other, it will likely be a plot device and/or because 
of
> thematic reasons of the story.
> 
> And I suspect it's going to detract from the energy and intensity 
of
> the story if the "central relationship" is between the hero and a
> secondary character. We've seen it in OotP, when what was supposed 
to
> be the driving relationship emotionally was the one between Harry 
and
> Sirius, and at least personally I think it never quite worked. I
> accepted as an axiom that Harry feels so strongly for Sirius, but I
> never felt it myself, and ultimately this was because Sirius was a
> secondary character, with his development mainly enslaved to the 
needs
> of the plot. It would have been very different if Ron or Hermione 
had
> died.
> 
> Romantic stories are indeed usually based on a relationship between
> two central characters, but I don't think HP is primarily a 
romantic
> story. In Good vs Evil stories the hero is usually left alone 
against
> that evil overlord, at most with the help of a sidekick or two that
> don't outshine him. His journey is an internal one, to find his own
> choices and powers within himself. JKR said more than once that she
> killed every grownup Harry could count on for this reason exactly 
(in
> this sense Lupin's detachment was necessary to save his life, 
which I
> see as a sign that JKR means him to survive). So I don't think that
> the Harry-Snape relationship will be *central* (although certainly
> important) and therefore I estimate that LOLLIPOPS will not 
happen, at
> least not with any version of DDM!Snape. I do suspect that Snape 
will
> save Harry's life, but not because he's DDM and not because of
> LOLLIPOPS.    
> 


Alla:

Neri and Sydney and Ma, as always I read this debate with great 
interest :), but I just want to interject the general comment, which 
I already made in the past and even though it is literally painful 
for me to make it, I will do it again :)

Neri, I would LOVE for you to be right, I think it is a great 
possibility that Snape and Harry relationship is not a central 
enough relationship to the story, but I am afraid that I have to say 
that IMO it is one of the central relationships ( no I disagree that 
this is as central as Sydney seems to imply, I'd still say that it 
is quite possible that all great Snape mysteries will be neatly tied 
in one "that's it?" moment, but I think it is central enough even 
opnly plot wise, because in a sense it is all started from Snape, as 
in him starting the circle of giving the prophecy to Voldemort and 
thus starting Harry's pain and misery IMO, therefore IMO it is very 
plausible that Snape will end that too ( in a sense of doing 
something to help Harry - NO, that does not mean that I believe that 
Snape is DD!M, I just think that whether Snape is good, bad or 
indifferent, he will do something of use to Harry at the end)

Neri, I think that LID!Snape is perfectly possible, but I think I 
asked you earlier and don't remember the answer. :) Does it work 
with LOLLIPOPS at all or not?

You seem to be saying that LOLLIPOPS are not going to happen at all, 
do you think it is possible to mash it with LID Snape or not?

Because as I said in the past, yes, unfortunately I believe that 
LOLLIPOPS in one form or another **are** coming.

As somebody else wrote ( don't remember who. Magpie?)  I find the 
silence from Snape on the subject of Lily to be more and more 
deafening.

I have no problem buying that Snape hates Harry, so since he had no 
problem hurting him over and over again with calling James' 
names,why wouldn't he do it the same with Lily?

I find it very peculiar, frankly.

Now, I am still hoping that we wil find out that Snapey love was one 
sided and obsessive, sort of stalking Lily, because Snape dreaming 
of lily "long mane of red hair" as I also mentioned before makes me 
very ill, but yes my second bet is that in one form or another 
LOLLIPOS are coming.

Maybe I am lucky enough and JKR will just do them being friends. :)

We already know that Remus loved Lily ( thank goodness he was not 
competing for her with James), now all we need is that Snape and 
Sirius was in love with Lily.

Oh, and of course prank happened because Sirius was jealous that 
Lily went on a study date with Snape instead of him (joke :))

Yuck, please no :)

Alla, who agrees with Neri that Snape and Narcissa can be easily 
postulated from canon, but who unfortunately does not find them 
dramatic enough either.

Who also apologises if her post is not coherent enough - too late 
hour to do so.







From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Mon Aug 28 06:25:02 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:25:02 -0000
Subject: How long have Fich / Hagrid been at Hogwarts?Was: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ectvr9+a42c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecu27u+rl7t@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157517

> > > Kathryn Jones:
> > >
11. Hagrid called Filch "a sneaking Squib." Have we ever
heard Hagrid talk to another co-worker like this before
and what does it say about their relationship? Do you
think that Hagrid has some personal conflict with Filch?
Does this seem out of character for Hagrid? Does Hagrid
share the WW dislike of Squibs?

> > > Houyhnhnm snipped:

For all of Hagrid's self-proclaimed loyalty to the Hogwarts
staff, he seems to have some pretty choice words for those
he really dislikes--Lockhart and Umbridge, IIRC. I think
it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes rather than
the fact that he is a Squib. ... No doubt it is reviving all the bad
memories of his own experience fifty some years before.
> > 
> > Snow:
> > 
> > Yep! I thought that Filch was making Hagrid feel that he 
> > was as far down the totem pole as Filch always thought 
> > he was 
>  
> > Magpie:
> > ...we do all realize that what you described is classic
> > bigotry, right?  That Hagrid is asserting his  "dominance" 
> > by reminding Filch of his inferior circumstances ....
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> No, I don't personally think that Hagrid's actions are bigoted. He 
is
> responding to an insult with an insult, but it is Filch who levels 
the
> first insult. 
> 
> Would Filch have taken the same attitude with any of the other
> teachers? I don't think so. ...
> I understand Filch's mistake. He has little power in
> his war against the students and against Peeves, and it must be
> extremely frustrating to be charged with after-hours order and the
> general up-keep of the castle. So, I can see his overenthusiasm at
> finally having caught someone. ...Anyone working with that many
> students in a boarding school would be frustrated, and that is
> probably, most surely, compounded by the fact that the students are
> magical. 
> 

Aussie / Hagrid,
>From an unbiased point of view (LOL), YES, we have seen that kind of 
talk before in canon. After Harry's first week, Hagrid invited Harry 
to his hut and called Filch "that old git". Hagrid was angry that 
Filch seemed to have Mrs Norris follow him everywhere.

The "Squib" reason was nowhere to be seen. Just an on-going feud 
between the two Hogwarts staff members.

I propose Hagird's first loyalties were to:
1. Magical Creatures (excluding Mrs Norris)
2. Dumbledore 
3. Hogwarts as Hagrid's home (and all the emotions that go with 
that - that was repeated to McGonagall at the end of HBP when she 
asked if the school should be closed)
- and the students? Each one varies. But Harry is connected with 
Dumbledore, so is right at the top of Hagrid's list.

If Hagrid (about 65 years old) calls Filch an OLD git, how old is 
Filch and when did he start working at Hogwarts? For that matter, 
when did Hagrid start living at Hogwarts? 

Hagrid's dad died when RH was 6. When RH was expelled, did Dumble 
plead his case to Dippet to have living quarters set up for him, or 
did Dumbledore bring RH back only after Dumbledore became 
headmaster? 

Lupin had said, he knew for a fact that Filch confiscated the 
MMap "Years and years ago", so that sounds like Filch was working at 
Hogwarts when James was there. Were Filch's chains and manacles used 
on James and Sirius, (like in the good old days)?

Part of Filch's job discription was looking for students wandering 
the castle at night. Hagrid's job discription for years were OUTSIDE 
the castle, not inside. Filch may have been like a snarling dog 
prootecting his territory.

At the start of every year, Dumbledore reminds the students that 
Filch does not allow magic outside of classes. (Inferiority complex 
from a Squib?). Harry used some of the HBP's curse on Filch earlier 
in the book (Sticking Filch's tongue to the roof of his mouth).

More questions than comments there. But i don't think Hagrid was 
motivated just because of Filch being a Squib.

Aussie






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 06:32:35 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 06:32:35 -0000
Subject: Draco's Mission and What did DD do about it? (Long)
Message-ID: <ecu2m3+nmtj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157518

I find it interesting how these threads evolve to the point that 
they don't come close to resembling the title on the message board. 
It's also interesting how the same topic shows up on multiple 
threads by the evolution of that thread. Once we get on a topic, if 
the spigot is on fast enough, it floods the whole house.

In an attempt to reverse inertia, I'd like to pull several threads 
into one. Snow, you're batting leadoff. (Liberal snipping throughout)

***************************************************************
Snow:
Forgive the intrusion but I've been watching this continuing debate
and have to ask, any of you, what you think Voldemort personally
asked Draco to do and under what capacity, because it is very
important to the scenario? 

The most that we absolutely know is that Draco was ordered to kill
Dumbledore (and will most likely fail- nothing about cabinets or
opening Hogwarts for the deatheaters) 
****************************************************************

Mike:
I asked a similar question. Betsy answered, then I wrote this 
summary:

****************************************************************
OK, I get it. This was a terrorist action. From the beginning,
Draco (or an accomplice) was to signal when DD was out and the
connection between cabinets was ready. Then, after raising a
little hell, someone sends up the Dark Mark to lure DD back,
whereupon Draco heads off to meet his doom. Is that right, Betsy?

Betsy Hp:
Yup. <g>
****************************************************************

Mike:
So, that was our guess as to what Voldemort's objective was, at 
least as far as why the DEs were being introduced into Hogwarts.
But in this exchange, a slightly different take on the topic.

****************************************************************
Mike:
But it just begs the question: Did he think this whole plot through 
at all? Why was he repairing the cabinet, how would that help him 
to kill DD?

Magpie:
The DEs were supposed to give him the ability to kill DD--which they 
did in the end. After that the DEs were actually Draco's undoing 
by acting like exactly what they were supposed to be: backup

Mike:
You say, iirc, that he thought he was bringing in backup. Draco, on 
the tower, only told DD that there were DEs in the school.

Magpie:
DD, I believe, refers to them as reinforcements, understanding that 
they are supposed to be there to give Draco the opportunity to kill 
Dumbledore. I'm sure Draco did ask himself what the DEs were there 
for and thought of them as the thing he needed to do it.
****************************************************************

Mike:
So combining these three posts, we have a some contradictions. Did 
LV order Draco to introduce DEs for the purpose of terrorist action? 
Or was the introduction of DEs, as backup, purely Draco's idea? Or 
was it, as Red Hen postulates, a double cross set up by LV to ensure 
Draco didn't come out of it alive, successful mission or not? 
Because we have another reason for this possibility.

****************************************************************
Snow:
What was the underlying reason for Voldemort's request from Draco?
The reason Faith has been given is that Voldemort is really pissed
off at Lucius. Could be but wouldn't that be a bit lame. Wouldn't
Voldemort aim a bit higher than revenge on a supporter?

Magpie:
No, it wouldn't be lame. It would be, imo, one of the best plans 
Voldemort's ever come up with. If it puts Snape in a position to 
prove his loyalty all the better, but I see no reason for anything 
other than what we're given for Draco in HBP. Lucius destroyed a 
Horcrux, a piece of Voldemort. Voldemort destroys Lucius' child. 
What is more dramatic than murdering a man's son in revenge?
****************************************************************

Mike:
OK, I'm going to pick my favotites, I invite you to do the same.
I like Betsy's idea that LV set it up as a terrorist action. She 
also pointed out that LV didn't expect them to meet any opposition, 
that was intrinsic to the plot (vastly underestimating DD!). By the 
same token, these weren't his A-Team, he didn't really care if they 
were lost. As Magpie points out, Draco deluded himself into 
believing they were there as his backup. Actually, after they were 
done raising hell, they were to make sure that, if Draco 
miraculously survives the encounter with DD, he doesn't get out of 
the castle alive.

Now LV knows about the UV that Snape took (Bella would have told LV, 
making sure that to tell it in a way that won't get Narcissa in 
trouble), and, as Magpie says, the testing of Snape's loyalty is 
just a bonus. He doesn't let Snape in on the plan, but he does 
instruct the goon squad to stand aside if he shows up and let him 
take over the lead.

Most of the plan worked out the way LV hoped. He didn't get *as* 
much terrorizing as he would have liked and Draco survived. But DD 
is dead and his right-hand man proved his loyalty, so he's not 
displeased with the overall outcome.

        ><OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO><

How much of this was what DD wanted to happen and how much was 
outright orchestrated by DD? I'm going to rely heavily on Red Hen's 
analysis for this part. If you'd care to read her entire post, here:

http://www.redhen-publications.com/Exeunt.html

I will warn you, it is very long and covers much more ground than 
what I'm including here.

Red Hen starts with the question:

****************************************************************
We not only needed to ask whether or not Albus is really dead ? and 
we did need to at least ask that ? but whether, and by just how much 
was he taken by surprise by the events that overtook him the night 
of his death. And by which ones, exactly? How much of that 
performance was under his own control?
****************************************************************

Mike:
Up on the tower we got the everpresent DD debriefing only this time 
he used a question and answer session with Draco and it came a 
little earlier than usual. We learned everything that Draco could 
tell us about the plan, but of course we got it from Draco's PoV, 
for the most part. How much of this was news to DD? Let's look at 
one particular exchange:  (HBP, pg. 586-7, US)

****************************************************************
Malfoy . . .. "I had to mend that Vanishing Cabinet that no one's 
used for years. The one Montague got lost in last year."

"Aaaah." Dumbledore's sigh was half a groan. He closed his eyes for 
a moment. "That was clever ... There is a pair, I take it?"
****************************************************************

Mike:
Now I know that Dumbledore is smart. But this seems like awfully 
quick deducing and he's not in the best of shape right now. Is it 
possible that DD already knew about the cabinet repair project?
 
Doesn't it seem particularly coincidental that the very moment that 
Draco fixes the cabinet, DD is summoning Harry to take him out on an 
adventure? Remember, part of Draco's order was to wait for DD to be 
off campus.

Red Hen has a theory on this part:

****************************************************************
And he messed with Draco's mission to ensure that the invasion would 
take place on his signal, and not one minute before.

Oh. Yes. He also knew that facilitating an invasion was part of the 
assignment.


Once it had been reported that Malfoy and the cabinet had taken up 
residence in the Room, all the cards were in Albus's hands. After 
any evening that Malfoy had been reported spending time in the Room, 
Albus would make a visit that night and undo what Malfoy had done, 
stringing the whole project out . . .. And then . . . , he went and 
repaired the cabinet himself ? all but a simple detail or two ? and 
waited for Malfoy to enter the room again and discover it.

Once Malfoy was reported entering the room, he sent for Harry.
****************************************************************

Mike:
So why did Snape bother trying to get info out of Draco if he and DD 
already knew the plan? Aaah, that UV required him to watch over  
Draco, so why not see if he can gather intel while he's fulfilling 
his promise to Narcissa?! And if Snape can just get the boy to 
listen, maybe he can convince him to accept an offer that he knows 
will be forthcoming from DD. Not likely? Well, it's worth a try.

There lots of theories on why DD is dying. And there are too many 
people to attribute with all the various reasons. Suffice it to say, 
sufficient quantity of listers believe DD orchestrated his own death 
on-stage because he knew he was dying anyway. Why not use his death 
to further his cause?! 

Well, if you believe DD was dying and you fall in the DDM!Snape 
camp, you have no problem believing that DD orchestrated his own 
public execution for the purposes of getting Snape into deep cover 
at LV's right-hand side.

        ><OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO><

I would like to thank Red Hen and all the HP4GU listers whose posts 
were used herein. 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157509
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157379
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157506
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157510

Mike






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 08:54:02 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 08:54:02 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ectn25+ska6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecuava+jest@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
 
> Me snipped:(Snow?)
> 
> What was the underlying reason for Voldemort's request 
> from Draco? (was)... Voldemort is really pissed off at 
> Lucius. ...
 
 
> Magpie:
> 
> No, it wouldn't be lame.  It would be imo one of the best 
> plans Voldemort's ever come up with.  If it puts Snape in 
> a position to prove his loyalty all the better, but I see 
> no reason for anything other than what we're  given for 
> Draco in HBP. ...
 
 
> Snow:
> 
> Buy then it would simply be an act of revenge! I feel 
> confident that Voldemort would make more of such a 
> situation than that. ...
> 
> Voldemort ... was pissed at the misuse of the Diary 
> Horcrux but he could benefit from it by means of his 
> (Lucius) son and better yet Narcissa! This would flush 
> out the true supporters. 
> 
> Remember that Narcissa in taking the vow with Snape 
> showed that she put her son above Voldemort. ...
>

bboyminn:

While I am not discrediting all the things that have been 
said so far, but let us not forget that Draco went to 
Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. I suspect Draco 
thought he would get big time credit for bringing this info 
to the Dark Lord, but he didn't necessarily expect to have 
to carry out any plan. 

Suddenly, Voldemort leaves it up to Draco to fix the cabinet 
and as an added special treat decides to induct him into the 
Death Eaters. I'm not sure that's what Draco expected, but 
fixing the cabinet and letting the DE's do the dirty work 
might not be so bad. Plus, he has alway assumed he would 
eventually be a DE, so it is just coming a little sooner.

But Voldemort is a master manipulator with his own agenda, 
once Draco is in too deep, Voldemort present Draco with 
the extreme priviledge and treat of killing Dumbledore 
himself. I doubt Draco had bargained on that, but now that 
he was in, he knew he couldn't refuse and he knew he couldn't 
negotiate.

I think Voldemort also took Draco's standard resources away 
from him to make the task harder; no Crabbe and Goyle, no 
Snape, and no running to mummy. He was assigned a few DE to 
assist him and be his outside contacts, and that was it. 

I further think that only involved people knew specifically 
what the plan was. Narcissa may or may NOT have know the 
plan. Certainly she knew there was a dark and dangerour 
plan that centered around her son, and to a mother, that 
alone is enough to worry you. I suspect the same it true 
of Bella, she knew generally but not specifically. Yes, I 
know some will cite 'Spinners End', but no one in that 
scene actually reveals what they know. 

I still say that a substantial part of Draco's stress was 
Secrecy. He couldn't go to Snape or his mother for help. 
He couldn't reveal to his best friends and helpers the 
secret of his mission. Though I readily admit to the teen 
angst, urge to grow up and prove himself, desire for glory 
and recognition, and all the other aspects that others have 
spoke of. But I think the up-front limiting factor on Draco 
was secrecy; he couldn't reveal the secret because to do 
so surely meant death.

Some see Draco out of character in this book, but Draco is 
also out of his characteristic situation. Up until now all 
he had to think about were schoolboy pranks, now the stakes 
are extremely high. Much much much higher than Draco has 
ever had to operate at before. It is easy to be smug and 
arrogant when the stakes are a few lines or a detention or 
two, but Voldemort will not give 'lines' for failure.

Draco fancied himself getting into Voldemort's good graces 
with the information about the cabinet, but I suspect 
Voldemort, step by step, raised the stakes to far beyond 
what Draco ever imagined. Yes, part of that was vindictive. 
He was putting tremendous pressure on Draco, perhaps even 
putting him in harms way as a way of tormenting Draco, his 
mother, and his father. But that was not the objective, that 
was just a side benefit. Naturally with a completely secret 
way into the castle, the Dark Lord would want to use it. 
The School and Dumbledore are prime strategic targets for 
Voldemort; he simply couldn't pass it up.

I think he kept Snape out of it because he didn't want to 
compromise Snape's spy status. By leaving Snape out, no 
suspicion could fall on him regardless of the out come. 
That way he would always have his inside man at Hogwarts. 
Also, if Draco really did fail this year, he could always 
come back next year, and with Snape help then, fix the 
cabinet. Or have Snape fix it over the summer. Draco's 
failure itself doesn't close the door. Although Draco 
getting caught most certainly would.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Mon Aug 28 12:09:58 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:09:58 -0000
Subject: WW Prejudice (was Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <019001c6ca53$4af8bf30$6f80400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ecumem+dgp6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157520

 
> Magpie:
> I wasn't going to reply to this, but just in case...we do all 
realize that 
> what you described is classic bigotry, right?  That Hagrid is 
asserting his 
> "dominance" by reminding Filch of his inferior circumstances of 
birth? It's 
> the same way that Malfoy responds to Hermione when Hermione makes 
him feel 
> low on the Quidditch Pitch. Whether or not Hagrid hates Filch for 
being a 
> Squib doesn't matter as much as the fact that he expresses his 
hatred by 
> going straight for "Squib."

Potioncat:
I agree, but in this case, I'd call it prejudice rather than bigotry. 
We've seen it before too. Hagrid makes a blanket statement against 
Slytherins, but he firmly supports Snape. McGonagall makes a comment 
about Muggles, but she doesn't discriminate against Muggle-born 
students. Madam Maxim takes offense at being recognised as part 
Giant. Ron calls Lupin "werewolf!" It was something like, "Get away, 
werewolf!"

My point was going to be that quite a few of the "good guys" have 
some degree of WW prejudice alive in them. It's probably true about 
most of us in the RW as well. The good guys don't generally take 
action on those feeling, but sometimes the feeling come out. 

Bigotry might be the right word in this case. In spite of the 
situation, I think Hagrid crossed the line at using the word "Squib" 
the way he did. There are lots of very valid reasons for anyone to 
dislike Filch. Being a Squib isn't one of them.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 28 14:25:40 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:25:40 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails/Draco the teenager
In-Reply-To: <ectvr9+a42c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecuud4+486b@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157521


> bboyminn:
> 
> No, I don't personally think that Hagrid's actions are bigoted. He 
is
> responding to an insult with an insult, but it is Filch who levels 
the
> first insult. 

Magpie:
He's responding to an insult with a specific kind of insult.  If a 
person of a different race than I am insults me and I respond with a 
racial slur, that doesn't make the slur any less racist. 

Steve:
 
> Would Filch have taken the same attitude with any of the other
> teachers? I don't think so. 

Magpie:
So?  Nobody's questioning that Filch is not respecting Hagrid's 
authority.  Hagrid didn't have to respond to that by bringing in 
Filch's birth defect. 


-m






From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 13:25:39 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:25:39 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
Message-ID: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157522

Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot of 
discussion and no little heat:  DD at the Dursleys at the beginning 
of HBP.  Several people have expressed discomfort with or dislike 
for this scene.  I confess to being utterly baffled.

It seems that the scene serves two purposes.  One, the more minor 
purpose, is to get Harry out of the house while providing some comic 
relief and maybe a couple of hints (i.e. Petunia's blush) as to what 
might be coming.

The second, and more important purpose, is to correct some severe 
mistakes JKR made in OOTP.  The DD that came out of that book simply 
was not the DD she wanted to sell.  He wasn't an "epitome of 
goodness," etc.  By providing that scene she managed to partially 
(although I think still not entirely) wrench the Dumbledore train 
back onto the correct track.

Yet it seems, as I say, to have provoked a distaste in some 
quarters.  As I say, I am quite baffled as to why.  The first 
purpose was served admirably.  The second purpose was not, IMO, 
served so well but was, I think, utterly necessary if she wanted 
people to take any of her statements about Dumbledore with anything 
other than a guffaw of derision.

So whence the problem?


Lupinlore










From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 28 14:30:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:30:19 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecuava+jest@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecuulr+mh1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157523

> bboyminn:
> 
> While I am not discrediting all the things that have been 
> said so far, but let us not forget that Draco went to 
> Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 

Magpie:
No, he DID NOT.  I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't stand 
having this presented as canon.  Voldemort discovered Lucius had 
destroyed the Horcrux.  His anger was terrible to behold.  He gave 
Draco the task of killing Dumbledore as a response.  Draco could 
kill Dumbledore any way he wanted.  Because he's not supposed to 
succeed in killing Dumbledore.  He's supposed to get himself killed 
trying to kill Dumbledore.  This is the only story anyone gives us 
in HBP.  People on both sides agree on it.  The Cabinet plot is 
never anything but Draco Malfoy's secret plan for carrying out this 
task. 

Steve:
I suspect Draco 
> thought he would get big time credit for bringing this info 
> to the Dark Lord, but he didn't necessarily expect to have 
> to carry out any plan. 

Magpie:
No, no, no.  Draco's carrying out the plan of killing Dumbledore is 
Voldemort's plan.

Steve: 
> Suddenly, Voldemort leaves it up to Draco to fix the cabinet 
> and as an added special treat decides to induct him into the 
> Death Eaters.

Magpie:
We don't know if Draco is inducted into anything or not.  What we 
know is that Lucius destroyed the diary and got put in jail after 
the MoM.  He is safe in jail.  Voldemort gives his son the suicide 
mission of killing Dumbledore.

Steve:
 I'm not sure that's what Draco expected, but 
> fixing the cabinet and letting the DE's do the dirty work 
> might not be so bad. Plus, he has alway assumed he would 
> eventually be a DE, so it is just coming a little sooner.

Magpie:
Yes, Draco wanted to be a DE.  But there was never any question as 
to what was expected of him.  He was to kill Dumbledore.  He didn't 
expect that killing would turn out to be horrifying and that he 
wouldn't have the stomach for it.  

Steve: 
> But Voldemort is a master manipulator with his own agenda, 
> once Draco is in too deep, Voldemort present Draco with 
> the extreme priviledge and treat of killing Dumbledore 
> himself. I doubt Draco had bargained on that, but now that 
> he was in, he knew he couldn't refuse and he knew he couldn't 
> negotiate.

Magpie:
Of course there was no negotiating. But Draco was not coming to 
Voldemort with any agenda except proving himself and being a DE.  
Voldemort's agenda is that he is giving Draco the honor of the task 
of killing Dumbledore.  Draco enthusiastically agrees, this being 
the fantasy life he's always been destined for, he thinks.

Steve:> 
> I further think that only involved people knew specifically 
> what the plan was. Narcissa may or may NOT have know the 
> plan. 

Magpie:
Narcissa seems to know "the plan"--the plan being that Draco is to 
kill Dumbledore, perfectly well in Spinner's End.  She has no idea 
how Draco is planning to carry it out.  

Steve:
Yes, I 
> know some will cite 'Spinners End', but no one in that 
> scene actually reveals what they know. 

Magpie:
The words "Draco's got to kill Dumbledore" never come out because 
the author's keeping it secret, but when I read it I had no doubt 
that's what they were talking about given what they say.  If nobody 
actually knows what Draco's supposed to do the scene loses a lot of 
meaning. I think everybody knows what the plan is in the scene, that 
Draco's supposed to kill Dumbledore.  I think the lines should be 
different if they don't know.

Steve:
> Draco fancied himself getting into Voldemort's good graces 
> with the information about the cabinet, but I suspect 
> Voldemort, step by step, raised the stakes to far beyond 
> what Draco ever imagined. 

Magpie:
No.  Draco fancies getting himself into Voldemort's good graces by 
succeeding at the task of killing Dumbledore that has been assigned 
to him.  His ace in the hole for doing that, he thinks, is the 
cabinet.  When Voldemort raises the stakes it's to make greater 
threats of punishment if he doesn't kill Dumbledore.

Steve:
Yes, part of that was vindictive. 
> He was putting tremendous pressure on Draco, perhaps even 
> putting him in harms way as a way of tormenting Draco, his 
> mother, and his father. But that was not the objective, that 
> was just a side benefit.

Magpie:
Everyone in canon thinks it is the objective.

Steve:
 Naturally with a completely secret 
> way into the castle, the Dark Lord would want to use it. 
> The School and Dumbledore are prime strategic targets for 
> Voldemort; he simply couldn't pass it up.> 
> I think he kept Snape out of it because he didn't want to 
> compromise Snape's spy status. By leaving Snape out, no 
> suspicion could fall on him regardless of the out come. 
> That way he would always have his inside man at Hogwarts. 
> Also, if Draco really did fail this year, he could always 
> come back next year, and with Snape help then, fix the 
> cabinet. Or have Snape fix it over the summer. Draco's 
> failure itself doesn't close the door. Although Draco 
> getting caught most certainly would.

Magpie:
I have to ask: do honestly remember scenes in the book that support 
this story?  Because they're not there.  This is a completely 
different story with a different meaning than the one in canon.  The 
canon story is that Voldemort is giving Draco the task to kill 
Dumbledore in order to get Draco killed to punish Lucius--sins of 
the father, a strong theme in canon.  It's perfectly in character 
for Voldemort, and carefully set up throughout the previous five 
books with both Lucius and Draco.  Yet here again, just as with the 
alternate "Snape/Narcissa is making Draco act on his own" this story 
is being dismantled so that it's no longer the clear, strong arc 
that it is.  JKR did not choose to write the story that begins with 
Draco going to Voldemort with the Cabinet plot, despite that being 
the story a lot of fans think he deserves.  She went for a different 
story, one that builds towards the scene we get on the Tower.

-m







From friartuck97 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 13:49:24 2006
From: friartuck97 at yahoo.com (Bored_in_Texas)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:49:24 -0000
Subject: Dueling and Honorariums...
Message-ID: <ecus94+rqfm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157524

Hey, just wanted to throw this out, mainly because I don't really 
understand the true dynamics of this, so I was wondering if anyone 
else did.  

The Dynamics of Dueling:

The quote I have in mind is when Sirius is dueling with a Death Eater 
in the Ministry and "their wands were flashing like swords."  Now, in 
a duel with swords, the optimum distance would be one sword (about 3-4 
feet) and the participant's arm, another 3 feet or so.  If one cannot 
use their wand as a sword and it is more of a pistol (and in numerous 
books, wands have "fired off" spells before), wouldn't they want to 
stay as far away as necessary?  Much like Muggle dueling, the option 
is to win at any cost.  If the victory is a dead Order member, or a 
stunned Death Eater, wouldn't the lesser spells be out of the picture? 
Why would the Death Eaters bother with anything less than a killing 
curse?  Unless they feared that a load of missed AKs would bring down 
the building (like the Potter's house), why wouldn't they?  Are they 
like homing missiles or like bullets which travel in a straight 
trajectory?  When Moody said that Harry was the only person to survive 
an AK, is he saying that Harry was the only one to survive the touch 
of the green light of the curse, in that they never miss?  

Now, if this is reading too much into it, please discount this, but 
this has been confusing ever since Book 2.

Anyway, I was also curious as to the etymology of the name "Hogwarts." 
Was there a wizard by that name?  It can be broken down into an 
anagram of "Ghost War," but that is pure speculation on many people 
who are a lot better at anagrams than I am.

Thanks for any information!

-FT










From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 13:14:25 2006
From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:14:25 -0000
Subject: Punishments for Snape and Umbridge (more on the funny side)
In-Reply-To: <ecn147+7su0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecuq7h+roh0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157525

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at ...>
wrote:

> Ceridwen:
> *IF* JKR writes Snape as ultimately ESE! or OFH!, a very big *IF*
> in my opinion,

Oh my goodness, not only NO but H@## NO.  Snape has severe punishment
coming for his treatment of Harry and Neville, IMO, regardless of his
status vis-a-vis Dumbledore and the war against Voldemort.  His
actions in that regard IN NO WAY release him from punishment for his
abuse of Harry and Neville.  And yes, IMO JKR will have failed in a
particularly reprehensible and contemptible way, otherwise.


Ceridwen:
> then how about another academic post:
>
> Headmaster of Smeltings.

That's a good one.  How about liason with the Muggle Prime Minister
(surely enough to drive anyone insane)?  Oh, here's another good one,
Assistant Minister for House Elf relations.


Lupinlore










From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 28 14:59:51 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:59:51 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ectig1+toed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv0d7+jt4h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157526

> Snow:
> 
> Forgive the intrusion but I've been watching this continuing debate 
> and have to ask, any of you, what you think Voldemort personally 
> asked Draco to do and under what capacity, because it is very 
> important to the scenario? 

Eddie:
I see Voldemort's "request" like this: "Draco, your father failed me
twice and now sits useless at Azkaban.  Your aunt failed me at the
MoM.  You mother is weak and weepy and she fails me now when she
pleads for your and her lives.  Will you fail me too?  Are you a man?
 Are you worthy of taking your father's place as a Death Eater?  Prove
it.  This is your initiation: On your own, without help, find a way
for me Death Eaters to enter Hogwarts and... you must kill Dumbledore.
 Fail these initiation tasks and I can only assume that your father's
and mother's blood line is hopelessly flawed and must be destroyed:
your father, your mother, your aunt, and you."

Like many murderous gangs, a killing is a necessary initiation ritual.

Eddie







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 14:59:15 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:59:15 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv0c3+dd17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157527

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot 
of 
> discussion and no little heat:  DD at the Dursleys at the beginning 
> of HBP.  Several people have expressed discomfort with or dislike 
> for this scene.  I confess to being utterly baffled.
<SNIP>
> Yet it seems, as I say, to have provoked a distaste in some 
> quarters.  As I say, I am quite baffled as to why. <snip> So whence 
the problem?


Alla:

Heeee, well as I am sure you know I love, love, love this scene and 
mainly because it saved Dumbledore's character for me, but I do know 
the argument of why this scene is disliked. Dumbledore is too harsh 
on poor Dursleys, he muggle baits them, etc. I apologise to list 
members who dislike this scene, because yes, I am incredibly 
unreceptive of this argument and maybe I am simplifying it, but this 
is how I understood this argument.

I guess, Dumbledore who decided to **finally** actively interfere on 
Harry's behalf did something which good and wise character is not 
supposed to do? Namely to **act** instead of just talk that he loves 
Harry. Again, this is just my intepretation of the arguments against 
this scene, but I just cannot buy any of them **at all**.

Of course to me what Dumbledore did was too little too late, but it 
was also **so satisfying** to me to know that Dumbledore indeed does 
not approve of what Dursleys did.

I am **glad** that Dumbledore did what he did, I would be happier if 
he did what he did much earlier in the course of Harry's life, I 
wanted him to do more, but I guess better late than never.


So, yes, my opinion only.

Alla.







From d_bittman at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 02:35:54 2006
From: d_bittman at yahoo.com (d_bittman)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 02:35:54 -0000
Subject: She looks like a Toad
Message-ID: <ectkqa+sln5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157528

She definitely is toadlike and with all her prejudices she's so vocal
about, it makes me wonder if she has toad-blood in her.  The best way
to not draw attention to your own heritage would be to yell the
loudest against it and everyone would conclude her "pure" in lineage.
She also uses it to empower her politically and align with powerful
people with similar prejudices...

d_bittman










From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 15:19:44 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:19:44 -0000
Subject: Dueling and Honorariums...
In-Reply-To: <ecus94+rqfm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv1ig+8gou@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157529

"Bored_in_Texas" wrote:
> Why would the Death Eaters bother with anything less than a killing 
> curse?  Unless they feared that a load of missed AKs would bring down 
> the building (like the Potter's house), why wouldn't they?  Are they 
> like homing missiles or like bullets which travel in a straight 
> trajectory?  When Moody said that Harry was the only person to 
survive 
> an AK, is he saying that Harry was the only one to survive the touch 
> of the green light of the curse, in that they never miss?  

zgirnius:
They are like bullets, I think. In Ch. 29, HBP, Lupin says:

"But I don't think Gibbon liked the idea of waiting up there alone for 
Dumbledore. because he came running back downstairs to rejoin the fight 
and was hit by a Killing Curse that just missed me."

(Gibbon was a Death Eater involved in the raid on Hogwarts).

This statement suggests it is possible for the Curse to miss the 
intended target. (Even if the miss was deliberate for some reason, the 
fact that an expert in DADA can offer this explanation suggests to me 
that it is well-known to be possible).

And this explains why lesser curses would be used-to avoid killing 
one's allies in a fight.








From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 28 15:32:39 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:32:39 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ectvr9+a42c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv2an+q40g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157530

> Steve/bboyminn:
> None the less though, Filch actually started the incident when he
> failed to recognise the circumstances and to recognise Hagrid's
> authority.

Eddie:
True, but the "he started it first" argument doesn't make Hagrid's
comment any less bigoted.  If you replace "Squib" with any other
well-known racial slur the bigotry seems more clear. To me, anyway.

Eddie








From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 15:37:31 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:37:31 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv2jr+4sg6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157531

lupinlore:
> The second, and more important purpose, is to correct some severe 
> mistakes JKR made in OOTP.  The DD that came out of that book 
simply 
> was not the DD she wanted to sell.  He wasn't an "epitome of 
> goodness," etc.  By providing that scene she managed to partially 
> (although I think still not entirely) wrench the Dumbledore train 
> back onto the correct track.

zgirnius:
I don't think Dumbledore's character was in need of rescuing after 
OotP. And if it did, I think his actions at the end of HBP went a lot 
farther in that direction than this scene. If his fault is as you 
seem to suggest some degree of willingness to expose others to 
dangers and unpleasantness in the struggle to defeat Voldemort, his 
saving grace is that he does not except himself from those dangers 
and unpleasantnesses himself, not that he hexes some vile, nasty 
Muggles. 

It was nice to see, I suppose, that he did not approve of the 
Dursleys, but it had never seemed to me otherwise. And the specific 
way he dealt with them does have that Fred-and-George-I'm-a-better-
wizard-than-you-ha-ha tone that some readers understandably don't 
like. Personally I found the scene somewhat amusing, the flying mead 
glasses were clever, but I could have done equally well without it, 
and might have preferred a magic-free scene for the second purpose 
you propose. (For comic relief, it worked fine).








From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 15:51:52 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:51:52 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <1156707834.44f1f5fa9c3fd@webmail.telus.net>
Message-ID: <ecv3eo+6jhq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157532

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones at ...> 
wrote:
> 5.	Considering the information that we have been given on Life 
Debts, is this
> fore-shadowing of what will come in Book 7?  Has Arthur just 
realized what this
> could mean for the Weasley family?  Does the fact that he speaks in 
a
> constricted voice mean anything other than his distress at nearly 
losing Ron? 

Alla:

Wonderful summary and questions, thank you. There is a reason that we 
are given so little on life-debts and many seem to agree that they 
would come into play big time, it seems, just what is this way that 
is the question.

But NO, I don't think that means that Wesley family owes life-debts 
to Harry. IMO of course. JKR pretty much said that it is different 
with Ginny, no? So, I suspect that something more than saving one's 
life triggers life-debt. Boy, do I want to know what exactly that is.

KJ: 
> 6.	 Does Harry understand what has been said here?  Does 
Hermione owe Harry
> and/or Ron a life debt after the troll incident, and could Ron's 
near-death
> experience be having a magical affect on Hermione?  How many people 
owe Harry
> their lives at this point?

Alla:

See above, but actually come to think of it, she just may, if we 
speculate that saving person you dislike triggers life-debt. They did 
not like each other before Troll's incident, so IMO that is possible.


KJ:
> 7.	Why is Hagrid so careful to make sure that no one over-hears 
their
> conversation and then blurts out to Harry that Dumbledore was angry 
with Snape?
>  Hagrid was very clear about two of the statements, "doesn't want 
to do it any
> more" and "you agreed to do it," but unclear on the rest.  As the 
character of
> Hagrid has been used to blurt out information that Harry is not 
supposed to
> know, is this concern for security in character for someone who is 
about to
> commit an indiscretion?  Do you think that Hagrid has been giving 
Harry the
> information he needs at Dumbledore's instruction? 

Alla:

Well, here I am showing my bias of course as somebody who does not 
buy Dumbledore and Snape plotting Dumbledore's death long in advance, 
so no, I don't think that this was Hagrid giving Harry hints on DD 
orders.

As to why he was making sure nobody was listening? Heee, I am going 
to go ahead and say that Hagrid can be careless, but not stupid. he 
thought Harry deserved to know, but that it was nobody else's 
business?

Speculating of course.


KJ: 
> 8.	Knowing what we do about the Unbreakable Vow, and assuming 
that Dumbledore
> was told about it by Snape, is there anything he, Dumbledore, could 
have done to
> secure the castle, or apprehend Draco early in the game, without 
triggering the
> Vow?  Do you believe that Dumbledore was willing to risk others in 
order to
> protect his spy and keep his plan in action? 

Alla:

Ugh, too bad that we don't know the mechanics of the UV. So, don't 
know what DD could have done, but yes IMO it is pretty clear that 
Dumbledore was willing to risk other students lifes ( Kathy and Ron 
seem to be the examples), but to do what? I'd say protect Draco.

 
> 10.	We have seen in the books that Snape had promised four 
things, to go back to
> Voldemort as a spy, to protect Draco, to help Draco in his task, 
and to perform
> the task if Draco is unable to do so.  Which promise do you think 
Dumbledore was
> insisting Snape keep?   Do you think that the promise Dumbledore 
wanted from
> Snape, in their conversation near the Forbidden Forest, was 
unrelated to these
> prior promises?

Alla:

Well, again see above. Of course if Dumbledore and Snape were 
plotting his assasination, that is what it was, but I am hoping and 
keeping my fingers that this is **not** what it was.

I think Dumbledore insisting that Snape kept his watch over Harry or 
Draco is just as likely for example, or keep his promise to teach 
DADA.

Maybe Snape dear just realised that he cannot break DADA jinx and 
wanted out?


Alla, who thanks KJ again for wonderful questions.
 







From ibchawz at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 16:15:54 2006
From: ibchawz at yahoo.com (ibchawz)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:15:54 -0000
Subject: How long have Fich / Hagrid been at Hogwarts?Was: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecu27u+rl7t@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv4rq+cnkp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157533

Aussie Wrote:

Hagrid's dad died when RH was 6. When RH was expelled, did Dumble
plead his case to Dippet to have living quarters set up for him, or
did Dumbledore bring RH back only after Dumbledore became
headmaster?

ibchawz responds:

I thought Hagrid's dad died shortly after Hagrid started attending 
Hogwarts.  Certainly Hagrid did not start when he was 5 or 6, or did 
he?  I assumed that Hagrid was around 11 or 12 when his dad died.  I do 
seem to recall Hagrid stating that he could lift his dad and place him 
on top of some piece of furniture when he was 6.

ibchawz







From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 16:28:40 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:28:40 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv5jo+dl78@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157534

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot 
of discussion and no little heat:  DD at the Dursleys at the 
beginning of HBP.  Several people have expressed discomfort with or 
dislike for this scene.  I confess to being utterly baffled.
> 
> It seems that the scene serves two purposes.  One, the more minor 
> purpose, is to get Harry out of the house while providing some 
comic  relief and maybe a couple of hints (i.e. Petunia's blush) as 
to what might be coming.
> 
> The second, and more important purpose, is to correct some severe 
> mistakes JKR made in OOTP.  

Tonks:
As you know I am a faithful supporter of DD. And like Zgirnius, I 
too don't think Dumbledore's character was in need of rescuing after
OOTP.

As to the scene at the Dursley's I don't see it as Muggle baiting 
either.  I loved it.  I love the way he was able to handle what 
could have been a very difficult situation and do it with grace and 
skill.  It might be the salesman in me, but I just loved how he took 
charge of the situation and got done what had to be done and in a 
nice way.  It was so funny. IMO, it was the Dursley's response that 
makes it look bad to some. The Dursley's could have been more 
hospitable and acceptable. If they had been we would never have 
noticed DD's behavior. 

I want to be just like DD, even in this.  If it were me and I was 
treated by the Dursley's in such a inhospitable manner, I think I 
might have acted more like a DE than a saint.  DD shows how to 
handle this sort of thing with a bit of humor.  The "lets assume 
that you have invited me into your home", is great!!  I as sure some 
will disagree, but I think that it shows respect for them.  He could 
have just shoved them aside and pushed himself in.  He did it with 
grace.  And he did it with the skill of a great manipulator.  I 
admire that. (As long as he is on my side, of course. ;-)) It was a 
chess move sort of thing. Very well done.  Yes, I really admired DD 
all the more after that scene. 

We see a different side of DD here and in his talk with Harry about 
being cunning in getting the memory from Slughorn.  Now I know that 
this does have a rather odd ring to it.  It sounds a bit 
Slytherinish and shows a degree of manipulation of others that we 
might not want to teach the children.  And it seems a bit out of 
character for DD.  So in one sense I am surprised that DD tells 
Harry that being cunning in this manner is acceptable and expected.  
I wonder where that came from in JKR's head.  

There are a number of places in HBP where DD seems out of 
character.  I just assume this is in keeping with the whole theme of 
that book where everyone is suspect and might be someone else.  It 
keeps us off balanced throughout. (Symbolically it can be seen as a 
turning over the tables in the temple sort of thing. For those who 
are interested in the deeper symbols of the series.)

Tonks_op








From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 16:35:58 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:35:58 -0000
Subject: Dueling and Honorariums...
In-Reply-To: <ecus94+rqfm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecv61e+f2q7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157535

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bored_in_Texas" wrote:
>
> Hey, just wanted to throw this out, mainly because I don't really 
> understand the true dynamics of this, so I was wondering if anyone 
> else did.  
> 
> The Dynamics of Dueling:
> 
> The quote I have in mind is when Sirius is dueling with a Death  
> Eaterin the Ministry and "their wands were flashing like    
> swords." Now, in a duel with swords, the optimum distance would   
> beone sword (about 3-4 feet) and the participant's arm, another 3 
> feet or so.  If one cannot use their wand as a sword and it is 
> more of a pistol (and in numerous books, wands have "fired off"
> spells before), wouldn't they want to stay as far away as 
> necessary? <snip>

Mike:
Yes, it does appear as if JKR had a 17th century, Three Musketteers 
style battle in mind (right century?). Doesn't really fit the 
weapons she has equipped them with, does it? My opinion is that JKR 
didn't put too much thought into the technical aspects of battling 
like a wizard. Or, if she did, she didn't know how to incorporate 
her brand of magic into her idea of a proper battle between good and 
evil. Doesn't bode too well for book 7.

> FT:
> Much like Muggle dueling, the option is to win at any 
> cost.  If the victory is a dead Order member, or a stunned 
> Death Eater, wouldn't the lesser spells be out of the picture? 
> Why would the Death Eaters bother with anything less than a 
> killing curse? <snip> 

Mike:
Herein lies the problem of inventing the ultimate weapon, 
introducing it into a situation that includes stone-cold killers, 
then not really explaining the mechanics of using the ultimate 
weapon. In point of fact, JKR has under-explained most all of her 
most important magic, so far. How do you make a Horcrux; well you 
encase your piece of soul. The AK is unblockable; unless you stick a 
statue in front of it, but there's no countercurse; unless you know 
how to invoke ancient magic. Granted, we did have a maniac 
explaining AK to us, but that wasn't our choice, and JKR didn't have 
anyone disavow us of what Crouch Jr taught us in GoF.

I expect that firing off an AK requires a certain amount of 
concentration in concert with magical ability and resolve. So, few 
wizards can perform the spell in battle type conditions. But, then 
try to explain Blondie in HBP? Maybe the spell doesn't travel that 
fast, too easy to dodge, leaving one vulnerable both before and 
after conjuring? Trying to match the capabilities of the spell with 
the employment of it in canon leaves one in a quandry. I confess 
myself dissappointed.<g>

BTW, didn't JKR say "Hogwarts" was a flower or some plant name she'd 
seen in a horticulture park or a garden?

Mike






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 17:45:03 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:45:03 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?
In-Reply-To: <ecuulr+mh1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecva2v+5s17@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157536

---  "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > While I am not discrediting all the things that have 
> > been said so far, but let us not forget that Draco 
> > went to Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 
> 
> Magpie:
> No, he DID NOT.  I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't 
> stand having this presented as canon.  Voldemort 
> discovered Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux.  His anger 
> was terrible to behold. ...

bboyminn:

Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. What 
is the very first thing that occurs chronologically in 
the book? Not the first thing the books reveals to us, but 
the first thing that occurs chronologically. Anwer: Draco 
figures out that there are two connected Vanishing Cabinets; 
one inside Hogwarts, one outside. This occurs late in the 
previous school year or over the summer. I think it is a 
fair interpretation of canon, that the entire Draco plot 
grows from that piece of information. 

Knowledge of the Vanishing Cabinets is valuable 
information that Voldemort would definitely want to know.
He has a secret way into Hogwarts that has not yet been
discovered in 1,000 years. He has a way to get DE's into 
the castle so fast there will be no time to mount any 
resistance. As events unfold, the resistance that was 
mounted was barely standing their ground. 

It make far more sense for Draco to get in, THEN get in 
over his head, than for Voldemort to single him out and 
dump the whole task on him. Yes... yes... Lucius... 
diary... angry... etc.... But Voldemort knew about the 
diary over a year ago and he still trusted Lucius with 
the Ministry Raid.  His anger wasn't even remotely 
'terrible to behold' until Lucius messed up the Minsitry 
Raid and lost him the Prophecy, all compounded by Lucius 
getting himself and several of Voldemort's best Death 
Eaters landed in prison. Sorry, but you can't base this 
all around the Diary.
 
Certainly NOW Draco's task is ultimately to kill 
Dumbledore, but what is his means for doing this? It's 
getting the Vanishing Cabinet working. The cabinet leads 
to an attack on Hogwart, which in turn leads to an attack 
on Dumbledore, which ultimately leads to Dumbledore's 
death. Since knowledge of the cabinet is the first thing 
to occur, and it represents critically vital information, 
it make sense to me that it is the seed around which the 
whole plan is based. 

True you start your premise based on something presented 
in the books, but then you expand it with nothing but 
speculation and claim it as canon. The books say that 
Voldemort gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. You 
say that is the one and only absolute task Voldemort gave. 
I take the same information, and say that Draco provided 
Voldemort a way into the castle, and out of spiteful 
gratituded, Voldemort expanded the task beyond anything 
Draco expected. Those theories are both based on the 
/same canon/. Though I feel mine presents a reasonable 
progression of events that takes Draco in far far over 
his head.

> Magpie continues:
> He gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore as a 
> response.  Draco  could kill Dumbledore any way he wanted.
> Because he's not supposed to succeed in killing Dumbledore.
> He's supposed to get himself killed trying to kill 
> Dumbledore.
>  ...
> 

bboyminn: 

True the Dark Lord gave Draco the task of killing 
Dumbledore and wasn't too concerend with Draco's safety 
in the process. But that is where we end, not where we 
start. Why? Because even with Draco dead, Voldemort still 
knows the secret of the Vanishing Cabinet. Voldemort 
could have killed Draco on the spot and he really wouldn't 
have lost much. He could have gotten someone else to fix the 
cabinet, and still had it as an avenue for attacking Hogwarts. 
Keep in mind that to Voldemort everyone but himself is 
expendable. His DE's aren't people they are fawning admiring 
tools that he casts of casually on a whim. With Draco dead 
or alive, the Cabinet is still the seed of any plan to attack 
Hogwarts or Dumbledore. So, if Draco succeeds-fine, but if he
fails and dies-still fine, Draco's information is still the 
foundation for attacking Hogwarts. 

I claim that as a reasonable and logical sequence and 
progression of events, my scenario makes more sense than 
your, and it is based on the same canon. Keep in mind that 
my scenario doesn't exclude yours. In fact, to some extent, 
it definitely includes yours. It is actually your scenario 
that denies mine, and further denies logic to some degree.

We start from the first thing we know, Draco's knowledge of 
the secret of the Vanishing Cabinets, and we proceed from 
their in an orderly fashion. 

In the end, as vehemently as you defend your position, it is 
based on the same canon as mine, and just as mine is, it 
fills in the blanks with a lot of speculation and 
interpretation.

Your telling use where we end, I'm telling us where we began;
that's the difference, but the canon is the same. 

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From random832 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 28 17:53:25 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:53:25 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dueling and Honorariums...
In-Reply-To: <ecv61e+f2q7@eGroups.com>
References: <ecus94+rqfm@eGroups.com> <ecv61e+f2q7@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608281053t431a5648wfc75976c7560c5a3@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157537

> Mike:
> The AK is unblockable; unless you stick a
> statue in front of it, but there's no countercurse; unless you know
> how to invoke ancient magic.

Random832:
Is there even then? Not a single person in a position to actually know
(which list is very short indeed) has actually come out and SAID that
the spell that was cast that night was the AK. Several
Harry-is-a-horcrux theories rest on the idea that it was not.\

-- 
Random832



From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 18:00:47 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:00:47 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecv2an+q40g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvb0f+pofl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157538

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > Steve/bboyminn:
> > None the less though, Filch actually started the incident when he
> > failed to recognise the circumstances and to recognise Hagrid's
> > authority.
> 
> Eddie:
> True, but the "he started it first" argument doesn't make Hagrid's
> comment any less bigoted.  If you replace "Squib" with any other
> well-known racial slur the bigotry seems more clear. To me, anyway.
> 
> Eddie
>

bboyminn:

But that only works if 'Squib' is a 'racial' slur. Ask yourself who is
the first person in the books to use the term 'Squib'? It is Filch
referring to himself. 

Though I will admit Hagrids tone of voice used in this specific event
makes the word a 'put down'. But I don't get the sense that that word
itself is derogatory. Simply a statement of fact. It would be
something like call in a kid in a wheelchair 'wheelchair boy'. It
simply states a fact, it is the intent behind the use that makes it bad. 

In a sense, Hagrid is already emotionally charged over Ron's attack
and it's implications to the school. Filch just pushes the wrong
button at the wrong time. I think during everyday routine
interactions, Filch and Hagrid range from polite to indifferent. It's
just in that moment of anger, that Hagrid attempts to put Filch in his
place.

And by the way, Filch does have a 'place'. Hargid is a teacher as well
as his other jobs of responsibility. In a sense, Filch is just the
janitor. I don't think the janitor orders too many teachers around at
school.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 18:01:10 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:01:10 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecv2an+q40g@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvb16+i89h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157539

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:

> <snip> 
> If you replace "Squib" with any other well-known racial slur 

Mike:

But why should we? Where do you or Magpie get your basis for 
pronouncing "Squib" is a *bigoted* or *racial* slur? Mrs. Figg calls 
herself one, both to Harry and to the court during Harry's hearing. 
Ron told us in CoS that "-- it's not funny really -- but as it's 
Filch." It was Filch calling himself a Squib that prompted Harry's 
question in the first place. Is it derogatory, maybe, but so is 
calling someone an *idiot*. And what makes you so sure that Filch 
wasn't responding to the *sneakin'* part of "sneakin' Squib"? Also 
notice how Squib is capitalized like it is a proper name. Which other 
bigoted or racial slurs have you noticed being afforded the dignity of 
being treated as proper names?

IMO, it is irresponsible to pronounce something bigoted, or worse, a 
racial slur without some very strong *proof* of what you propose. 
Sensitivity to prejudice is admirable, accusing another of prejudice 
without conclusive justification is reprehensible. That is another 
lesson that children should learn.






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 18:21:31 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:21:31 -0000
Subject: Dueling and Honorariums...
In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50608281053t431a5648wfc75976c7560c5a3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ecvc7b+lmp9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157540

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, <random832 at ...> wrote:
>
> > Mike:
> > The AK is unblockable; unless you stick a statue in front of it,
> > but there's no countercurse; unless you know how to invoke  
> > ancient magic.
> 
> Random832:
> Is there even then? Not a single person in a position to actually   
> know (which list is very short indeed) has actually come out and 
> SAID that the spell that was cast that night was the AK. Several
> Harry-is-a-horcrux theories rest on the idea that it was not.\

Mike:
Quite true. I myself questioned how DD knew that the curse LV used was 
an AK, but he certainly seemed unequivocal pronouncing Harry's scar 
the result of an AK. <shrug> I guess we have to take his word for it, 
at least at this point in the story. 







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 19:18:40 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:18:40 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvfig+l6fg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157541

--- "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> wrote:
>
> Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that 
> gets a lot of discussion and no little heat:  DD at the 
> Dursleys at the beginning of HBP.  ...
> 
> It seems that the scene serves two purposes. One, the 
> more minor purpose, is to get Harry out of the house 
> while providing some comic relief ...
> 
> The second, .... The DD that came out of that book simply
> was not the DD she wanted to sell.  ....  By providing 
> that scene she managed to partially ... wrench the 
> Dumbledore train back onto the correct track.
> 
> Yet it seems, as I say, to have provoked a distaste in 
> some  quarters.  As I say, I am quite baffled as to why. 
>  ...
> 
> So whence the problem?
> 
> Lupinlore


bboyminn:

I agree with what you said, but I think there are some 
other critical factor as well. JKR has a lot of story to 
tell and not many books left to tell it in, so the first
chapters clear up a lot of old hanging plot points, so 
that can be over and done with and the story can move on
to the importants stuff.

In the first chapter, Fudges status and the new Minister 
are introduced, and we are given an overview of the 
Voldemort/DE situation. 

Next we rush off to Snape, where several lingering 
questions about him are cleared up, and new groundwork
is laid for the current story.

Then we are off to Harry and the Dursleys. Here again 
the visit is an excuse to clear up old hanging plot 
points and a chance to further set the stage for the 
current story.

One critical aspect was Sirius's Will and Estate. I have 
previously assumed that this would be a battle between 
Draco and Harry over the Estate that was the foundation 
for the whole book. But... bing bang boom... Harry has 
Sirius's money, house, and Kreacher; situation resolved. 

I also think the scene gave Dumbledore a chance to casually 
drop the location of 12 Grimmauld Place into the 
conversation. I think that will be important in the final 
book. 

While all this is happening, in the background, glassed of 
wine are bashing in the skulls of the Dursleys. OK, I 
exaggerated, but no more so than those who hate this scene. 
Yes, the wine glasses are annoying the Dursleys, and that 
was funny. It was partly funny because all they had to do 
to stop it was take the wine glass. They didn't even have 
to drink it; just take hold of it.

Then finally Dumbledore gives the Dursleys the dressing 
down that they so richly deserve, and he and Harry are off 
to find that flighty temptress Adventure.

In the Slughorn scene, a new and important character is 
introduced. Back to the Weasleys where a couple more hanging
plot points are resolved, and the real story is ready to 
begin.

I think more and more JKR is going to have to do this, rush
through the explanation of some hanging plot points, so she
can move on with the real story at hand. 

While many think Dumbledore came of as infinitely rude, I 
agree with others, that he came of as infinitely charming 
and wisely diplomatic. He knew when to be hard and when to 
be soft. He knew how to move things along smoothly. I think
it shows Dumbledore at his best.

Also, the Dursley scene does allow one more subtle hint 
regarding Petunia to be dropped. Her reactions in that scene 
seem out of character and also out of sync with Vernon and
Dudley. One more hint that there is something special about
Petunia. Though JKR shot down the best theories; Petunia is 
not a Squib, and she will never do magic. So if not that, 
then what? 

Yes, I certainly found that to be a great entertaining chapter.

Steve/bboyminn







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Mon Aug 28 19:25:39 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:25:39 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Dueling and Honorariums...)
In-Reply-To: <ecus94+rqfm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvfvj+dr3h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157542

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bored_in_Texas" 
<friartuck97 at ...> wrote:

> Anyway, I was also curious as to the etymology of the 
name "Hogwarts." 
> Was there a wizard by that name?  It can be broken down into an 
> anagram of "Ghost War," but that is pure speculation on many people 
> who are a lot better at anagrams than I am.
> 
> Thanks for any information!

Geoff:
I've always taken it to be another of JKR's wordplays such as her 
spoonerising of "Sturm und Drang" for example or Diagon Alley and 
Knockturn Alley.

In old English, a wild boar would sometimes be called a "warthog" so 
making such as shift would not be out of character.







From belviso at attglobal.net  Mon Aug 28 20:27:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 20:27:48 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecva2v+5s17@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvjk4+haag@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157543

> bboyminn:
> 
> Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. 

Magpie:
No, these two versions of events are in no way equal.  Mine is based 
backed up by things that are said in the text.  Yours takes that 
information, sweeps it aside, and then proceeds to make stuff up 
that's not referenced anywhere.  That's what gives my version more 
weight.

bboyminn:
What 
> is the very first thing that occurs chronologically in 
> the book? Not the first thing the books reveals to us, but 
> the first thing that occurs chronologically. Anwer: Draco 
> figures out that there are two connected Vanishing Cabinets; 
> one inside Hogwarts, one outside. This occurs late in the 
> previous school year or over the summer. I think it is a 
> fair interpretation of canon, that the entire Draco plot 
> grows from that piece of information. 

Magpie:
No, it's not fair interpretation of canon, since the core of it is 
made up of important scenes, events and decisions never referenced 
anywhere in the actual book.  The fact that Draco figured out that 
if fixed the Cabinets provide a secret entrance into Hogwarts in no 
way means the reader gets to put events together any way we please.  
There is nothing that says that Draco took this idea to Voldemort 
and then Voldemort turned it around on Draco--and there's plenty of 
places where that should be if it occurred. 

bboyminn:> 
> Knowledge of the Vanishing Cabinets is valuable 
> information that Voldemort would definitely want to know.
> He has a secret way into Hogwarts that has not yet been
> discovered in 1,000 years. He has a way to get DE's into 
> the castle so fast there will be no time to mount any 
> resistance. As events unfold, the resistance that was 
> mounted was barely standing their ground. > 
> It make far more sense for Draco to get in, THEN get in 
> over his head, than for Voldemort to single him out and 
> dump the whole task on him. 

Magpie:
So you would prefer it to have happened this way because it makes 
more sense to you.  That doesn't produce canon with references to 
this happening.  All canon references is Voldemort's anger at Lucius 
and plans for Draco.  

bboyminn:

Yes... yes... Lucius... 
> diary... angry... etc.... 

Magpie:
"Lucius...diary...angry...etc." is everything canon has to say on 
the matter.  You just brushed it aside and jumped into your own 
story.

bboyminn:
But Voldemort knew about the 
> diary over a year ago and he still trusted Lucius with 
> the Ministry Raid.  His anger wasn't even remotely 
> 'terrible to behold' until Lucius messed up the Minsitry 
> Raid and lost him the Prophecy, all compounded by Lucius 
> getting himself and several of Voldemort's best Death 
> Eaters landed in prison. Sorry, but you can't base this 
> all around the Diary.

Magpie:
We don't actually know when he found out about the diary.  He may 
have only discovered it when Lucius went to prison and he went to 
retrieve it.  However, none of this changes the fact that there is 
actual text referencing Voldemort's anger at Lucius' screw ups being 
the reason for Draco's task.  Poking holes little holes in how angry 
Lucius was when doesn't produce the alternate scenes in canon that 
you need for the other version.  

bboyminn:>  
> Certainly NOW Draco's task is ultimately to kill 
> Dumbledore, but what is his means for doing this? It's 
> getting the Vanishing Cabinet working. The cabinet leads 
> to an attack on Hogwart, which in turn leads to an attack 
> on Dumbledore, which ultimately leads to Dumbledore's 
> death. Since knowledge of the cabinet is the first thing 
> to occur, and it represents critically vital information, 
> it make sense to me that it is the seed around which the 
> whole plan is based. 

Magpie:
Who says that as a reader you get to decide the seed around which 
the plan is based?  The text gives us the opposite sequence of 
events by having at least three knowledgable characters in canon 
link the task to Voldemort's anger at Lucius' screw ups.  

bboyminn: 
> True you start your premise based on something presented 
> in the books, but then you expand it with nothing but 
> speculation and claim it as canon. The books say that 
> Voldemort gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. You 
> say that is the one and only absolute task Voldemort gave. 

Magpie:
I don't think I've expanded on it at all.  I have never had to talk 
about Voldemort having to give absolutely only one task. Why would I 
think of things Voldemort didn't say--that seems to oddly come out 
of the vague notion that I must prove that the text specifically 
rejected an idea in order for it to not be potentially canon.  What 
I have said was that in canon we know Voldemort told Draco to kill 
Dumbledore, and the simplest reading says the Cabinet plot always 
seems to be connected to that, and that if that's all there is I'm 
not going beyond it.  I don't have to make anything up.  When the 
DEs show up they take care of security and then stand around until 
Dumbledore's dead.  Then they run out.  

bboyminn:
> I take the same information, and say that Draco provided 
> Voldemort a way into the castle, and out of spiteful 
> gratituded, Voldemort expanded the task beyond anything 
> Draco expected. Those theories are both based on the 
> /same canon/. Though I feel mine presents a reasonable 
> progression of events that takes Draco in far far over 
> his head.

Magpie:
You and I are doing completely different things.  I've taken things 
that are actually said in canon and stuck with them.  You've taken 
certain events, glossed over or brushed aside stuff said in canon, 
and hurtled on to a different story creating a lot of scenes never 
referenced by anyone, that you prefer.  Provide me with canon 
referring to any of this.   

> bboyminn: 
> 
> True the Dark Lord gave Draco the task of killing 
> Dumbledore and wasn't too concerend with Draco's safety 
> in the process. But that is where we end, not where we 
> start.

Magpie:
Actually, it is where we start.  In Spinner's End this is the 
dilemma that Narcissa brings to Snape.

bboyminn:
 Why? Because even with Draco dead, Voldemort still 
> knows the secret of the Vanishing Cabinet. Voldemort 
> could have killed Draco on the spot and he really wouldn't 
> have lost much. He could have gotten someone else to fix the 
> cabinet, and still had it as an avenue for attacking Hogwarts. 
> Keep in mind that to Voldemort everyone but himself is 
> expendable. His DE's aren't people they are fawning admiring 
> tools that he casts of casually on a whim. With Draco dead 
> or alive, the Cabinet is still the seed of any plan to attack 
> Hogwarts or Dumbledore. So, if Draco succeeds-fine, but if he
> fails and dies-still fine, Draco's information is still the 
> foundation for attacking Hogwarts. I claim that as a reasonable 
and logical sequence progression of events, my scenario makes more 
sense than 
> your, and it is based on the same canon.

Magpie:
That it's more reasonable and logical to you does not make it 
canon.  Really, it doesn't.  Nor does it seeming to make more sense 
than mine does to you.  The point is it is *not* based on canon, 
it's based on what you think is reasonable and logical or just plain 
better given some of the events of canon.  You're not talking about 
any of this being what's written, but imagining Voldemort and this 
world as real and imagining things based on that.  

bboyminn:and 
 Keep in mind that 
> my scenario doesn't exclude yours. In fact, to some extent, 
> it definitely includes yours. It is actually your scenario 
> that denies mine, and further denies logic to some degree.

Magpie:
It's good your scenario includes mine--mine is the actually what's 
in the book.  Then you deny it's important and build your own stuff 
on top of it.  I don't think my scenario denies logic. It just 
denies Voldemort having the priorities and thought patterns that you 
would apparently have in his place.  My scenario makes perfect sense 
given the motivations people talk about Voldemort having in canon.  
It's one of his better plans.

bboyminn:> 
> We start from the first thing we know, Draco's knowledge of 
> the secret of the Vanishing Cabinets, and we proceed from 
> their in an orderly fashion. 

Magpie:
The problem being you're not supposed to be proceeding from them in 
an orderly fashion because you're not being asked to write your own 
story based on this beginning.  You're supposed to be reading the 
text and letting it tell you how these things go together.  

bboyminn:
> 
> In the end, as vehemently as you defend your position, it is 
> based on the same canon as mine, and just as mine is, it 
> fills in the blanks with a lot of speculation and 
> interpretation.> Your telling use where we end, I'm telling us 
where we began;
> that's the difference, but the canon is the same. 

Magpie:
I think my interpretation fills in blanks only between the things I 
actually have in canon.  Your change in "the way we began" 
fundamentally changes the entire story.  It's not something you can 
just add on to what we've got.  The canon should be completely 
different if your story happened. So when you say, "We need to 
remember that Draco went to Voldemort first etc..." it is, imo, very 
important to say that no, we need to remember that that did not 
happen.

Mike:

But why should we? Where do you or Magpie get your basis for
pronouncing "Squib" is a *bigoted* or *racial* slur? ... IMO, it is 
irresponsible to pronounce something bigoted, or worse, a
racial slur without some very strong *proof* of what you propose.
Sensitivity to prejudice is admirable, accusing another of prejudice
without conclusive justification is reprehensible. That is another
lesson that children should learn.


Magpie:
I didn't pronounce it a racial slur.  I described it just the way 
Steve described it, as referring to Filch's physical limitations.  
Like calling him "wheelchair boy."  Which I think any child would 
recognize in this context as choosing to attack someone's disability 
or their status as a member of the underclass instead of whatever 
you're angry at in order to put them in their place, and that's 
inappropriate.  

-m






From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 20:43:15 2006
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 13:43:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecvjk4+haag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060828204315.35379.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157544

        bboyminn:> 
> Certainly NOW Draco's task is ultimately to kill 
> Dumbledore, but what is his means for doing this? It's 
> getting the Vanishing Cabinet working. The cabinet leads 
> to an attack on Hogwart, which in turn leads to an attack 
> on Dumbledore, which ultimately leads to Dumbledore's 
> death. Since knowledge of the cabinet is the first thing 
> to occur, and it represents critically vital information, 
> it make sense to me that it is the seed around which the 
> whole plan is based. 

   
  Katie replies(after lurking in this thread for a while):
  I have to disagree that Draco's means for killing Dumbledore is solely getting the Vanishing Cabinet working. Yes, that was the easiest and most obvious way to sneak forbidden items into Hogwarts, but he did it all year without it. The Vanishing Cabinet wasn't the means of getting the locket or the poisoned wine into the school. Draco figured out a way around the cabinet, since it was still broken. Obviously, his intention(however half-assed it may have been) was to kill Dumbledore by these means, which did not include using the still-broken cabinet. I don't believe the raid on the school was planned in the way that it happened, maybe it wasn't planned at all...but only became a last resort when Draco could not succeed through any other means.  So, I disagree that the Vanishing Cabinet played this all-important role in Draco's plans, because, as much as he wanted it to work, it was broken the majority of the school year, and only able to be used at the last moment, when
 all else had failed.                            
  Katie


      Recent Activity
    
      32
  New Members
  
      2
  New Photos

Visit Your Group 
  SPONSORED LINKS
      
   Harry potter hat  
   Harry potter scarf  
   Harry potter half-blood prince  
   Harry potter book  
   Harry potter party supply

      Yahoo! News
  Music News
  Get the latest
  music news now

    Yahoo! TV
  Want the scoop?
  Check out today's
  news and gossip.

    Y! GeoCities
  Be Vocal
  Publish your opi-
  nions with a blog.



  .

 
         

 		
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the  new Yahoo.com 

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




From robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 19:31:05 2006
From: robertpatrickallen at yahoo.com (Robert Allen)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Dueling and Honorariums...
In-Reply-To: <ecvc7b+lmp9@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060828193105.88440.qmail@web60914.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157545

> Mike:
> > > The AK is unblockable; unless you stick a statue in front 
> > > of it, but there's no countercurse; unless you know how to 
> > > invoke ancient magic.
> 
> Random832:
> > Is there even then? Not a single person in a position to 
> > actually know (which list is very short indeed) has actually
> > come out and SAID that the spell that was cast that night was
> > the AK. Several Harry-is-a-horcrux theories rest on the idea
> > that it was not.\
>
> Mike:
> Quite true. I myself questioned how DD knew that the curse LV 
> used was an AK, but he certainly seemed unequivocal pronouncing 
> Harry's scar the result of an AK. <shrug> I guess we have to take 
> his word for it, at least at this point in the story. 

Robert:
This SHOULD solve it: 
   
  from "Goblet of Fire" American, page 652...

  "You all know that on the night I lost my powers and my body, I 
tried to kill him." -Voldi
   
  If we take his word for it and we probably should, he was trying 
to kill Harry. Probably with AK....wich as far as we know is the 
only "killing curse." Harry is a Horcrux is pretty lame in the grand 
scheme of things...too easy to predict...
   
  And again...Voldemort tries to kil Harry in the graveyard with 
AK. The secret to all this is probably going to be something we 
just can't predict. No one, really, could have figured out the 
whole Horcrux thing until they read book six. General ideas I am 
sure popped up but not anything on the nose. So it will be with 
book 7, I think. 
   
  Robert





From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 21:55:02 2006
From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Sorry about ACIDPOPS post - I forgot to delete YahooMort's Stuff
Message-ID: <20060828215502.73776.qmail@web52702.mail.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157546

Hi to everyone, I am very sorry that I forgot to delete YahooMort's junk at the bottom. To any List Elves that caught me, terribly sorry, never happen again, my bad, my bad. 
   
  Katie

 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

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




From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 21:57:45 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:57:45 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?(was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ecva2v+5s17@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvosp+29t6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157547

> >>bboyminn: 
> > > While I am not discrediting all the things that have 
> > > been said so far, but let us not forget that Draco 
> > > went to Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 

> >>Magpie:
> > No, he DID NOT.  I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't 
> > stand having this presented as canon.  Voldemort 
> > discovered Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux.  His anger 
> > was terrible to behold. ...

> bboyminn:
> Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. What 
> is the very first thing that occurs chronologically in 
> the book? Not the first thing the books reveals to us, but 
> the first thing that occurs chronologically. Anwer: Draco 
> figures out that there are two connected Vanishing Cabinets; 
> one inside Hogwarts, one outside. This occurs late in the 
> previous school year or over the summer. I think it is a 
> fair interpretation of canon, that the entire Draco plot 
> grows from that piece of information. 

Betsy Hp:
I think your time-line is wrong, Steve.  Draco tells Dumbledore that 
he got the idea about the cabinet after hearing Montague's story.  
That can't have occured at the end of the school year because 
Montague was too sick (I'm not sure he *could* talk at that time).  
So the visit must have occured over the summer.

Since Spinner's End happens within the first few weeks of summer 
break than the very first thing that happens chronologically to 
Draco is that he receives his task.  

And that makes logical sense too.  Why would pre-task!Draco bother 
*thinking* about getting Death Eaters into Hogwarts?  Why would he 
randomly decide this is a problem Voldemort needs to solve? (It's 
not like Death Eaters haven't made themselves at home in Hogwarts 
before.) Post-task!Draco, however, will be doing a great deal of 
brainstorming, and be quite ready for an "aha!" moment when he 
visits Montague over the summer.

I also wonder what possible reason Voldemort would have at *not* 
involving Snape if his main goal is an invasion of Hogwarts.  And I 
wonder why he'd send such a second rate crew through the cabinets if 
the invasion was his ultimate goal.

Betsy Hp 






From harryp at stararcher.com  Mon Aug 28 22:31:56 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:31:56 -0000
Subject: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvqss+gduo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157548

Lupinlore:
> Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot of 
> discussion and no little heat:  DD at the Dursleys at the beginning 
> of HBP. [...]
>
> It seems that the scene serves two purposes.  One, the more minor 
> purpose, is to get Harry out of the house while providing some comic 
> relief and maybe a couple of hints (i.e. Petunia's blush) as to what 
> might be coming.
> 
> The second, and more important purpose, is to correct some severe 
> mistakes JKR made in OOTP.

Eddie:
Perhaps there is also a literary purpose for DD's visit and his
behavior: It's safe to assume that Rowling knows at the beginning of
HBP that Dumbledore won't survive to the end of the school year.  So,
she wants to give DD a chance to do the things he ought to do to be
sure Harry is ready to go off on his own:

1) DD makes a personal visit to the Dursley's to give them a piece of
his mind and to reinforce his pact with Petunia.  (Also, DD's personal
appearance reinforces the increased danger Harry is in.  DD won't let
Harry travel to the Weasley's on his own.)

3) By the end of HBP, DD makes sure Harry has ALL the info he
(Dumbledore) has, as well as his speculations

4) DD gives Harry a task to accomplish on his own (Sluggy's memories)
to verify that Harry is ready to be on his own.  (Note how nicely this
parallels the theory that Draco is doing a task of his own.)

It's even possible that Dumbledore suspects he is dying as a result of
his wounded hand, or maybe he's (correctly) concerned about his
ability to survive another encounter with a horcrux.  That suspicion
would act as a catalyst to plot with Snape re: how to use his
(Dumbledore's) death to their best advantage.

It's all speculation upon speculation, but for me this all makes a
tighter piece of literature.

Eddie







From sydpad at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 22:50:20 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:50:20 -0000
Subject: Story Structure (WAS: ACID POPS and teenager Draco) LOOOONG
Message-ID: <ecvrvc+cct2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157549

warning, long and very rambly....


> Neri:
> First, I never wrote "you're confusing fanon with canon". I wrote
> "it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon". It was a general
> statement, which I think you'll agree with me is valid, and not a

> personal accusation. It is generally advisable, before accusing other
> people of misremembering, to check first that you don't misquote them
> in that very paragraph.

Sydney:

I do beg your pardon.  I don't know where on earth I could have gotten
the idea that "it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon" was you
saying, "you're confusing canon with fanon".  I apologize for the
misunderstanding.

Neri:

 I don't see that
> Snape and Harry are the central characters, or that theirs is the
> central relationship. <snip>

> I'll give you one trivial example, from the books, of what I mean
> regarding the importance of central characters. <snip exhaustive
typing out of Ron arc>.
> This is what I meant when I said that central characters are served by
> the story, and this also shows that Ron is a central character, second
> (together with Hermione) only to Harry.


Sydney:

I'm sure I wrote something about this.. ah yes.  It's in the post you
were replying to.  Perhaps I wasn't clear enough the first time
around, but I'll cut and paste as a starting point.  I am now going to
bore you for a bit with what I mean by a 'central relationship'.


"As I said, Snape and Harry have the central *relationship*. It's the
one that has the most unresolved emotional energy going into the last
stage of the book. It's the one with the most potential for change in
*Harry*, the central character. It's the one, as I said, where
everything that goes on with Snape has to go back to Harry. *Ron and
Hermione are sidekicks and they can have their own stories that run
parallel to the plot, like Jane could have her own romance with
Bingley or all the little side characters in Dickens can have their
own colourful storylines*. Snape is not so free. His story has to
loop back into Harry's."

Let me try to be a bit more clear.  I'll start with a plot that
doesn't have a whole lot complicated emotional content, and the main
character doesn't change much, so you can see the spine of the story
pretty clearly:

Think of, oh... "The Wizard of Oz".  That's a good one.  What's the
central storyline?  There's a little girl, and she blown to the
Wonderful Land of Oz, which is not so wonderful that she does not
immediately want to go home.  She's told she should go to the Wizard,
who will know what to do.  Unfortunately, she has inadvertently killed
a Wicked Witch whose even wickeder sister swears vengeance.  She goes
off to the City of Oz, making three great friends along the way, where
the Wizard tells her she must bring back the wicked Witch's broom. 
I'm sure you know the rest.

Pop quiz:  what's the central relationship?  Answer:  Dorothy and the
Wizard.  Why?  Because the story can't end until they have a
resolution that is dependent each on the other.  Dorothy threatens to
reveal the Wizard's weakness because she makes a request he can't
grant.  The Wizard has something Dorothy desperately wants-- it's a
simple story, so it's a simple thing, a way home.  They are locked
together.  It's attached to the emotional spine of the story because
there's actually a fair bit of change in Dorothy's attitude to the
Wizard--the Wizard is the same guy as the charlatan in the first reel
who has a strong bit where he persuades Dorothy not to run away from
home; he's the guy she's so happy to see because he'll solve her
problem; he's the guy who suddenly becomes someone who makes her
situation worse; then he's the guy she reveals as a fake.  The second
relationship that is also belonging to the 'spine' of the story is
Dorothy and the Witch.  They also are bonded, storywise, in that they
can't have a resolution to their plot independent of the other.  The
Tin Man can't kill the witch;  Dorothy has to.

Page time is not a function of centrality to the story's spine.  The
Scarecrow and everybody get great songs and great scenes, and they're
what makes the movie fun to watch.  They must have four or five times
the screen time that the wizard has.  They have their own arcs that
are in a way more rewarding and interesting than Dorothy's.  But they
don't pull the central spine of the story.  You can tell it without
them:  A girl goes to a magical land, tries to get a wizard to send
her home, the wizard gives her an impossible task, she completes the
task, accidentally exposes the wizard as a mere fraud, reconciles with
him, and they go home.  I mean, try telling the story with just
Dorothy and the Scarecrow and without mentioning the wizard.

The Wizard and the Witch, on the other hand, don't get to have the fun
of their own storylines because they are part of the spine and have to
run in a certain direction and support the main character's growth. 
You wouldn't expect, for example, for a cut back to the Emerald City
to a subplot about the Wizard, I dunno, planning to annex a
neighbouring country or something.  Your audience would be all, "What
does this have to do with Dorothy?" You COULD cut back to the Emerald
City for a subplot about a rebellion growing in the city as everyone
realizes the Wizard is weak or something, because that goes back to
Dorothy.

Why doesn't the audience get irritated with "What does this have to do
with Dorothy?" when the Cowardly Lion bursts into song?  Because they
recognize the character's function in the story, as a sidekick who is
there to be endearing and entertaining.  They don't expect there to be
a push-pull with the central character the way they would with an
antagonist like the Witch.

Neri:

The fact that R/L was very
> insignificant only shows to what length JKR would go for Ron's
> character. She *likes* Ron, in the most emotional sense of the word.
> His character is heavily affected by memories of her best childhood
> friend.

Sydney:

That is totally beside the point.  Everyone loves Jiminy Cricket, but
his relationship with Pinocchio isn't the central one (in the book he
gets squashed :-( , but I do love Jiminy in the movie).  The central
relationship is Pinnochio and Geppetto, who hardly get any scenes
together, but who have the unresolved situation of Pinocchio being
disobedient and wooden and Geppetto wanting a good, flesh-and-blood child.

On the other hand, Harry Lime is a loathesome monster, but there's not
much question that he and Holly have the central relationship in "The
Third Man".  Despite the fact that the lovable soldier what-sis-name
may actually get more screentime.
 
There's a lot of different kinds of 'central relationships' but the
thing that defines them is, they are the relationships that wind
around the central axle, if you will, of the story and can only turn
in a certain direction because they support the structure of the plot.
 They are a connection of the main character, to another character,
that will force the main character to turn in a certain direction
because they are attached to each other.

Snape and Harry, I think, are in this sort of relationship-- something
that is pulling around the central core of the story.  Why do I think
this?  Because for an antagonist, Snape has an awful lot of unresolved
backstory that attaches to Harry's backstory.  Because they get a few
key dramatic, emotional scenes together that never properly resolve--
Occlumency, Snape's flight.  Because nobody has a more unstable
relationship with Harry-- he saves him!  He hates him!  Harry should
trust him!  But he's so suspicious acting!  He should have gone to him
in OoP!  He killed Dumbledore! 

And most of all, because their attitudes to each other are so intense.
 Harry imagines Crucioing Snape in OoP, he feverishly collects reasons
to hate him in HBP.  I can't think of another character Harry has this
kind of emotion over *that needs resolving*.  Harry's love for Sirius
and his friends does not need resolving, it's stable.  Harry's hatred
of Snape has to end one way or another.  Maybe when he kills Snape
with his bare hands, maybe when he spends 10 years in a Buddhist
retreat, maybe when Snape is thoroughly humiliated, maybe when it
turns out that Harry's had the wrong attitude all along.  But one way
or another, it has to resolve.


Neri:

> And I suspect it's going to detract from the energy and intensity of
> the story if the "central relationship" is between the hero and a
> secondary character. We've seen it in OotP, when what was supposed to
> be the driving relationship emotionally was the one between Harry and
> Sirius, and at least personally I think it never quite worked. I
> accepted as an axiom that Harry feels so strongly for Sirius, but I
> never felt it myself, and ultimately this was because Sirius was a
> secondary character, with his development mainly enslaved to the needs
> of the plot.

Sydney:  

As an antagonist, Snape is just plain a source of the "energy and
intensity of the story".  Sirius and Harry can't have a 'driving
relationship', they don't have a *conflict*.  Their relationship is
not serving a 'driving' purpose, it's serving a tear-jerking, 'you
bastard you killed Teddy!!' purpose.  Stories revolve around conflict,
that is the meaning of story.  Ergo, the central relationship in a
story is the one with the most conflict and the most change.  To me
that looks like Snape and Harry.  Harry and Voldemort's relationship
is also pulling around the central spine-- he's like the Witch in
Wizard of Oz-- but lacking in any change except for the one big one
where presumably Harry defeats him, it's not looking like the central one.

The guy at the other end of a central relationship is, in very simple
stories, normally a villain-- like the stepmother in Cinderella.  In
romances in which the characters are moving towards each other (rather
than facing external complications) it's the Other Half, and most of
the conflict comes from between them.  In a buddy movie you do the
same thing as in a romance but take out the sex. 


Neri:
> Romantic stories are indeed usually based on a relationship between
> two central characters, but I don't think HP is primarily a romantic
> story. In Good vs Evil stories the hero is usually left alone against
> that evil overlord, at most with the help of a sidekick or two that
> don't outshine him.
 
Sydney:

Oh, man, I feel a lecture coming on... genre is a particular favorite
topic of mine, and understanding genre is, as you say, critical to
understanding story.

I think you're right that to a large extent this a "Good vs. Evil"
genre tale.  But I disagree that that's the genre that is directing a
great deal of the plot.  When I see a children's story that has masses
and masses and MASSES of backstory, and all the adults are messed up,
and there's Secrets Hidden in the Past, I feel I'm in the presence of
a "Child Healer" story.  Many children's classics fit into this in
some way (including, come to think of it, The Wizard of Oz).  The
characteristic energies are:  child in introduced into a world that is
both wondrous and mysterious.  There are adult characters who are
labouring under the yoke of some sort of oppression that is tied into
the very structure of the society.  The child is told stories about
what happened that the world is sick or broken in some way, but
there's a missing element, a mystery.  The child, because as a child
s/he has a fresh, innocent view of this world and/or is not touched by
its corruption, has a power that no one else has to heal the sickness,
because they can answer the question or discover the hidden cave or
reveal the deception.  The dark hidden thing is brought into the light
and society can begin anew.

Off the top of my head, stories in this genre would include the legend
of Percival, The Secret Garden, Great Expectations, Little White
Horse, most "Scooby do" plots.  As a whole, the genre is an optimistic
one with an upward, comic arc in the old sense of the word.  There is
normally some sort of reconciliation or gruding hand-shake as everyone
realizes that their differences can be resolved in a civilized
fashion, after the Source of Evil has been purged.

Why don't I think Harry Potter is mainly a Good vs. Evil story? 
Because unlike Orcs, the Slytherin students can't happily be wiped out
in order for the society to continue.  It seems the sickness in the
Wizarding World does not hinge on Voldemort;  he's an embodiment of
the sickness but killing him wouldn't end the story.  The rift in the
society is too deep for that to end the book on and leave the audience
with the sense that that's enough to be going on with.  There's a
healing factor, an opening of festering wounds factor, that can't be
resolved in the clean way a Dragon-head-chopping scene would in the
Good/Evil genre.  That's where I think Draco, as the new generation,
and Snape, as the recent past, and Salazar Slytherin, as the deep
past, come in.

In your reading I see that not only Snape is part of the evil that has
to be purged, but so is Draco, because you still think that he should
be feeling that the killing of Gryffindor's and blood-traitors is
cause for celebration, and if he isn't there has to be some reason
that has to do with, I dunno, Snape having an affair with his mother
or something.  How do you see Draco being reconciled-- or does he get
carted off to jail, Voldemort is destroyed, Snape kills himself to
stop himself from being killed by the life debt, and everyone goes,
yay, except for the remaining Slytherins to make trouble for the next
generation?  I guess that *is* the way you see it, as a clear-cut good
vs. evil story, but I would find that... distrubing in a children's
book and I don't think that's what's being set up.

Basically, I think (to use the term I used way back in my Massive
Villains Post of Doom), that Snape is a reconcilable antagonist.


Neri:

> Regarding the Life Debt, this is a different discussion, but I
> think that if in Book 7 Snape steps between Voldemort and Harry to
> save Harry's life, then it would have a huge importance to both Harry
> and Snape.


Sydney:

Not if Harry could dismiss it as Snape still being the git he's always
hated and acting for his own wicked and selfish reasons.  In story
terms, that's not important at all.  It's *plot*, not *story*.  Plots
can be altered without much affecting the story-- Snape getting killed
could be because of the Life Debt, or because he starts vying with
V-mort for Top Dog and they take each other out, or he trips on a
wand.  If it doesn't hit Harry's hatred of Snape it's not part of the
story.


> >
> > > Neri:
> > > Life debt and ACID POPS give you two "What?!?" moments in Book 7
> > > instead of just one.
> >
> > Sydney:
> >
> > And you think that's STRONGER?  And here I was looking for a grand
> > unified Snape theory that ties back into Harry on every unanswered
> > point.  
>
> Neri:
> I am not familiar with any grand unifying Snape theories, and
> LOLLIPOPS certainly isn't one. LOLLIPOPS doesn't explain why Snape
> took the UV and it doesn't explain several other Snape mysteries. I
> doubt it is possible to find any single motivation of Snape that would
> explain each and every thing he did in the books. We probably need
> more than one motivation, which is why I'm using a combination of two
> theories (though they don't necessarily depend on each other).

Sydney:

The LOLLIPOPS story is, Snape loved Lily, but was rejected by her for
his hated enemy.  Angry and hopeless, he joined the Bad Guys, and in
doing so inadvertently doomed Lily to die.  When he realized this, he
changed sides, and devoting himself to the Good side and to the
downfall of Voldemort, doing whatever was in his power to effect this.
 He is motivated by his essentially unresolvable guilt over Lily and
his desire to deal with it through the defeat of Voldemort.   All his
actions and principal issues can go back to this-- his rage at James
and Sirius, his obsession with Harry, Dumbledore's unshakable trust
and his reluctance to explain his reasons to Harry, Snape's repression
and sudden rages, his craving for acknowledgement as a 'good guy'. 
The Vow can connect in three possible, and not mutually exclusive,
straightforward ways:

1.  The death of Dumbledore was already in train, because of the ring
curse.  His death at Snape's hands would further the war effort by
being put to use to entrench Snape as completely trusted by V-mort.

2.  Snape's guilt and despair were so overwhelming that he did not put
a particularily high value on his own life, so taking a vow would kill
him under all but some very narrow conditions was not alarming to him

3.  The sight of a mother begging him to save her child from Voldemort
was one he was particularily succeptible to.

Simple, clean, strong, not requiring too much exposition, does a
whiz-banger on Harry, and has several interesting possible
resolutions.  There's plenty of good reasons to keep this thrilling
plotline under wraps for the entire series.  It seems in keeping with
the themes of the book, and works with Snape's tirade about "fools who
wear their hearts one their sleeves" being easy prey for Voldemort. 
It ties Lily into the heart of the story with a character who is still
alive and lets her have an effect on things in the present day.


> Neri:
> You say yourself that LOLLIPOPS is much more popular than ACID POPS.
> In fact I'd say any HP reader above the age of 12 probably had thought
> about LOLLIPOPS by himself/herself early in the series (I certainly
> did, and I had zero connection with the fandom at the time). So for
> most readers ACID POPS will be a much bigger "WHAT?" moment than
> LOLLIPOPS. Of course, for the few who had the misfortune to read my
> ACID POPS posts it won't be such a big "WHAT?" moment.

Sydney

Oh, good!  At least we agree that Snape/Lily is implied or
foreshadowed in some way in the text, in a way that you could see
early in the series, that the target audience (lower demographic)
could also see and understand.  I'm happy to see that it's been
properly set up, because sometimes I think it's a bit too subtle
(until HBP, that is, when nearly everyone can feel it in the air). For
me, something that is properly set up is better than something that
comes out of nowhere.  Maybe that's just me though.  I should say that
if the high prize is to "comes out of nowhere", we wouldn't enjoy
reading the books for a second time, we would ship them off to the
Goodwill along with our monthly stack of paperback mysteries, because
we've had the payoff.  Instead we seem to enjoy knowing that something
is coming but experiencing it again and again.


> > Sydney:
> > "If nobody thinks so, it can't be true".  Well, I thinks it more, "if
> > nobody sees it coming, it can't be foreshadowed as you say it's being
> > foreshadowed.  Because nobody seems to see it coming."
> >
>
> Neri:
> Hmmm. And you think it is impossible that JKR will actually *want* to
> come up, in the last book, with something that nobody has seen coming?

Sydney:

If that was the case, she would close the books with an asteroid
hitting the earth, or Trevor the Toad being Merlin in disguise and
defeating Voldemort.  The point of story structure is play between
anticipation and surprise.  You have to have more, MUCH more
anticipation than surprise, otherwise your audience will not care
what's going on.  They cannot be pulled forward through the story
without being swung forwards, as it were, on strategically placed
vines.  Snape being in love with Narcissa provides no surprise,
because I can't see where the audience would care about it, so it
doesn't place a vine on the far end of the gap.  It doesn't provide
anticipation because it's not, as I said, foreshadowed, so it doesn't
provide a vine on the near side of the gap.  Providing neither
surprise nor anticipation, unanchored to anything we know to expect
from Snape already, having no effect on the main character... it would
be a very weak choice no matter what Snape you have.

Let's say you have Evil Snape who planned all along to kill
Dumbledore.  Then the UV being motivated by a yen for Narcissa is just
confusing in retrospect-- "hang on", the audience would have to stop
and ask, "did he or didn't he want to kill the old man when he took
the Vow?  I mean, he's evil and it was part of his plan to begin
with... so was the killing motivated by the Vow, meaning the Narcissa
thing, or was it motivated by his original plan since the start of the
books?  Is it just the timing being made a bit awkward?  But then it's
still part of the plan, isn't it, I mean, he MADE the vow as part of
the plan to get Narcissa, so presumably he was okay with the sacrifice
of having to do it that year. It's not even a good complication.


I'm going to cut this post here, and go onto a new post to address the
rest of the Snape/Narcissa specifics, because this post is now
officially unweildly...

-- Sydney, back after these messages







From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 23:26:06 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:26:06 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails/Life Debt
In-Reply-To: <ecv3eo+6jhq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvu2e+i162@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157551

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Jones <kjones@> 
> wrote:
> > 5.	Considering the information that we have been given on Life 
> Debts, is this
> > fore-shadowing of what will come in Book 7?  Has Arthur just 
> realized what this
> > could mean for the Weasley family?  Does the fact that he speaks 
in 
> a
> > constricted voice mean anything other than his distress at 
nearly 
> losing Ron? 
> 
> 
Carodave:
Maybe life debts are triggered by sparing - not saving - someone's 
life.  So when Harry rescues Ginny from the memory of Tom Riddle, 
there is no life debt, but when Harry spares Wormtail from being 
cursed by Lupin and Sirius, a life debt is triggered.  Similarly, 
Snape owes James a life debt for sparing his life, by pulling him 
back from the shrieking shack.  

Carodave







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Mon Aug 28 23:47:24 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 23:47:24 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?(was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ecvosp+29t6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ecvvac+8a0a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157552

--- "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>bboyminn: 
> > > > While I am not discrediting all the things that have 
> > > > been said so far, but let us not forget that Draco 
> > > > went to Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 
> 
> > >>Magpie:
> > > No, he DID NOT.  I'm sorry to be so vehement but I 
> > > can't stand having this presented as canon. Voldemort 
> > > discovered Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux. His anger 
> > > was terrible to behold. ...
> 
> > bboyminn:
> > Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. What 
> > is the very first thing that occurs chronologically in 
> > the book? Not the first thing the books reveals to us, 
> > but  the first thing that occurs chronologically. Anwer: 
> > Draco figures out that there are two connected Vanishing 
> > Cabinets; one inside Hogwarts, one outside. ...
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think your time-line is wrong, Steve.  Draco tells 
> Dumbledore that he got the idea about the cabinet after 
> hearing Montague's story. That can't have occured at the 
> end of the school year because Montague was too sick ....  
> So the visit must have occured over the summer.


bboyminn:

Sorry, not so, Montegue returns to the school around Easter, 
and is at the school for a minimum of two full month 
recoverings. Yes, in the beginning, he was confused and 
disoriented, but otherwise uninjured. 'Dazed and confused' 
doesn't sound all that sick to me. It seems reasonable that
over the course of two month he gradually recovered, and 
that Draco visited him while he was in the school hospital 
ward where he was regaling his friends and admirers with 
tales of his adventure. 

All indications are that Draco had the plan figured out 
before the end of the school year. When Harry landed Draco's 
father in prison, I speculate that he saw the abinet as a 
way to attack Hogwarts. Certainly, he would realize just 
how valuable a secret way into Hogwarts was to Voldemort.

I admit a huge amount of speculation in my version, but the 
books only provide us with the result, so we can only 
speculate how we got from the beginning to that result.

I still say the first event is Draco's realization of the 
Cabinet as a means of attack. Given his feelings about Harry,
Dumbledore, and the Ministry, he would have certainly wanted 
his revenge. Telling Voldemort about the cabinet was his 
revenge. 

I don't deny Voldemort's anger with Lucius, but it wasn't 
about the diary, it was about the muck-up at the Ministry. 
But again, the scene at Snape's house is the end of the 
events leading up to Draco's task. I speculate on how Draco 
got to that end, and the logical and canonal starting place 
is with Draco's prior knowledge of the Cabinet.

Draco's on-going and unrelenting task (activity) from 
beginning to end, is the Cabinet. It is not the diversion, 
the two failed attempts on Dumbledore's life are the 
diversion. They are desperate attempts at an alternate 
action that Draco felt necessary because he saw he was 
failing at his primary task. 

Even early in the summer, Draco is already working on the 
Cabinet (Draco's Detour). The books seem to make it clear 
that the task was to kill Dumbledore, and the means was 
the Cabinet. However, the attack on Hogwarts didn't go as 
planned, DA and Order members interferred. If things had 
gone as planned, no one would have known the DE we in the 
castle. They could have set and sprung their trap, and 
carried on from there. Unfortunately, the were met with 
resistance the minute they stepped out or the Room of 
Requirements. 

Perhaps their greater plan was to kill Dumbledore, and take 
and hold Hogwarts, but the element of stealth was completely 
lost, so the operation was scaled back to kill Dumbledore 
and get out alive. 

It seems clear to me that the Cabinet always was an integral 
part of the master plan. It was the mean to the end.

If it was not the means to the end, then why have it at 
all? Why not just have Draco kill Dumbledore and run for 
it? Why? Because there was a plan from the very beginning, 
a plan to get Death Eaters into the castle, secure the 
perimeter, and lay and spring the trap to kill Dumbledore.
Remember, Dumbledore under normal circumstances in not an
easy man to kill.

You heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 00:08:21 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:08:21 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecvjk4+haag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed00hl+kfrg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157553

> > Mike:
> 
> > But why should we? Where do you or Magpie get your basis for
> > pronouncing "Squib" is a *bigoted* or *racial* slur? 
> > <Magpie snipped the remainder of my 1st paragraph>
> 
> Magpie:
> I didn't pronounce it a racial slur.  I described it just the way 
> Steve described it, as referring to Filch's physical limitations.  
> Like calling him "wheelchair boy."  Which I think any child would 
> recognize in this context as choosing to attack someone's disability 
> or their status as a member of the underclass instead of whatever 
> you're angry at in order to put them in their place, and that's 
> inappropriate.  

Magpie's earlier post:
I wasn't going to reply to this, but just in case...we do all realize 
that what you described is classic bigotry, right? That Hagrid is 
asserting his "dominance" by reminding Filch of his inferior 
circumstances of birth? It's the same way that Malfoy responds to 
Hermione when Hermione makes him feel low on the Quidditch Pitch. 
Whether or not Hagrid hates Filch for being a Squib doesn't matter as 
much as the fact that he expresses his hatred by going straight 
for "Squib."


Mike:
Yes, you didn't pronounce it a "racial slur", you pronounced it 
as "classic bigotry". But I also used the word *or*, in referencing 
your post *or* Eddie's post which came after your post. Which makes 
you the first person to elevate Hagrid's words to the level 
of "bigotry".

I also noted that you snipped the rest of my first paragraph wherein I 
questioned the notion that the name "Squib" is a bigoted term. I won't 
repeat it here, but you know what I said. I also noticed that you 
chose to ignore what I said and continue to apply your definition of 
the term. But I presented canon for my point, where's yours? I find 
that curious when this response is at the bottom of a long post 
wherein you berate Steve for not adhering to canon.

So I'll use the same argument you used on Steve. You have appllied 
your opinion as to the harshness of the term then expounded based on 
your opinion. And you've done it in direct contradiction to what we 
know from canon. 

Then you try to draw a parallel to Malfoy calling Hermione 
a "mudblood". Well we know that only bigoted witches and wizards use 
the term "mudblood" whereas the term "Squib" is bandied about by 
everyone *including* the Squibs themselves. In reference to 
geneology, "Squib" seems no more derogatory in canon than the 
term "half-blood". Your analogy doesn't hold water. 

I also don't accept Steve's analogy to "wheelchair boy". There is a 
huge difference between "disability" and being blessed with special 
abilities. If you called one "slowpoke" because they can't run as fast 
as an Olympic sprinter, I would not chastise you for using a bigoted 
term, would you? 

So I stand by my original statement with one word change, to wit:
Sensitivity to prejudice is admirable, accusing another of "bigotry"
without conclusive justification is reprehensible.









From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 00:39:46 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:39:46 -0000
Subject: Story Structure (WAS: ACID POPS and teenager Draco) continues
Message-ID: <ed02ci+trg2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157554

Taken down and reposted for a correction and for clarity...


And now, back to our Show!

> > > Neri,
> > > who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy SHIP
> > > clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.
> >
> > Sydney:
> >
> > "Strange", or "totally understandable because they're not clues".
> > Your call.
> >
>
> Neri:
> Or maybe, just maybe, "totally understandable because the clues point
> in a direction you don't like"?

Sydney:

Oh, I get it-- you were referring to MY not addressing the 'clues'.
Sorry, I get confused about when you're addressing me and when you're
speaking in generalities... I assumed you meant, the board as a whole
wasn't falling like starving dogs upon a possible ship, which IS odd.

Alright-y, let's have a look at your close reading then, which came
about because someone made the sensible point that Narcissa wouldn't
have mentioned that Snape was Lucius' old friend as a reason to help,
if she had gone to him to use his lust for her as an incentive.

To be honest, it's not so much a close reading as you interpolating a
load of mustache-twirling that isn't in the text. As far as I can
see, you have two actual points: one, that Snape points out more than
once that Draco is in peril because of Voldemort's rage at Lucius; and
two, that Narcissa is a heap on the floor when Snape proposes to help.
However, you did seem to snip rather a lot of critical things, and
put in rather a lot of redundant subtext to explain things that are
already explained in the text itself.

To summarize in advance, you do everything in your power snipping-wise
to give the impression that Narcissa is hysterical because Snape is
goading her into it, because he enjoys seeing her in hysterics, and
further that their discussion is primarily about Lucius and his flaws.
 In order to do this you cut the critical point-- twice-- that
Narcissa is hysterical because the scene is about her realizing that
Voldemort's *intends* Draco to be killed.  Snape does not say this
himself-- he merelly confirms it obliquely, twice, when Narcissa says
it (the parts that you cut).  Narcissa is in the position of someone
going to a doctor desperate for reassurance that their child does not
have a terminal illness.  Snape as the doctor is refusing to lie, but
he is neither inventing, exaggerating, or playing up the basic
situation.  It doesn't exclude your reading that he is secretly
enjoying it, but it isn't there in the text, either.  Neither is any
inclusion of Luicius that is incomprehensible in the context of Snape
explaining the nature of the illness.

I'm sorry, this is naturally
going to be hard to follow, as I have to go back and forth between
what Neri quotes from the text in his argument, and the text itself,
and my argument. God, I wish this board allowed HTML so I could use
some italics or indents or a different font or something, but I'll
just have to live with being unclear. For those following along at
home, Neri's post of Killer Snape/Narcissa clues we should all be
talking about is no. 157342. Here we go:

Actual text:

*
"... Severus... please... you are, you have always been, Draco's
favorite teacher... you are Lucius' old friend... I beg you... you are
the Dark Lord's favorite, most trusted advisor... will you speak to
him, persuade him--"
*

Neri:

But even this single small reminder of the Lucius/Snape friendship is
a BIG mistake of Narcissa, as Snape immediately responds by beating
her on the ears with her dear Lucius: (snip canon quote)


Sydney:

In the scene, Snape is stressing Voldemort's anger at Lucius because
he's responding to Narcissa's line, which is, that Snape should talk
Voldemort out of his revenge plans. You can put in whatever Subtext
of Evil you like, but in the text, he is explaining to Narcissa that
what she begging him to do *at this stage of the scene* -- that is,
use his influence with Voldemort to get him to not punish Lucius in
this way -- is not possible. Because Voldemort is really, really
angry at Lucius. I don't seem to see the part where you cover why it
would make sense that she brought it up in the first place,
secondarily to his favoured teacher status or not, seeing as it would
seriously set back her objectives here. But let's move on:

Neri:

And Narcissa must realize her mistake,
because she immediately changes tack and go on to tell Snape, with the
proper attitude I might add, how *you* (italics) could do for her what
Lucius obviously can't, and how Snape would be rewarded beyond all the
other DEs (Lucius naturally included):


Sydney:

Whoa now, she doesn't *immediately* change tack. After Snape's
explanation that Voldemort's anger at Lucius is the reason Voldemort
cannot be persuaded by Snape, Narcissa responds with the logical
inference:

*
"Then I am right, he has chosen Draco in revenge!" choked Narcissa,
"He does not mean him to succeed, he wants him to be killed trying!"

When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little
self-restraint she still possessed..
*

Oh, wait, you include that part!:

Neri:
************************************************************
When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little
self-restraint she still possessed. Standing up, she staggered to
Snape and seized the front of his robes. Her face close to his, her
tears falling onto his chest, she gasped, "You could do it. *You*
could do it instead of Draco, Severus. You would succeed, of course
you would, and he would reward you beyond all of us ?"
************************************************************

Now that's more like it, but she's still not quite kneeling, so Snape
reminds her again why the Malfoys have acquired the Dark Lord's wrath:


Sydney:

To me it looks like Narcissa is responding to Snape's silent
confirmation that Voldemort plans on Draco being killed, which DOES
seem a little alarming and something that would motivate hysteria.
But perhaps you are right, and the subtext is that she's actually
responding to Snape's runnning down Lucius being a reminder that Snape
is a rival to Lucius, something she'd forgotten about, and consciously
changing tactics for that reason.

Maybe this is a personal reaction, but I think I'll stick with the
surface reason, even if its a bit boring, that Narcissa is reacting in
a pretty direct way to the "Voldemort wants Draco to be killed" part.

Hang on, now, hang on.. you snipped another bit that comes before the
line of Snape's you're about to go on to. Let me put it in for you
before we move along:


*
"Snape caught hold of wrists and removed her clutching hands. Looking
down into her tear-stained face, he said, slowly, "He intends me to do
it in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco should try
first. You see, in the unlikely event that Draco succeeds, I shall be
able to remain at Hogwarts a little longer, fullfilling my useful role
as spy."
*

Then Narcissa says,

*
"In other words, it doesn't matter to him if Draco is killed!"
*

That's when Snape says, to return to the part you include in your post:

Neri:
************************************************************
"The Dark Lord is very angry," repeated Snape quietly. "He failed to
hear the prophecy. You know as well as I do, Narcissa, that he does
not forgive easily."
************************************************************

A bit repetitive of you, Severus, and not very diplomatic either, if
you are interested in the good will of the Malfoy family.


Sydney:

So, the subtext could be, "Yes, Lucius is a dork. You should be with
ME!". Or it could be, "You are correct, it doesn't matter to
Voldemort that Draco is killed, in fact, that is his objective". The
latter is harsh but true, which is Snape's normal style; and it's what
he has been trying to make clear from the top of this series of beats.
It's repetitive because he is making it clear to Narcissa that they
both have to accept that the simple version, Snape talking Voldemort
out of his revenge, ain't gonna happen. At least IMO.

Back to Neri, putting in some mustache-twirling and conflating a bunch
of stuff:


Neri:
But no doubt
it effectively breaks Narcissa completely. She "crumples, falling at
his feet, sobbing and moaning on the floor". And *now* suddenly Snape
shows her a little tenderness, oh yeah. He seizes her by her arms,
lifts her up and steers her back to the sofa (snort! JKR has never
been very original when it comes to blatant SHIPping), he hints that
he may be able to help her, and finally she's properly kneeling at his
feet. *Now* that she's just where he wanted her, he kneels in front of
her too and clasps hands.


Sydney:

I think he shows 'a bit of tenderness' her because... well, she's now
crumpled and hysterical on the floor and not even able to pay
attention to what he's saying. I don't see a whole lot of
now-I-have-her-where-want-her here-- what does he actually do? You
snip this for some reason:

*
"He then poured her more wine and forced the glass into her hand.
"Narcissa, that's enough. Drink this. Listen to me."
*

So she listens to him-- "she quietened a little" , which, again, on
the bare beat level of the text, was his objective in picking her up
of the floor. It is at this point that he says:

*
"It might be possible.. for me to help Draco."
*

Now, what has changed here? I mean in the actual scene, not in the
internal subtextual possibilities. In your subtext, the change is
that Narcissa is now properly hysterical and has reached an
appropriate flattery point.

In the text, a new idea *has* been introduced, one to which Snape
resonds "slowly". The start of the series of beats at which Snape is
described as speaking "slowly" and "quietly" (as opposed to "flatly"),
is when he responds to Narcissa's line:

*
"YOU could do it. You could do it instead of Draco,
Severus."
*

Wow, she says it like, twice! The new idea which seems a
little more significant, and a little liklier to start a
thought-process in Snape, than hitting yet another level of hysteria
and flattery. And I might mention, it's something that actually pays
off in the book--

"You could do it instead of Draco".
He said slowly: "He intends me to do it in the end, I think."

You can scroll up to see the entire text of that exchange. For some
reason you skip ahead and say that Snape and Narcissa clasp hands as
soon as he's got her on the sofa, missing all sorts of juicy action!
Snape says haltingly that it is possible for him to help Draco. Then:

*
"Severus-- oh, Severus-- you would help him? Would you look after
him, see that he comes to no harm?"
"I can try."
She flung away her glass, it skidded across the table as she slid off
the sofa into a kneeling position at Snape's feet, seized his hand in
both of hers and pressed her lips to it.
"If you are there to protect him... Severus, will you swear it? Will
you make the Unbreakable Vow?"
"The Unbreakable Vow?" Snape's expression was blank, unreadable:
Bellatrix, however, let out a cackle of triumphant laughter.
"Aren't you listening, Narcissa? Oh, he'll *try*, I'm sure... the
usual empty words, the usual slithering out of action... oh, oh the
Dark Lord's orders, of course!"
Snape did not look at Bellatrix. His black eyes were fixed on
Narcissa's tear-filled blue ones as she continued to clutch his hand.
"Certainly, Narcissa, I shall make the Unbreakable Vow," he said quietly.
*

Now, we have a whole load of things going on at once. Narciassa goes
into fait-accompli mode-- I think her going on her knees and taking
his hand is the equivalent of grabbing his hand, putting a pen in it,
and holding it over a legal document with her eyes shining. Bellatrix
does a, "He won't do it 'cause he's chicken" thing. Snape is still
using the quiet voice he started using with his line, "He intends me
to do it in the end, I think". His agreeing to the Vow could be a
reaction to Narcissa, a reaction to Bellatrix, or something he's
already well on his way to agreeing to do.

It is particularily important, I think, that Snape's expression, when
he is making his choice, is "blank and unreadable", the expression
that we have been taught to associate with Occlumency. And how do you
do Occlumency? "Empty yourself of all emotion". Whatever decision
Snape is making here, it seems to be one he is *blocking* his emotions
about. I would say the motivator for his change, as Neri agrees, is
the beat where Narcissa says:

*
When Snape said nothing, Narcissa seemed to lose what little
self-restraint she still possessed. Standing up, she staggered to
Snape and seized the front of his robes. Her face close to his, her
tears falling onto his chest, she gasped, "You could do it. *You*
could do it instead of Draco, Severus. You would succeed, of course
you would, and he would reward you beyond all of us ?"
*

Because that's when he starts putting elipses and dashes into his
dialogue and speaking quietly and doing a lot of looking into
Narcissa's eyes. Sure it could be the flattery, though I don't see
where the killer line is that Snape hadn't thought of before (omg! If
I killed D-dore, Voldemort would reward me!). His looking into
Narcissa's eyes after avoiding them for a lot of the scene could be
him absorbing her hotness. I tend to think there's a bit of
Legilimency here-- as an extremely upset person looking directly into
his eyes in close proximity, she's probably practically yelling in
head-- and that he's getting as much data as he can.

At this point, I'm not trying to prove DDM!Snape, so I won't go into
what I think the subtext here is. If you're an ESE!Snaper, you are
free at this point to say, ah! the subtext we have to take into
account is, Snape killing Dumbledore is already on the table, and this
is having an effect on his actions. If you're a DDM!Snaper, you can
say, ah, the subtext we have to take into account is, Snape killing
Dumbledore is already on the table, and this is having an effect on
his actions, whether he intends to actually go through with it or not.

I AM trying to shoot down Snape wanting Narcissa as being a
significant thread of either the UV plot or the Draco story, so I
think at least I've shown that this scene isn't particularily
suggestive in that direction, if you read the whole thing and not just
the bits that support it and cut the bits that interfere with it.


Whew! I'm a bit exhausted, but I'll soldier on over the next ridge
and cover some of the Draco stuff from Neri's post:


> > Sydney:
> > You will notice that Draco also avoids telling *his
> > friends*, Crabbe and Goyle, what's going on. Because he just might
> > start cracking up.
> >
>
> Neri:
> Draco has absolutely no logical reason to tell Crabbe and Goyle.

Sydney:

We're not talking about logical reasons. We're talking about the
common facor between all the people Draco doesn't tell what's going
on: his mother, his mentor, his friends-- the last one flagged in the
text with the interchange with Harry, and isn't necessary to expose
plot-wise at all. I think that's suggestive of something.

Neri:

> And here's another canon clue for you. Why does Draco cut his talk
> with Snape (the one Harry overhears after the slug club party) and
> storms out? What was the specific point in Snape's words that made
> Draco so angry he wouldn't continue the conversation? Want to place a
> bet first? Here it goes:
>
>
> ******************************************************
> HBP, Ch. 15, p. 324:
>
> "Then why not confide in me, and I can ?"
>
> "I know what your up to! You are out to steal my glory!"
>
> There was another pause, then Snape said coldly, "you are speaking
> like a child. I quite understand that your father capture and
> imprisonment has upset you, but ? "
>
> Harry had barely a second's warning; he heard Malfoy's footsteps under
> the door and flung himself out of the way just as it burst open;
> Malfoy was striding away down the corridor.
> *******************************************************
>
> Interesting. Snape mentions *Lucius* for the first time in that
> conversation, and Draco storms out within a second. And it wasn't the
> "your acting like a child" part, because Snape had made the point
> about Draco's clumsiness and foolishness several times before in that
> conversation and it didn't send Draco out.

Sydney:

Actually, I think you were right the first time-- it's the 'acting
like a child' part. To be told you're foolish and clumsy isn't going
to the heart of the equation; "You're acting like a child" is. And
it's capped off with a reference to the other father figure, his
actual father, that Draco is going through conflicted feelings about
for the same reason he's conflicted about Snape. Not torrid affairs
but good and bad:

*
"What does it matter" said Malfoy, "Defence against the Dark Arts--
it's all just a joke, isn't it, an act? Like any of us need
protecting against the Dark Arts--"
*

I mean, this sounds like a teenager starting to question The
Establishment to me.

Neri:

>Sounds to me like Draco has
> an ugly suspicion about Snape conspiring against his father, but for
> some reason it's too embarrassing to say out loud. But if these are
> Draco's suspicions, why won't JKR make them obvious so we know what
> Draco has against Snape? Maybe because it's a clue to something that
> is kept for Book 7?

Sydney:

Well, I mean, because I just think *it's so freaking obvious already*.
Draco's storyline is all about leading to this climax on the top of
the tower, where Dumbledore says to him, "You're not a killer, Draco",
and his wand wavers. It's about him separating himself from his
former role models and trying to be an adult-- "I don't need your
protection! It's my job, he gave it to me and I'm doing it!"-- and
cracking under the pressure and crying in bathrooms. You yourself
understand that this is the *story*. For some reason you seem to want
to make the *plot* a different thing than the story:


Neri:

> Draco's coming-of-age is a thematic, meta-thinking reason. I generally
> agree with it, but it cannot replace proximal reasons inside the plot.
> Even a coming-of-age teenager needs to have specific reasons to
> completely turn against a person he liked a lot for five years.
> Certainly in a mystery story where the readers are generally supposed
> to guess the hidden motivations of suspected characters by their
> behavior.

Sydney:

His hidden motivations pay off at the end of the book, when he has is
"moment of truth". The story presented him with a choice between
being a killer and not being a killer. He tried the killer part out
and it made him sick to his stomach. He was nearly killed himself by
Harry so he experienced it first hand from the victim angle. He shuts
himself off from his 'killer' family and mentors and friends. This
isn't meta-thinking, it's the story. If you shoehorn in a plot where
there's this whole other thing going on, that he's worried about his
killer teacher seducing his mother and he supports his killer father
instead, so he tries to be a killer for his killer boss without the
teacher's help, how is the payoff suddenly, "You're not a killer,
Draco"? This isn't a 'proximal reason inside the plot' curlicue on
the roof to concretize the story, it's an entire different building.

Neri:

> I certainly wouldn't try to convince Pippin that I know better than
> her because I'm a Lupin fan. If anything, being Lupin fan would make
> me a *less* objective judge of any Lupin theory, especially theories
> that Lupin is evil.

Sydney:

I brought up Draco's fan's opinion of his motivations because they
this theory isn't about Draco being or not being evil. It's about
what's going on inside Draco's head and his relationship with his
family, so naturally I would turn people who thought about the subject
a lot more than I did (I don't really think much about Draco). After
all, Draco does have a couple of murder attempts here so it's not like
Draco fans would be saying he's actually a double-agent for the light
side the whole book. I don't see any reason why a Draco fan would
subconsciously resist a juicy story like Snape going after Narcissa,
so I think if it was there in potentialitly they would be all over it.
I mean, it has sex and everything. There's also the fact that the
proof of a theory is in its predictive power. Draco fans have spent
years fantasizing about a story where Draco becomes a Death Eater and
it puts him through the wringer and he emerges not being able to do
it. And, lo, the story appears. In the book. Unless you highlight
all the stuff that's the Draco story and press DELETE, that's the story.


-- Sydney, OMG IS THAT THE TIME?! I gotta spend less time on this
board...

















From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 00:44:23 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:44:23 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails/Life Debt
In-Reply-To: <ecvu2e+i162@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed02l7+kc5p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157555

 
> Carodave:
> Maybe life debts are triggered by sparing - not saving - someone's 
> life.  So when Harry rescues Ginny from the memory of Tom Riddle, 
> there is no life debt, but when Harry spares Wormtail from being 
> cursed by Lupin and Sirius, a life debt is triggered.  Similarly, 
> Snape owes James a life debt for sparing his life, by pulling him 
> back from the shrieking shack.  
> 

zgirnius:
Interesting idea...but I am not understanding the distinction. How is 
James pulling Snape out of the Shack different than Harry pulling Ginny 
out of the Chamber? (In what way is one a sparing and the other a 
saving, of the endangered person?)

Or maybe Snape simply does not owe a magical Life Debt to 
James...Dumbledore certainly used different language to discuss it than 
the debt of Peter. ('funny how the mind works' vs. 'magic at its 
deepest'.)







From kjones at telus.net  Tue Aug 29 00:59:12 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 17:59:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ect9s5+41b1@eGroups.com>
References: <ect9s5+41b1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <44F39160.9050804@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157556

KJ wrote:



> 5. Considering the information that we have been given on
> Life Debts, is this fore-shadowing of what will come in
> Book 7? ..

   snipping excellent responses

> bboyminn:
> 
> I think Arthur's voice is reflecting distress at how many
> of his family members have been in danger, that and the
> worry of the moment. So, it is not necessarily related
> specifically to Harry saving them. Certainly that is an
> undeniable aspect, but I don't think the tone of his voice
> fall on Harry, in a manner of speaking.
> 
> As to the Life Debts, as others have pointed out,
> according to JKR, Ginny doesn't own Harry a Life Debt.
> Yes, she owes him her life in the common everyday sense,
> but not in the magically binding sense.
> 
> It seems that the 'life saving' has to be is a very direct
> and deliberate way. Harry's information lead to Arthur
> being saved, but Harry didn't save him with his own hands.
> To save Ginny, Harry had to defeat young Tom Riddle, but
> he did that to save his own life as well. Ginny being save
> was an indirect, unintended, and unknown result of
> defeating Tom Riddle.
> 
> Ron, on the other hand, is a little more unclear. It was
> Harry who directly and personally administered the Bazoar,
> and it seems that it made the critical difference. So,
> perhaps Ron owns Harry a magically binding Life Debt, but
> only JKR can confirm it for sure.


   KJ writes:

       While JKR makes it clear that Ginny does not have a magical life
debt to Harry in the following quotation, there is very little else to
go by.  Life debts obviously have a great deal to do with the plot in
book 7, according to this quote.


> MA: Does she 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.

       I can find nothing in the quotes to indicate whether or not
Hermione would have any kind of Life Debt to Harry or Ron.  When she was
attacked in the bathroom by the troll, she was completely unable to
defend herself and the troll was advancing on her.  Both Harry and Ron
risked themselves to save her, in spite of it "being the last thing they
wanted to do."  It was actually Ron's spell that caused the troll's club
to fall on his head and knock him out.

       In the case of Arthur, Harry sounded the alarm without any regard
to what people might think of him, and was directly responsible for
Arthur being found in time. Borderline, I know, but considering the fact
that Harry was afraid of what was happening to him, it might have been
more in his interest to have kept quiet.

       Life Debts, if we compare Ron, Hermione, Peter Pettigrew, and
Snape, may have more to do with other out-standing debts. Harry would
not have been in the position of saving PP if Pettigrew had not been
responsible for the death of his parents. Harry and Ron felt responsible
for Hermione being in the bathroom, crying, when the troll arrived.
Harry felt responsible for giving Ron the chocolates that caused him to
be in Slughorn's room just to be poisoned. I'm thinking that James
Potter might also have felt responsible in some way for Sirius sending
Snape to the Shrieking shack.

       In the case of Arthur and Ginny, Harry felt badly that he had not
listened to Ginny, and he felt that he had attacked Arthur personally,
but there was not the same sense of responsibility for either of these
events.

Thoughts on that?

KJ








From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug 29 01:04:19 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:04:19 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?(was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ecvosp+29t6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed03qj+vb0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157557

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>bboyminn: 
> > > > While I am not discrediting all the things that have 
> > > > been said so far, but let us not forget that Draco 
> > > > went to Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 

> > 
> > Draco 
> > figures out that there are two connected Vanishing Cabinets; 
> > one inside Hogwarts, one outside. This occurs late in the 
> > previous school year or over the summer. I think it is a 
> > fair interpretation of canon, that the entire Draco plot 
> > grows from that piece of information. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I think your time-line is wrong, Steve.  Draco tells Dumbledore 
that 
> he got the idea about the cabinet after hearing Montague's story. 

Aussie:

I don't know if Draco and Montegue are that friendly. Draco just 
heard the story (after montegue appartaed out of the cabinet and was 
found with his head stuck in a loo.)

On the tower, Draco said it was the "Cabinet that hadn't been used 
for years."

FYI, that cabinet was damaged in Chamber of Secrets book.

Filch takes Harry to his office, and Nearly-headless Nick gets 
Peeves to drop the Cabinet on the floor above Filch's office. Filch 
runs off and Harry sees the Kwikspells course in an envelope on 
Filch's desk, then Filch lets Harry go, embaressed. That is why 
Filch admitts a couple of chapters later to being a Squib.

aussie 







From grich277080 at aol.com  Mon Aug 28 22:20:54 2006
From: grich277080 at aol.com (rchrdsann)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 22:20:54 -0000
Subject: prophecy
Message-ID: <ecvq86+mnig@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157558

AnnR:

After listening to HP OOP regarding the prophecy I wondered how
long before Harry and Neville were born did Trelawney make the
prophecy. Could Harry have fulfilled her prophecy the night at
Godric's Hollow when his parents were murdered and he vanquished
Voldemort?  It says that "none can live while the other survives,"
well, Harry has a very poor quality of life with no carefree living.
It would be very stressful living with the threat of death hanging
over you.  Will the final conflict be something entirely different
and not connected to the "prophecy" or will Harry awake to find it
has all been a dream like Alice in Wonderland?









From celizwh at intergate.com  Tue Aug 29 01:17:37 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:17:37 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ectvr9+a42c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed04jh+j57j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157559

Houyhnhnm [,] snipped:

> > > I think it is Filch's personality that Hagrid dislikes 
> > > rather than the fact that he is a Squib.
 
Snow:
 
> > Yep! I thought that Filch was making Hagrid feel that he 
> > was as far down the totem pole as Filch always thought 
> > he was and Hagrid plucked ... inform(ed) Filch that he 
> > was at the very least a teacher ...

> > Magpie:
> > ...we do all realize that what you described is classic
> > bigotry, right?  That Hagrid is asserting his  "dominance" 
> > by reminding Filch of his inferior circumstances ....

bboyminn:
  
> None the less though, Filch actually started the incident 
> when he failed to recognise the circumstances and to 
> recognise Hagrid's authority.

houyhnhnm:

Yes, the Squib remark was hitting below the belt (whatever 
Hagrid's feelings about Squibs) and, yes, "he hit me first".  
That seems to be the way they do things in the Potterverse.  
Personally, I think it's the reason they are afflicted with 
one Dark Lord after another.








From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 01:26:20 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 21:26:20 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
References: <ed00hl+kfrg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <004a01c6cb0a$22966170$2860400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157560

> Mike:
> Yes, you didn't pronounce it a "racial slur", you pronounced it
> as "classic bigotry". But I also used the word *or*, in referencing
> your post *or* Eddie's post which came after your post. Which makes
> you the first person to elevate Hagrid's words to the level
> of "bigotry".

Magpie:
And it's a bit disturbing I had to be the first to do that!

Mike:
> I also noted that you snipped the rest of my first paragraph wherein I
> questioned the notion that the name "Squib" is a bigoted term. I won't
> repeat it here, but you know what I said. I also noticed that you
> chose to ignore what I said and continue to apply your definition of
> the term.

Magpie:
I think I snipped it because it wasn't relevent.  I know that "Squib" is 
used as a straight, descriptive term.  I wasn't claiming that it was a slur 
in itself.  I thought I made it clear that it was the way Hagrid was 
described as pulling it out in this context, to put Filch in his place, that 
sounded very much like the reason to bring out a slur.  Just as if Filch had 
said to Hagrid, "Why should I care what you say, you giant!" that would 
suggest the same thing even though "giant" in itself is just what some 
people are.

Mike:
But I presented canon for my point, where's yours? I find
> that curious when this response is at the bottom of a long post
> wherein you berate Steve for not adhering to canon.

Magpie:
Yeah, it's an annoying thing.  But nobody's making up scenes here.  We're 
both discussing the moment that Hagrid calls Filch a sneakin' Squib, right? 
So nobody's strayed from canon.

Mike:>
> So I'll use the same argument you used on Steve. You have appllied
> your opinion as to the harshness of the term then expounded based on
> your opinion. And you've done it in direct contradiction to what we
> know from canon.

Magpie:
I did not claim that the term Squib in itself was exclusively a derogatory 
term.  Saying "Filch is a Squib" is not derogatory.  I said that what Hagrid 
was described as doing in the post above--asserting dominance by identifying 
Filch as a Squib-was bigotry.

Mike:>
> Then you try to draw a parallel to Malfoy calling Hermione
> a "mudblood". Well we know that only bigoted witches and wizards use
> the term "mudblood" whereas the term "Squib" is bandied about by
> everyone *including* the Squibs themselves. In reference to
> geneology, "Squib" seems no more derogatory in canon than the
> term "half-blood". Your analogy doesn't hold water.

Magpie:
You're not reading it the way I intended it.  I was not drawing the analogy 
that they are both using terms that are exclusively slurs.  I said, and 
still believe, that what Malfoy is doing in that scene is the same as what 
Hagrid was described as doing.  Malfoy is angry at Hermione for humiliating 
him in front of the team.  She makes him feel small, and he responds by 
bringing up what she is in an attempt to assert himself as superior based on 
what she is, though what she is has nothing to do with anything.  Neither 
does Filch's being born with the inability to do magic.  Filch lives in a 
world where that makes him lacking in normal abilities, not failing to be 
blessed with special abilities.

Mike:
> So I stand by my original statement with one word change, to wit:
> Sensitivity to prejudice is admirable, accusing another of "bigotry"
> without conclusive justification is reprehensible.

Magpie:
And I'm afraid I stand by my original discomfort at the fact that for a 
series that gets so often credited at being sensitive to prejudice I so 
often hear it's never prejudiced unless the person is acting purely on 
hatred of another group.

-m 





From sherriola at earthlink.net  Tue Aug 29 02:05:31 2006
From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:05:31 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecuqsj+is1i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <E1GHsyw-0007yF-Gu@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157561

Lupinlore wrote:
Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot of
discussion and no little heat:  DD at the Dursleys at the beginning of HBP.
Several people have expressed discomfort with or dislike for this scene.  I
confess to being utterly baffled.

It seems that the scene serves two purposes.  One, the more minor purpose,
is to get Harry out of the house while providing some comic relief and maybe
a couple of hints (i.e. Petunia's blush) as to what might be coming.



Sherry now:

Personally, I adore the scene.  I believe we have enough evidence in canon
that the Dursleys have abused Harry, emotionally and physically.  For them
to get tapped on the head by glasses of Meade, and to have a couch come up
and force them to sit doesn't even begin to pay them back for abusing a
child.  Not only did they lock him in a cupboard, then later starve him and
lock him in an upstairs room with bars on the window--what if the house had
ever caught fire--but in this same chapter, Harry thinks that experience has
taught him to stay out of Vernon's reach.  I don't think it's because Vernon
has a thing for shaking hands with his nephew.  I laugh every time I read
the chapter.  I love every second of it.

Sherry




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 02:18:19 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:18:19 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecvjk4+haag@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed085b+eav8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157562

> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. 
> 
> Magpie:
> No, these two versions of events are in no way equal.  Mine is 
based 
> backed up by things that are said in the text.  Yours takes that 
> information, sweeps it aside, and then proceeds to make stuff up 
> that's not referenced anywhere.  That's what gives my version more 
> weight.

Alla:

Sorry, but to me they **are** equal. Till the series end it does not 
really matter to me whether the theory is based on more facts in 
canon or less facts in canon, as long as theory is based on 
**something** which is presented in canon. For the record I am much 
more convinced by your version, but it really has nothing to do with 
the argument that your theory has more canonical back up, it is just 
I think you present stronger argument, that is all. Steve's argument 
also arrived from canon, although with a bit more extrapolation IMO. 
Draco learns about Vanishing cabinets, Draco is craving glory from 
being in Voldemort's service. Really, from these two **canonical** 
events to me there is not a long road to travel to Draco going to 
Voldemort with this information. Canon does not mention it true, 
**but** nowhere in canon I see the mentioning of Snape loving Lily 
for example and I see **plenty** of possible hints that Snape loved 
Narcissa in Spinner End. Am I a little bit convinced that Snape 
loved Narcissa? Not at all. I mean I would love that to be true, but 
I am betting on Snape and Lily **precisely** for the silence of 
canon.

To go back to your canonical support of Voldemort being angry at 
Lucius. Um, yes he is angry, but for all I know, everything that had 
been said at Spinner End can turned to be a lie, no? It is called 
**Spinner End**, so who knows what lies had been spinned there, IMO.

What I am trying to say is that it is possible that this canon 
support can dissappear in book 7, no?

 
> Magpie:
> No, it's not fair interpretation of canon, since the core of it is 
> made up of important scenes, events and decisions never referenced 
> anywhere in the actual book.  The fact that Draco figured out that 
> if fixed the Cabinets provide a secret entrance into Hogwarts in 
no 
> way means the reader gets to put events together any way we 
please.  

Alla:

I think that the reader gets to put the events together any way the 
reader pleases as long as the reader can present coherent argument, 
IMHO. Otherwise, there would be no possible way that Snape the 
killer of Dumbledore could have turned out to be Dumbledore's most 
faithful servant for example, because as far as I can remember 
nowhere in canon it is actually **said** that Snape killed 
Dumbledore on his orders for example. There are scenes that had been 
**interpreted** as clues, extrapolated to the place I would not have 
ever **imagine** they could be taken and I respect these arguments.

Readers filled the gaps, that is IMHO perfectly valid way to argue ( 
in fact IMO there is **no** wrong way to argue here), but quite 
frankly Draco going to Voldemort with the plan seems to me to be 
much lesser assumption than Snape as Dumbledore man.


Magpie:
> There is nothing that says that Draco took this idea to Voldemort 
> and then Voldemort turned it around on Draco--and there's plenty 
of 
> places where that should be if it occurred. 

Alla:

Where? Where are the places that it should have been? And who gets 
to decide that? For all we know it occurred behind the scenes and we 
may never get the confirmation that it really occurred.

For example James and Lily thrice defied Voldemort, I will not be 
surprised if we never actually learn how they did it.

 
IMHO,

Alla.







From kjones at telus.net  Tue Aug 29 02:25:03 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 19:25:03 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <004a01c6cb0a$22966170$2860400c@Spot>
References: <ed00hl+kfrg@eGroups.com> <004a01c6cb0a$22966170$2860400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <44F3A57F.8070802@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157563

Magpie wrote:

> Magpie:
> I think I snipped it because it wasn't relevent.  I know that "Squib" is 
> used as a straight, descriptive term.  I wasn't claiming that it was a slur 
> in itself.  I thought I made it clear that it was the way Hagrid was 
> described as pulling it out in this context, to put Filch in his place, that 
> sounded very much like the reason to bring out a slur.  Just as if Filch had 
> said to Hagrid, "Why should I care what you say, you giant!" that would 
> suggest the same thing even though "giant" in itself is just what some 
> people are.

   KJ writes: (waving a white hanky)

     I think that it is interesting to note that in spite of the fact 
that Filch might call himself a squib, the argument would not have 
escalated if he did not understand that Hagrid had meant the term to be 
derogatory. As Harry and Hermione left the scene, Filch and Hagrid 
raised their voices considerably, drawing Peeves to participate.  Hagrid 
could have called him a sneaking janitor, or a sneaking night watchman, 
but he chose to call Filch a "sneakin' Squib." The fact that the 
argument became worse, might indicate that Hagrid meant to be insulting, 
and that Filch recognized it as such.

   KJ  Not sure if this is likely to be accepted as canon either. :-)




From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 02:27:46 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:27:46 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Dueling and Honorariums...)
In-Reply-To: <ecvfvj+dr3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed08n2+cove@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157564

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" <gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bored_in_Texas" 
> <friartuck97@> wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, I was also curious as to the etymology of the 
> name "Hogwarts." 
> > Was there a wizard by that name?  It can be broken down into an 
> > anagram of "Ghost War," but that is pure speculation on many people 
> > who are a lot better at anagrams than I am.
> > 
> > Thanks for any information!
> 
> Geoff:
> I've always taken it to be another of JKR's wordplays such as her 
> spoonerising of "Sturm und Drang" for example or Diagon Alley and 
> Knockturn Alley.
> 
> In old English, a wild boar would sometimes be called a "warthog" so 
> making such as shift would not be out of character.
>

Ken:

Did anyone else notice the reference to "Dogwarts" near the beginning of
"Wallace and Grommit: The Curse of the Wererabbit"? Could Fang be 
a wizard?

Ken ;-)







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Aug 29 02:39:11 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:39:11 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <004a01c6cb0a$22966170$2860400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ed09cf+bm7g@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157565

 
> Magpie:
> And I'm afraid I stand by my original discomfort at the fact that 
for a 
> series that gets so often credited at being sensitive to prejudice 
I so 
> often hear it's never prejudiced unless the person is acting purely 
on 
> hatred of another group.


Potioncat:

I agree with Magpie. I'll give a little on the word bigotry, but it's 
there in some degree. 

Fill in the blank with a word of your choice, try putting a group 
that you actually belong to in it

"You sneaking_________. (Asian? Brit? Yank?)

But to my mind, a Squib is less than a wizard. It isn't a slur 
like "retard" (what to get my blood boiling, use that word!) but it 
indicates someone who has a handicap.

OK, how's this "You're sneaking special, you are!" In the US Special 
Education has transformed the meaning of the word "special." It isn't 
derogetory, but it could used as an insult. That's what Hagrid has 
done here.

Now, if Mrs. Figg had overheard, Hagrid would be mortified, I think. 
He'd be blustering along the lines of "I didn't mean anything. I 
didn't mean you. You're different than the other Squibs."

I don't think Hagrid would ever mistreat or disregard anyone because 
of being a Squib, but he really slipped when he spoke in this manner.

I think JKR has done this on purpose, from Arthur's patronizing 
attitude toward Muggles to Draco's full bore bigotry, she's 
demonstrated different aspects and degrees of prejudice.











From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug 29 03:11:57 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:11:57 -0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <44F3A57F.8070802@telus.net>
Message-ID: <ed0b9t+bsl1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157566

> > Magpie:
> > I know that "Squib" is used as a straight, descriptive 
> > term.  I wasn't claiming that it was a slur the way Hagrid 
> > was described as pulling it out in this context, to 
> > put Filch in his place, 
> 
>    KJ writes: (waving a white hanky)
> 
> I think that it is interesting to note that in spite of the fact 
> that Filch might call himself a squib, the argument would not have 
> escalated if he did not understand that Hagrid had meant the term 
> to be derogatory. As Harry and Hermione left the scene, Filch and  
> Hagrid raised their voices considerably, 

aussie:
Not only did Hagrid call Filch "that old git" after Harry's 1st 
week, but he told Filch off for lecturing the students in detention 
that were going into the forest that night.

Hagrid and Filch have had an on-going dislike/distrust for one 
another since WAY before book 1. 

When did Filch start at Hogwarts?
When did Hagrid start?

Hagrid was expelled when he was 13, but did he live there like 
Trelawny after loosing her position? Was he invited back to Hogwarts 
as caretaker only after Dumbledore took over from Dippet?

Were the Good old days for Filch in James and Sirius's year? did 
they feel Filch's chains and Manacles that are kept oiled just in 
case?

aussie






From jsfigiel at aol.com  Tue Aug 29 02:02:31 2006
From: jsfigiel at aol.com (Jamie Figiel)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 02:02:31 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
Message-ID: <ed077n+a04i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157567

Lynn wrote:
 I am curious how many times everyone has read the series. I started 
reading in January for the first time and am 1/2 way through my third 
time. (I read Lord of the Rings in between times 2 & 3 which took 
forever since I have 3 small children).

Jamie wrote:
I read the books for the first time last August (2005) and got 
through all 6 books in 3 weeks. My kids ran rampant over those weeks 
cause I didn't pay any attention to them, I just kept reading and 
reading. I deliberately did not see the movies until after I read the 
series. Since then I have read the whole series again and the 5th and 
6th books a third time. I am trying to convince my 8-year-old that we 
should now read them "together". Thanks to you all I have just 
started listening to them on CD.
I am lucky in that my best friend shares my HP obsession and we talk 
about the books and watch the movies frequently. My kids love the 
movies too and I'm sure they will read them as they get older. And 
though my husband does not share nor understand my obsession, he has 
not called me a nutter to my face (though he probably does think it). 
My coworkers, however, think I'm a dork for it! LOL!
 
Jamie, who says hi to Michelle from Philly cause I live just over the 
bridge from you and have kids about the same age (8, 5 and 3)!










From nkafkafi at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 03:25:04 2006
From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:25:04 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco/ some LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ectvrn+etuj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0c2g+plob@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157568

 
> 
> Alla:
> Neri, I would LOVE for you to be right, I think it is a great 
> possibility that Snape and Harry relationship is not a central 
> enough relationship to the story, but I am afraid that I have to say 
> that IMO it is one of the central relationships. 

Neri:
I fear we might be falling into semantics here. Is the Snape-Harry
relationship *the* central relationship in the series or just *one of*
the central relationships? This wasn't my original intention. What I
meant was more *what kind* of relationship is the Snape-Harry
relationship, in the literary sense?

Now, there's no doubt that what Snape and Harry feel about each other
has a huge importance for the plot and for the characters. But usually
when we talk about relationships in literature we mean that the
characters come to know each other and have an interaction, either
good or bad, that causes them to change and develop. An important
relationship in a story (and not surprisingly, also in RL) is
something that develops and changes, and good authors usually invests
a lot in describing the development of the important relationships in
the story and how they contribute to the development of each of the
characters.

So, in what sense did the Snape-Harry relationship developed from the
beginning of the series? What did it contribute to the development of
Harry's character? Well, there is certainly some development: in the
beginning of the series Harry hated Snape, and now he REALLY REALLY
hates Snape. The tension has certainly been raised, but how has this
relationship actually developed over six long books? How much have
they actually come to know each other? To change each other? Not much
that I see.

But what about its *potential* for Book 7? (you probably ask). So lets
look at the prospects of the Snape-Harry relationship for Book 7.
Suppose LOLLIPOPS comes true and Harry has his NOOOOOO! NOT MY
MOOOTHER! moment. Big yawn for us since we've been speculating about
it for at least 4 books, but Harry certainly would care. What then?
How does this revelation add to the development of Harry's character?
How does it develop his relationship with Snape?

Well, there's this scenario that the Snape fans dream about since Book
1: that Harry and Snape will be forced to work together as a team and
cooperate in achieving their common goal. That they will learn to
appreciate each other, each gradually realizing what a great guy the
other man actually is. Finally they will forgive each other for
everything and shake hands (with Hermione giving them both a big hug
and running out of the room positively howling). There's only one
problem with this scenario ? this kind of literary relationship
development takes time and careful building by the Author if she means
to do it right and make it convincing. Unfortunately there won't be
much time in the last book of the series, with so many other items on
the menu. I personally suspect it is much too late now for this
scenario. If JKR ever had it in mind she should have started one or
two books ago. So what kind of relationship is it? It was not really
developed until now, and there's no time left to really develop it in
Book 7.

OK, so lets look at an alternative LOLLIPOPS scenario, a much shorter
one: Snape saves Harry and is killed in the process, but in his last
breath he reveals to Harry that he had always loved his mother, and
maybe even asks for forgiveness (or not). Harry regrets all the
terrible things he ever said to Snape, etc, etc, etc. So how does this
make the relationship between them central? It has ended 20 seconds
after they came to know each other.

But the TENSION between them! (I hear you protesting) it is so
PERSONAL! There's so much ANGER and it must lead to SOMETHING!

Well, of course, but what kind of something? A relationship? Not
necessarily. Any big shattering revelation or event will do. Say,
Snape saves Harry's life from Voldemort and is killed in the process.
But in his last breath (or last three thousand breathes, anyway) he
tells Harry *everything*, all his great secrets: was he DDM or ESE or
OFH or LID, whom did he really love, why did he torture Harry but
tried to save him, why did Dumbledore trust him, what was he trying to
do during the Occlumency lessons, what happened on the tower and why
did he save Harry's life. Wouldn't the solution to *all* the Snape
mysteries in a single chapter be shattering enough? Wouldn't it be
personal enough? Wouldn't it break the tension? It doesn't have to be
about relationships.

So in what sense is Snape *really* central in the HP series? He's not
a central character in the sense of HRH, and the feelings between him
and Harry, while very violent and of huge importance to the plot,
hardly amount to a relationship in the deep literary sense. But Snape
is most definitely a central *mystery* of the HP series. Isn't this
why we are all obsessed about him? Isn't this why we discuss him all
the time here? Isn't this why the whole fandom is crazy about him? He
is so mysterious, so elusive, so full of contradictions. We simply
must uncover his motivations, his loyalties, his backstory, his love
affairs, what makes him tick.

And this is also the way JKR treats Snape. In each and every book we
expect JKR to give us some significant development in Snape's
character, and she never really does. In each and every book we expect
her to develop his "relationship" with Harry, and except for further
raising of the tension nothing really develops. But in each book JKR
gives us more Snape questions, more Snape contradictions, more Snape
mysteries. Even when we get some new information on him, it's usually
not current development in the character, but flashbacks from his
past: his Pensieve memory, the Spinner's End report, his potions book,
him overhearing the prophecy. Always these meager pieces of
information raise at least as much new questions as they solve any old
ones. And always the raising of the stakes, the raising of the
tension. So it seems quite obvious to me: Snape is, first and
foremost, a *central mystery* of the HP series. And therefore the
resolution of the Snape plot will be, first and foremost, the solution
of the mystery. It doesn't have to be about relationships.

But (I hear you protesting again) this is not enough EMOTION! This is
about an intellectual solution to a riddle. Where is the BANG? HBP
ended with the biggest and most emotional BANG of the series - Snape
AKing Dumbledore off the Astronomy tower. JKR must top that in Book 7.
This is the grand finale, after all.

Well, yes of course, but who said the emotional BANG must come from
the Snape plot? And anyway, what *can* be a Snape BANG that is even
BANGier than AKing Dumbledore off the tower? The revelation of
LOLLIPOPS certainly wouldn't top that. Real BANG must be
*unpredictable*, you know. The only Snape BANG I can think of that
will be even BANGier than the tower is Snape killing Hermione and Ron
in front of Harry, and I doubt it will come to that. But we still have
the battle against Voldy, the reason for the Gleam In Dumbledore's
Eyes, the Voldy powers that were transferred to Harry, the Horcruxes,
and much more. Maybe Ron and Hermione will die by Voldemort's hand, or
maybe Harry will die. Somebody will die, anyway, we have JKR's word on
that. So there won't be any shortage of BANGs and emotion in Book 7.
If anything there might be surplus.   

So the Harry-Snape "relationship" is not central in the series and
never has been. Not in the literary sense, anyway, of characters
coming to know each other and changing each other. Yes, there has
always been a great *potential* for it to become central, but JKR
again and again chose not to make it so, and now it's probably too
late for that. Why didn't she use that great potential and made the
relationship central, you ask? Because Snape is first and foremost a
central *mystery* of the series, and a character usually can't be both
a great central mystery and a part of a central relationship. These
two things just don't work well together, by their very nature. In a
true relationship, even a negative one, characters learn to *know*
each other, so they become *less* of a mystery to each other. So JKR
had to choose, relationship or mystery, and she chose mystery. But at
least we can be sure that the Snape mystery will be solved in Book 7.


> Alla:
> Neri, I think that LID!Snape is perfectly possible, but I think I 
> asked you earlier and don't remember the answer. :) Does it work 
> with LOLLIPOPS at all or not?
> 
> You seem to be saying that LOLLIPOPS are not going to happen at all, 
> do you think it is possible to mash it with LID Snape or not?
> 

Neri:
They aren't contradicting, but do they work well together? Generally
LID!Snape answers all the Snape questions that LOLLIPOPS answers and
more, so if LID!Snape is true, LOLLIPOPS seems a bit redundant. If
Snape changed sides because of the Life Debt, then we don't need
LOLLIPOPS to explain it. But you can still keep LOLLIPOPS around just
to make Snape suffer more guilt and jealousy, if this is how you get
you kicks <g>. Personally I get my kicks from elegant solutions, so
I'd prefer to drop LOLLIPOPS if it isn't needed.

An additional consideration is that both LOLLIPOPS and LID don't
explain Snape taking the UV, so you need an additional explanation for
that. ACID POPS does supply such an explanation, and it works well
with LID, but does it work well with LOLLIPOPS? Well, in principle our
Severus could be polluted by the love of *both* Lily and Narcissa, but
personally this is a bit too much sugar for me. So if you go for a
LID+LOLLIPOPS combination you also need to find some way to explain
the UV.

> Alla:
> Because as I said in the past, yes, unfortunately I believe that 
> LOLLIPOPS in one form or another **are** coming.
> 
> As somebody else wrote ( don't remember who. Magpie?)  I find the 
> silence from Snape on the subject of Lily to be more and more 
> deafening.
>

Neri:
I always find that kind of argument strange. If Snape *had* said
anything about Lily the LOLLIPOPS crew would have been ecstatic about
it, but since he never mentions her you find his *silence* suggestive.
So it looks like you have arranged it to get support for LOLLIPOPS
whatever JKR choose to write. This is a good example why I'm
suspicious of LOLLIPOPS. It's a ship that seems to be built on the
wishes of her crew regardless of canon.

> Alla: 
> I have no problem buying that Snape hates Harry, so since he had no 
> problem hurting him over and over again with calling James' 
> names,why wouldn't he do it the same with Lily?
> 

Neri:
I guess he would, so if you use LID to explain why Snape changed sides
and why he keep trying saving Harry, then there's no principal problem
in keeping LOLLIPOPS too. It even makes some kind of, ahem, twisted
sense. I'm still not sure I'd like to keep LOLLIPOPS just to hurt
Snape, but maybe I've just been spoiled by all those DDM+LOLLIPOPS
theorists who decided that loving Lily must make Snape this absurdly
noble person. There's still the question of the UV, though. Can you
actually stand LOLLIPOPS and ACID POPS together, or do you have
another explanation for the UV?

Neri








From rdsilverstein at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 03:25:38 2006
From: rdsilverstein at yahoo.com (hpfan_mom)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:25:38 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Dueling and Honorariums...)
In-Reply-To: <ecvfvj+dr3h@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0c3i+cfo2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157569


> <friartuck97@> wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, I was also curious as to the etymology of the 
> name "Hogwarts." Was there a wizard by that name?  It can be
> broken down into an anagram of "Ghost War," but that is pure
> speculation on many people who are a lot better at anagrams than I > 
am.
>
> Thanks for any information!
> 

hpfan_mom now:

I thought it was after the flower hogwort.  Which is a kind of lily 
IIRC.

hpfan_mom







From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au  Tue Aug 29 03:31:17 2006
From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 03:31:17 -0000
Subject: How long have Fich / Hagrid been at Hogwarts?Was: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ecv4rq+cnkp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0ce5+stks@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157570

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ibchawz" <ibchawz at ...> wrote:
>
> Aussie Wrote:
> 
> Hagrid's dad died when RH was 6. When RH was expelled, did Dumble
> plead his case to Dippet to have living quarters set up for him, or
> did Dumbledore bring RH back only after Dumbledore became
> headmaster?
> 
> ibchawz responds:
> 
> I thought Hagrid's dad died shortly after Hagrid started attending 
> Hogwarts.  Certainly Hagrid did not start when he was 5 or 6, or did 
> he?  I assumed that Hagrid was around 11 or 12 when his dad died.  

aussie
You are right. (GOF Chap 24) - His dad died in his 2nd year at Hogwarts

"Dumbledore was the one who stuck up for me after Dad went.  Got me 
the gamekeeper job . . . trusts people, he does.  Gives 'em second 
chances ... tha's what sets him apar' from other heads, see.  He'll 
accept anyone at Hogwarts, s'long as they've got the talent. Knows 
people can turn out okay even if their families weren' ... well... all 
tha' respectable.  But some don understand that.  There's some who'd 
always hold it against yeh . . . there's some who'd even pretend they 
just had big bones rather than stand up an' say - I am what I am, an' 
I'm not ashamed.  'Never be ashamed,' my ol' dad used ter 
say, 'there's some who'll hold it against you, but they're not worth 
botherin' with.' An' he was right.  I've bin an idiot." 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 04:06:48 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:06:48 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
References: <ed085b+eav8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <00b401c6cb20$939252b0$2860400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157571

> Alla:
>
> Sorry, but to me they **are** equal. Till the series end it does not
> really matter to me whether the theory is based on more facts in
> canon or less facts in canon, as long as theory is based on
> **something** which is presented in canon.

Magpie:
How are they equal when one is based on what we're told in canon and the 
other isn't?  If whatever we come up with is the same as the actual canon 
how can we come together to discuss the books?

Alla:
 For the record I am much
> more convinced by your version, but it really has nothing to do with
> the argument that your theory has more canonical back up, it is just
> I think you present stronger argument, that is all. Steve's argument
> also arrived from canon, although with a bit more extrapolation IMO.
> Draco learns about Vanishing cabinets, Draco is craving glory from
> being in Voldemort's service. Really, from these two **canonical**
> events to me there is not a long road to travel to Draco going to
> Voldemort with this information. Canon does not mention it true,

Magpie:
But--and I know I keep harping on this--but it's not just a case of a 
different set of details getting Draco to the point of trying to fix the 
Cabinet.  A story that begins with Draco going to Voldemort first needs to 
deal with that fact, and deal what got him to go to Voldemort whether it's 
revenge or just Draco trying to do the Inquisitor Squad on a higher level. 
Stories aren't just what things happen to make up the plot, they deal with 
the things brought up.

If Draco is chosen to punish Lucius, Draco is inheriting his father's 
mistakes, his family, trying to become a man like his father and father 
figure, Snape. (Very in keeping with the rest of his generation and I think 
the way the story plays out.)  It's so beautifully simple and symetrical 
with the set up in Spinner's End and the Unbreakable Vow--that's why I think 
it's actually important to keep it from having things stuck onto it.  You 
can't tack on the plotline of Macbeth for Hamlet and say they're just equal 
interpretations and the one just neatly nestles inside the other.

Alla:
> **but** nowhere in canon I see the mentioning of Snape loving Lily
> for example and I see **plenty** of possible hints that Snape loved
> Narcissa in Spinner End. Am I a little bit convinced that Snape
> loved Narcissa? Not at all. I mean I would love that to be true, but
> I am betting on Snape and Lily **precisely** for the silence of
> canon.

Magpie:
Right, because LOLLIPOS and ACID POPS are theories, which is what they're 
called.  Meaning they are things that we think are going to be revealed to 
have happened.  Draco going to Voldemort was presented as something that is 
canon.  It's like if I said that Lavender fed Ron a Love Potion is equally 
valid as the reading that Ron and Lavender just went out in HBP.  I can 
probably make it work, but I wouldn't call it analyzing and understanding 
the storyline in HBP.

Alla:>
> To go back to your canonical support of Voldemort being angry at
> Lucius. Um, yes he is angry, but for all I know, everything that had
> been said at Spinner End can turned to be a lie, no? It is called
> **Spinner End**, so who knows what lies had been spinned there, IMO.>
> What I am trying to say is that it is possible that this canon
> support can dissappear in book 7, no?

Magpie:
Sure, anything could happen in Book VII but there's little point in a story 
that's so random we're always getting information that un-writes the 
previous books.   If my canon support for Draco being given the task to 
punish Lucius disappears in Book VII (and that entire storyline in HBP 
potentially goes up in smoke with it) then that will be canon.  But I don't 
see how we can discuss the books if information we're given doesn't matter 
if we can come up with something ourselves and substitute it--that's 
different from suspecting there's more to what we already know and seeing 
how it will change things.  Plus I think we need to be reasonable about what 
kinds of things are likely to turn out to be complete lies (which isn't 
usually much) and what isn't.

In this case JKR has this whole plotline in Slytherin, one that's important 
but Harry can't see it well.  So she's got limited chances of giving us the 
basic information of what's going on.  I would think a good writer would use 
this time well, and she seems to do that.  She starts out in Spinner's End 
setting the whole plot in motion right out of the gate with Narcissa's 
dilemma.  What possible reason does JKR have for arranging that whole scene 
around the highly emotional idea that Draco's being chosen to punish Lucius 
and isn't expected to survive?  Why are they not talking about Draco's bad 
mistake in sticking himself in Voldemort's face if that's an element of the 
story--we need to know it and they would naturally talk about it!  This 
information isn't just mechanical details, it significantly changes the 
stuff that needs to be resolved for Draco in HBP. And is it really so 
important that it needs to be revisited and corrected in Book VII?   I will 
accept it if Draco reveals that he felt doubly stupid because he actually 
went to Voldemort with the Cabinet and that's what gave LV the idea about 
this particular revenge plot to begin with--but I wouldn't hold my breath 
for it to be re-written so we understand that Voldemort's motivations were 
actually more complicated, more strategic in ways that no longer matter and 
far more boring than the one we got in HBP.

 Alla:
>
> I think that the reader gets to put the events together any way the
> reader pleases as long as the reader can present coherent argument,
> IMHO.

Magpie:
Good lord--the idea gives me hives!;-)  That suggests if you can tell a 
convincing story it becomes part of the story JKR wrote--the reason people 
have claimed Knight2King, Draco's a werewolf, Ginny drugged Harry with a 
love potion and any number of things have been "proved" with evidence from 
canon. If this theory had a name and people were just waiting to see whether 
they were proved right by having it explicitly stated in HBP I wouldn't feel 
the need to argue against it.

Alla:
Otherwise, there would be no possible way that Snape the
> killer of Dumbledore could have turned out to be Dumbledore's most
> faithful servant for example, because as far as I can remember
> nowhere in canon it is actually **said** that Snape killed
> Dumbledore on his orders for example. There are scenes that had been
> **interpreted** as clues, extrapolated to the place I would not have
> ever **imagine** they could be taken and I respect these arguments.

Magpie:
What is going on with Snape is presented as a mystery within canon.  It's 
still a mystery at the end of HBP.  When people argue over whether he's ESE, 
DDM or OFH they are guessing what canon will eventually tell us.


Alla:
> Readers filled the gaps, that is IMHO perfectly valid way to argue (
> in fact IMO there is **no** wrong way to argue here), but quite
> frankly Draco going to Voldemort with the plan seems to me to be
> much lesser assumption than Snape as Dumbledore man.

Magpie:
Even if one means the author forgot to write the story she allegedly meant 
(she accidentally wrote a different one that we should write over) while the 
other is just one of a number of possible answers for something that is 
presented as a question in canon?  Why is it crazy to think Snape might be 
DDM when Dumbledore himself spends the whole book saying he's DDM?

> Magpie:
>> There is nothing that says that Draco took this idea to Voldemort
>> and then Voldemort turned it around on Draco--and there's plenty
> of
>> places where that should be if it occurred.
>
> Alla:
>
> Where? Where are the places that it should have been? And who gets
> to decide that? For all we know it occurred behind the scenes and we
> may never get the confirmation that it really occurred.

Magpie:
It should be in some of the following places: Spinner's End, the bathroom 
scene with Myrtle, the Tower scene and the scene between Draco and Snape. 
These are the places where "what is the situation?" is presented.  To put it 
more broadly, the places it should have been are all somewhere between the 
first page and the last page of the book.

Alla:
> For example James and Lily thrice defied Voldemort, I will not be
> surprised if we never actually learn how they did it.

Magpie:
We're told James and Lily thrice defied Voldemort and you are accepting that 
as canon.  To imitate this theory you need to say that it's canon that yes, 
James and Lilly etc....prophesy etc...thrice defied, but really Godric's 
Hollow lies on a special ley line in Great Britain and Voldemort wanted to 
take over that spot and then he figured the Potters had to die--far more 
logical for a guy taking over the world.

-m





From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 04:23:04 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:23:04 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <004a01c6cb0a$22966170$2860400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ed0ff8+a0tt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157572

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Magpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
> Magpie:
> I know that "Squib" is used as a straight, descriptive term.
> I wasn't claiming that it was a slur in itself.  I thought 
> I made it clear that it was the way Hagrid was described as 
> pulling it out in this context, to put Filch in his place, that 
> sounded very much like the reason to bring out a slur. <snip>

Mike:
So it's not the term "Squib" per se that caused you to call it 
bigotry, it was in the context of putting Filch "in his place". You 
don't see Hagrid as responding in kind to Filch's comment of "And 
what difference does that make?". Does that mean that it wouldn't 
matter what derogatory term Hagrid used, as long as it was used 
to "put him in his place" it would constitute bigotry? Is that what 
you're saying, or did I misinterpret again?


> Magpie:
> I did not claim that the term Squib in itself was exclusively a  
> derogatory term.  Saying "Filch is a Squib" is not derogatory.  I  
> said that what Hagrid was described as doing in the post above-- 
> asserting dominance by identifying Filch as a Squib-was bigotry.

Mike:
So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's 
position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he was 
a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin' 
Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority in 
the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he 
shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*. 

In your opinion, Hagrid was "asserting dominance" not correcting a 
slur against himself. And using the term "Squib" while "asserting 
dominance" makes it bigotry. So all I have to do is agree with your 
position that Hagrid was maliciously "putting him in his place" 
and "asserting dominance" with a derogatory term to agree that 
Hagrid was being bigoted.

Well, I don't.

Filch needed to be put in his place in as much as Filch was 
disregarding Hagrid's position as a teacher. And calling this 
asserting dominance is grossly exagerating Hagrid's intent to 
respond in kind. Besides which, you are overlooking that fact that 
Filch was wrong. He started the confrontation under a false pretext 
and escalated it with a demeaning response towards Hagrid.

Hagrid doesn't like Filch personally. He made that clear in the 
first book. It has nothing to do with Filch being a Squib, and 
everything to do with the way Filch has treated Hagrid. And this 
scene shows that Filch hasn't changed his approach to Hagrid one 
bit. Reading bigotry into Hagrid's response is gratuitous and 
unresponsive to the situation at hand.


> 
> Magpie:
> And I'm afraid I stand by my original discomfort at the fact that  
> for a series that gets so often credited at being sensitive to  
> prejudice I so often hear it's never prejudiced unless the person 
> is acting purely on hatred of another group.

Mike:
Where is the individual prejudice in this series, I don't see it? If 
your example is this exchange between Hagrid and Filch, I understand 
why I don't see it. This was pure animosity between two individuals 
and there was no prejudging going on at all. Nor was there bigotry. 
To wave the prejudice flag you need much, much more than superficial 
name calling else you are doing a disservice to a true condition of 
malicious prejudice.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 04:35:24 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:35:24 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco/ some LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ed0c2g+plob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0g6c+3bed@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157573

> Neri:
<SNIP>
What I
> meant was more *what kind* of relationship is the Snape-Harry
> relationship, in the literary sense?
<HUGE SNIP>
> So, in what sense did the Snape-Harry relationship developed from 
the
> beginning of the series? What did it contribute to the development 
of
> Harry's character? Well, there is certainly some development: in 
the
> beginning of the series Harry hated Snape, and now he REALLY REALLY
> hates Snape. The tension has certainly been raised, but how has 
this
> relationship actually developed over six long books? How much have
> they actually come to know each other? To change each other? Not 
much
> that I see.

Alla:

Oooo, that makes perfect sense to me, Neri. Thank you. I am totally 
with you on this one - Harry and Snape certainly do not seem to be 
changing each other. In fact I think that as someone who used to see 
**something** positive in Snape, I was so very dissapointed after 
GoF that even after Snape was present in the hospital wing, all we 
got was more Harry's hate from him.

But I suppose the argument is that this relationship will play out 
to change Harry in book 7 - namely that Harry will have to forgive 
Severus dear. And that would be the lesson for Harry - forgive your 
enemies or if Snape is good, learn to recognise your friends, since 
even not nice people can be good ( although as someome recently 
remarked, I also could never understand why this kind of message is 
not considered to be moralistic clishe as well)


Neri:
> Well, there's this scenario that the Snape fans dream about since 
Book
> 1: that Harry and Snape will be forced to work together as a team 
and
> cooperate in achieving their common goal. <snip>There's only one
> problem with this scenario ? this kind of literary relationship
> development takes time and careful building by the Author if she 
means
> to do it right and make it convincing.

Alla:

Am guilty of that Neri :) ( everybody is free to believe it or not, 
but I wished for that after GoF - with the heavy emphasis of course 
on Snape realising what a good kid Harry is, hehe) But was cured, 
honestly. ;)



> OK, so lets look at an alternative LOLLIPOPS scenario, a much 
shorter
> one: Snape saves Harry and is killed in the process, but in his 
last
> breath he reveals to Harry that he had always loved his mother, and
> maybe even asks for forgiveness (or not). Harry regrets all the
> terrible things he ever said to Snape, etc, etc, etc. So how does 
this
> make the relationship between them central? It has ended 20 seconds
> after they came to know each other.

Alla:

Heee, supposedly that is the culminating point and that would make 
profound impact on Harry's future life - that to forgive is better 
than hate,etc,etc, etc ( not that I like it much).



Neri:
> So in what sense is Snape *really* central in the HP series? He's 
not
> a central character in the sense of HRH, and the feelings between 
him
> and Harry, while very violent and of huge importance to the plot,
> hardly amount to a relationship in the deep literary sense. But 
Snape
> is most definitely a central *mystery* of the HP series. Isn't this
> why we are all obsessed about him?

Alla:

Sorry, I am too excited and so hope that after I reread my post it 
would not look like "me too" all over and some of my staff would be 
present too, but totally - now I just want to know Snape secrets, I 
don't see any character developments from him whatsoever and I dount 
I ever will.




> 
> > Alla:
> > Because as I said in the past, yes, unfortunately I believe that 
> > LOLLIPOPS in one form or another **are** coming.
> > 
> > As somebody else wrote ( don't remember who. Magpie?)  I find 
the 
> > silence from Snape on the subject of Lily to be more and more 
> > deafening.
> >
> 
> Neri:
> I always find that kind of argument strange. If Snape *had* said
> anything about Lily the LOLLIPOPS crew would have been ecstatic 
about
> it, but since he never mentions her you find his *silence* 
suggestive.
> So it looks like you have arranged it to get support for LOLLIPOPS
> whatever JKR choose to write. This is a good example why I'm
> suspicious of LOLLIPOPS. It's a ship that seems to be built on the
> wishes of her crew regardless of canon.

Alla:

But no, no, no. That is incorrect :) Sorry.  I have never been on 
LOLLIPOPS crew, I have never never wished for this ship to come 
true. I understand what are you saying about finding the things 
which are not were to support your ship, but it is not so with me.

I will be jumping up and down with joy if LOLLIPOPS will not 
materialise, **but** it is just IMHO why would Snape who did not 
ever pass a chance to belittle Harry's dead father, would never ever 
pass a chance to belittle Harry's dead mother?

I mean, we ** know** that Snape would never pass up on hurting 
Harry, you agree? Here he has an excellent chance and this seems to 
be only about Harry and James, even when he runs, it culminates in 
**you and your filthy father**, I mean this was to me the last nail 
in **Snape just pretends to hate Harry** coffin, and still - nothing 
about your **filfy mother**. Come to think of it, would not filfy 
be  better slur for Lily?

In any event, I grudgingly see LOLLIPOPS **because** ( among some 
other things, but this is the main one) I see Snape' silence, I did 
not look for Snape silence to support LOLLIPOPS, please trust me 
when 
I say that . :)



>> Neri:
> I guess he would, so if you use LID to explain why Snape changed 
sides
> and why he keep trying saving Harry, then there's no principal 
problem
> in keeping LOLLIPOPS too. It even makes some kind of, ahem, twisted
> sense.

Alla:

Yay, count me there then. ;)

Neri:
<SNIP>
 There's still the question of the UV, though. Can you
> actually stand LOLLIPOPS and ACID POPS together, or do you have
> another explanation for the UV?

Alla:

Well, Ceridwen and me were tempted couple of times to post about 
Snape and his Harem ;), so I can imagine that, I suppose, although 
prefer not to. Yuck. :)

Alla, who thanks Neri for wonderful explanation and who now worships 
his posts even more.







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 04:36:47 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:36:47 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <00b401c6cb20$939252b0$2860400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ed0g8v+p2su@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157574

> Alla:
> > **but** nowhere in canon I see the mentioning of Snape loving 
Lily
> > for example and I see **plenty** of possible hints that Snape 
loved
> > Narcissa in Spinner End. <snip> 
Magpie:
> Right, because LOLLIPOS and ACID POPS are theories, which is what 
they're 
> called.  Meaning they are things that we think are going to be 
revealed to 
> have happened.  Draco going to Voldemort was presented as 
something that is 
> canon.  <SNIP>

Alla:

I do think we are running into semantics - if you are just saying 
that speculation should be labelled as such, I agree with you. I 
love speculating to my heart content, but I would not counter canon- 
based argument with speculation without agreeing first that this is 
much weaker argument, **but** IMO there is often no way to say where 
does explicit canon ends and speculation ends and I absolutely would 
not call extrapolation of the canon a weaker argument. IMO of course.

Are you saying that LOLLIPOPS and ACCIDPOPS do not analyse the 
storylines? I think they absolutely do - the ideas are inferred 
based on what we actually read. The difference is IMO that the 
predictions are made which may or may not be true, but they are 
based on the text analysis IMHO, so if all you are arguing is that 
Steve's argument is a theory, sure I will buy that, but I absolutely 
would not call it a weak theory

 
Magpie:
<SNIP>
 Why are they not talking about Draco's bad 
> mistake in sticking himself in Voldemort's face if that's an 
element of the 
> story--we need to know it and they would naturally talk about it!  
This 
> information isn't just mechanical details, it significantly 
changes the 
> stuff that needs to be resolved for Draco in HBP.

Alla:

Um, I agree with you actually. I think they should, but the argument 
can be easily made that they just did not need to talk about it ( 
Narcissa is concerned with saving Draco's life, not with talking 
about his idiocy, or maybe they just did not know. IMO.


 >  Alla:
> >
> > I think that the reader gets to put the events together any way 
the
> > reader pleases as long as the reader can present coherent 
argument,
> > IMHO.
> 
> Magpie:
<SNIP>
If this theory had a name and people were just waiting to see 
whether 
> they were proved right by having it explicitly stated in HBP I 
wouldn't feel 
> the need to argue against it.

Alla:

Right, so your objection against Steve's argument is that it is not 
labeled a theory? Is that correct? What I was saying though and 
still am is that reader gets to argue IMO any canon based 
speculation precisely because the canon is not finished yet and that 
does not mean at all that I am saying that everything will get 
overturned, quite the contrary. I am just confused why are you so 
sure that your interpretation is the right one, that is all.



 
> Magpie:
> What is going on with Snape is presented as a mystery within 
canon.  It's 
> still a mystery at the end of HBP.  When people argue over whether 
he's ESE, 
> DDM or OFH they are guessing what canon will eventually tell us.

Alla:

No, sorry, IMO they ( and me) are not doing just that, they are 
saying that such and such things **already** happened in the forest, 
on the tower, etc.


> 
> Alla:
> > Readers filled the gaps, that is IMHO perfectly valid way to 
argue (
> > in fact IMO there is **no** wrong way to argue here), but quite
> > frankly Draco going to Voldemort with the plan seems to me to be
> > much lesser assumption than Snape as Dumbledore man.
> 
> Magpie:
> Even if one means the author forgot to write the story she 
allegedly meant 
> (she accidentally wrote a different one that we should write over) 
while the 
> other is just one of a number of possible answers for something 
that is 
> presented as a question in canon?  Why is it crazy to think Snape 
might be 
> DDM when Dumbledore himself spends the whole book saying he's DDM?

Alla:

No, sorry again, but Dumbledore does not do any such thing, not even 
close, IMO. He says I trust Severus Snape. He never ever even says 
that he gives Snape the kind of trust that soldiers in the war give 
each other and that is I would expect to see from the fighters on 
the same side. He never says "I trust Snape with my life", we don't 
know what Dumbledore trusts Snape to do.

But all I am saying is that there is no certainty in canon about 
that, only ambiguity and the leap Steve makes seems to me much 
easier one, not that I am arguing against making any leaps.

 
> > Alla:
> >
> > Where? Where are the places that it should have been? And who 
gets
> > to decide that? For all we know it occurred behind the scenes 
and we
> > may never get the confirmation that it really occurred.
> 
> Magpie:
> It should be in some of the following places: Spinner's End, the 
bathroom 
> scene with Myrtle, the Tower scene and the scene between Draco and 
Snape. 
> These are the places where "what is the situation?" is presented.  
To put it 
> more broadly, the places it should have been are all somewhere 
between the 
> first page and the last page of the book.


Alla:

No, I am sorry again, but **you** think that it should have been 
written there, for all we know JKR decided to leave it on backstage, 
just as she has the backstory for the characters, she may not have 
considered it to be important enough to write on page, thinking that 
it would be obvious to deduce for the readers.

 
> Alla:
> > For example James and Lily thrice defied Voldemort, I will not be
> > surprised if we never actually learn how they did it.
> 
> Magpie:
> We're told James and Lily thrice defied Voldemort and you are 
accepting that 
> as canon.  To imitate this theory you need to say that it's canon 
that yes, 
> James and Lilly etc....prophesy etc...thrice defied, but really 
Godric's 
> Hollow lies on a special ley line in Great Britain and Voldemort 
wanted to 
> take over that spot and then he figured the Potters had to die--
far more 
> logical for a guy taking over the world.

Alla:

Leaving this unsnipped to say that probably due to the late hour I 
seriously don't follow your analogy.

JMHO,

Alla






From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug 29 04:46:22 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:46:22 -0000
Subject: prophecy
In-Reply-To: <ecvq86+mnig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0gqu+f4kl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157575


AnnR asked:
> After listening to HP OOP regarding the prophecy I wondered how
> long before Harry and Neville were born did Trelawney make the
> prophecy. 

Abergoat offers:
The general consensus (form OoP's information on when she started
teaching) it is thought that she may have given the prophecy the
October before Harry and Neville were born. So Lily and Alice may not
have even known they were pregnant yet.

AnnR asked:
> Could Harry have fulfilled her prophecy the night at
> Godric's Hollow when his parents were murdered and he vanquished
> Voldemort?  It says that "none can live while the other survives,"
> well, Harry has a very poor quality of life with no carefree living.
> It would be very stressful living with the threat of death hanging
> over you.  Will the final conflict be something entirely different
> and not connected to the "prophecy" or will Harry awake to find it
> has all been a dream like Alice in Wonderland?

Abergoat writes:
I think that is an interesting take. That prophecy could mean just
about anything given that Dumbledore himself says prophecies are
meaningless until someone acts on them. 

Abergoat







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 04:51:56 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:51:56 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed0g8v+p2su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed0h5c+64jc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157576

> Alla:
> **but** IMO there is often no way to say where 
> does explicit canon ends and speculation ends and I absolutely would 
> not call extrapolation of the canon a weaker argument. IMO of course.

Alla:

Gah, hate to waste a post on this, but of course I meant that there is 
often no way to say where explicit canon ends and speculation begins 
in unfinished work. Ugh.

Good night :)








From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu  Tue Aug 29 04:55:16 2006
From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:55:16 -0000
Subject: Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ? (WAS: Snape at Grimma...
In-Reply-To: <277.ec224f9.3222498e@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ed0hbk+gqhg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157577

Abergoat writes:

Nikkalmati, I was intrigued by the subject line but I don't see the
question 'Why Won't Snape Eat At OotP HQ?' anywhere in your post. Is
it still under discussion? There is some fun ideas about Snape and Dog
Lady at St Mungo's and that was given as Snape's reason for always
slipping out of the meals. 

We know that the St. Mungo's nurse says Dog Lady has a son that comes
to visit her. Personally I think the best bet is that Filch is the
son, but I suspect the Filch is related to Snape in someway so Snape
would also be related to Dog Lady and might stop in on her. She could
even be the reason for Snape's original interest in the healing arts.

Abergoat






From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 29 10:21:45 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:21:45 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco/ some LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <ed0g6c+3bed@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed14fp+ajvp@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157578

Alla:
> I will be jumping up and down with joy if LOLLIPOPS will not 
materialise, **but** it is just IMHO why would Snape who did not ever 
pass a chance to belittle Harry's dead father, would never ever pass 
a chance to belittle Harry's dead mother?

Ceridwen:
I think it could work just as well if Snape liked her, and/or admired 
her for various things, including standing up to James when the other 
kids, and another prefect, would not.  I can't stand the abstract 
idea of 'Saint' Lily, but I *have* known a very few people who were 
nice, attractive, decent, upstanding, and whom everybody liked.  Lily 
may have been one of these people.  Of course Snape would never 
belittle her if she was, or if he had some reason not to tarnish her 
memory.

Neri:
> > I guess he would, so if you use LID to explain why Snape changed 
sides and why he keep trying saving Harry, then there's no principal  
problem in keeping LOLLIPOPS too. It even makes some kind of, ahem, 
twisted sense.
<SNIP>
There's still the question of the UV, though. Can you actually stand 
LOLLIPOPS and ACID POPS together, or do you have another explanation 
for the UV?

Alla:
> Well, Ceridwen and me were tempted couple of times to post about  
Snape and his Harem ;), so I can imagine that, I suppose, although  
prefer not to. Yuck. :)

Ceridwen:
Very big grin so early in the morning!  Yes, Snape and his harem, 
chief wives being Lily and Narcissa.  Also not to forget the famous 
though little-known Florence, and possibly Mrs Lovegood, and other 
unnamed former schoolmates.

Of course, such a harem would give me nightmares of SatinBoxers!
Snape, which I can certainly do without!

Seriously, though, I don't see why Snape couldn't have liked and/or 
respected each of these women, as girls, to one degree or another, or 
why he couldn't have had crushes on them (not at the same time) which 
have long since gone the way of the Dodo.

Ceridwen.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 29 10:51:23 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:51:23 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed0ff8+a0tt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed167b+9753@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157579

Mike:
> So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's
position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he was
a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin'
Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority in
the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he
shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*.

Ceridwen:
I won't speak for Magpie, but I will speak for myself.  It was 
unnecessary for Hagrid to add the 'sneakin' Squib' part.  I 
understand why he did it - he was under some stress at the moment, 
worried about Ron in the hospital, having a private talk with some 
friends, and suddenly having his authority challenged on top of it 
all.

You're right about Filch not respecting Hagrid's position.  Seeing 
two students out past curfew with a teacher should have made him go 
on about his business.  Instead, he saw Hagrid, the person who for so 
long has been 'just' the gamekeeper and keeper of the keys, not 
someone in some exalted position as an instructor.  And, as many 
people, including you, I think, have mentioned, the animosity between 
Filch and Hagrid seems to go way back.  But, Hagrid would be staff, 
even if he wasn't an instructor.  If students were out of bed and in 
Filch's care, they shouldn't be swept down upon by other staff 
patrolling the hallways.  Filch should extend the same respect to any 
other staff.

Still, it was Hagrid thoughtlessly using a WW prejudice, even if in 
his daily life he has nothing against Squibs as a group or 
individually.  It was singling Filch out as Different and Less-than.  
It sets him apart and demotes him to ascribed status, in fact, to his 
Master Status as far as the WW is concerned.  It is a society 
prejudice, part of the culture.  It is acceptable because others are 
worse, it is acceptable because no one really gives it any thought.

When people are tightly strung, as Hagrid probably was that night, 
and they are challenged by someone who is adversarial toward them, 
they lash out with something they know will hurt.  'Sneakin' Squib' 
would hurt Filch, so Hagrid uses it.  Their conversation does 
escalate after this, so it must have touched some nerve in Filch.

We know that Filch is sensitive to his status.  He tried to conform 
by taking the Kwickspell course.  He admits, almost confesses, to 
being a Squib.  Being a Squib is a handicap in the WW: Filch lacks a 
normal function of his world.  He seems to be sensitive about it, so 
it shouldn't be used as a weapon against him.  Hagrid could have 
pointed out to him that he, Hagrid, was a teacher and the students 
were with him, without resorting to any sort of name-calling.  That 
he was so emotional that he fell back on a normal WW prejudice is 
understandable, but not right.

As a teacher, elevated above Filch, Hagrid has the responsiblity to 
show magnanimity.  He *is* above Filch.  One doesn't attack one's 
inferiors by their inferiority.  Filch overstepped his bounds, Hagrid 
could have used that instead: 'I'm a teacher, therefore, these 
students are not out without permission'.  Puts Filch in his place 
without the discomfort of dragging in WW prejudice.  It merely makes 
Hagrid look bad.  Oh, and in using 'ruddy' (I'll take your word for 
that, since my book isn't with me and I'm lazy this morning), that 
showed that Hagrid was wound up.  He was spoiling for Filch once 
Filch made his entrance spoiling for Harry and Hermione.  This isn't 
an exchange between equals, or between friends.  And both simply 
don't care if they hurt the other, in my opinion.

Ceridwen.







From miamibarb at BellSouth.net  Tue Aug 29 11:16:44 2006
From: miamibarb at BellSouth.net (Barb Roberts)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 07:16:44 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys:  Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <ecvfig+l6fg@eGroups.com>
References: <ecvfig+l6fg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <4a909e863ea3946665cf6805d826aeed@bellsouth.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157580



  Steve wrote:

>  ...While all this is happening, in the background, glasses of
>  wine are bashing in the skulls of the Dursleys. OK, I
>  exaggerated, but no more so than those who hate this scene.
>  Yes, the wine glasses are annoying the Dursleys, and that
>  was funny. It was partly funny because all they had to do
>  to stop it was take the wine glass. They didn't even have
>  to drink it; just take hold of it...

Ivogun (Barbara):

I admit to liking this scene. To me, the Dursleys' refusal to take the 
wineglasses is symbolically significant. Dumbledore is the 
representative of the good side. He's the sage, the church father 
figure. The Dursleys not taking his hospitality is akin to refusing 
communion--not good.  They are refusing whatever assistance and support 
that Dumbledore  can provide.  When Dumbledore arrived at the Dursleys, 
he complements Vernon's Agapanthus (word play on love), Vernon Is too 
dense spiritually to get it.   The tongue-lashing they later receive 
from Dumbledore is akin to a spiritual admonishment.  The Dursleys are 
shown to be shallow, materialistic, and mean-spirited. At the end of 
scene,  Petunia seems to understand a bit finally; at least she is red 
faced (ashamed? angry? or both?) Vernon and Dudley seem to remain 
clueless though.



           				(`'?.?(`'?.?-:?:-?.?' ?)?.?'?)
                        -:?:-??..-:?:-* ~ Barbara~ *-:?:-..??-:?:-
                                   (?.?'?(?.?'?-:?:-`'?.?)`'?.?)



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




From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 10:05:57 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 10:05:57 -0000
Subject: prophecy
In-Reply-To: <ecvq86+mnig@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed13i5+cei4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157581

AnnR:

> well, Harry has a very poor quality of life with no carefree
> living. It would be very stressful living with the threat of death
> hanging over you.  Will the final conflict be something entirely
> different and not connected to the "prophecy" or will Harry awake to
> find it has all been a dream like Alice in Wonderland?


maria8162001:

Or something like Buffy the Vampire slayer, were Buffy died trying
to save the world from destruction and her friend Willow bring her
back from the dead. Which all the while while she was dead she was
back in the real world and has recovered from being a Schizophrenic
and all that Vampire slayer stuff was just in her mind being a
mental patient. Would Harry wake like this or like Alice in
Wonderland? I hope not or it would be a very big disappointment to
all especially for the children. JKR would not want that, does she?

maria8162001








From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Tue Aug 29 14:12:39 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:12:39 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Duelling and Honorariums...)
In-Reply-To: <ed0c3i+cfo2@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed1i0n+7jjd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157582

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfan_mom" <rdsilverstein at ...> wrote:

<friartuck97@> wrote:
> > 
> > > Anyway, I was also curious as to the etymology of the 
> > name "Hogwarts." Was there a wizard by that name?  It can be
> > broken down into an anagram of "Ghost War," but that is pure
> > speculation on many people who are a lot better at anagrams than I > 
> am.
> >
> > Thanks for any information!
> > 
> 

hpfan_mom:
> 
> I thought it was after the flower hogwort.  Which is a kind of lily 
> IIRC.

geoff:
I'm inclined to stick to my comment of a day or so back that it's JKR 
having fun with "Warthog" and there is a link in the winged boar 
statues which are mentioned as being around the school.

Mainly because "hogwort" isn't spelt the same way and I wonder how 
well known it is here in the UK - Google sources imply it's better 
known in the Southern US than in the UK.

It's apparently a croton. I'm not a botanist - is this related to the lily?








From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 14:16:51 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:16:51 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed0ff8+a0tt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed1i8j+rot7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157583


> Mike:
> So it's not the term "Squib" per se that caused you to call it 
> bigotry, it was in the context of putting Filch "in his place". 
You 
> don't see Hagrid as responding in kind to Filch's comment of "And 
> what difference does that make?". 

Magpie:
Yes, I do see Hagrid responding to Filch's comment of "And what 
difference does that make?" 

Mike:
Does that mean that it wouldn't 
> matter what derogatory term Hagrid used, as long as it was used 
> to "put him in his place" it would constitute bigotry? Is that 
what 
> you're saying, or did I misinterpret again?

Magpie:
It does matter what derogatory term Hagrid used.  If Hagrid had just 
said, "I'm a ruddy teacher!" Hagrid would be saying, "I'm a teacher 
and thus have the authority to keep kids out of bounds without 
bringing up any kind of prejudice.  

> Mike:
> So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's 
> position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he 
was 
> a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin' 
> Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority 
in 
> the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he 
> shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*. 

Magpie:
He just wasn't supposed to add teh "sneakin' Squib" part.  I 
honestly don't understand why this is a radical concept.  It's not 
like Hagrid *must* bring up Filch being a member of this minority or 
else be disrespected. 


Mike:
> Filch needed to be put in his place in as much as Filch was 
> disregarding Hagrid's position as a teacher. And calling this 
> asserting dominance is grossly exagerating Hagrid's intent to 
> respond in kind. Besides which, you are overlooking that fact that 
> Filch was wrong. He started the confrontation under a false 
pretext 
> and escalated it with a demeaning response towards Hagrid.

Magpie:
I have not overlooked that Filch was wrong at all!  Of course I 
understand that Hagrid's authority has been questioned and that that 
is what is response is doing.  "I'm a ruddy teacher!" puts Filch in 
his place--or more correctly, it reminds Filch of Hagrid's place, 
which gives him the authority to have the kids out of bounds.  
Calling Filch a Squib doesn't relate to Filch or Hagrid's job 
authority one way or the other. It refers to Filch's general 
inferiority in society due to his being born without the ability to 
do magic. 

Mike:> 
> Hagrid doesn't like Filch personally. He made that clear in the 
> first book. It has nothing to do with Filch being a Squib, and 
> everything to do with the way Filch has treated Hagrid. And this 
> scene shows that Filch hasn't changed his approach to Hagrid one 
> bit. Reading bigotry into Hagrid's response is gratuitous and 
> unresponsive to the situation at hand.

Magpie:
And that's exactly what I said I found disturbing about so many 
discussions about these books, how they're credited with being so 
sensitive about prejudice and yet it seems to always come down 
to, "If you don't hate someone exclusively *because* they're a 
member of whatever group they're a member of, it's not racism, even 
if you express your dislike of an individual by bringing up his 
being a member of that group." Forgiving Hagrid for the slip is one 
thing, but defending this kind of name-calling vehemently seems to 
go exactly against what the books are claiming to champion.  I can 
see exactly why Draco lashes out against Hermione in CoS and it's 
not because she's Muggleborn. Doesn't make his way of expressing it 
any less bigotry to me. Plenty of bigots get along just fine with 
people in minority groups while they consider them well-behaved.

> Mike:
> To wave the prejudice flag you need much, much more than 
superficial 
> name calling else you are doing a disservice to a true condition 
of 
> malicious prejudice.

Magpie:
And to me that's just a bizarre thing to say. Name-calling where you 
zero in on someone's minority group is just superficial and can't be 
related to prejudice?  I would have thought it was one of the more 
obvious flags that someone's got some issues with bigotry.  If I get 
angry at a Jewish person because that person calls me stupid, and I 
express it by calling that person a dirty Jew, I doubt he would 
think he needed more to feel he was on the receiving end of some 
bigotry. 

-m






From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 15:50:38 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:50:38 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed0g8v+p2su@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed1noe+114rr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157584

> Alla:
> 
> I do think we are running into semantics - if you are just saying 
> that speculation should be labelled as such, I agree with you.

Magpie:
I actually don't think it's just semantics since this is rarely ever 
a problem.  If I were to say, "But in understanding Snape's reaction 
to the Pensieve you have to remember that he was in love with 
Lily..." people would predictably say, "What?  That's no where in 
canon for that yet!"  It wouldn't be an issue, it would just be a 
correction.  People naturally put it in terms of prediction and 
speculation: "I think it will be revealed that Snape loved Lily and 
if that is revealed it will add a different meaning to the Pensieve 
scene."  Also Snape/Lily hasn't been the actual story of a book so 
far.  


Honestly, I've never seen a storyline handled in fandom the way this 
particular thread of HBP is, where stuff is added or changed to the 
story as if it changes nothing.  There have been other storylines in 
canon where we got our information in a similar way to the way we 
get information in this storyline, and I can't remember anyone 
responding to it in this way.  When people blur the line between 
speculation or alternate storylines and canon I think there's a 
reason. Each book has a climax where the plot of Voldemort (or 
Sirius Black) comes to its climax.  I know there's a certain amount 
of fanwanking that sometimes goes on in GoF where people try to 
imagine how putting the TWT between Harry and the Portkey isn't as 
kooky as it seems, but that doesn't interfere with the actual story 
of the book--Harry's story--the way this does.

Alla:
 I 
> love speculating to my heart content, but I would not counter 
canon- 
> based argument with speculation without agreeing first that this 
is 
> much weaker argument, **but** IMO there is often no way to say 
where 
> does explicit canon ends and speculation ends and I absolutely 
would 
> not call extrapolation of the canon a weaker argument. IMO of 
course.

Magpie:
I think more often than not it's easy to say where explicit canon 
ends and speculation begins--it's there in the book, usually. When 
it comes to something like Draco and Voldemort, obviously we are 
left to imagine all scenes between them because although we know 
some happened, we didn't see them.  We know certain things that must 
be included in those meetings because that information is given to 
us in canon. That's filling in the blanks, as long as we don't 
create stuff that affects more than that.  With something like 
Snape/Lily it's clearly speculation--"I'm beginning to think we are 
going to learn X information and am already playing around with how 
that information changes canon."  This particular theory in this 
thread feels to me like it wants to change the meaning of the story 
while pretending to just fill in the blanks.

Alla: 
> Are you saying that LOLLIPOPS and ACCIDPOPS do not analyse the 
> storylines? I think they absolutely do - the ideas are inferred 
> based on what we actually read. The difference is IMO that the 
> predictions are made which may or may not be true, but they are 
> based on the text analysis IMHO, so if all you are arguing is that 
> Steve's argument is a theory, sure I will buy that, but I 
absolutely 
> would not call it a weak theory

Magpie:
I think LOLLIPOPS and to a much lesser extent ACCIDPOPS do analyze 
the storylines and that's why they're satisfying.  There's many ways 
that they fit into the way the story is going thematically and the 
kinds of things we've learned so far. What I referred to as "not 
analyzing canon" are theories where the pleasure of the theory lies 
in the storytelling of the theory part, not the clues themselves or 
the way it supports the storyline we've got--canon's of secondary 
importance. LOLLIPOPS discussion rarely if ever involves imagining 
scenes or a plot between Lily and Snape, it's attractive because of 
the way it fits the story with Harry and Snape.  Draco going to 
Voldemort first doesn't fit anything much at all in HBP, it just 
addresses personal dissatisfaction in Voldemort's plan.  
 
> Alla:
> 
> Um, I agree with you actually. I think they should, but the 
argument 
> can be easily made that they just did not need to talk about it ( 
> Narcissa is concerned with saving Draco's life, not with talking 
> about his idiocy, or maybe they just did not know. IMO.

Magpie:
I figured that would be the reply to that.:-)  But the story is made 
up of what is there.  If these were real people and we knew this was 
a possibility or had happened we could come up with reasons they 
didn't talk about this--they were too upset about Draco's impending 
death to criticize his actions.  But they're not real people; the 
situation is created on these pages.  That's the most compelling 
reason for them to talk about it. 


> Alla:
> 
> Right, so your objection against Steve's argument is that it is 
not 
> labeled a theory? Is that correct? What I was saying though and 
> still am is that reader gets to argue IMO any canon based 
> speculation precisely because the canon is not finished yet and 
that 
> does not mean at all that I am saying that everything will get 
> overturned, quite the contrary. I am just confused why are you so 
> sure that your interpretation is the right one, that is all.

Magpie:
A theory, yes, because nobody can stop anyone from imagining any 
theory they want, of course. Then we're talking about what JKR might 
or might not put into Book VII, which I haven't yet seen, and it's 
acknowledged as not yet canon.  This particularly theory isn't being 
argued much as a theory.  To compare it to ESE!Lupin, for instance, 
in that theory Pippin not only has a story for what's happened off-
stage that will be revealed to us eventually, she reads scenes with 
that information and makes a case for the different meaning that 
information brings.  This theory, imo, tries to slip that sort of 
thing under the radar.  It just seems odd to refer to Draco being 
chosen because Voldemort is punishing Lucius as an "interpretation" 
when it's the only information we're given in the story.  It seems 
like saying that thinking Voldemort went after Harry because of the 
Prophecy is just an interpretation. 
 
> > Magpie:
> > What is going on with Snape is presented as a mystery within 
> canon.  It's 
> > still a mystery at the end of HBP.  When people argue over 
whether 
> he's ESE, 
> > DDM or OFH they are guessing what canon will eventually tell us.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, sorry, IMO they ( and me) are not doing just that, they are 
> saying that such and such things **already** happened in the 
forest, 
> on the tower, etc.

Magpie:
But surely you know canon itself has presented Snape's motivations 
and true allegience as a mystery, having different characters in 
authority offer differ views, and that the question "Why do you 
trust Severus Snape?" has been left unanswered after being asked 
many times.  Surely there's no question we're supposed to be shocked 
and confused by what Snape does on the Tower and need more 
information?  (Okay, not exactly--presumably the author is assuming 
some portion of the audience will miss this and think either DDM or 
ESE is obvious, but that's part of any cliffhanger ending.)  There's 
no such question left hanging with Draco, no such conflicting 
information.  This alternate theory is only necessary to give 
Voldemort a more "sensible" motivation, though no one in canon 
suggests his motivations aren't already sensible for him and in fact 
the motivation in canon is far more in keeping with Voldemort's 
style and the previous books than the alternative theory.

> Alla:
> 
> No, sorry again, but Dumbledore does not do any such thing, not 
even 
> close, IMO. He says I trust Severus Snape. He never ever even says 
> that he gives Snape the kind of trust that soldiers in the war 
give 
> each other and that is I would expect to see from the fighters on 
> the same side. He never says "I trust Snape with my life", we 
don't 
> know what Dumbledore trusts Snape to do.

Magpie:
"I trust Severus Snape" is more trust than "I trust Snape with my 
life."  Snape is DD's double agent, his eyes in the enemy camp.  He 
even already has trusted his life to Snape in the beginning of the 
book, and appears to be trying to do that again at the end.  "I 
trust Severus Snape completely" I thought he said. He tells Draco 
he's mistaken in thinking Snape is working for Voldemort.  The 
mystery, of course, lying in the possibility that Dumbledore is 
wrong about this.  But the possibility is out there in the mouth of 
a smart character who knows more than we do.
 
> > Magpie:
> > It should be in some of the following places: Spinner's End, the 
> bathroom 
> > scene with Myrtle, the Tower scene and the scene between Draco 
and 
> Snape. 
> > These are the places where "what is the situation?" is 
presented.  
> To put it 
> > more broadly, the places it should have been are all somewhere 
> between the 
> > first page and the last page of the book.
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> No, I am sorry again, but **you** think that it should have been 
> written there, for all we know JKR decided to leave it on 
backstage, 
> just as she has the backstory for the characters, she may not have 
> considered it to be important enough to write on page, thinking 
that 
> it would be obvious to deduce for the readers.

Magpie:
How is it "obvious to deduce" for readers when all we're told is 
that "Voldemort's chosen Draco for this assignment to punish 
Lucius."  Certain kinds of backstory are either in or out--Hermione 
is an only child in canon because JKR didn't put her sister in.  I 
think one of the problems here is like I said, this theory is trying 
to sneak in under the radar, pretending that it's an "unimportant" 
detail, so unimportant us readers are just supposed to figure it 
out.  But it is important, imo, and that's why this one storythread 
out of all others in canon, gets this treatment.

-m 






From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 17:06:08 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:06:08 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed167b+9753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed1s60+745c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157585

> Mike:
> > So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's
> position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he was
> a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin'
> Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority in
> the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he
> shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*.
> 
> Ceridwen:
> I won't speak for Magpie, but I will speak for myself.  It was 
> unnecessary for Hagrid to add the 'sneakin' Squib' part.  I 
> understand why he did it - he was under some stress at the moment, 
> worried about Ron in the hospital, having a private talk with some 
> friends, and suddenly having his authority challenged on top of it 
> all.
<SNIP>
> Still, it was Hagrid thoughtlessly using a WW prejudice, even if in 
> his daily life he has nothing against Squibs as a group or 
> individually.  It was singling Filch out as Different and Less-
than.  
> It sets him apart and demotes him to ascribed status, in fact, to 
his 
> Master Status as far as the WW is concerned.  It is a society 
> prejudice, part of the culture.  It is acceptable because others 
are 
> worse, it is acceptable because no one really gives it any thought.

Alla:

Okay, you can always explain things to me and make me hear the 
argument even which I strongly disagree with, so even though I was 
going to stay out of this thread, I changed my mind.

SO, I am confessing to being just as baffled as Mike is as 
to "bigotry" on Hagrid's behalf. Of course I won't dispute that 
Hagrid was using the *Squib* as derogatory name, but there is such a 
big road from derogatory to bigotry and even prejudice IMO.

I mean to me there is not a slightest sign in canon that *squibs* is 
a slur. The fact that Arabella calls herself a Squib speaks volumes 
to me. Are you saying that she is being prejudicial towards herself?

I mean, that is what she **is**, no?

And precisely because the implications of the **Squib** and 
**Mudblood** are so different to me, I don't buy the analogy between 
what Malfoy does to Hermione and what Hagrid does to Filch either.

I mean, sure they are both trying to put down the other person, but 
Malfoy does it with the **racial** slur, and Hagrid does it with 
something which in context I would also analogise to as an **idiot**.

IMO there is a big difference between two situations, simply because 
I cannot find any canon support that the name Squib is used as 
derogatory.

So, all that I see is Hagrid's anger at Filch as individual who 
**is** Squib.

Now, let's go back to Malfoy and Hermione in CoS for a second. I 
think that if for example Malfoy instead of calling Hermione 
**mudblood** called her, let's say **you stupid muggleborn**.

I would still not liked Malfoy's behaviour, because that still would 
be putting Hermione down, but I would not have called what he did 
**bigotry**, **prejudice**, whatever.

That is who Hermione is, right?

Now, I am thinking about werewolves. Calling person a **werewolf**, 
that IMO would be plain bigotry. Why, because werewolf as I see it is 
a human being inflicted with the disease and even though Remus agrees 
with Hermione that he is a werewolf, he does not go around and 
casually calls himself that.

So, when Ron says *Get away from me werewolf*, sure I would call it 
prejudice, bigotry, something that Ron seemed admirably to get rid of.

I see nothing close to that in what Hagrid did. IMO of course.


Ceridwen:
> We know that Filch is sensitive to his status.  He tried to conform 
> by taking the Kwickspell course.  He admits, almost confesses, to 
> being a Squib.  Being a Squib is a handicap in the WW: Filch lacks 
a 
> normal function of his world.  He seems to be sensitive about it, 
so 
> it shouldn't be used as a weapon against him.  

Alla:

Arabella is a squib too. They are squibs. I mean, sure Filch is 
sensitive and I don't think anybody disputes that Hagrid's calling 
names was wrong (and Filch too), what I am not agreeing with is that 
this name calling equals to bigotry.

> Magpie:
> He just wasn't supposed to add teh "sneakin' Squib" part.  I 
> honestly don't understand why this is a radical concept.  It's not 
> like Hagrid *must* bring up Filch being a member of this minority 
or 
> else be disrespected. 

Alla:

Because that is who they are and they seemed to have no problem 
calling themselves that IMO. As I said, to me the most convincing 
argument is Arabella calling herself Squib, if she was not doing 
that, I may be singing very different tune.

Hagrid does not **have to** bring Filch status, just as Filch does 
not **have to** question his authority as teacher. This is wrong on 
both of their parts IMO. What I don't buy is the transformation from 
name calling to **bigotry**. Name calling in my book is always wrong 
( it can be understandable sometimes because of heated exchanges, but 
no less wrong)

What I don't buy is Hagrid being prejudicial towards Squibs. I see 
zero proof in canon that Squib is used as slur, that is all.

> Magpie:
<SNIP>
>It just seems odd to refer to Draco being 
> chosen because Voldemort is punishing Lucius as an "interpretation" 
> when it's the only information we're given in the story.  It seems 
> like saying that thinking Voldemort went after Harry because of the 
> Prophecy is just an interpretation. 

Alla:

I snipped your whole post, because I think I finally got the gist of 
your argument and the heart of our disagreement here. Heeee, better 
late then never. Oh maybe I am wrong again.

I suppose the reason why ( even though I personally totally buy what 
you are arguing here) I refuse to call Steve's theory of lesser 
weight than yours is because of the possible unreliability of the 
canon we are given about Draco and Voldemort.

Yeah, if you are giving absolute facts of the canon versus theories, 
sure there is no doubt that fact of the canon is much more reliable. 
It is just I am so not ready to accept that everything in Spinner End 
is truth, although I sure go back and forth on it ( especially with 
Snape).

That is why when I do not necessarily accept something as hundred 
percent reliable canon, I refuse to say that something where 
speculation is present, but completely IMO reasonable speculation is 
weaker, but I hear you and if I was hundred percent sure, then it 
would be different story.

Voldemort going after Harry because of the prophecy is collaborated 
by how many people and sources in canon? At least two and we see that 
blasted prophecy too.

Voldemort punishing Draco because of his anger at Lucius is 
collaborated by whom? Narcissa and Snape, I have not missed anybody? 
I thought you mentioned three? You meant Bella or Dumbledore on the 
Tower, but I am not sure I remember him giving the absolute 
corraboration for that?

Um, these two can lie easily, no?

That is why, while I call Voldemort going after Harry because of 
Prophecy a **fact**, I hesitate to call Voldemort punishing Draco 
because of Lucius to be a fact. So, that is the reason why I don't 
see Steve's theory as so much weaker than yours, **not** because his 
does not involve speculation, but because I don't necessarily see 
your canon as hundred percent reliable.

JMO,

Alla.









From willsonkmom at msn.com  Tue Aug 29 17:50:03 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:50:03 -0000
Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Duelling and Honorariums...)
In-Reply-To: <ed1i0n+7jjd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed1uob+39km@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157586


> geoff:
> I'm inclined to stick to my comment of a day or so back that it's JKR 
> having fun with "Warthog" and there is a link in the winged boar 
> statues which are mentioned as being around the school.


Potioncat:
I think you're right. I do remember an interview with JKR saying that a 
friend reminded her that they had seen a plant called a Hogwort at a 
flower show. But JKR said she hadn't remembered that. Even if that was 
the source, it looks like in the meantime she turned it into the 
warthog image.

I would provide the interview, except I can't get into the Quick Quotes 
office.







From balrogmama at wi.rr.com  Tue Aug 29 17:53:33 2006
From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:53:33 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <20060828204315.35379.qmail@web52709.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ed1uut+qo1v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157587

-
>         bboyminn:> 
> > Certainly NOW Draco's task is ultimately to kill 
> > Dumbledore, but what is his means for doing this? It's 
> > getting the Vanishing Cabinet working. >snip<

                       

Laurawkids:

IMO, which is kooky at best, at first Draco knows about the cabinets 
and has no real reason to fix the one.  Then LV approaches him, to 
get back at Lucius and maybe actually get DD out of the way - strange 
and dangerous things can happen when magical teenagers are pushed to 
the edge (just like in RL). 

If Draco initially buys that he is capable of doing the dirty deed, 
he still has one problem - getting OUT of the castle to a place of 
safety once he has done it.  So he remembers the cabinets.

So I think that the cabinet affords two things:  1. getting some 
backup in there to hold DD in check while Draco does the deed (this 
is the limit of what Draco expects from them, not for them to ravage 
the school), and 2. giving them a passage back OUT to B&B's.  "Why 
Draco couldn't have done it, he was (for some bizarre reason) in 
Knockturn Alley"  Draco does not really want to be caught, does he?  

The second, and best, use of the cabinet obviously goes wrong.  
Snape, who did not enter via the cabinet, or even know about it, is 
leading Draco out in the best way that Snape can think of.  Draco may 
be in too much shock to insist on going to the RoR.  Or am I 
forgetting that the RoR is being guarded?  The DE's would not really 
know how to get back in the door anyway, but the best plan would have 
been for Draco to lead them back to the room and wish the door open 
again.  Their plan did not include the Order guard being there, I 
think.  They thought it would be a stealth operation.  

Did Draco think anyone would buy DD dying from a fall from a tower?  
Because that is what it would have looked like if they had just snuck 
back out.  Because Draco did not know Fenrir was coming, he seems to 
think it means harm only to DD and not any other kids.

Laurawkids, who is just rambling at this point.

 







 






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 18:24:23 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:24:23 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed0ff8+a0tt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed20on+i3lr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157588


> > Magpie:
> > I did not claim that the term Squib in itself was exclusively a  
> > derogatory term.  Saying "Filch is a Squib" is not derogatory.  I  
> > said that what Hagrid was described as doing in the post above-- 
> > asserting dominance by identifying Filch as a Squib-was bigotry.
> 
> Mike:
> So after Filch obnoxiously displays his disrespect for Hagrid's 
> position as a teacher, Hagrid isn't supposed to respond that he was 
> a "ruddy teacher", or just wasn't supposed to add that "sneakin' 
> Squib" part? The fact that Hagrid *is* in a position of authority in 
> the school, above Filch's position presumably, means that he 
> shouldn't react when Filch acts like that means *nothing*. 
> 

I think we have two long time rivals here who know *exactly* how to
push each other's buttons. Filch is sensitive about being a Squib.
Hagrid is sensitive about being substandard teacher with a tenuous
hold on his position. Each of them attacks the other at their weakest
point. This is a personal battle, there is no need to elevate it into
an exchange of bigotry. Hagrid certainly did have the right and the
need to assert a teacher's dominance over the janitor but this isn't
about that either. It's a grudge match.

I wish Figgy *had* overheard this. She'd have told them both to shut
up and behave like adults. Then she'd have whu'p them both up 'side
the head with a bag of cat food tins to drive home the point. Squib is
just another name for Muggle and this Muggle isn't offended by
Hagrid's attitude. Hagrid doesn't know Muggles so he often speaks from
ignorance, but like DD I'd trust Hagrid with my life.

Ken






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 18:55:18 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 18:55:18 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed1s60+745c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed22im+umui@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157589

> Alla:
> 
> Okay, you can always explain things to me and make me hear the 
> argument even which I strongly disagree with, so even though I was 
> going to stay out of this thread, I changed my mind.
> 
> SO, I am confessing to being just as baffled as Mike is as 
> to "bigotry" on Hagrid's behalf. Of course I won't dispute that 
> Hagrid was using the *Squib* as derogatory name, but there is such 
a 
> big road from derogatory to bigotry and even prejudice IMO.
> 
> I mean to me there is not a slightest sign in canon that *squibs* 
is 
> a slur. The fact that Arabella calls herself a Squib speaks volumes 
> to me. Are you saying that she is being prejudicial towards herself?
> 
> I mean, that is what she **is**, no?
> 
> And precisely because the implications of the **Squib** and 
> **Mudblood** are so different to me, I don't buy the analogy 
between 
> what Malfoy does to Hermione and what Hagrid does to Filch either.
> 
> I mean, sure they are both trying to put down the other person, but 
> Malfoy does it with the **racial** slur, and Hagrid does it with 
> something which in context I would also analogise to as an 
**idiot**.

zgirnius:
I, too, had been staying out of this.

But I think the issue is quite simple. If Hagrid had called Filch a 
jerk, or a git, or a berk, or any other generic pejorative word, we 
would not be having this discussion. But the noun he selected 
identifies Filch as having a particular birth characteristic, over 
which he has no more control than a Muggle has over their skin color, 
ethnicity, or physical disability. One which has no relevance to the 
discussion, and further, one which identifies him as a member of a 
disadvantaged minority in the context of the society in which he and 
Hagrid live. That is why it is worthy of some note (though not, 
perhaps, quite the lengthy discussion it has gotten...<g>). In 
particular, while I cannot speak for Magpie, Ceridwen, or others who 
have taken this position, personally I think Hagrid's use of the word 
may tell us less about him, amnd more about the culture in which he 
lives. Hi is behaving in a *typcial*, *normal* manner.













From belviso at attglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 19:03:59 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:03:59 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed1s60+745c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed232v+bbvj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157590

> Alla:
> 
> Because that is who they are and they seemed to have no problem 
> calling themselves that IMO. As I said, to me the most convincing 
> argument is Arabella calling herself Squib, if she was not doing 
> that, I may be singing very different tune.

Magpie:
But you yourself admitted that you understand that Hagrid is using 
the term "Squib" here to by synonymous with "idiot" (though I think 
in context "idiot" isn't really what it translates into).  There are 
lots of things that members of a minority group can call each other 
without it being at all the same as someone in the dominant group 
calling them that.  That's how institutionalized prejudice 
works.  "Squib" actually is used as an insult (it is in this very 
scene) in the WW, as well as a literal description of a person born 
to magical parents without magic.  Calling a Wizard a Squib is an 
insult because Squibs are lower than Wizards.  

If Draco had called Hermione a filthy Muggleborn instead of a filthy 
Mudblood I think it absolutely would still be Draco making a bigoted 
remark--just not quite as rude of one.  That's exactly what Lucius 
is doing in the B&B scene.  I don't think Draco misunderstands what 
Lucius means by "You ought to be ashamed to let a Muggleborn girl 
beat you in every exam."  That scene sets up the later scene on the 
Quidditch pitch.

Alla:> 
> Hagrid does not **have to** bring Filch status, just as Filch does 
> not **have to** question his authority as teacher. This is wrong 
on 
> both of their parts IMO. What I don't buy is the transformation 
from 
> name calling to **bigotry**. Name calling in my book is always 
wrong 
> ( it can be understandable sometimes because of heated exchanges, 
but 
> no less wrong)

Magpie:
And I continue to be amazed that apparently calling somebody a dirty 
Jew isn't the kind of name-calling that depends on prejudice.  How 
can you put someone down by identifying them as part of a minority 
group unless the minority group is understood to be a bad thing to 
be?  

Alla:> 
> What I don't buy is Hagrid being prejudicial towards Squibs. I see 
> zero proof in canon that Squib is used as slur, that is all.

Magpie:
Merope is called a Squib by her father to indicate his disgust with 
her.  Squibs don't live up to their wizarding bloodline.  

Ken:
Filch is sensitive about being a Squib.
Hagrid is sensitive about being substandard teacher with a tenuous
hold on his position. Each of them attacks the other at their weakest
point. This is a personal battle, there is no need to elevate it into
an exchange of bigotry. ... Squib is just another name for Muggle 
and this Muggle isn't offended by Hagrid's attitude. Hagrid doesn't 
know Muggles so he often speaks from ignorance, but like DD I'd 
trust Hagrid with my life.

Magpie:
And to be honest, that seems to be what this is about. I am not 
making Hagrid into a villain, I'm saying exactly what you're saying.
Hagrid and Filch are not friends, they are trying to hurt each 
other, and Filch's weak spot is that he's a member of this 
minority.  Hagrid uses that against him.  I see no reason to try to 
explain how bringing up somebody's status as a minority group to 
hurt them has nothing to do with how bigotry works just because 
Hagrid did it.  I don't think that's really a lesson people need to 
learn more, how perfectly okay to do that when you're angry or the 
guy's a jerk.  Sometimes Hagrid isn't a great example of tolerence.  

> Alla:
> Voldemort going after Harry because of the prophecy is 
collaborated 
> by how many people and sources in canon? At least two and we see 
that 
> blasted prophecy too.
> 
> Voldemort punishing Draco because of his anger at Lucius is 
> collaborated by whom? Narcissa and Snape, I have not missed 
anybody? 
> I thought you mentioned three? You meant Bella or Dumbledore on 
the 
> Tower, but I am not sure I remember him giving the absolute 
> corraboration for that?
> 
> Um, these two can lie easily, no?

Magpie:
Anybody can lie, but there's no reason given in canon that they 
should be lying, and the idea that they're lying creates even more 
questions that undercut the story.  These three are the people 
involved in the story, so they're the ones in position to know and 
talk about it.  If they're lying Narcissa's no longer a distraught 
mother getting a UV from a mysterious man with his own reasons for 
agreeing to put his life on the line for her son.  Instead she's 
either manipulating Snape for complicated reasons of her own or 
Snape is manipulating her into getting him to take a suicidal pact.  
It takes out the kind of situations that HP runs on and replaces it 
with something that in an lj poll would be the ticky-box marked 
[other--I will explain in comments].

Alla: 
> That is why, while I call Voldemort going after Harry because of 
> Prophecy a **fact**, I hesitate to call Voldemort punishing Draco 
> because of Lucius to be a fact. So, that is the reason why I don't 
> see Steve's theory as so much weaker than yours, **not** because 
his 
> does not involve speculation, but because I don't necessarily see 
> your canon as hundred percent reliable.

Magpie:
I can see the difference in those two things--and I think it's a 
fairly honest description of what the theory turns on.  It's a 
problematic reading imo because when all is said and done it all 
relies on the reader to provide everything, and it requires more and 
more explanation down the line. 

-m






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 19:21:26 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:21:26 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed1s60+745c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed243m+pjrd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157591


Alla:

so even though I was
> going to stay out of this thread, I changed my mind.

Sydney:

-*sigh*-  Ditto.  I was going to stay out of this thread, but I
changed my mind too.

Alla:

> SO, I am confessing to being just as baffled as Mike is as 
> to "bigotry" on Hagrid's behalf. Of course I won't dispute that 
> Hagrid was using the *Squib* as derogatory name, but there is such a 
> big road from derogatory to bigotry and even prejudice IMO.
> 
> I mean to me there is not a slightest sign in canon that *squibs* is 
> a slur. The fact that Arabella calls herself a Squib speaks volumes 
> to me. Are you saying that she is being prejudicial towards herself?
> 
> I mean, that is what she **is**, no?

Sydney:

Yes, but the point is that Hagrid was using the word 'Squib' *as* a
slur.  And putting the word 'sneakin'' in front has a definte whiff of
"sneaking, like Squibs often are".  It's exactly Magpie's example of
calling someone a "Jew" as a slur.  It's not an insult to say someone
is Jewish when they are;  but if you use the expression 'sneaking Jew'
to someone who is Jewish in an argument, well, yeah, I'm afraid that's
bigotry.  I'm really amazed that this is even in question.  

If you heard someone say, "What do you know, you sneaking Jew" to a
Jewish person, even if they were a jerk, even if they started the
argument-- honestly, would you think that wasn't bigotry?  Would you?
Or if someone said, I dunno, "you dirty Pakistani".

Please pause and ask yourself that question, before you pronounce
finally on how you feel about this subject.

As to whether this translates into, "Hagrid is therefore a bigot", I
wouldn't say so myself, but not so much because it doesn't logically
follow.  I really don't like applying labels to people, period, and
that goes for labelling people bigots as well.  People are
complicated, self-contradictory, and ambiguous, and the same person
can do a bigoted action and a selfless action and a tolerant,
open-hearted action.  Hagrid is very much someone who can use a
bigoted expression one minute and do something hugely generous to a
squib the next.  

That does not change the fact that he used a 'racial' expression as a
slur in an argument.  And implied that his enemy's handicap made him
categorically a lower sort of person.  That is bigotry in action.

Actually, I think JKR uses Hagrid to show how this sort of casual
bigory infects even the nicest people when it is societally
institutionalized.  It's the same thing as when she has Ron say, "Get
away from me, werewolf!" to a flinching Lupin.  Or the way everyone
talks in a condescending way about Muggles-- isn't it McGonnegal who
says, "They're not completely stupid", in PS?  Uh, thanks, ya
narrow-minded Scottish hag (joke! joke!  I love McGonnegal.  And I'm
half Scots, so I'm allowed to use racial slurs according to some
theories). 

Alla:

> And precisely because the implications of the **Squib** and 
> **Mudblood** are so different to me, I don't buy the analogy between 
> what Malfoy does to Hermione and what Hagrid does to Filch either.
> 
> I mean, sure they are both trying to put down the other person, but 
> Malfoy does it with the **racial** slur, and Hagrid does it with 
> something which in context I would also analogise to as an **idiot**.

Sydney:

Buh... dude.  Come on.  You yourself have just said, Hagrid is using
the word 'Squib' as a synonym for 'idiot'.  How on god's green earth
is that not a racial slur?!  If you use "Black" as a synonym for lazy,
it's not bigotry now?!?!


Alla:

> Now, I am thinking about werewolves. Calling person a **werewolf**, 
> that IMO would be plain bigotry. Why, because werewolf as I see it is 
> a human being inflicted with the disease and even though Remus agrees 
> with Hermione that he is a werewolf, he does not go around and 
> casually calls himself that.

Sydney:

But... Lupin DOES call himself a werewolf.  I only have HBP with me at
the moment, but in that book he says, "I've been living among  my
fellows, my equals.  Werewolves." He IS a werewolf.  There isn't
another word in canon that's a euphemism for it.  There is no
difference between what Ron said and what Hagrid said.  

Nobody likes thinking ill of their favorite people, but shouldn't we
be able to acknowledge their flaws and still love them?  Is Hagrid
only lovable and good if he's perfect?


--Sydney, already regretting wading into this minefield, but feeling
this is really critical issue in the whole theme of the books and so
unable to let it go.







From muellem at bc.edu  Tue Aug 29 19:21:06 2006
From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 19:21:06 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed20on+i3lr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2432+dq54@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157592

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> 
wrote:
> . Squib is
> just another name for Muggle  


I don't think so.  A Muggle is someone who a) has no magical powers and 
b) has no magical parents or background in the magical world.  A Squib 
is someone who a) has no magical powers and b) was born to parents who 
were part of the magical community

A Muggle is not the same as a Squib

colebiancardi.







From ceridwennight at hotmail.com  Tue Aug 29 20:00:18 2006
From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:00:18 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed1s60+745c@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed26ci+eptj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157593

Alla:
> SO, I am confessing to being just as baffled as Mike is as
to "bigotry" on Hagrid's behalf. Of course I won't dispute that
Hagrid was using the *Squib* as derogatory name, but there is such a
big road from derogatory to bigotry and even prejudice IMO.

I mean to me there is not a slightest sign in canon that *squibs* is
a slur. The fact that Arabella calls herself a Squib speaks volumes
to me. Are you saying that she is being prejudicial towards herself?

Ceridwen:
During the World Wars, calling someone a 'German' - not a 'Kraut', 
not a 'Nazi', but simply a 'German', was derogatory.  'German' is a 
proper name to describe someone from Germany or of German descent.  
But during the wars, it also meant 'enemy'.  The same went 
for 'Russian' during the earlier part of the Cold War.  I know of a 
group of German Russians who refer to themselves as 'Rooshians', 
spelled and pronounced just that way, to avoid the bigotry that was 
once inherent in the *idea* of Russians.  The enemy hiding under the 
bed, waiting in alleyways to slit people's throats, and so on.  
Natural-born traitors ready to sell out their country, their 
neighbors, their friends.  Germans were attacked during WWI just 
because they were Germans, or of German descent.  During WWII, they 
were vilified even by people who knew them and should have known 
better.

And, closer to home, imagine someone calling an Arab acquaintance 
a 'sneakin' Arab' today.  'Arab' is a proper name, and Arabs use it 
to define themselves by their place of birth or ancestry.  But, used 
in the way Hagrid used 'Squib' toward Filch, especially since he 
added the adjective 'sneakin', and because he meant it as a slur, it 
is a slur, one that goes to a person's identity.  Using the proper 
name for someone doesn't mean it isn't bigotry or prejudice.

The WW society seems to see Squibs as lesser beings.  They have a 
birth defect, they have no magic.  They are not seen as individuals.  
Their testimony is not reliable in court, as shown in OotP.  They are 
second-class citizens according to society.  This is a pervasive 
bias, a socially acceptible prejudice.  Everyone already knows 
*what*, not *who*, a Squib is, they are pre-judged and have no 
individuality.

This is like the old rules for census, where a slave counted as (I 
think it was) 3/5 of a person.  No derogatory terms were used, but 
demoting them to being only a portion of a person was derogatory in 
itself.  Denying a group the vote, denying a group the right to 
testify in court, are derogatory actions.

Arabella Figg is brave, and looking at her status in a different way, 
to adopt the term without shame or apology.  In my opinion, this is 
the way people change minds.  Not everyone of a particular status is 
strong enough to do it.  It could be based on who they live around.  
Filch lives with wizards and withes, so his lack is apparent every 
day.  He tried to become a wizard through a mail-order course.  It is 
a weak spot with him in particular.  It went right to the core of his 
identity, where Mrs Figg, living among Muggles, doesn't have that 
constant reminder.  She is also stronger than he is where this 
subject is concerned.

I don't think Hagrid means to be prejudiced.  It's a socially 
acceptible prejudice.  It isn't nice, any more than bringing 
up 'werewolf' or 'Mudblood', or even 'Muggle-born', would be nice in 
that context.  But the WW seems to tolerate such attitudes, and from 
what we've seen, particularly with Umbridge, this sort of attitude is 
present in government, too.

One other point: as an staff with students present, neither should 
have spoken that way to a fellow staff member.  This can only 
undermine both of them.  Filch is already at a disadvantage because 
of his 'handicap'.  Even if he wasn't, if Hagrid had an argument with 
McGonagall for instance, it should not be done in front of students.  
My opinion, of course.

Ceridwen.






From juli17 at aol.com  Tue Aug 29 20:04:08 2006
From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:04:08 -0400
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco/ some LOLLIPOPS
In-Reply-To: <1156822476.1865.14477.m38@yahoogroups.com>
References: <1156822476.1865.14477.m38@yahoogroups.com>
Message-ID: <8C899BD6C108362-B84-224@MBLK-R10.sysops.aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157594

<snip>

Neri wrote:
But what about its *potential* for Book 7? (you probably ask). So lets
look at the prospects of the Snape-Harry relationship for Book 7.
Suppose LOLLIPOPS comes true and Harry has his NOOOOOO! NOT MY
MOOOTHER! moment. Big yawn for us since we've been speculating about
it for at least 4 books, but Harry certainly would care. What then?
How does this revelation add to the development of Harry's character?
How does it develop his relationship with Snape?

Julie:
In this narrow, unimaginative version, it would be a yawn. But
I think we can agree JKR has never been constrained by a lack of
imagination ;-) For instance, what if it's a version of LOLLIPOPS
where Snape and Lily had a friendship? Snape *admired* Lily and
perhaps even had a mild crush on her, but he didn't harbor an
obsessive and still unrequited romantic love for her. It hurt
him that he lost her friendship and perhaps her respect. (And 
certainly whatever he felt for Lily he would have found her 
taste in husband material very lacking indeed, but that does
not have to be the main thrust behind Snape's feelings about
Lily. In fact, if this was the main thrust of Snape's feelings
for Lily--bitterness at losing her to James--then Snape would
likely hate her for it, and demean her to Harry as much as he
demeans James.)
 
Suppose Harry finds this out. Instead of "GROSS, THE GREASY GIT
LOVED MY MOTHER!" it is "HOW COULD MY MOTHER HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN
FRIENDS WITH THAT GREASY GIT??!" Yes, he's appalled at first, 
but he has to wonder what his mother saw in Snape that she had
*any* sort of positive relationship with him. This is certainly
enough to make him question his own view of Snape, at least 
enough to figure out how Snape got from someone his mother 
actually respected and perhaps even LIKED the man Harry hates
without reservation. Hmm, perhaps he missed something...

That's just one example of a revelation about the relationship
between Snape and Lily (and I do believe they had some sort of
relationship, not just some one-sided fixation) that would have
plenty of potential to change Harry's own relationship with 
Snape and to develop his character. I'm not even getting into
the concept of Snape having made some sort of promise to Lily
about Harry, or any of a dozen other wrinkles that could have
been present in a relationship between Snape and Lily. (For 
instance, was Snape that "horrid boy" Petunia refered to once.)
But there is plenty of opportunity for JKR to show Snape and
Lily's relationship to have been such that the revelation could
have a great deal of impact on Harry. However, there is really
no chance whatsoever for a relationship between Snape and 
Narcissa to have any impact on Harry.
 
Julie, who has more to add but must get back to work!
________________________________________________________________________
Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.


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




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 20:51:41 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:51:41 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? / ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation? LONG
In-Reply-To: <ed232v+bbvj@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed29ct+bbhi@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157595

> Magpie:
> And I continue to be amazed that apparently calling somebody a 
dirty 
> Jew isn't the kind of name-calling that depends on prejudice.  How 
> can you put someone down by identifying them as part of a minority 
> group unless the minority group is understood to be a bad thing to 
> be?  

Alla:

Eh,**no**, that is not what I am saying. If you ( not you a 
generic "you") call me a **dirty jew**, you will make me very angry, 
but if you call me a Jew, even if you make it in the context of the 
heated exchange, I am not sure I will be thinking of you as 
antisemite, because this is who I am if that makes sense.

I am just saying that this is the question of the degree for me. IMO 
Hagrid makes an insult by adding the adjective, **but** the way I 
read this insult is the same way if Hagrid would have said "you, 
sneaking or ruddy Filch** . Does that make sense?

 
> Alla:> 
> > What I don't buy is Hagrid being prejudicial towards Squibs. I 
see 
> > zero proof in canon that Squib is used as slur, that is all.
> 
> Magpie:
> Merope is called a Squib by her father to indicate his disgust with 
> her.  Squibs don't live up to their wizarding bloodline.  

Alla:

Actually, yes I buy that. That is convincing example, I would still 
not put what Hagrid did at the same level though.
 
> Magpie:
> Anybody can lie, but there's no reason given in canon that they 
> should be lying, and the idea that they're lying creates even more 
> questions that undercut the story.  These three are the people 
> involved in the story, so they're the ones in position to know and 
> talk about it.  If they're lying Narcissa's no longer a distraught 
> mother getting a UV from a mysterious man with his own reasons for 
> agreeing to put his life on the line for her son.  Instead she's 
> either manipulating Snape for complicated reasons of her own or 
> Snape is manipulating her into getting him to take a suicidal 
pact.  
> It takes out the kind of situations that HP runs on and replaces it 
> with something that in an lj poll would be the ticky-box marked 
> [other--I will explain in comments].

Alla:

Just one point on this one, and I will agree to disagree because we 
are not going to convince each other here. To me there is **plenty** 
of reason in canon as to why everything that was said could be a lie, 
starting from the name of the chapter and ending with the argument 
that three people or four people in the room are not exactly most 
trusting towards each other.

> Sydney:
> 
> But... Lupin DOES call himself a werewolf.  I only have HBP with me 
at
> the moment, but in that book he says, "I've been living among  my
> fellows, my equals.  Werewolves." He IS a werewolf.  There isn't
> another word in canon that's a euphemism for it.  There is no
> difference between what Ron said and what Hagrid said.  

Alla:

Well, in your opinion there is no difference, in my opinion Lupins 
ounds quite bitter when he calls himself a werewolf and Arabella does 
not.


Sydney:
> Nobody likes thinking ill of their favorite people, but shouldn't we
> be able to acknowledge their flaws and still love them?  Is Hagrid
> only lovable and good if he's perfect?

Alla:

How did I know that this argument this come up eventually? No, liking 
Hagrid or disliking Hagrid has nothing to do with me thinking that by 
calling Filch a Squib Hagrid is not quite in the league of bigots.

In fact, you are free to believe or disbelieve me, but I really am 
not into Hagrid that much. I mean I don't hate him of course, but he 
is a bit too plain vanilla for my tastes. If he dies in book 7, I 
think that if I be upset that would be mostly for poor Harry, who 
will be left without his first adult friend.

I love Ron for example much much more than I like Hagrid, and in my 
post upthread I called his remark to Remus a bigoted one.

That's just me honestly not seeing what you are seeing. 

Oh, and I can give you an example where I *do* see Hagrid being 
prejudiced - in his remark about Slytherins. I mean, not that I can 
blame him much, but I guess we are supposed to see that good 
Slytherins do exist .... somewhere. But yes, that I can see as 
prejudice.
Does that answer your question?

JMO,

Alla.








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Tue Aug 29 21:26:54 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:26:54 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed2432+dq54@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2beu+qhqk@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157596

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "colebiancardi" <muellem at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch@> 
> wrote:
> > . Squib is
> > just another name for Muggle  
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  A Muggle is someone who a) has no magical powers and 
> b) has no magical parents or background in the magical world.  A Squib 
> is someone who a) has no magical powers and b) was born to parents who 
> were part of the magical community
> 
> A Muggle is not the same as a Squib
> 

Squib is the term used to denote a Muggle born to a wizard and witch.
In other words a Squib knows about the WW and a Muggle doesn't.
Otherwise, magically speaking, they are the same. Except that the PM
is a Muggle and *he* knows about the WW. Except that Aunt Petunia is a
Muggle and *she* knows about the WW. Except that the Drs. Granger are
Muggles and *they* know about the WW. Except, except, except. And then
we have the Muggle spouses of wizards and witches, there is no special
name for them, they have as much magical power as a Squib and I
presume they may live in the WW with their spouse. What's the
difference between them and Squibs? Very, very little it appears.

The difference between a Muggle and a Squib is thinner than an atomic
layer. If Hogwarts allowed me to help teach Astronomy and Muggle
studies I'd be no different from Filch. Well, I'd hope that most of
the students would consider me to be at least a *little* nicer than
him....

Let's say Fred (or is it George) marries that cute Muggle girl from
town. One of their children is clearly a wizard. Another cleary is not
a witch. What is she? Muggle? Squib? Squiggle? She's probably a nice,
if mischievous, little girl and could just as well be termed any of
the three. 

The term Squib is really a misnomer. A squib is a small explosive. A
Squib doesn't explode at all though we have it on good authority that
*one will* in book 7. Squibs are really Duds but that doesn't sound
nearly as nice.

Ken







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 21:54:49 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 21:54:49 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed29ct+bbhi@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2d39+g591@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157597

> >>Magpie:
> > And I continue to be amazed that apparently calling somebody a 
> > dirty Jew isn't the kind of name-calling that depends on        
> > prejudice.  How can you put someone down by identifying them as 
> > part of a minority group unless the minority group is understood 
> > to be a bad thing to be?  

> >>Alla:
> Eh,**no**, that is not what I am saying. If you ( not you a 
> generic "you") call me a **dirty jew**, you will make me very     
> angry, but if you call me a Jew, even if you make it in the       
> context of the heated exchange, I am not sure I will be thinking   
> of you as antisemite, because this is who I am if that makes sense.

Betsy Hp:
It doesn't make sense to me, sorry.  So if you were in an argument 
with someone and they called you a sneaky Jew, you'd *not* feel that 
they'd expressed a certain level of bigotry against Jews?

Personally, I don't even understand how if someone in the middle of 
an argument called you "Jew" in a tone that makes clear it's 
supposed to be an insult, you'd not feel they were expressing a 
certain level of bigotry.

Hagrid uses the word "Squib" as an insult.  Which suggests that he 
sees being a Squib as a bad thing.  It's something that one can be 
insulted by as per Hagrid.  So he uses it.  

> >>Alla:
> I am just saying that this is the question of the degree for me.   
> IMO Hagrid makes an insult by adding the adjective, **but** the    
> way I read this insult is the same way if Hagrid would have       
> said "you, sneaking or ruddy Filch** . Does that make sense?

Betsy Hp:
But if Hagrid had said "you sneaky Filch" it would have been quite 
clear he disliked Filch.  That even just *being* Filch was a bad 
thing.  Which I think most folks would be fine with because 
obviously Hagrid and Filch don't get along so yeah, Hagrid sees 
being Filch as being a bad thing.  (It'd be like Ron or Harry 
calling each other Malfoy, as in: "Combed your hair enough, 
*Malfoy*?"  Both boys would understand the underlining insult 
because they both dislike Malfoy in similar ways. They see him as 
vain, etc.)

But by using the term Squib *as* an insult, Hagrid is suggesting 
that *being* a Squib is bad.  Which isn't as fine because it points 
to a basic belief in the "lesser than" status of Squibs.    

And that's quite a strong belief in the WW.  Being a squib *is* a 
bad thing.  I'm betting it's a word that gets whispered in 
discussions.  "They're a good family, though one of their cousins a 
[whisper] *Squib*."  Neville fully realized that being a squib would 
shame his family.  (Though, disturbingly enough, if Neville *had* 
been a squib, he'd have probably been killed by his family's 
desperate attempts to prove that he wasn't.)
 
> >>Magpie:
> > Merope is called a Squib by her father to indicate his disgust   
> > with her.  Squibs don't live up to their wizarding bloodline.  

> >>Alla:
> Actually, yes I buy that. That is convincing example, I would     
> still not put what Hagrid did at the same level though.

Betsy Hp:
I agree that Hagrid is not on the same level.  Just as his insult 
isn't *quite* on the same level of Draco's insult to Hermione.  But 
it's on the same scale, even if it's at a different level.  And it 
points to an underlining issue within the WW.  One that JKR has 
purposefully (IMO) brought to our attention.

A good question may well be why?  Why does JKR choose to have Hagrid 
say what he says? (I suspect there's a reason.)

Betsy Hp






From lisabiles at grandecom.net  Tue Aug 29 22:03:32 2006
From: lisabiles at grandecom.net (leb2323)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:03:32 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
Message-ID: <ed2djk+6n44@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157598

leb says:
I wanted to participate in the new(ish) poll on The Leaky Cauldron but 
my answer choice wasn't listed and I don't do podcasts.  

The question is:  How will the relationship between a wizard and his 
wand become more important in book 7?

I think that at some point we will see Neville use Harry's wand and 
find out it is just as suited for him if not moreso than it is for 
Harry.  If you remember he had a used wand the first several years and 
so did not get a shot at trying the Fawke's wand like Harry did.  What 
might have happened if he had tried it first?  Would the wand have 
chosen Neville had it been given the chance? 

What does everyone think?








From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 22:04:16 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:04:16 -0000
Subject: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails/Life Debt
In-Reply-To: <ed02l7+kc5p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2dl1+vaju@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157599

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" <zgirnius at ...> 
wrote:
>
>  
> > Carodave:
> > Maybe life debts are triggered by sparing - not saving - 
someone's 
> > life.  So when Harry rescues Ginny from the memory of Tom 
Riddle, 
> > there is no life debt, but when Harry spares Wormtail from being 
> > cursed by Lupin and Sirius, a life debt is triggered.  
Similarly, 
> > Snape owes James a life debt for sparing his life, by pulling 
him 
> > back from the shrieking shack.  
> > 
> 
> zgirnius:
> Interesting idea...but I am not understanding the distinction. How 
is 
> James pulling Snape out of the Shack different than Harry pulling 
Ginny 
> out of the Chamber? (In what way is one a sparing and the other a 
> saving, of the endangered person?)
> 
> Or maybe Snape simply does not owe a magical Life Debt to 
> James...Dumbledore certainly used different language to discuss it 
than 
> the debt of Peter. ('funny how the mind works' vs. 'magic at its 
> deepest'.)
>
Carodave:
Probably you are correct in that Snape doesn't owe James 
anything...but to clarify my thoughts...I consider that Harry 
*saved* Ginny's life because he had to fight off something that 
would have destroyed her.  He didn't simply pull her out of the 
Chamber, but actually fought to save her.  

He *spared* Peter's life by his decision 
that Lupin and Sirius shouldn't kill Peter.  James *spared* 
Snape's life by not letting him go into the Shrieking Shack, where a 
werewolf was in hiding.  Both of these instances involve more of a 
conscious decision.  It's not much of a distinction when I see 
it in writing, but it's clear in my head.

Carodave






From carodave92 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 22:22:59 2006
From: carodave92 at yahoo.com (carodave92)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:22:59 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed2djk+6n44@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2eo3+1nal@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157600

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leb2323" <lisabiles at ...> 
wrote:
>
> leb says:
> I wanted to participate in the new(ish) poll on The Leaky Cauldron 
but 
> my answer choice wasn't listed and I don't do podcasts.  
> 
> The question is:  How will the relationship between a wizard and 
his 
> wand become more important in book 7?
> 
> I think that at some point we will see Neville use Harry's wand 
and 
> find out it is just as suited for him if not moreso than it is for 
> Harry.  If you remember he had a used wand the first several years 
and 
> so did not get a shot at trying the Fawke's wand like Harry did.  
What 
> might have happened if he had tried it first?  Would the wand have 
> chosen Neville had it been given the chance? 
> 
> What does everyone think?
>
Carodave:
I think there will be a tie-in between the importance of the 
wand/wizard connection, and the disappearance of Ollivander.  There 
has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of the 
last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance.

Carodave








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 22:45:01 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:45:01 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?(was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ecvvac+8a0a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2g1d+jrln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157601

> >>bboyminn: 
> > While I am not discrediting all the things that have 
> > been said so far, but let us not forget that Draco 
> > went to Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 

> >>Magpie:
> > No, he DID NOT.  I'm sorry to be so vehement but I 
> > can't stand having this presented as canon.
> > <snip>

> >>bboyminn:
> > Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. What 
> > is the very first thing that occurs chronologically in 
> > the book? Not the first thing the books reveals to us, 
> > but  the first thing that occurs chronologically. Anwer: 
> > Draco figures out that there are two connected Vanishing 
> > Cabinets; one inside Hogwarts, one outside. ...

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think your time-line is wrong, Steve.  Draco tells 
> > Dumbledore that he got the idea about the cabinet after 
> > hearing Montague's story. That can't have occured at the 
> > end of the school year because Montague was too sick ....  
> > So the visit must have occured over the summer.

> >>bboyminn:
> Sorry, not so, Montegue returns to the school around Easter, 
> and is at the school for a minimum of two full month 
> recoverings.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Montague returns just before Easter, yes.  But his recovery is 
seriously slow.  On a Tuesday morning, after Easter break (classes 
are going on), he's described as "confused and disorientated" and 
his parents come to visit. [OotP scholastic hardback ed. p.678]  
Which we know is a pretty bad sign based on other times parents get 
called in (near death experiences, etc.).

At the time of Harry's vision of Sirius in jeopardy Montague is 
being spoon fed by Madam Pomfrey (probably a potion, but still, 
spoon fed?). [ibid p.730]

And Montague is either taken home early or he's so out of it he 
doesn't even garner comment when everyone's visiting Ron and 
Hermione in the hospital wing. [ibid pp.846-850]  Which again, 
suggests that his recovery is moving pretty slowly.

So no, it doesn't seem like Montague is up for a lot of visitors 
during the few months left of the school year.  He certainly doesn't 
seem alert and involved enough to spin a story that greatly 
entertains his listeners.

You also have to sell the idea that Draco, member of the IS, 
enjoying Dumbledore being kicked out of Hogwarts, is for some reason 
thinking about ways for Voldemort to come into Hogwarts.  Why on 
earth would Draco be thinking about such things?  Sure, Montague is 
in the hospital from Easter onwards, but Draco is sitting fairly 
pretty up until the battle in the DoM.  Which takes place at the 
very end of the school year.

I just don't see the time for groups of people to visit Montague 
during the OotP school year, nor do I see the motivation for Draco 
to think about bringing Death Eaters into Hogwarts until *after* 
he's been given the task of killing Dumbledore.  I think you're 
expecting too much in too short a time period.

> >>bboymin:
> I don't deny Voldemort's anger with Lucius, but it wasn't 
> about the diary, it was about the muck-up at the Ministry.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Why do you think that?  Where's the canon?

> >>bboymin:
> Even early in the summer, Draco is already working on the 
> Cabinet (Draco's Detour).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, no that isn't true at all.  "Draco's Detour" takes place at the 
very *end* of the summer (several days after Harry's birthday). [HBP 
scholastic hardback pp.106-107]  Which, frankly, is the biggest hole 
in your "First came the Cabinet" theory.  If that were the case 
Draco (and Voldemort for that matter) would have ensured that (a)
Borgin didn't sell the cabinet, and (b) the cabinet was even fixable 
(something Borgin *wasn't* sure of, by the way).

I agree with Magpie, there's nothing in canon to suggest that the 
Cabinet came first, and certainly not enough to present that idea 
*as* canon.  Honestly, I think we got the run down of Draco's 
adventures during HBP on the Tower.  I don't think there's another 
mystery yet to be solved.  The only thing we (the readers) are 
waiting for is to see how Draco will behave in book 7.

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 23:30:03 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:30:03 -0000
Subject: The Snape/Harry Relationship (was:Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ed0c2g+plob@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2ilr+9eri@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157602

> >>Alla:
> > Neri, I would LOVE for you to be right, I think it is a great 
> > possibility that Snape and Harry relationship is not a central 
> > enough relationship to the story, but I am afraid that I have to 
> > say that IMO it is one of the central relationships. 

> >>Neri:
> I fear we might be falling into semantics here. Is the Snape-Harry
> relationship *the* central relationship in the series or just *one 
> of* the central relationships?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'll go out on a limb (I think it's a pretty sturdy one <bg>) and 
say the Snape/Harry relationship is *the* central relationship of 
the books.  There is nothing about Snape's story that *doesn't* 
involve Harry.  That is not true of any other character in the 
books, I belive.  And actually, I think that's why Snape gets so 
much thread time, and why Snape is either loved or hated in a way 
Voldemort just isn't.

> >>Neri:
> So, in what sense did the Snape-Harry relationship developed from 
> the beginning of the series? What did it contribute to the        
> development of Harry's character? Well, there is certainly some    
> development: in the beginning of the series Harry hated Snape, and 
> now he REALLY REALLY hates Snape.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but that's not how it really happened is it?  Harry hates Snape 
because Snape first hated him.  That was one of the big mysteries: 
*why* does Snape have it in for Harry?  It was all very personal, 
and it's only become more so.  (Isn't it interesting that just about 
everything we learn about Snape always loops back to Harry? Not so 
with any other character.)

> >>Neri:
> Well, there's this scenario that the Snape fans dream about since 
> Book 1: that Harry and Snape will be forced to work together as a 
> team and cooperate in achieving their common goal. That they will 
> learn to appreciate each other, each gradually realizing what a   
> great guy the other man actually is. Finally they will forgive    
> each other for everything and shake hands (with Hermione giving    
> them both a big hug and running out of the room positively        
> howling). There's only one problem with this scenario ? this kind 
> of literary relationship development takes time and careful       
> building by the Author if she means to do it right and make it     
> convincing.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, it takes time for an author to show that the *outcome* of the 
relationship will be important.  But JKR has already done that with 
Snape and Harry.  She's shown that there's something personal going 
on there from the moment Snape looked at Harry and Harry's scar 
hurt.  And JKR has carefully added to that beginning with every 
single book, culminating (IMO) with Harry's instant connection with 
and understanding of Prince!Snape.  (There's a reason Harry hoped 
the Prince might be his father.)

But as for the "learn to appreciate each other" moment...  That's 
usually the climax of the story, right?  Elizabeth doesn't realize 
Darcy is perfect for her until the climax of Pride and Prejudice.  
Leah doesn't tell Han she loves him until the climax of Empire 
Strikes Back. (The fizzling of the Leah/Han story in RotJ shows that 
there's a reason most stories end at that "omg, I *do* love him!" 
moment, IMO.) Danny Glover doesn't realize that Mel Gibson is a 
great partner until the climax of Lethal Weapon.

So actually, I think JKR is right on target for the final realizing 
of the Snape/Harry relationship in Book 7.  Whether it's "Snape 
really *is* a good guy!" or whether it's "Snape really *is* the bad 
guy!".

> >>Neri:
> So in what sense is Snape *really* central in the HP series? He's 
> not a central character in the sense of HRH...

Betsy Hp:
I'd actually argue that Harry will learn more about himself by 
getting an understanding of Snape than he would (or will) by getting 
an understanding of either Ron or Hermione.  Ron and Hermione are 
Harry's best *friends*, but their stories are not so tightly tied to 
Harry's.  And actually, their romantic exploits in HBP show them 
pulling *away* from Harry (as Harry himself recognizes) and going 
their own way.  This while Harry is getting a deeper understanding 
of Snape (through his potions book), an understanding or connection 
only Harry feels.

> >>Neri:
> ...and the feelings between him and Harry, while very violent and 
> of huge importance to the plot, hardly amount to a relationship in 
> the deep literary sense.

Betsy Hp:
Again, I completely disagree.  There are so many ways Harry and 
Snape mirror each other.  I'd actually describe their relationship 
*as* literary.

> >>Neri:
> But Snape is most definitely a central *mystery* of the HP series. 
> Isn't this why we are all obsessed about him? Isn't this why we   
> discuss him all the time here? Isn't this why the whole fandom is 
> crazy about him? He is so mysterious, so elusive, so full of      
> contradictions. We simply must uncover his motivations, his       
> loyalties, his backstory, his love affairs, what makes him tick.
> And this is also the way JKR treats Snape. In each and every book 
> we expect JKR to give us some significant development in Snape's
> character, and she never really does.

Betsy Hp:
Oh no, no, no.  We almost always learn *something* new about Snape 
(not sure about CoS) in every single book.  And each new piece of 
information ties back to Harry.  Sure, it doesn't do much to deepen 
Snape as a character in his own right, but it always seems to dial 
his interactions with Harry up a notch.

> >>Neri:
> In each and every book we expect her to develop his "relationship" 
> with Harry, and except for further raising of the tension nothing 
> really develops.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
"Raising the tension" *is* developing the relationship.  (You, um, 
actually use an action word to try and explain that action isn't 
taking place. <g>  I just found that a bit funny, but in an entirely 
non-hateful way.)  I think you're saying that there hasn't been a 
*climax* to the Snape/Harry relationship (as there's been with Fake!
Moody, Krum, Cedric, Umbridge, etc.) but that's because the 
Snape/Harry relationship will be (I suspect) the climax of the whole 
darn series.  

> >>Neri:
> So it seems quite obvious to me: Snape is, first and foremost, a   
> *central mystery* of the HP series. And therefore the resolution   
> of the Snape plot will be, first and foremost, the solution of the 
> mystery. It doesn't have to be about relationships.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But again, the mystery has ties back to Harry, ever and always.  
That's why it *is* about relationships.  In the end I think by 
understanding Snape, seeing him clearly and without mystery, Harry 
will fully understand himself.

Betsy Hp







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 23:44:54 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:44:54 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco - Motivation?/Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <00b401c6cb20$939252b0$2860400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ed2jhm+fpln@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157603

Alla wrote:
> >
> > Where? Where are the places that it should have been? And who gets
to decide that? For all we know it occurred behind the scenes and we
may never get the confirmation that it really occurred.
> 
> Magpie:
> It should be in some of the following places: Spinner's End, the
bathroom scene with Myrtle, the Tower scene and the scene between
Draco and Snape. These are the places where "what is the situation?"
is presented.  To put it more broadly, the places it should have been
are all somewhere between the first page and the last page of the book.

Carol responds:
I know that you're adamant about your position being canonical, but so
are the arguments Steve presented about Draco discovering the
connection between Hogwarts and Borgin and Burke's via the vanishing
Cabinet and his expressed desire for revenge after his father is
arrested near the end of OoP.

The Vanishing Cabinet can't be brought up in the scenes you mention
for the simple reason that what Draco is up to is one of the mysteries
of this book (along with the identity of the HBP). Snape doesn't
mentin it because he doesn't know about it. Neither, apparently, does
Narcissa because Draco sneaks off to B and B's without her. (Bellatrix
may know about it; she's teaching Draco Occlumency and he seems to
have DE accomplices, including Fenrir Greyback, whose job is
apparently to threaten Burke into submission, but we're not privy to
her pov.) Draco refuses to tell Draco about the Vanishing Cabinet plan
in "the Unbreakable Vow"; he's certainly not going to tell *Harry*
about it in "Sectumsempra." (He hasn't told Crabbe and Goyle or
Moaning Myrtle, either.)

As for the tower scene, it's clear that the Vanishing Cabinet plan is
Draco's and that he's proud of it, but there's no reason for him to
tell us whether he went to LV with his plan (as I think is possible)
or whether he came up with it after Voldemort gave him the "job" of
killing Dumbledore. The Vanishing Cabinet is the primary plan from at
least "Draco's Detour" onward, and there's no indication that *Draco*,
unlike his mother, feels that he's destined to fail. In fact, he's in
typical Braggart!Draco mode in that chapter and on the Hogwarts
Express. Even in the scene with Snape, where he's starting to get a
bit desperate and he talks about his plan taking longer than he
thought, there's no indication yet that he's receiving death threats.

We really don't know which came first, Draco's "plan" for getting the
DEs into Hogwarts (a perfect means of revenge against Dumbledore and
Harry for the arrest of his father) or the "job" of killing
Dumbledore, which you think results solely from Lucius Malfoy's
failure to retrieve the Prophecy. It makes just as much sense, if not
more, for Draco to present his plan to LV and for LV to seize the
opportunity. Which is more important--revenge on Lucius Malfoy, who's
already in Azkaban and was probably Crucio'd for the Diary foul-up or
an opportunity to invade Hogwarts and just possibly kill "the only one
he ever feared"? For Voldemort, it's a win-win situation--if Draco
fails, Lucius Malfoy suffers. If Draco succeeds (or one of the back-up
DEs does the job), Voldemort's greatest antagonist is dead. And
whether LV knew about the UV or not, having Snape kill Dumbledore must
seem like the icing on the cake.

I really don't think that we need to accept revenge against Lucius
Malfoy as the only explanation or even the primary one for draco's
assignment. After all, JKR--and Dumbledore and Snape and Hermione and
others--have been giving us partial explanations and sometimes
plausible theories that turn out to be wrong for six books now.

At any rate, having Draco approach LV with the Vanishing Cabinet idea
in no way diminishes his danger and it adds to the irony by having his
whole predicament result from his own action. Maybe you want to see
him as a pathetic victim, but he is also, at least at the beginning of
the book, an arrogant sixteen-year-old who threatens Borgin and brags
about his mysterious assignment and who has already stated to Harry
that he's bent on revenge for his father's imprisonment.

Maybe, as Alla says, we'll never get an explanation. Maybe we'll never
find out how those coins worked or who Imperio'd Rosmerta, either. It
may be one of those details that JKR doesn't think is important. Or
maybe we'll find out the answers in Book 7. Either way, I wouldn't
dismiss the possibility that Draco went to Voldemort with his
brilliant idea just because characters who don't know about the plan
don't talk about it.

Carol, who agrees with Magpie about Draco's reasons for not confiding
in Snape and feels a bit sad because no one responded to her post on
that topic






From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 29 23:52:42 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:52:42 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed243m+pjrd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2k0a+39f0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157604


> Magpie:
> And I continue to be amazed that apparently calling somebody a    
> dirty Jew isn't the kind of name-calling that depends on prejudice.
 
> Sydney:
> 
> It's exactly Magpie's example of calling someone a "Jew" as a 
> slur. It's not an insult to say someone is Jewish when they are;
>  but if you use the expression 'sneaking Jew' to someone who is 
> Jewish in an argument, well, yeah, I'm afraid that's bigotry. 
> I'm really amazed that this is even in question. <snip> 
>
> That does not change the fact that he used a 'racial' expression  
> as a slur in an argument. And implied that his enemy's handicap   
> made him categorically a lower sort of person. That is bigotry in 
> action.

Mike:
And I continue to be amazed that people equate Hagrid calling Filch 
a "sneakin' Squib" to someone using the bigoted slur "dirty Jew". 
Furthermore, calling someone a "Jew" is not equal to calling 
someone "Jewish". But calling someone a "Squib" is the same as 
calling someone a "Squib". Do you get it now? 

But both Arabella Figg and Argus Filch referred to themselves 
as "Squibs". Hagrid added the pejorative "sneakin'" when referring 
to Filch. Was he name calling? Sure he was. Should he have called 
Filch a name? In a perfect world, no. Was it bigotry? 

African-Americans don't use the "N-word" when referring to 
themselves, (the rappers have changed it to "niggah", which I don't 
like either, but I'm not them). Jewish people refer to themselves as 
Jewish not as "Jews", unless they want to put in some self-bigotry 
or point out others bigotry. (I hate speaking for another racial or 
ethnic group, I hope that I have not mis-stated their positions, and 
apoligize in advance if I have). How many members of a minority 
refer to themselves in a derogatory fashion when they're not trying 
to draw attention to the prejudice of that term? If "Squib" was only 
used by Filch, I wouldn't be sure. But how Figgy used it, when she 
used it, I was convinced that "Squib" was not a bigoted slur.

Conversely, my adversaries in this argument are convinced that it 
was a bigoted slur. Will I change your minds? No, you seem spring 
loaded to find bigotry in Hagrid's comment because there are obvious 
undertones of bigotry running throughout this series. But, 
pronouncing something as bigoted or a slur doesn't make it so. I 
understand your opinion, but I'm not convinced.  Your response seems 
to be one of incredulity that everyone doesn't share your opinion.

Magpie:
Name-calling where you zero in on someone's minority group is just 
superficial and can't be related to prejudice? I would have thought 
it was one of the more obvious flags that someone's got some issues 
with bigotry.
<and>
I see no reason to try to explain how bringing up somebody's status 
as a minority group to hurt them has nothing to do with how bigotry 
works just because Hagrid did it.

Mike:
So it's a done deal as far as you are concerned. It's bigotry and 
there is no two ways about it. All of the evidence that I have put 
forward matters not, because you have pronounced the scene as 
bigoted and that's that. Mind you, I have not asked you to explain 
how bigotry works. Thank you, no, I understand it. I *have* asked 
you to explain how you justify your claim that the term "Squib" is 
bigoted in the face of the canon evidence to the contrary. You have 
declined. Referencing one's minority status is all you need to 
proclaim bigotry and you see no need to explain yourself further.

Ceridwen:
Still, it was Hagrid thoughtlessly using a WW prejudice, even if in
his daily life he has nothing against Squibs as a group or
individually. It was singling Filch out as Different and Less-than.

zgirnius:
If Hagrid had called Filch a jerk, or a git, or a berk, or any other 
generic pejorative word, we would not be having this discussion. But 
the noun he selected identifies Filch as having a particular birth 
characteristic, over which he has no more control than a Muggle has 
over their skin color, ethnicity, or physical disability.

I'll let Ken put something in here:
I think we have two long time rivals here who know *exactly* how to
push each other's buttons. Filch is sensitive about being a Squib.
Hagrid is sensitive about being substandard teacher with a tenuous
hold on his position. Each of them attacks the other at their weakest
point. This is a personal battle, there is no need to elevate it into
an exchange of bigotry. 

And Sydney adds:
As to whether this translates into, "Hagrid is therefore a bigot", I
wouldn't say so myself, but not so much because it doesn't logically
follow. I really don't like applying labels to people, period, and
that goes for labelling people bigots as well. 

Mike now:
I am not an apologist for Bigots, far from it, I deplore bigotry and 
racism. Likewise, I have an enormous distaste for people that too 
easily pronounce something as bigoted or call someone a bigot. If 
you are going to put someone into a position of defending themself 
against the charge of bigotry, you better have a damn good reason 
for levelling that charge. Defending oneself against a bigotry 
accusation is akin to trying to prove a negative. 

Like I said before, pronouncing bigotry at the drop of the hat 
trivializes those situations that are truly serious bigotry.

I'm done. I'll read any responses, but I'm getting too worked up 
over this topic. If you can't tell by now, I've had personal 
experiences in this area, and it brings back memories. I'll leave it 
at that

Mike







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 00:40:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:40:23 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed167b+9753@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2mpn+8djh@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157605

Ceridwen wrote:
> I won't speak for Magpie, but I will speak for myself.  It was
unnecessary for Hagrid to add the 'sneakin' Squib' part.  I 
understand why he did it - he was under some stress at the moment, 
worried about Ron in the hospital, having a private talk with some 
friends, and suddenly having his authority challenged on top of it  all.
> 
> You're right about Filch not respecting Hagrid's position.  Seeing
two students out past curfew with a teacher should have made him go 
on about his business.  Instead, he saw Hagrid, the person who for so
long has been 'just' the gamekeeper and keeper of the keys, not 
someone in some exalted position as an instructor.  And, as many 
people, including you, I think, have mentioned, the animosity between
Filch and Hagrid seems to go way back. <snip>
> 
> Still, it was Hagrid thoughtlessly using a WW prejudice, even if in
 his daily life he has nothing against Squibs as a group or 
individually.  It was singling Filch out as Different and Less-than.
It sets him apart and demotes him to ascribed status, in fact, to his
 Master Status as far as the WW is concerned.  It is a society 
prejudice, part of the culture.  It is acceptable because others are 
worse, it is acceptable because no one really gives it any thought.
> 
> When people are tightly strung, as Hagrid probably was that night,
and they are challenged by someone who is adversarial toward them, 
they lash out with something they know will hurt.  'Sneakin' Squib'
would hurt Filch, so Hagrid uses it.  Their conversation does 
escalate after this, so it must have touched some nerve in Filch.
> 
> We know that Filch is sensitive to his status.  He tried to conform
by taking the Kwickspell course.  He admits, almost confesses, to 
being a Squib.  Being a Squib is a handicap in the WW: Filch lacks a 
normal function of his world.  He seems to be sensitive about it, so 
it shouldn't be used as a weapon against him. <snip>

Carol responds:
I think Ceridwen has described the situation beautifully and I hated
to snip any of her post. Hagrid's insult *does* hit filch where it
hurts whether Hagrid intends it to or not. But Hagrid's insults tend
to be generic, perhaps because he's not very imaginative--"sneakin'
Squib!" matches "ruddy nags!" for the Centaurs and "a great Muggle
like you" for Vernon Dursley. It also, as Ceridwen says, reflects the
prejudices of the WW: Phineas Nigellus does much the same thing when
he hears that Mundungus Fletcher has been stealing from 12 GP: he
calls him a "mangy old Half-Blood" (HBP 260). Maybe it isn't bigotry
per se, but it's certainly categorizing people and using their "blood"
or their lack of magical ability or (in the case of the Centaurs)
their nonhuman, nonwizard status as an insult. 

It's true that Hagrid doesn't like Filch and that Filch provoked him,
but Hagrid should not, IMO, have taunted Filch with the painful fact
of his inferiority or used his status as a nonmagical person to insult
him. It's rather like a man saying, "Shut up, woman!" to a female
colleague. Highly unprofessional in my view, whether or not he was
provoked.

Hagrid's behavior illustrates, for me, the way the WW views itself as
superior to all other cultures. Although he's not a pureblood or even
fully human and consequently doesn't share the Slytherin pureblood
ethic, Hagrid shares other WW prejudices, including the view that
Wizards of both sexes are superior to Muggles and that humans are
superior to nonhumans (note his treatment of the Centaurs). Even his
attempt to civilize Grawp (which may be partly overcompensation--
"Blood's important!") reminds me of his affection for dangerous
creatures like dragons. I don't think he sees "Grawpy" as his equal
(and understandably so) even if they are "brothers." I doubt that he
considers Goblins and House-Elves as his equals, either. Very few
Wizards do, apparently.

Carol, who doesn't believe that any of the prejudice we see in the WW
is based on *race* per se though some of it is based on "blood" (the
perceived amount of magic in the blood of a person's ancestors)






From inyia at yahoo.es  Tue Aug 29 18:32:25 2006
From: inyia at yahoo.es (inyia)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 20:32:25 +0200
Subject: prophecy
In-Reply-To: <ed13i5+cei4@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <mailman.143.1576215618.17272.hpforgrownups@archive.hpfgu.org>

No: HPFGUIDX 157606

maria8162001:

Or something like Buffy the Vampire slayer, were Buffy died trying 
to save the world from destruction and her friend Willow bring her 
back from the dead. <snip> Would Harry wake like this or like Alice 
in Wonderland? <snip>


inyia:
Well, J.K.Rowling has said that when she started planning de HP saga 
she had made the things clear and there is no coming back from death.

inyia

 









From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com  Wed Aug 30 01:08:31 2006
From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:08:31 -0000
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <ec61ef+gg1@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2oef+kqj0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157607

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" <willsonkmom at ...>
wrote:
>SNIP
> It's the weekend, we can use some fluff---does anyone else have an
> example of 'did she really write that?'--lines that sort of jump
out
> and amuse us.
>
>

Lilygale here:  Sorry for the delay, but I was traveling on business
and pleasure for nearly two weeks, and I'm just now catching up on
my HP4GU reading.  At the same time, I've been re-reading POA.  I
found a never-before noticed "Tom Swiftie" (unintentional? with JKR,
who knows) .

In Chapter 17 (Cat, Rat and Dog), Harry and Hermione are trying to
follow Ron, who is being dragged by Padfoot into the Whomping
Willow.  Crookshanks has just hit the Willow's "Stop" button.

"Crookshanks!" Hermione whispered uncertainly...How did he know.

"He's friends with that dog" said Harry grimly.


I had to stop and re-read.  She cracks me up.

Lilygale, who remembers that JKR's sense of humor is what drew her
to Harry Potter in the first place










From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 02:38:18 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:38:18 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux as a Snitch?
Message-ID: <ed2tmq+kror@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157608

Ever notice that the Locket Horcrux is roughly the size and shininess
of a Snitch?  Think Harry's Quidditch skills will come in handy in
defeating Voldemort?

Eddie







From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 02:44:48 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 02:44:48 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed2432+dq54@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2u30+h7g8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157609

> > Ken:
> > Squib is just another name for Muggle  
> 
> colebiancardi:
> I don't think so.  A Muggle is someone who a) has no magical powers
> and b) has no magical parents or background in the magical world.  A
> Squib is someone who a) has no magical powers and b) was born to
> parents who were part of the magical community
> 
> A Muggle is not the same as a Squib

Eddie:

I'm Curious: Can a squib see the magical things a muggle can't?  Leaky
Cauldron, etc?

Eddie







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 03:23:25 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:23:25 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed2k0a+39f0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed30bd+944c@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157610

> >>Mike:
> And I continue to be amazed that people equate Hagrid calling     
> Filch a "sneakin' Squib" to someone using the bigoted slur "dirty 
> Jew". Furthermore, calling someone a "Jew" is not equal to calling 
> someone "Jewish". But calling someone a "Squib" is the same as 
> calling someone a "Squib". Do you get it now? 

Betsy Hp:
No, because I've never seen (or heard of, quite frankly) calling 
someone a Jew as bigoted in and of itself.  It's a descriptive 
word.  "He's a Jew, she's a Catholic, he's a Muggle, she's a 
Squib."  So, yeah, neutral.  Like saying, "He's a Mexican."

Filch is a Squib, he's can be described as such (by others and 
himself), just as Mrs. Figg can be described as such (by others and 
herself).  However, you make it an insult, and suddenly that 
neutrality isn't there anymore.  "Dirty Jew; greedy Catholic; stupid 
Muggle, sneaky Squib."  The descriptive words are tied to an insult 
now.  You're not just dirty, you're a dirty *Jew* (a dirty non-Jew 
is better somehow is the suggestion).  Filch isn't just a sneak, 
he's a sneaky *Squib*.  And that is somehow worse.

You call someone lazy -- that's an insult.  You call them a lazy 
*Mexican*, and now it's a hell of lot more political.  It's the 
suggestion that Mexicans are somehow more lazy than, say, Germans.  
Otherwise, why bother adding in that otherwise neutral discriptive 
word?

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> How many members of a minority refer to themselves in a derogatory 
> fashion when they're not trying to draw attention to the prejudice 
> of that term? If "Squib" was only used by Filch, I wouldn't be     
> sure. But how Figgy used it, when she used it, I was convinced     
> that "Squib" was not a bigoted slur.
> Conversely, my adversaries in this argument are convinced that it 
> was a bigoted slur.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, I haven't seen that actually.  I don't recall anyone saying 
calling someone a Squib, in and of itself, is a bigoted slur.  
Calling someone a *sneaky* Squib turns it into a slur. Because it's 
used in the context of an insult, it turns the word Squib into an 
insult.

(Though, honestly you can do a lot with tone.  If your tone suggests 
calling someone a Squib is insulting then the word becomes a slur.  
Part of it has a lot to do with the lesser status the entire WW puts 
Squibs into.  Flich is embarrassed to call himself a Squib.  There's 
a question about Mrs. Figg being allowed to play the part of witness 
in Harry's trial because she's a Squib.  Neville's experience puts a 
dark shadow of infanticide over the whole thing.)

> >>Mike:
> I *have* asked you to explain how you justify your claim that the 
> term "Squib" is bigoted in the face of the canon evidence to the   
> contrary. You have declined. Referencing one's minority status is 
> all you need to proclaim bigotry and you see no need to explain    
> yourself further.

Betsy Hp:
Again, it's not *just* referencing someone's minority status.  It's 
defining that minority status as something insulting to point out.  
The way Hagrid uses the word Squib *in that scene* turns it into an 
insult.  If he'd said "you sneaky Janitor" he'd have been expressing 
a certain amount of classism, suggesting that being a janitor is a 
bad thing.  He's saying that Flich isn't just sneaky, he's a sneaky 
*Squib*.  Just as if you call someone a lazy Mexican, folks around 
you will assume that you see something insulting or bad in being a 
Mexican.  Otherwise, why point out that the lazy person is Mexican?

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> If you are going to put someone into a position of defending      
> themself against the charge of bigotry, you better have a damn    
> good reason for levelling that charge. Defending oneself against a 
> bigotry accusation is akin to trying to prove a negative. 
> Like I said before, pronouncing bigotry at the drop of the hat 
> trivializes those situations that are truly serious bigotry.
> I'm done. I'll read any responses, but I'm getting too worked up 
> over this topic. If you can't tell by now, I've had personal 
> experiences in this area, and it brings back memories. I'll leave 
> it at that

Betsy Hp:
This is a hot button issue for you, I totally understand that.  But 
I think that rather than saying Hagrid is a bigot who hates Squibs, 
most people are pointing out that the prejudice against Squibs is 
endemic to the WW.  Neville is ashamed and scared about being a 
Squib (his family is horrified).  Filch is obviously mortified at 
being recognized as a Squib.  Mrs. Figg is one of Dumbledore's 
outcasts.  

Wizards look down on anyone not a wizard.  And Hagrid, brought up in 
that world, doesn't question it.  I don't think he'd dislike someone 
*just* because they're a Squib, but he certainly sees the fact of 
being a Squib as something that can be used as an insult.  That's 
how wizards think.  No one is saying Hagrid is evil, but they are 
saying that using the fact that Filch is a Squib to insult him is 
not a good thing.  It makes an impression that I'm not sure Hagrid 
really wants to make.

Betsy Hp







From amsmith422 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 01:34:25 2006
From: amsmith422 at yahoo.com (amsmith422)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 01:34:25 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed2eo3+1nal@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed2pv2+dl0q@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157611

> Carodave:
> I think there will be a tie-in between the importance of the
> wand/wizard connection, and the disappearance of Ollivander.
There
> has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of
the
> last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance.
>
>

Anna:
I also think there is an important reason for Ollivander's
disappearance..We know two important things. 1. The wand chooses the
wizard and 2. Voldemort and Harry's wands do not work properly when
turned on one another.  So we have to ask:  If Harry is the only
person who can kill Voldermort why would Voldemort's "twin" wand
choose Harry?  This has puzzled me since I read the scene in GOF
where the wands connect and then when Dumbledore explained whey they
didn't work against one another like they should.  How is Harry to
defeat him if his wand is not going to work properly?  I think
Ollivander was taken and made to create a new wand for Voldemort; or
went into hiding to prevent just that from happening.  I also think
it will come down to Harry having to learn "wandless" spells.
Anna












From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 04:25:19 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:25:19 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bigotry or NOT?
References: <ed2k0a+39f0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <005501c6cbec$4db84480$2486400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157612

> Mike:
> And I continue to be amazed that people equate Hagrid calling Filch
> a "sneakin' Squib" to someone using the bigoted slur "dirty Jew".
> Furthermore, calling someone a "Jew" is not equal to calling
> someone "Jewish". But calling someone a "Squib" is the same as
> calling someone a "Squib". Do you get it now?

Magpie:
I've gotten that from the beginning, as I have that Filch and Arabella call
themselves Squibs.  I've actually said I understand that more than once, not
even touching on the rather derogatory suggestion that the word Squib has in
terms of how it obviously comes to refer to these kinds of people.

However, as I and others have explained, if you use someone's minority 
status as an insult (and I have heard Jewish people use the word "Jew" to 
refer to themselves in a neutral way, and of groups sometimes use actual 
slurs among themselves with a different meaning than it has if leveled at 
them by an outsider) I think you are...using their minority status as an 
insult.  Bringing it into a conversation that has nothing to do with their 
status because you are angry and need something to call them just seems to 
imply their minority group is inferior, especially when their society makes 
that clear already.  Especially since "Squib" is also something Wizards call 
other wizards as
well, often as an insult.

I could understand feeling I had some personal problem with Hagrid if Hagrid 
just happened
to use the word Squib as in, "Filch can't do magic, he's a Squib" and I was 
claiming this line was in any way bigoted because he used the word Squib.
But it's not the use of the word in a vacuum that I reacted to, it's the 
word's use in a scene where he's naming Filch as a sneakin' Squib to insult 
him.  There is some incredulity there, I admit.  It's not like I think 
everybody needs to be angry about it or even that emotional, it just 
genuinely surprises me.

> Mike:
> So it's a done deal as far as you are concerned. It's bigotry and
> there is no two ways about it. All of the evidence that I have put
> forward matters not, because you have pronounced the scene as
> bigoted and that's that.

Magpie:
I would hope I'm open to having my mind changed if I'm wrong.  But so far 
these arguments just seem to explain the scene exactly the same way I 
already understand it. Like if someone said, "That remark couldn't be 
bigoted. Hagrid's just putting Filch in his place by reminding him the group 
of people one belongs to based on common circumstances of birth accounts for 
differences in human character and that Filch's particular group is 
suspect."

Mike:
Thank you, no, I understand it. I *have* asked
> you to explain how you justify your claim that the term "Squib" is
> bigoted in the face of the canon evidence to the contrary. You have
> declined. Referencing one's minority status is all you need to
> proclaim bigotry and you see no need to explain yourself further.

Magpie:
Oh, I see.  The problem seems to be that we're arguing at cross-purposes. 
Proving that Squib can be used in a perfectly non-insulting way doesn't 
speak to my problems because I know that Squib can be used that way.  Like I 
said above, if Hagrid just happened to say, "Filch is a Squib" for any 
number of reasons I wouldn't think it was prejudiced.  Nor do I think that 
referencing someone's ethnic group in any context whatsoever is prejudiced. 
In this context yes, I think
it's prejudiced.  If I had a child and heard him do that to another child in 
an argument I would tell him to apologize and probably sit down and ask him
why he felt the need to bring up the person's minority status at that 
moment.  If I did it in an argument I think I would feel I'd made a bigoted 
remark and would hopefully regret it.

Now perhaps if I knew the details of Hagrid and Filch's relationship it 
wouldn't sound the same; I'd understand some history between them that would 
give me a different understanding of the context.  But reading the scene 
fresh it just struck me as two people who didn't like each other and didn't 
really have much relationship, and Hagrid shuts Filch up with "sneakin' 
Squib."

Betsy Hp:
But I think that rather than saying Hagrid is a bigot who hates Squibs, most 
people are pointing out that the prejudice against Squibs is endemic to the 
WW.

Magpie:
Yes, perhaps that's why the issue seems so non-hot-button to me.  I don't 
feel like this is a big thing about Hagrid alone out of all characters.  I 
just recognize this particular insult and what it means in this world given 
the background we've been given.

-m





From tonks_op at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 04:56:13 2006
From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 04:56:13 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed2pv2+dl0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed35pd+1di9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157613

> > Carodave:
> > I think there will be a tie-in between the importance of the
> > wand/wizard connection, and the disappearance of Ollivander.
> There has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one 
of the last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance.

> Anna:
> So we have to ask:  If Harry is the only
> person who can kill Voldermort why would Voldemort's "twin" wand
> choose Harry?  This has puzzled me since I read the scene in GOF
> where the wands connect and then when Dumbledore explained whey 
they didn't work against one another like they should.  How is Harry 
to defeat him if his wand is not going to work properly?  I think
> Ollivander was taken and made to create a new wand for Voldemort; 
or went into hiding to prevent just that from happening.  I also 
think it will come down to Harry having to learn "wandless" spells.


Tonks:
Well I know that we have to ponder every word that JKR writes and 
ask ourselves why she put this or that in there.  I never thought 
about the fact that Neville was the last to purchase a wand from 
Ollivander.  This could mean nothing, or it could be a clue to 
something.  

Wonder what sort of conversation Grandma and Ollivander had?  Maybe 
she triggered his memory of the Longbottom's torture and with Bella 
on the loose; he started getting a bit concerned.  Maybe Neville 
will remember something that was said. 

Then there is the problem of the wand in the window.  I have always 
wondered if this wand was Gryffindor's.  DD said the Sword was the 
only "known" relic of Gryffindor.  I think that there is something 
that is "unknown" somewhere.  Or there is my rather lame theory that 
Ollivander is a descendant of Ravenclaw and the wand is the 
Ravenclaw wand.  I really don't know.  Drives me crazy, but it must 
all mean "something"!

As to the brother wands. I think the important thing was that 
because Harry had the brother wand, LV could not kill Harry. I don't 
think that LV will use his own wand on Harry again. What he will do 
instead is anyones guess. But Harry will defeat LV in another way, 
and not by killing. So again I think the main reason that Harry's 
wand has Fawkes feather is for a more noble reason and also to 
protect Harry from LV.

Tonks_op








From kjones at telus.net  Wed Aug 30 05:26:23 2006
From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:26:23 -0700
Subject: Chapdisc: HBP 19 House Elves
Message-ID: <44F5217F.6090601@telus.net>

No: HPFGUIDX 157614

KJ writes:

    Just for a change of pace, here, I'm wondering if anyone has any 
ideas on why Kreacher and Dobby were reduced to beating the daylights 
out of each other.  They are "magical creatures".  Would we not expect 
them to use magic?  Is their magic constrained so that they can only use 
magic in service?  Does Dumbledore have staff problems with squabbling 
elves?  I was rather surprised at the violence expressed in the phrase 
"Dobby sank his knobbly little fist into Kreacher's mouth and knocked 
out half of his teeth."  I was also hoping to see some cool house elf 
magic in Book 7, not the return of the Ewoks.

KJ




From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 05:48:18 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:48:18 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed2u30+h7g8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed38r2+rv1p@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157615

Eddie:
> 
> I'm Curious: Can a squib see the magical things a muggle can't?  Leaky
> Cauldron, etc?

Since Filch can see Hogwarts, which to Muggles looks like an old ruin,
I'd say yes. And, though I'm not sure this counts, Mrs. figg can
certainly see the MoM. Also, both Mrs. Figg and Filch have an affinity
with cats that goes beyond any rapport a Muggle might have with an
animal. In at least one place, the narrator refers to Filch as a
"failed wizard." I'm guessing that a Squib has a touch of magic in his
or her veins (magic seems to be in the blood, literally as well as
figuratively), and I think that we'll see either Figgy or Filth, erm,
Filch, doing magic "very late in life" in Book 7. Every Knut I own
(which, fortunately, is none) is on Mrs. Figg.

A Squib is *not* a Muggle, contrary to the opinion expressed by one or
two posters recently. He or she is simply the reverse of a Muggleborn
witch or wizard, with magical parents but (almost) no magical ability,
as opposed to Muggle parents but full magical powers. These people
belong in the Wizarding World and speak like witches and wizards but
are always on the fringes because they can't use a wand or receive a
Hogwarts education, which is why Filch is so full of animosity toward
the students. Even Mrs. Figg, who passes as a Muggle, maintains her WW
contacts. Her ideas and values and vocabulary ("the cats among the
pixies again") are those of the WW. At least, despite her inability to
"so much as Transfigure a teacup," she maintains her self-respect. But
her idea of "normal" almost certainly differs radically from the
Dursleys', who consider themselves and their values normal.

JKR has said, BTW, that Petunia isn't a Squib because her parents are
Muggles and Squibs have at least one magical parent. 

Carol, wondering whether a squib (a "dud" firecracker) would crackle
and hiss a little bit rather than making no noise at all






From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 06:14:00 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:14:00 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed2u30+h7g8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed3ab8+uamt@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157616

 
> Eddie:
> 
> I'm Curious: Can a squib see the magical things a muggle can't?  Leaky
> Cauldron, etc?
> 

zgirnius:
Muggles can't properly see Hogwarts. It seems Filch can.








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 07:27:57 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 07:27:57 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed2g1d+jrln@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed3elt+fcd0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157617

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03"
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>bboyminn: 
> > > ... let us not forget that Draco went to Voldemort 
> > > with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. 
> 
> > >>Magpie:
> > > No, he DID NOT. ...
> 
> > >>bboyminn:
> > > Sorry but your wrong, or at least as wrong as I am. 
> > > What is the very first thing that occurs 
> > > chronologically... Anwer: Draco figures out ... 
> > > Vanishing Cabinets...
> 
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > ... Draco tells Dumbledore that he got the idea about 
> > > the Cabinet after hearing Montague's story. That can't 
> > > have occured at the end of the school year because 
> > > Montague was too sick ....  
> > > ...
> 
> > >>bboyminn:
> > Sorry, not so, Montegue returns to the school around 
> > Easter, and is at the school for a minimum of two full 
> > month recoverings.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Montague returns just before Easter, yes. ... On a 
> Tuesday morning, after Easter break ..., he's described 
> as "confused and disorientated" and his parents come to 
> visit. [OotP p.678] Which we know is a pretty bad sign 
> based on other times parents get called in....
> 
> At the time of Harry's vision of Sirius in jeopardy 
> Montague is being spoon fed by Madam Pomfrey (probably 
> a potion, but still, spoon fed?). [ibid p.730]
> 

bboyminn:

Not quite, Madame Pomfrey is 'spooning some bright blue 
liquid into Montague's open mouth'. That is quite different 
than the implication that Md. Pomfrey was 'spoon feeding' 
him. And notice that Montague's mouth is open, he is not 
too incoherent to understand what is happening. I don't 
think this reads anything into his condition. Other than 
the fact that he is still in the hospital. Note in the 
section you cite below, Hermione is perfectly coherent
and she is taking 10 potions a day. 

> Betsy Hp:
> And Montague is either taken home early or he's so out 
> of it he doesn't even garner comment when everyone's 
> visiting Ron and Hermione in the hospital wing. 
> [ibid pp.846-850]  Which .., suggests .. his recovery 
> is .. slow....
> 

bboyminn:

Or it suggests that he is recovered and back in the dorms 
telling his story.

I agree, what is talked about in the hospital scene is a 
little sensitive, and I don't think they would have been 
so open with Montague there. So, I conclude he is not 
there, that he is back in Slytherin House. 

> Betsy Hp:
> ...
> 
> You also have to sell the idea that Draco, member of the 
> IS, enjoying Dumbledore being kicked out of Hogwarts, is 
> for some reason thinking about ways for Voldemort to come 
> into Hogwarts.  Why on earth would Draco be thinking about 
> such things?  ...
> 

bboyminn:

Look at the scene where Draco and Harry meet in the Entrance 
Hall near the very end of the book (soon joined by Snape
and McGonagall). Draco as good as swear vengence for Harry 
'landing his father in jail'. So Draco is most certainly
thinking about 'such things'.

> 
> > >>bboymin:
> > I don't deny Voldemort's anger with Lucius, but it 
> > wasn't  about the diary, it was about the muck-up at 
> > the Ministry.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Why do you think that?  Where's the canon?
> 

bboyminn:

"Spinner's End"; read it again. Narcissa /suspects/ the 
Ministry Muck-up is the motivtion. Snape agrees that 
Voldemort is angry, but never confirms his motivations.

The Dairy is never mention. And when Dumbledore mentions
it, he doesn't make a big deal out of it. So, the emphasis
on the Dairy is mostly fan speculation. 

Magpie asserted with absolute indisputable authority that
the Dairy was that the center of it all, and flat out 
told me I was wrong. I pointed out I was no more wrong
than she was. Now it seems the very canon she relied on 
is denying the heart of her /theory/.

--- HBP HB, Am Ed, Pg 34 ---
...said Snape flatly. "I cannot pretend that the Dark 
Lord is not angry with Lucius. Lucius was supposed to be 
in charge. He got himself captured, along with how many 
others, and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the 
bargain. Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa, very 
angry indeed." 

"Then I am right, he has chosen Draco in revenge!" choked 
Narcissa. "He does not mean him to succeed, he wants him 
to be killed trying!" 
- - - end quote - - - 

Nothing about the Diary. I don't deny the Diary played
some part, but the bulk of Voldemort's anger seems to 
be related to Lucuis screwing up the Ministry mission.

Also note that Narcissa also says (pg.33)-

"But he won't succeed!" sobbed Narcissa "How can he, when 
the Dark Lord himself--?"

Followed by -
"I only meant...that nobody has yet suceeded..."

Narcissa can imagine how anyone could expect Draco to kill 
someone that not even the Dark Lord himself could kill.

While you may not consider my view canon, you shouldn't be 
able to consider Magpie's view as anything other than an
interpretation of Canon.

I don't deny Voldemort's anger, but as I said before, you 
and Magpie are starting in the middle of the story, and I 
am filling in the back story leading up that middle.

To prove my point, let's play a game called 'Meanie-Meanie'.

Everything is condensed to it's most concise form.

Scenario One - "Mean Voldemort"

"Bring me Draco. Draco, your dad is an ass, now kill 
Dumbledore or die trying. Be gone!"

Sorry, but that is not much of a plan. In fact if he is 
just angry at Lucius, then why mess around with such a 
hopeless and pointless time wasting plan at all (or 
non-plan as I see it)? Why not just kill Draco and be 
done with it? Why throw away another year on a doomed 
and pointless plan? 

I know I've said before that Voldemort is irrational, but 
even he is not THAT irrational.


Scenario Two - "Mean Draco/Mean Voldemort"

Draco, wanting vengence against Harry and Dumbledore,
realizes the potential of the Cabinet.

Through a set of cirucmstances, he brings this to 
Voldemort's attention.

Voldemort likes the idea. The perfect scheme to attack 
Hogwarts and Dumbledore. So he sets Draco the task of 
fixing the cabinet so DE's can enter the castle. A little 
more than Draco bargained for but still doable and not so
critical.

Then Voldemort says, "By the way, you dad is an ass, so 
I'm going to let you personally kill Dumbledore or die 
trying. Be Gone!"

>From this point on, regardless of which scenario you buy, 
the story proceeds the same. There is nothing in my version
that alters or contradicts what the rest of the story tells 
us. Both versions end with Draco being given the task of 
killing Dumbledore. Voldemort's motivation for assigning 
this task is the same in either case.

Now ask yourself, which plan is /really/ a plan? 

I say scenario 1 is no plan at all; it is a hopeless waste 
of everything; time, resource, etc....

I say scenerio 2 is a brilliant Master Plan for invading 
Hogwarts and ambushing Dumbledore, combined with a bit of 
psychological revenge on Lucuis and Narcissa. It must have 
been a good plan because it succeeded.

Think what you will ...and I'll do the same.

Steve/bboyminn







From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 09:57:16 2006
From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:57:16 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?(was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco...)
In-Reply-To: <ed03qj+vb0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed3nds+71m6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157618



> Aussie:
> 
> I don't know if Draco and Montegue are that friendly. Draco just 
> heard the story (after montegue appartaed out of the cabinet and was 
> found with his head stuck in a loo.)

AD:
Montague is the captain of the Slytherin Quidditch team.

I suspect that he and the Slytherin Seeker spend a bit of time in each
other's company.

Amiable Dorsai







From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 06:26:29 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:26:29 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: She looks like a Toad
In-Reply-To: <ectkqa+sln5@eGroups.com>
References: <ectkqa+sln5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608292326q425dbff1nee0663f2d2eefd28@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157619

d_bittman:

She definitely is toadlike and with all her prejudices she's so vocal
about, it makes me wonder if she has toad-blood in her. The best way
to not draw attention to your own heritage would be to yell the
loudest against it and everyone would conclude her "pure" in lineage.
She also uses it to empower her politically and align with powerful
people with similar prejudices...

Lynda:

Several times throughout OOP Hermione calls Umbridge a had.  That's led me
to speculate with friends and family that maybe, unknowingly, Hermione was
right and Umbridge is, in fact a hag, or at least a part-hag...

Lynda


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






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 06:53:15 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:53:15 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <ed077n+a04i@eGroups.com>
References: <ed077n+a04i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608292353v3793fbe3jd8de648aad137ca6@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157620

Lynn wrote:
I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

Lynda:

Let's see:

With me reading the books goes in decreasing order.  SS I've read four
times, CoS and POA Three, GOF and OOP twice.  Also add in at least once for
each book on audio. (I listen to audio books by a lot of different writers
on a daily basis, probably not really "hearing" large portions of them at
times as its a way to pass the time when I'm doing something that involves
my brain other than TV).  I will probably read through the series again
before #7 comes out, but as I've just returned to school, I may decide not
to do that.

Lynda


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






From moosiemlo at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 07:05:46 2006
From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 00:05:46 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD at the Dursleys: Why do people dislike the scene?
In-Reply-To: <4a909e863ea3946665cf6805d826aeed@bellsouth.net>
References: <ecvfig+l6fg@eGroups.com>
	 <4a909e863ea3946665cf6805d826aeed@bellsouth.net>
Message-ID: <2795713f0608300005x4feef0eh4d359396830fbd5f@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157621

 Lupinlore:

Let us turn our attention for a moment to a scene that gets a lot of
discussion and no little heat: DD at the Dursleys at the beginning
of HBP. Several people have expressed discomfort with or dislike
for this scene. I confess to being utterly baffled.

<SNIP>


Lynda:

I confess to utter bafflement at people's dislike of this scene as well.  To
me it seems like pure, classic Dumbledore, just in a situation in which we
have never seen him prior to this one.  Certainly we have seen him take
charge of difficult situations before.  We have read the portions of the
books in which he is referred to as the only wizard Voldemort ever feared.
We have read of his defeat of the wizard Grindenwald.  Therefore, we know
that there is much more to Albus Dumbledore than what has been presented to
us within the text of the books thus far.  Those reasons are precisely why
that scene does not bother me; along, of course with a deep sense of
satisfaction that the Dursleys come closer to getting told what for
concerning their treatment not only of Harry but of Dudley as well.

Lynda


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







From maria8162001 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 09:05:35 2006
From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 09:05:35 -0000
Subject: Waking up from the dead in HP /some Buffy spoilers WAS: Re: prophecy
Message-ID: <ed3kcv+hkj8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157622


> maria8162001:
>
> Or something like Buffy the Vampire slayer, were Buffy died trying
> to save the world from destruction and her friend Willow bring her
> back from the dead. <snip> Would Harry wake like this or like Alice
> in Wonderland? <snip>
>
>
> inyia:
> Well, J.K.Rowling has said that when she started planning de HP saga
> she had made the things clear and there is no coming back from death.


maria8162001:

Yes, JKR made that clear, but what I mean is, Buffy wasn't at all
dead, all the slaying stuff was just in her mind. she's a schizo
patient and the doctor and her parents were trying to make her choose
or stick to getting better but she chose to being a slayer and be with
her friends, hence the vampire slaying stuff continue and it became
her reality.I do not know if anybody from this list watched that
eppisode of Buffy. So it's more like waking up and it's all just a bad
dream.











From kennclark at btinternet.com  Wed Aug 30 12:21:10 2006
From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:21:10 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed2pv2+dl0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed3vrm+1oc3@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157623

Carodave:
"the disappearance of Ollivander.
There has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of
the last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance."

kennclark:
Yes indeed.  Neville, until it got broke fighting the death eaters, had
been using his father's old wand so Ollivander had presumably never
seen or met Neville before he came into his shop to buy his first
wand.  What about Neville might have resulted in Ollivander's flight
into hiding (if that is what has happened)?  Personally I've always
thought that Neville was destined to kill Voldemort.  Maybe in choosing
his wand something was revealed to Ollivander, so important about the
prophecy that he thought it better to get the hell out of it for a
while.










From grich277080 at aol.com  Wed Aug 30 10:00:54 2006
From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:00:54 EDT
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
Message-ID: <bfc.2bf0fad.3226bbd6@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157624

Leb:
>> I think that at some point we will see Neville use Harry's 
wand and find out it is just as suited for him if not moreso 
than it is for Harry. If you remember he had a used wand the 
first several years and so did not get a shot at trying the 
Fawke's wand like Harry did. What might have happened if he 
had tried it first? Would the wand have chosen Neville had it 
been given the chance? <<


AnnR:
 
Well in the series Voldemort has made many arrogant mistakes.  
Do you think that maybe he chose the wrong child?  Should it have 
been  Neville?  After all both sets of parents thrice defied him.  
Neville was given his father's wand if I remember correctly.  
Maybe if he had got to Ollivanders first Harry's wand would have 
chosen him.  I can't remember the core of Neville's wand and I 
do not have HBP with me at the moment.   Also I would suspect that 
Alice would have died protecting her child also as most mothers 
would, if so would the love protection have been on Neville and 
then vanquished Voldemort.  Is Neville the chosen one?  Even though  
Dumbledore thinks it's Harry. 










From ayrabelle13 at yahoo.ca  Wed Aug 30 11:46:37 2006
From: ayrabelle13 at yahoo.ca (ayrabelle13)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 11:46:37 -0000
Subject: I'm new here so sorry if this isn't correct
In-Reply-To: <2795713f0608292353v3793fbe3jd8de648aad137ca6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed3tqt+6r4h@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157625

> Lynn wrote:
> I am curious how many times everyone has read the series.

ayrabelle13:
I've read the series about five times, but I've read the last
three books six times each.  I guess the older Harry gets, the
more intrigued I am by the story.  (You don't even want to know
how many times I've seen the movies!)








From grich277080 at aol.com  Wed Aug 30 09:34:18 2006
From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:34:18 EDT
Subject: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
Message-ID: <516.6687863.3226b59a@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157626

Lilygale here: 
>> <snip> I've been re-reading POA. I found a never-before noticed 
"Tom Swiftie" (unintentional? with JKR, who knows).

<snip>

Lilygale, who remembers that JKR's sense of humor is what drew her
to Harry Potter in the first place <<


AnnR:
What is 'Tom Swiftie'?  Is it an Americanism, I don't remember 
reading it in POA.  I too like her humor.









From grich277080 at aol.com  Wed Aug 30 09:31:45 2006
From: grich277080 at aol.com (grich277080 at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:31:45 EDT
Subject: Locket Horcrux as a Snitch?
Message-ID: <c31.15c120e.3226b501@aol.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157627

Eddie:
>> Ever notice that the Locket Horcrux is roughly the size and 
shininess of a Snitch? Think Harry's Quidditch skills will come 
in handy in defeating Voldemort? <<


AnnR:
 
Nice thought.  I don't think there is anything in canon to suggest 
that Voldemort uses a broom.  He usually apparates.  Sport was 
never mentioned in his past so far.  Who knows..







From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 14:30:34 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:30:34 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed38r2+rv1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed47ea+c57v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157628

>
> Eddie:
> > 
> > I'm Curious: Can a squib see the magical things a muggle can't?  Leaky
> > Cauldron, etc?
> 
> Carol:
> Since Filch can see Hogwarts, which to Muggles looks like an old ruin,
> I'd say yes. 

Ken:

And I would say no. Filch can see Hogwarts because he is allowed to
see it in the same way that those complete Muggles, Hermione's
parents, can see the Leaky Cauldron and Diagon Alley.

> Carol:

> Also, both Mrs. Figg and Filch have an affinity
> with cats that goes beyond any rapport a Muggle might have with an
> animal. 

Ken:

You don't spend much time with dog or cat people do you? Ok, no I
don't know of anyone who can communicate with cats the way Figgy and
Filch do, but then I don't know of any cats like Mrs. Norris either.
I'd say the rapport is due to the cats not the Squibs. I sure we all
know someone who *thinks* they can talk with a cat they way Figgy does!

> Carol:
> A Squib is *not* a Muggle, contrary to the opinion expressed by one or
> two posters recently. He or she is simply the reverse of a Muggleborn
> witch or wizard, with magical parents but (almost) no magical ability,
> as opposed to Muggle parents but full magical powers. These people
> belong in the Wizarding World and speak like witches and wizards but
> are always on the fringes because they can't use a wand or receive a
> Hogwarts education, which is why Filch is so full of animosity toward
> the students. 

Ken:

A Muggle is a human with no magical ability. A Squib is a human with
no magical ability. Squib is really a subset of Muggle. Even if you
want to argue that Squibs might have some *slight* magical ability
then surely such people are born to Muggles too (who can produce full
blown wizard and witch offspring after all) and are considered
Muggles, not Squibs. The things that set Squibs apart from other
Muggles is that *both* (or at least one according to a JKR quote you
referenced later and which I snipped) their parents are magical AND
they are allowed routine contact with the wizarding world. There are a
few ordinary Muggles that are allowed the latter. As far as I can see
it is quite accurate to say that a Squib is a Muggle. It *is not*
accurate to say that a Muggle is a Squib. All Squibs are Muggles but
not all Muggles are Squibs.

> 
> Carol, wondering whether a squib (a "dud" firecracker) would crackle
> and hiss a little bit rather than making no noise at all
>

Ken:

Funny you should say that, the paperback Webster's in my desk says a
squib is "a firecracker that burns with a hissing noise before
exploding", a dud is "a bomb or shell that fails to explode". The
Squibs we have seen are, so far, much more like duds than squibs. 

The modern technical use of the word squib is broader than my
Webster's allows and it makes JKR's choice of the word in this context
much less appropriate. Today a squib is a small, useful explosive,
something very different from a Squib in the Potterverse. The
explosive bolts that release rockets from their launch pads and allow
their stages to separate are squibs. The charges that inflate the
airbags in your car are squibs. A squib perfroms a useful task by
exploding. A Squib may be useful in the WW in the ways that any
ordinary human being can be useful but is not *magically* useful. And,
if Filch or Figgy does perform magic late in life would they still be
considered Squibs?

Ken 






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 15:33:56 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:33:56 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed3elt+fcd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4b54+sq2j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157630

> bboyminn:
>
> "Spinner's End"; read it again. Narcissa /suspects/ the
> Ministry Muck-up is the motivtion. Snape agrees that
> Voldemort is angry, but never confirms his motivations.
>
> The Dairy is never mention. And when Dumbledore mentions
> it, he doesn't make a big deal out of it. So, the emphasis
> on the Dairy is mostly fan speculation.
>
> Magpie asserted with absolute indisputable authority that
> the Dairy was that the center of it all, and flat out
> told me I was wrong.

Magpie:
I actually did not assert with absolute indisputable authority that
the Diary was the center of it all. I don't have to do that for
what I was saying you were wrong about-anything that leads to LV 
angry at Lucius and wanting to punish him supports my version. What 
I referred to were the three things you referred to above: there's a 
scene where Narcissa basically says, "Voldemort is angry at Lucius, 
isn't he? Over what happened at the MoM? And that's why he's chosen 
Draco?" and Snape agrees Voldemort is angry and that this is why he 
Draco must do the task. Then later when we've come to understand 
what Horcruxes are and how important they are to the vanquishing of 
Voldemort Dumbledore tells us he's heard Voldemort was furious about 
the Diary and Lucius must be really happy to be safe in Azkaban. 
Narcissa would not know about Horcruxes, of course, and it could not 
have been introduced into the story in Spinner's End without I think
tipping too much about Horcruxes. So we start out with the scenario
that Voldemort is angry at Lucius, that he's given Draco this
suicide mission that must be Draco's because Voldemort is so angry.
Later in the story we're given a reason for more Voldemort anger
that ties into the Horcrux plot as well.

So what I said, I thought quite clearly, was that the story gives us
Voldemort's anger at Lucius connected to Draco's suicide mission.
That's the only motivation we're given for Voldemort giving Draco
this mission. It's a cruel and elegant revenge plot. Where I said
you were wrong was not that the MoM can't be important at all--that
doesn't relate to your theory either way. It was to say there is
not any suggestion anywhere of any alternate plot, specifically the
one where he's focused on Draco because Draco went to him with the
Cabinet plot. When Narcissa comes to the conclusion that this is
revenge and Snape looks away but can't pretend not to hear her, you
can stick in "Snape's not saying anything but he's thinking that
Narcissa's wrong and it's really that Draco brought him this great
Cabinet plot that's fabulous but not so fabulous that Voldemort
isn't going to use it in the service of his afterthought revenge
plot" as well as you can stick in anything, but since there's
nothing confirming that idea and the story just continues to spin
out in the "Malfoys are this close to being murdered by Voldemort"
direction I think there's far more canon there.

Steve:
I pointed out I was no more wrong
> than she was. Now it seems the very canon she relied on
> is denying the heart of her /theory/.

Magpie:
So you've decided that my theory is somehow that the Diary must be
the only reason for Voldemort's anger and if you can point out the
canon where Snape says he's angry about the MoM you've disproved
it? What an odd idea. You just quoted canon at me that *supports*
my theory, not denies it. Snape is talking about Voldemort being
angry and having reason to punish the Malfoys--Lucius is a screw
up. He screwed up at the MoM, which made Voldemort angry, and oh as
we continue into the story and learn about these bits of Voldemort's
soul we learn he was also furious to learn Lucius threw that away.
The fact that JKR knew where the Malfoys were going when she had
Lucius do that in CoS just adds to the wonderful revenge plot. But
neither one undercuts the other.  I don't see how I'm just as wrong 
as you are when you've had to acknowledge that my story is all in 
canon while your additional scenes are not.

Steve:
> Nothing about the Diary. I don't deny the Diary played
> some part, but the bulk of Voldemort's anger seems to
> be related to Lucuis screwing up the Ministry mission.

Magpie:
So you agree with me that canon presents Voldemort's anger at Lucius
screw ups as his motivation for giving Draco the task to kill
Voldemort? We're not disagreeing then.

bboyminn:
> Narcissa can imagine how anyone could expect Draco to kill
> someone that not even the Dark Lord himself could kill.

Magpie:
Um, yeah. Voldemort doesn't expect Draco to kill Dumbledore. Draco
is supposed to get himself killed. That's the idea.

bboyminn:
> I don't deny Voldemort's anger, but as I said before, you
> and Magpie are starting in the middle of the story, and I
> am filling in the back story leading up that middle.
>
> To prove my point, let's play a game called 'Meanie-Meanie'.
>
> Everything is condensed to it's most concise form.
>
> Scenario One - "Mean Voldemort"
>
> "Bring me Draco. Draco, your dad is an ass, now kill
> Dumbledore or die trying. Be gone!"
>
> Sorry, but that is not much of a plan.

In fact if he is
> just angry at Lucius, then why mess around with such a
> hopeless and pointless time wasting plan at all (or
> non-plan as I see it)? Why not just kill Draco and be
> done with it? Why throw away another year on a doomed
> and pointless plan?

Magpie:
Apparently you've never met our monster villain, Lord Voldemort.
He's a noseless chap whose hobbies include throwing away years on
plans destined to fail. This particular plan is actually one of his
best, with less potential for failure than, say, needing a 14-year-
old to win the TriWizard Tournament in order to get him to touch a
Portkey. This plan has every reason to succeed.

And why suggest he's throwing away a year on it? I thought we're
told he's actually causing a lot of trouble in the world throughout
the year. What time does he waste on the Draco plan? He gives him
the order, and occasionally makes threats when the kid doesn't get
himself killed fast enough. It's not a hopeless plan, it's a plan
designed for maximum cruelty. One might as well ask why that Nazi
in Sophie's Choice messes around with making that Polish woman
choose which one of her children goes to the gas chamber. Why not
just toss them both in instead of pointlessly making her choose?

bboyminn:>
> I know I've said before that Voldemort is irrational, but
> even he is not THAT irrational.

Magpie:
Yeah, he is. Especially since the only irrational bit is that he's
irrational enough to get a teenager killed to punish his father.

bboyminn:>
>
> Scenario Two - "Mean Draco/Mean Voldemort"

Magpie:
The title pretty much says it all here--this story would just be so
much nicer if it were the usual comeuppance!

bboyminn:
> Draco, wanting vengence against Harry and Dumbledore,
> realizes the potential of the Cabinet.

Magpie:
Draco has never shown any desire for revenge against Dumbledore. He
did swear vengeance on Harry at the end of OotP but in HBP has no
interest in Harry whatsoever. Canon suggests pretty clearly imo that
this is because his chance to be a man by doing the task Voldemort
has chosen him for (making him special) made him no longer so
jealous of Harry. So out of the gate the prime motivations you've
got for Draco are wonky and not being dramatized. JKR is
concentrating on him proving himself a man, you want him driven by
revenge against Harry and Dumbledore.

bboyminn:

> Through a set of cirucmstances, he brings this to
> Voldemort's attention.

Magpie:
"A set of circumstances" here standing in for "just imagine there
was any suggestion that any of this happened at all."

bboyminn:
> Voldemort likes the idea. The perfect scheme to attack
> Hogwarts and Dumbledore. So he sets Draco the task of
> fixing the cabinet so DE's can enter the castle. A little
> more than Draco bargained for but still doable and not so
> critical.
>
> Then Voldemort says, "By the way, you dad is an ass, so
> I'm going to let you personally kill Dumbledore or die
> trying. Be Gone!"

bboyminn:
So the important thing here is the attacking of Dumbledore and
Hogwarts by the DEs. Except at the climax it's not the important
thing at all. The DEs show up and help with the "By the way..."
part. Oh, and also making this plan difficult is the way Draco
apparently thinks his being "allowed" to kill Dumbledore is in fact
something he must do under threat of punishment (like it is in my
version), so he starts trying to kill him through other means, all
of which could have cut the Cabinet plot off completely. And the
DEs seem to have translated "I'm going to let you personally kill
Dumbledore..." as "You must kill Dumbledore. We can't do it. Even
if we're standing here in front of him." Every single step of the
way Draco's being ordered to kill Dumbledore himself takes
precedence for Voldemort what is supposedly his real priority.

bboyminn:
> From this point on, regardless of which scenario you buy,
> the story proceeds the same. There is nothing in my version
> that alters or contradicts what the rest of the story tells
> us. Both versions end with Draco being given the task of
> killing Dumbledore. Voldemort's motivation for assigning
> this task is the same in either case.

Magpie:
Actually, there is a lot in the story that contradicts or alters
your version, though you don't seem to see it. You say here that
Voldemort's motives are the same either way here, but above
Voldemort was supposed to "rationally" be interested in attacking
Hogwarts and Dumbledore more than the side issue of "letting" Draco
kill Dumbledore himself. More importantly, the *themes* of this
storyline are all about Draco's trying to rise to the challenge of a
man's job that he inherited now that his father's gone, and the
actual love in the Malfoy family being used against them and causing
them to go against Voldemort. Your story is about the dangers of
being eaten by revenge--which we quite possibly may learn is Snape's
story. Or the desire for petty power biting you on the butt or 
something.  Your version allows for family love as a secondary 
feeling, my story allows for revenge and a desire for power as a 
secondary feeling, but it makes a big difference which one of those 
feelings is the throughline of the story. Starting Draco out with 
revenge would, imo, absolutely make little changes throughout the 
entire story--we would see that motivation be tested and die and be 
addressed in the Tower, as we see happen to the slightly different 
motivations in canon.

bboyminn:
>
> Now ask yourself, which plan is /really/ a plan?
>
> I say scenario 1 is no plan at all; it is a hopeless waste
> of everything; time, resource, etc....

Magpie:
Yes, it is a plan. And Voldemort really isn't asking you if you
think it's a good way to spend his time. Sometimes he amuses
himself making disobedient followers suffer. It's not taking up all
of his time. As I think I suggested above, I find the some of his
plans in earlier books poorly thought out, but I accept them if I
can't fanwank them without corrupting other things.

bboyminn:
> I say scenerio 2 is a brilliant Master Plan for invading
> Hogwarts and ambushing Dumbledore, combined with a bit of
> psychological revenge on Lucuis and Narcissa. It must have
> been a good plan because it succeeded.

Magpie:
But what does your thinking scenario 2 is a brilliant master plan
have to do with what's written? And how is it such a dreadful waste
of time to give the Malfoy kid the task of killing Dumbledore as a
prelude to either getting him killed or killing him when the great
Master Plan for invading Hogwarts and ambushing Dumbledore comes
down to...giving the Malfoy kid the task of killing Dumbledore as a
prelude to either getting him killed or killing him. If Voldemort's
main objective is the killing of Dumbledore and invasion of Hogwarts
then I'm afraid I'm the one feelings the guy's wasting his
resources. That invasion of Hogwarts and ambush of Dumbledore, if
that's the point, was an embarassment. As the climax of the Malfoy
revenge plot that leads to surprising things it's great but as the
conclusion to the great invasion of Hogwarts plot it's a real dud.
The Invasion plan itself doesn't even have a goal as LV's plans do.
It's just "Get there and...cause trouble or something." The goal of
Draco's death is an actual goal. Is it on the level of getting the
Prophecy or the PS or opening the CoS? No. Those are plans for
Harry that show the larger evil scale. This is the effect his evil
has on smaller people who get involved with him.

-m







From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 15:34:31 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 15:34:31 -0000
Subject: Locket Horcrux as a Snitch?
In-Reply-To: <c31.15c120e.3226b501@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ed4b67+crdo@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157631

> Eddie:
> >> Ever notice that the Locket Horcrux is roughly the size and 
> shininess of a Snitch? Think Harry's Quidditch skills will come 
> in handy in defeating Voldemort? <<
> 
> AnnR:
>  
> Nice thought.  I don't think there is anything in canon to suggest 
> that Voldemort uses a broom.  He usually apparates.  Sport was 
> never mentioned in his past so far.  Who knows..

Eddie:
I wasn't thinking sport... just some kind of most-amazing catch by
Harry (maybe on a broom) that keeps the locket from Voldy.

But now that you mention it, it reminds me of the game of chess played
against Death from Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal", parodied so
perfectly in the movie "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" where they play
Twister, Battleship, Clue, and electronic footbal against Death.

So anyway, back to HP canon: Harry used his broom-flying skills to
defeat the dragon in GoF.  And Quidditch is so intrinsic to Harry's
skill-set that I'd love to see it become an important factor in the
final book.

Eddie






From vinkv002 at planet.nl  Wed Aug 30 17:04:07 2006
From: vinkv002 at planet.nl (Renee)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:04:07 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ecnbjd+oicr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4ge7+s4lr@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157632

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Aida Costa" <aida_costa at ...> wrote:
>
> Pippin wrote:
> 
> <huge snip>
> 
> >I notice he's [Lupin] not on JKR's A-list for dinner companions any
> >more. And it can't be because he's going to be dead. <g>
> 
> 
> Huh?  Did I miss something in one of her interviews?
> 
> Aida
>

Renee:

Lupin's still on JKR's list of favourite characters on her website.
What seems to have disappeared from the site (unless I did a really
bad search) is the question who she'd like to have dinner with, to
which the answer was Lupin. But AFAIK this was never a list. 

 







From tonisan9 at hotmail.com  Wed Aug 30 17:25:19 2006
From: tonisan9 at hotmail.com (tonihollifield)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 17:25:19 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed2pv2+dl0q@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4hlv+rhpl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157633

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amsmith422" <amsmith422 at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > Carodave:
> > I think there will be a tie-in between the importance of the
> > wand/wizard connection, and the disappearance of Ollivander.
> There
> > has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of
> the
> > last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance.
> >
> >
> 
> Anna:
> I also think there is an important reason for Ollivander's
> disappearance..We know two important things. 1. The wand chooses the
> wizard and 2. Voldemort and Harry's wands do not work properly when
> turned on one another.  So we have to ask:  If Harry is the only
> person who can kill Voldermort why would Voldemort's "twin" wand
> choose Harry?  This has puzzled me since I read the scene in GOF
> where the wands connect and then when Dumbledore explained whey they
> didn't work against one another like they should.  How is Harry to
> defeat him if his wand is not going to work properly?  I think
> Ollivander was taken and made to create a new wand for Voldemort; or
> went into hiding to prevent just that from happening.  I also think
> it will come down to Harry having to learn "wandless" spells.
> Anna
>

Toni now:  (coming out a seriously long period of lurkdom...)

While Harry and Voldemort's wands don't work against each other if 
both are firing off spells at the exact same moment (as was the case 
with Voldemort's AK and Harry's Expelliarmus in the graveyard), 
Voldemort was able to use his wand against Harry, in general, when he 
cast both the Cruciatus curse and the Imperious curse on him.  While 
I agree that they don't work "properly" against each other, in the 
limited circumstance of both casting spells at the exact same time, 
it's not as if they don't work at all.

I always put down the fact that Harry's wand chose him and another 
part of the connection Voldemort forged when he AK'd him.  

Toni (back to lurkdom...)  :-)  








From amsmith422 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 14:10:49 2006
From: amsmith422 at yahoo.com (amsmith422)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:10:49 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <bfc.2bf0fad.3226bbd6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ed4699+g62j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157634

> AnnR:
<SNIP>
  Is Neville the chosen one?  Even
though
> Dumbledore thinks it's Harry.
>
Anna:
I think we're forgetting here that Harry asked Dumbledore this same
question..What if Voldemort made a mistake and chose the wrong boy.
Dumbledore's response was to remind Harry of the part of the
Prophecy that says Voldemort would mark the boy as his equal.  Harry
has the mark-Neville does not.  I think Neville's major battle in
the end with be between Bellatrix and himself..not Voldemort and the
new wand will allow him to become more adept at magic than he has
been to defeat her.










From jlcaron at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 14:23:04 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:23:04 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:  leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <bfc.2bf0fad.3226bbd6@aol.com>
References: <bfc.2bf0fad.3226bbd6@aol.com>
Message-ID: <E326E346-64F3-4DBB-A1CE-BE9E4657BA52@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157635

>
> AnnR:
>
> Well in the series Voldemort has made many arrogant mistakes.
> Do you think that maybe he chose the wrong child?  Should it have
> been  Neville?  After all both sets of parents thrice defied him.
> Neville was given his father's wand if I remember correctly.
> Maybe if he had got to Ollivanders first Harry's wand would have
> chosen him.  I can't remember the core of Neville's wand and I
> do not have HBP with me at the moment.   Also I would suspect that
> Alice would have died protecting her child also as most mothers
> would, if so would the love protection have been on Neville and
> then vanquished Voldemort.  Is Neville the chosen one?  Even though
> Dumbledore thinks it's Harry.

Jaime:

Sorry, for such a short reply but Neville declares in HPB that his  
new wand is cherry and unicorn hair. Unicorns seem to be symbolic of  
purity and healing.

I thought it was irrelevant who was originally intended in the  
prophecy and that it only mattered that Voldemort chose Harry. Maybe  
I'm not understand Dumbledore correctly when he explained the  
prophecy at the end of OOTP but I thought he was making the point  
that who the Chosen One actually was is irrelevant and that it was  
Voldemort's decision that put these chain of events into action.





From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 18:01:39 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:01:39 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed38r2+rv1p@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4jq3+tpqm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157636

> Carol:
> Carol, wondering whether a squib (a "dud" firecracker) would crackle
> and hiss a little bit rather than making no noise at all

Eddie:
"dud" as in "Dudley"?  Shall we speculae that Dudley is a late-in-life
Wizard?

Eddie







From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 18:20:16 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:20:16 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed3elt+fcd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4kt0+5is6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157637

Steve:
> --- HBP HB, Am Ed, Pg 34 ---
> ...said Snape flatly. "I cannot pretend that the Dark 
> Lord is not angry with Lucius. Lucius was supposed to be 
> in charge. He got himself captured, along with how many 
> others, and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the 
> bargain. Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa, very 
> angry indeed." 
> 
> "Then I am right, he has chosen Draco in revenge!" choked 
> Narcissa. "He does not mean him to succeed, he wants him 
> to be killed trying!" 
> - - - end quote - - - 
> 
> Nothing about the Diary. I don't deny the Diary played
> some part, but the bulk of Voldemort's anger seems to 
> be related to Lucuis screwing up the Ministry mission.

Eddie:
Further, if Voldemort was REALLY angry at Lucius about the Diary,
would Voldy have put Lucius in charge of the very important
prophecy-retrieval operation at the Ministry?

Not that that eliminates the Diary factor, but the Diary seems like a
lesser problem for Lucius.

Eddie








From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 18:28:05 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:28:05 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed3elt+fcd0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4lbl+ri3e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157638

> Steve:
> Scenario Two - "Mean Draco/Mean Voldemort"
> 
> Draco, wanting vengence against Harry and Dumbledore,
> realizes the potential of the Cabinet.
> 
> Through a set of cirucmstances, he brings this to 
> Voldemort's attention.
> 
> Voldemort likes the idea. The perfect scheme to attack 
> Hogwarts and Dumbledore. So he sets Draco the task of 
> fixing the cabinet so DE's can enter the castle. A little 
> more than Draco bargained for but still doable and not so
> critical.

Eddie:
It just occurred to me, Draco is the _ONLY_ one available to fix the
cabinet at Hogwarts.  No other DE (except Snape, see below) has access
to the cabinet at Hogwarts.

Re: Snape -- Voldemort doesn't completely trust Severus.  In the
graveyard scene in GoF, Voldemort says something like (missing books
at moment) "One of our number is missing, perhaps lost to me forever."

Eddie, who's sorry if he's very slow on the uptake and is stating what
is obvious to everyone else.






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 18:34:31 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:34:31 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <ed3vrm+1oc3@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4lnn+3gf1@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157639

> Carodave:
> "the disappearance of Ollivander.
> There has to be some significance to the fact that Neville was one of
> the last to purchase a wand prior to Ollivander's disappearance."
> 
> kennclark:
> Yes indeed.  Neville, until it got broke fighting the death eaters, had
> been using his father's old wand so Ollivander had presumably never
> seen or met Neville before he came into his shop to buy his first
> wand.  What about Neville might have resulted in Ollivander's flight
> into hiding (if that is what has happened)?  Personally I've always
> thought that Neville was destined to kill Voldemort.  Maybe in choosing
> his wand something was revealed to Ollivander, so important about the
> prophecy that he thought it better to get the hell out of it for a
> while.
>

Eddie:
To alarm/alert Ollivander, Neville's wand might be a brother of some
other "great" (in Ollivander's usage of the word) wizard's want. 
Dumbledore's maybe?

Eddie








From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 18:39:42 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:39:42 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4b54+sq2j@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4m1e+ehml@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157640

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> >
> > "Spinner's End"; read it again. Narcissa /suspects/ the
> > Ministry Muck-up is the motivtion. Snape agrees that
> > Voldemort is angry, but never confirms his motivations.
> >
> > The Dairy is never mentioned. And when Dumbledore...
> > doesn't make a big deal out of it. So, the emphasis 
> > on the Dairy is mostly fan speculation.
> >
> > Magpie asserted with absolute indisputable authority that
> > the Dairy was that the center of it all, ...
> 
> Magpie:
> I actually did not assert with absolute indisputable 
> authority that the Diary was the center of it all. 


bboyminn:

And I quote - (post#157523)

"No, he DID NOT. I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't 
stand having this presented as canon. Voldemort discovered
Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux. His anger was terrible 
to behold. He gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore 
as a response. ..."

Sorry, but that sounds pretty 'absolute' and 'indisputable'
to me, and it is centered in the Diary Horcrux. You repeat
this assertion again later.

So, we are at the point where we have to agree to disagree.
Hey, it happens; no harm, no foul.

We do agree on something though. We both agree that Draco
was given the task of personally killing Dumbledore as a
result of Voldemort's anger. I say it is because of this
fact that regardless of which version you buy, the story 
plays out the same. You seem to disagree, and are 
unswayable. So, be it.

I still say that basing everything strictly on anger is 
a completely pointless plan and a waste of time. Why not
just torture Draco? Why not a dozen other ways to 'hurt'
him and his family? Why a wacky pointless scheme?

In my scenario, Voldemort has a real plan with a worth-
while strategic objective, and a high likelihood of 
working. And the 'I'm angry at your father' aspect 
doesn't change in either case. Yet in the the STRICTLY 
'I'm angry at your father' scheme, I see nothing of any 
worth or strategic value. Nothing but a pointless waste 
of time. 

Also note that Draco seems to have been given 
some resources to work with. He had outside contacts. He
has ways of getting things done while 'trapped' at school.
Why would Voldemort dedicated resource to a mission that 
he intended to fail. If he really wanted to torture Draco,
he would give him the task, then cut him off completely
thus assuring his absolute failure. But no, Draco had 
help, and you don't dedicate resources to a doomed plan.
You seem to disagree and I am unswayable, and so we move 
on.

You heard it here first.

Steve/bboyminn








From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 18:42:56 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 18:42:56 -0000
Subject: leaky poll -- wands
In-Reply-To: <E326E346-64F3-4DBB-A1CE-BE9E4657BA52@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ed4m7g+rll2@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157641

Jaime wrote:
> 
> Sorry, for such a short reply but Neville declares in HPB that his  
> new wand is cherry and unicorn hair. Unicorns seem to be symbolic of  
> purity and healing.
> 
> I thought it was irrelevant who was originally intended in the  
> prophecy and that it only mattered that Voldemort chose Harry. Maybe  
> I'm not understand Dumbledore correctly when he explained the  
> prophecy at the end of OOTP but I thought he was making the point  
> that who the Chosen One actually was is irrelevant and that it was  
> Voldemort's decision that put these chain of events into action.
>
Carol responds:
Good points. Harry's wand stands for eternal life (holly and phoenix
feather) and Voldmeort's (apparently) stands for *earthly* immortality
(yew and and phoenix feather). Harry's wand would have sensed the
"bit" of Voldemort in Harry, whether that "bit" is his transferred
powers (canonical) or a soul bit (speculation). Neville's wand sensed
something entirely different. (I've always thought that Neville would
become the Herbology teacher when Professor Sprout retires, but I
wouldn't mind his becoming a Healer, as his wand perhaps implies.)

I just realized that "the Chosen One" means more than the WW thins it
means--the one chosen by fate to defeat Voldemort. And it means more
than the Prophecy Boy as well. Harry is the one Chosen by Voldemort.
(No doubt everyone else realized that already, but it hit me as I read
 Jaime's post.) So, as JKR says on her site, Neville is not the chosen
one and it's not his job to destroy Voldemort. It's Harry the Hero's
quest. I agree that Neville's job is to deal with Bellatrix. (I'd love
to see him have Bellatrix at his mercy and *show* her mercy by *not*
Crucioing or killing her. I do think, of course, that she should spend
her remaining years wasting away in Azkaban, maybe knitting caps and
socks for house-elfs.)

Carol, going to check out the symbolic implications of cherry wood










From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 19:06:39 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:06:39 -0000
Subject: OT: Swifties and Croakers (was: Ton-tongue toffies and ...)
In-Reply-To: <516.6687863.3226b59a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <ed4njv+ks59@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157642

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, grich277080 at ... wrote:
>
> Lilygale here: 
> >> <snip> I've been re-reading POA. I found a never-before noticed 
> "Tom Swiftie" (unintentional? with JKR, who knows).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Lilygale, who remembers that JKR's sense of humor is what drew her
> to Harry Potter in the first place <<
> 
> 
> AnnR:
> What is 'Tom Swiftie'?  Is it an Americanism, I don't remember 
> reading it in POA.  I too like her humor.
>


bboyminn:

To continue a discussion of Swifties, we should move to the OTChatter
group.

http://www.baetzler.de/humor/tom_swiftie.var

-- quote --
Not many dictionaries define "Tom Swiftie". One that does is The
Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 1st edition (1966):

"Tom Swiftie, a play on words that follows an unvarying pattern and
relies for its humor on a punning relationship between the way an
adverb describes a speaker and at the same time refers significantly
to the import of the speaker's statement, as in 

"I know who turned off the lights," Tom hinted darkly. 

[named after a narrative mannerism characteristic of the Tom Swift
American series of adventure novels for boys]" 

In actual use, "Tom Swiftie" seems to have a somewhat broader meaning,
and includes the form christened "croakers" by Roy Bongartz, wherein a
verb rather than an adverb supplies the pun (e.g. "I'm dying", he
croaked).

-- end quote --

Just passing it along.

Steve/bboyminn







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 19:32:37 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:32:37 -0000
Subject: Waking up from the dead in HP
In-Reply-To: <ed3kcv+hkj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4p4l+h0a6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157643

---  "Maria Vaerewyck" <maria8162001 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > maria8162001:
> >
> > Or something like Buffy the Vampire slayer, were Buffy 
> > died ... and her friend Willow bring her back from the 
> > dead. <snip> Would Harry wake like this or like Alice
> > in Wonderland? <snip>
> >
> >
> > inyia:
> > Well, J.K.Rowling has said that when she started 
> > planning the HP saga she had made the things clear 
> > and there is no coming back from death.
> 
> 
> maria8162001:
> 
> Yes, JKR made that clear, but what I mean is, Buffy 
> wasn't at all dead, all the slaying stuff was just 
> in her mind. ...

bboyminn:

I've speculated on many 'waking the dead' scenarios in 
the continuing HP story, and it comes down to this.
What is death? The truth is, in real life, people wake
from the dead all the time; in hospitals and emergency 
rooms, etc.... So, if real non-fictional people can 
wake from the dead, then why can't wizards?

It comes down to your definition of death. There is
techincally dead and then there is absolutely and
irrevocably dead. For example, in the books there has
already been a mention of a couple of potions that
mimic death. 

At one time I speculated the Dumbledore would start 
feeding Harry a death mimicing potion as his 
confrontation with Voldemort drew nearer (extremely short 
version). Then in the final confrontation, Harry would 
seem to die, in a sense, he would be technically dead, but 
not literally dead. In Harry's moment of death, Voldemort 
would be vulnerable, someone would kill him (Neville), and 
Dumbledore would arrive on the scene and wake Harry up.

The theory was more detailed than I am presenting here, but
since it's impossible now, the details aren't important.
But the concept of 'technical death' is still valid in the
series.

Another example of technical death is Sirius. At one time
I speculated that Sirius went through the Veil alive and 
fully in possession of his body. That's now how people 
usually go behind the metaphorical 'Veil'. When normal
people die, the body is abondon and the spirit goes behind
the Veil. 

So, I speculate that Sirius is alive behind the Veil
because of the special circumstances under which he crossed
over. But he is trapped. Since he is trapped in the land of
the dead and can't return, he is technically dead. But the
extension of my speculation was that /other/ special 
circumstances would occur (very long story) that would allow
him to come out from behind the Veil and join the living. 

None of these scenarios are important beyond making the point
that death is only death by definition, and that definition
spans a range. So, I agree that JKR started out with the 
assumption, or the Potterverse Rule, that nothing can bring 
back those who are absolutely and irrevocably dead. But in the
grey area of only being a 'little bit' dead, I think there is
room for people to return. 

For example, in one of my wild fantasies, Harry possess 
Voldemort and drags him behind the Veil, but as long as Harry
is possessing Voldemort neither are truly dead. So, Harry
transfers his possession to Sirius, and both Sirius and Harry
return from behind the Veil. When Harry leaves Voldemort,
Voldemort is then trapped behind the Veil and for all intent
and purpose is dead to the world.

I can't say that JKR is actually going to follow this line, but
there could be a distinction between temporarily or seemingly
dead, and absolutely dead.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 19:55:12 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 19:55:12 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4m1e+ehml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4qf0+nu6a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157644

> bboyminn:
> 
> And I quote - (post#157523)
> 
> "No, he DID NOT. I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't 
> stand having this presented as canon. Voldemort discovered
> Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux. His anger was terrible 
> to behold. He gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore 
> as a response. ..."
> 
> Sorry, but that sounds pretty 'absolute' and 'indisputable'
> to me, and it is centered in the Diary Horcrux. You repeat
> this assertion again later.

Magpie:
Sorry, I guess I was being careless about that aspect (whether his 
anger came primarily from the MoM fiasco or the diary) since I 
honestly didn't think that was a central issue.  The actual thing I 
was being vehement was not that Voldemort may only be angry about 
the Diary, but that it is Voldemort's anger at Lucius that leads him 
to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore.  

bboyminn:
> I still say that basing everything strictly on anger is 
> a completely pointless plan and a waste of time. Why not
> just torture Draco? Why not a dozen other ways to 'hurt'
> him and his family? Why a wacky pointless scheme?
> 
> In my scenario, Voldemort has a real plan with a worth-
> while strategic objective, and a high likelihood of 
> working. And the 'I'm angry at your father' aspect 
> doesn't change in either case. Yet in the the STRICTLY 
> 'I'm angry at your father' scheme, I see nothing of any 
> worth or strategic value. Nothing but a pointless waste 
> of time. 

Magpie:
And I think that's a perfectly valid criticism of Voldemort as a 
villain to have. If it's just a case of saying, "Isn't it stupid of 
Voldemort to have access to a secret entrance into Hogwarts and not 
use it to more devestating advantage?" Sure I think that's a logical 
thing to say.  I don't think I'd do it if I were Voldemort.  I think 
the plan in GoF is far more silly on that score.  But strategic 
value is secondary priority for the series from what I've read.   
It's great when what sets up the right emotional story is also 
strategically most sensible for Voldemort, but it it's not, it's 
out.  

So looking at the plot I'm not primarily thinking about what's most 
efficient in the long term for Voldemort but what we're given as 
written in the story.  It's not that I want to go around and tell 
people they can't respond to the story the way they want--though I 
know I'm probably come across that way here, admittedly more so 
because I like this story a lot and think it's really important to 
the series.  I usually stay away from Theory threads for that 
reason.  Even if I think the theory is wrong or bad I do think 
people should be able to enjoy talking about it.

It's just when we're talking about the way the story's happened in a 
book I do get more vehement (of course fearing that the more 
vehement I am the more likely the next book will come along and 
prove me exactly wrong).  And when I look at stories, I might be 
affected by the fact that stories are what I do for a living.  Which 
is not to suggest that you need some sort of professional credential 
to read a book and talk about it insightfully or anything like 
that.  It's more like if someone was talking to a carpenter who 
builds houses for a living and he says, "I'm going to build a house 
and here's what I'm doing."  And the carpenter's saying, "If you 
take this support beam out the house will fall down."  And the other 
person is saying, "It looks fine without it to me.  It's just as 
good."  But the carpenter looks at the structure of the house 
because his job is building houses himself and learning what makes 
them stand. 

-m






From harryp at stararcher.com  Wed Aug 30 20:08:15 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:08:15 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4m1e+ehml@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4r7f+sd50@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157645

> Steve/bboyminn:
> Also note that Draco seems to have been given 
> some resources to work with. He had outside contacts. He
> has ways of getting things done while 'trapped' at school.
> Why would Voldemort dedicated resource to a mission that 
> he intended to fail. If he really wanted to torture Draco,
> he would give him the task, then cut him off completely
> thus assuring his absolute failure. But no, Draco had 
> help, and you don't dedicate resources to a doomed plan.

Eddie:
I snipped lots of interesting points, but this one point I'm not
persuaded of.  There isn't any indication that Draco has any contacts
and/or help given him _BEFORE_ he got the cabinet working. 
_AFTERWARD_ (and note, he would no longer be trapped at school)
Voldemort may have been so pleased that he _THEN_ gave Draco the help
to further complete the plan.

Eddie







From jlcaron at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 14:25:29 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:25:29 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ton-tongue toffies and other tongue twisters
In-Reply-To: <516.6687863.3226b59a@aol.com>
References: <516.6687863.3226b59a@aol.com>
Message-ID: <DFA42256-814D-4A5E-86A3-D322CA7942C5@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157646

>
> AnnR:
> What is 'Tom Swiftie'?  Is it an Americanism, I don't remember
> reading it in POA.  I too like her humor.
>

Jaime:

"Tom Swiftie, a play on words that follows an unvarying pattern and  
relies for its humor on a punning relationship between the way an  
adverb describes a speaker and at the same time refers significantly  
to the import of the speaker's statement, as in "I know who turned  
off the lights," Tom hinted darkly. [named after a narrative  
mannerism characteristic of the Tom Swift American series of  
adventure novels for boys]"

http://www.baetzler.de/humor/tom_swiftie.var

(I'd never heard of it either but I'll certainly be aware of it now  
when I'm reading.)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 20:32:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:32:16 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4qf0+nu6a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4skg+pj11@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157647

Magpie wrote:
> Sorry, I guess I was being careless about that aspect (whether his 
> anger came primarily from the MoM fiasco or the diary) since I 
> honestly didn't think that was a central issue.  The actual thing I 
> was being vehement was not that Voldemort may only be angry about 
> the Diary, but that it is Voldemort's anger at Lucius that leads him 
> to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore.  

Carol responds:
Actually, no. Canon doesn't say that Voldemort's anger at Lucius leads
him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. What we have is
Narcissa's speculation that that's the case and Snape's confirmation
that Voldemort is angry at Lucius. Nothing about one causing the
other. Here's the canon again, quoted from Steve's post upthread:

--- HBP HB, Am Ed, Pg 34 ---
...said Snape flatly. "I cannot pretend that the Dark
Lord is not angry with Lucius. Lucius was supposed to be
in charge. He got himself captured, along with how many
others, and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the
bargain. Yes, the Dark Lord is angry, Narcissa, very
angry indeed."

"Then I am right, he has chosen Draco in revenge!" choked
Narcissa. "He does not mean him to succeed, he wants him
to be killed trying!"

For the record, Snape says *nothing* in response, neither confirming
nor denying Narcissa's speculation. So, yes, LV is angry at Lucius for
the MoM fiasco, but there's no confirmation that his anger is the
reason that Draco was assigned the task.

As I said upthread in a post you didn't respond to, neither Narcissa
nor Snape knows anything about Draco's Vanishing Cabinet idea, so
neither of them can know whether Draco went to Voldemort with his idea
for getting into Hogwarts and was assigned the task of killing
Dumbledore as a resort or Voldemort ordered Draco to come to him. We
just don't know, and you're concluding a bit too much from the canon
we're presented. 

In case you'd like to answer the arguments I presented in that post,
the number is 157603.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/157603

Carol, whose mind is foggy from a cold and doesn't want to present her
arguments all over again






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 20:41:23 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 20:41:23 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4r7f+sd50@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed4t5j+58eq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157648

- 
> Eddie:
> I snipped lots of interesting points, but this one point I'm not
> persuaded of.  There isn't any indication that Draco has any
contacts and/or help given him _BEFORE_ he got the cabinet working. 
> _AFTERWARD_ (and note, he would no longer be trapped at school)
> Voldemort may have been so pleased that he _THEN_ gave Draco the
help to further complete the plan.
> 
> Eddie
>
Carol responds:
Draco is certainly in contact with Borgin ("Draco's Detour")--not that
borgin is a DE--and is threatening to send Fenrir Greyback to Borgin's
shop if borgin doesn't cooperate in giving Draco the information he
needs to fix the Vanishing Cabinet. (It's not clear whether Borgin is
also working on the other one at the same time.) And Draco tells Snape
in "The Unbreakable Vow" that he has "back up" other than Crabbe and
Goyle, presumably Death Eaters. Unless Snape is wrong in his
inference, Aunt Bellatrix taught Draco Occlumency to thwart Snape's
"interference, so it's quite possible that she's in on the plan, and
someone Imperio'd Rosmerta and gave her the coin that Draco uses to
communicate with her. Clearly, Draco does have contacts, and at least
some DEs, including presumably Fenrir Greyback, know about the
Vanishing Cabinet plan. The only people left out of the loop are Snape
and Narcissa, the very people who talk about Draco's task at Spinner's
End.

Carol








From slytherindreamer at gmail.com  Wed Aug 30 20:54:15 2006
From: slytherindreamer at gmail.com (Anne Neville)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 16:54:15 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v
In-Reply-To: <ed4t5j+58eq@eGroups.com>
References: <ed4r7f+sd50@eGroups.com> <ed4t5j+58eq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <865e525b0608301354u27e98feered4d205fb7aeaeed@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157649

>
> Carol responds:
> ...Aunt Bellatrix taught Draco Occlumency to thwart Snape's
> "interference, so it's quite possible that she's in on the plan, and
> someone Imperio'd Rosmerta and gave her the coin that Draco uses to
> communicate with her....
>







How likely is it that Draco himself could manage to cast and maintain an
Imperio curse on Rosemerta for months at a time? That seems like quite
advanced magic for a 16 year old - even a very motivated one - to maintain
for a very long time. I had the impression from GOF/Moody that controlling
and maintaining the Imperio curse took some effort, even when the subject
was standing right at the tip of your wand. Or is Draco a much stronger
wizard than we'd been led to believe in past books?

I'm rereading the last three books now, but can't for the life of me
remember whether it is explicitly stated in HBP that Draco gave up his
prefect duties, and if so, what excuse he gave. Are all 5th year prefects
automatically 6th year prefects?

By the way, I'm new on the list. Thanks for having me.

AnneNeville


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







From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 21:44:16 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:44:16 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4vr7+9hhl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed50rg+2etc@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157651

> Magpie:
> You mean we might not get a different explanation besides that 
> whole "he wants Draco to die to punish Lucius" idea Narcissa brings 
> up in Spinner's End. It's not really presented as a mystery. 
>
Carol responds:
It isn't? Half the book is about Harry trying to find out what draco
is up to. Narcissa and Snape don't know, either, which is why the
Vanishing Cabinet plan doesn't come into "Spinner's End" or any of the
chapters involving Draco and Snape. Snape doesn't discuss what he
doesn't know, and Draco is keeping it secret.

And do you have an explanation for how Rosmerta was Imperio'd or how
the coins work or any of the other things that Draco mentioned on the
tower? I sure don't.

Carol







From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 21:50:26 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 21:50:26 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4t5j+58eq@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5172+sk9i@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157652

Sorry, had to repost this due to old bits of sentences hanging 
around confusing things:

> Carol responds:
> Actually, no. Canon doesn't say that Voldemort's anger at Lucius
leads
> him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. What we have is
> Narcissa's speculation that that's the case and Snape's
confirmation
> that Voldemort is angry at Lucius.

Magpie:
Yes, I understand where it comes from. And this kind of speculation
from Narcissa, plus Snape and Dumbledore's confirmation of the fact
that Voldemort is angry at Lucius is a perfectly acceptable way for
JKR to give us this information while staying within the limits of
the pov she uses. Just as it would have been acceptable to actually
make it a question as to why he would give this task to Draco with
people asking why, and the solution finally given to us. 

As Alla said, sure we could find out all these people were wrong or 
lying for some reason in the next book. It's still physically 
possible for JKR to do that. But within this book the question of why
Voldemort would give this kid this task has only one answer
offered in the scene that lays out the groundwork. Obviously 
everyone is free to not accept that answer just as they can reject 
any information in the books so far.

Carol:
> As I said upthread in a post you didn't respond to, neither
Narcissa
> nor Snape knows anything about Draco's Vanishing Cabinet idea, so
> neither of them can know whether Draco went to Voldemort with his
idea
> for getting into Hogwarts and was assigned the task of killing
> Dumbledore as a resort or Voldemort ordered Draco to come to him.
We
> just don't know, and you're concluding a bit too much from the
canon
> we're presented.

Magpie:
No, they don't know about that. And that's why Draco would need to
tell Dumbledore that at the end, when he told him about figuring out
the Cabinet. And Draco would probably have also had some line that 
got close to revealing it in the conversation with Snape. JKR wasn't 
constrained to this version of things when she started out.  If he 
reveals this is Book VII I will certainly accept it in ways I don't 
accept, "But think how much better it would be if..."

Carol:
> Carol, whose mind is foggy from a cold and doesn't want to present
her
> arguments all over again

Magpie:
In a nutshell: Provide a bit of canon where this set of events--
the part where Draco went to Voldemort with a Plot to get the DEs 
into Hogwarts and Voldemort turned it around on him and made into a 
double plot of getting DEs into a different thing. Actual words from 
canon referring to this. Not an argument that as long as nobody says 
it didn't happen it couldn't. Not an outline of how it could work 
given when Draco heard Montague's story and when Spinner's End 
happens. Not explanations for how logical this would be if this were 
the story of Voldemort the great strategist instead of Draco's 
story. Not individual explanations for each scene of this story 
about how nothing in that scene could refer to it either.  Not 
musings on how can we really ever know anything going on in the 
story.

Carol:
At any rate, having Draco approach LV with the Vanishing Cabinet idea
in no way diminishes his danger and it adds to the irony by having
his whole predicament result from his own action. Maybe you want to
see him as a pathetic victim, but he is also, at least at the
beginning of the book, an arrogant sixteen-year-old who threatens
Borgin and brags about his mysterious assignment and who has already
stated to Harry that he's bent on revenge for his father's
imprisonment.

Magpie:
Now we're getting more into the subtext of the discussion. I don't
see him as a pathetic victim. I see him thrilled and eager to rise
to the challenge of being given an assignment--I've tried to steer
clear of anything that smacked of "Draco is just being punished and
doesn't really want anything to do with these people at all!"
because obviously he does want this. I see him as very arrogant in
the beginning of the book, something the author clearly put there.
The victim aspect in terms of this being an intended suicide mission
is important to me in the story in its way (i tis a suicide mission, 
after all). This is the victim aspect mentioned in the text by 
Narcissa. How important is that irony you mentioned to you? Because 
yes, this storyline would be painfully ironic for old Draco which is 
why the author would have put it in the story. Just thinking about 
the scenes of the story with this information in my head they re-
write themselves to accomodate the information. The "Maybe you
want to see him as..." is shaky ground to get onto I think. Draco
tends to bring that out in people.

Carol:
Maybe, as Alla says, we'll never get an explanation.

Magpie:
You mean we might not get a different explanation besides that
whole "he wants Draco to die to punish Lucius" idea Narcissa brings
up in Spinner's End. It's not really presented as a mystery.  This 
isn't never knowing who Imperio'd Rosemerta, it's saying we don't 
know she was Imperio'd.

-m






From belviso at attglobal.net  Wed Aug 30 22:03:56 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:03:56 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed50rg+2etc@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed520c+dcqe@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157653

> > Magpie:
> > You mean we might not get a different explanation besides that 
> > whole "he wants Draco to die to punish Lucius" idea Narcissa 
brings 
> > up in Spinner's End. It's not really presented as a mystery. 
> >
> Carol responds:
> It isn't? Half the book is about Harry trying to find out what 
draco
> is up to.

Magpie:
No, it isn't.  What Draco is up to is a different subject.  What 
Draco is up to is a mystery given a solution at the end.  That he's 
doing something for Voldemort and why is given in Spinner's End.  

Carol:
 Narcissa and Snape don't know, either, which is why the
> Vanishing Cabinet plan doesn't come into "Spinner's End" or any of 
the
> chapters involving Draco and Snape. 

Magpie:
They know (some think Snape is bluffing) that he's trying to kill 
Dumbledore.  Snape makes a vow to do it for him if it looks like he 
will fail.  They don't know about the Cabinets.  The Cabinet Plot 
that Draco starts with Borgin and that he's working on in the RoR 
all year is a mystery during the book that is solved at the end.

Carol:
> 
> And do you have an explanation for how Rosmerta was Imperio'd or 
how
> the coins work or any of the other things that Draco mentioned on 
the
> tower? I sure don't.

Magpie:
So we're accepting those things happened and Dumbledore didn't just 
guess it and Draco lied to play along while protecting the real 
better plan?  The mechanics of that don't really interest me. I'm 
fine just knowing he used Rosemerta, under Imperius, and the coins 
etc.  If I get further details in the next book I'll appreciate 
them, but I have enough.

-m






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 22:05:28 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:05:28 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4qf0+nu6a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5238+fjno@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157654

---  "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> > bboyminn:
> > 
> > And I quote - (post#157523)
> > 
> > "... Voldemort discovered Lucius had destroyed the 
> > Horcrux. His anger was terrible to behold.  ..."
> > 
> > Sorry, but that sounds pretty 'absolute' ...to me,...
> 
> Magpie:
> Sorry, I guess I was being careless about that aspect 
> (whether his anger came primarily from the MoM fiasco 
> or the diary) since I honestly didn't think that was a 
> central issue.  ...
> 


bboyminn:

For a moment, let's talk about the one thing we both do 
agree on. It WAS Voldemort's anger that lead him to give
Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. I agree with that, 
I just don't agree that the Diary played the primary role
in that anger. Based on what you've now said, we seem to 
also agree on that as well. Once Draco and Voldemort are 
in a room together, I agree, that was how things went.

My problem is with how Draco and Voldemort got into that 
room together. I presented what I feel is a credible back-
story for bringing them together, and I based it on 
information available in the book.

To some extent I replied very casually to your original 
post, I did not mean to imply that 'Draco and the 
Cabinet Plan' were /absolute/ canon. But I do feel it is 
a fair interpretation of Canon, and as far as I can see, 
all you are doing is interpreting Canon.

So, we have different interpretations. Though I will 
admit it feels good to know that I've swayed a few people, 
if not /to/ my side, then at least /toward/ my side. 

You mentioned the wacky GoF 'plan' as an example of how
irrational Voldemort can be (paraphrased). I agree that
is a good example of how Voldemort views himself and his
plans as infallible. 

But it was at least a plan, a plan with on-going method, 
a plan with strategic objectives that mostly succeeded. 
Further, wacky as it may be, there can be some 
justification made for it. It was a dramatic plan, and 
if it had pulled off 100% it would have been a strategic 
coup for Voldemort. As it was it was still a tremendous 
victory for him.

So, my point is, as wacky as it was, it was still a plan 
with stragetic goals. To assign Draco to kill Dumbledore 
with nothing more tied to it, as I've already said, is no 
plan at all.

To use the Cabinet to attack Hogwarts and Dumbledore, now 
that is a plan, and has the additional 'frosting' of 
harrassing Lucius, Narcissa, and Draco in the prossess. 
The Cabinet is a tremendous resource that Voldemort can't 
afford to ignore or pass up. 

Just one man's opinion.

Steve/bboyminn







From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com  Wed Aug 30 22:48:33 2006
From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:48:33 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed4skg+pj11@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed54k1+1o6e@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157655

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67"  wrote:
> Carol responds:
> Actually, no. Canon doesn't say that Voldemort's anger at Lucius 
> leads him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. What we 
> have is Narcissa's speculation that that's the case and Snape's 
> confirmation that Voldemort is angry at Lucius. Nothing about one 
> causing the other. < snipping canon> 
> 
> As I said upthread in a post you didn't respond to, neither 
> Narcissa nor Snape knows anything about Draco's Vanishing Cabinet 
> idea, so neither of them can know whether Draco went to Voldemort 
> with his idea for getting into Hogwarts and was assigned the task 
> of killing Dumbledore as a result or Voldemort ordered Draco to 
> come to him. We just don't know, and you're concluding a bit too 
> much from the canon we're presented. 

Mike:
Thank you for pointing that out, Carol. Just to add on I researched 
the Montague/Cabinet timeline. Here's what I got:

Montague gets shoved into the cabinet around mid-April (F&G 
fireworks day) and emerges the next day (Pensieve snooping by Harry 
day). Easter Break starts that weekend. Monday after Easter Break, 
F&G swamp/Harry talks to Black & Lupin/F&G's fabulous exit. One week 
later, which is suppose to be "just under a month" from the start of 
OWLs making it very early May, Montague's parents visit and Montague 
is still dazed and confused.

We next and last see Montague after OWLs are over, what appears to 
be the third Thursday of June. (The first week of June appears to be 
OWL prep week). We get no indication of Montague's condition at this 
point, only that Poppy is giving him medecine. Iirc, we haven't been 
given any scenes where Madam Pomfrey doesn't administer the 
medication herself, with one exception, see end of post. So I'm not 
sure this provides any clue as to how responsive is at this point.

So, when did Draco learn about the Cabinet? Our only canonical clue 
is (HBP, US, pg. 587), Draco speaking:

"Montague told me when he was stuck in the Hogwarts one..." 
<and> "Everyone thought it was a really good story, but I was..."

Draco may have learned in a one-on-one talk (or not), but he also 
seems to confirm that Montague has regaled a few others with his 
tale. Speculation: Draco learned while still at school else how 
would he have known what "everyone" else thought of the story. It 
could have been as late as the train ride home, but the dastardly 
trio planned and attempted the ambush and ended up spending a large 
portion of the ride in the luggage rack ;-) Any time after that and 
it seems highly unlikely that Draco would both hear about the 
cabinet and know what others thought of Montague's story. Unless 
they have meetings for the DE youth club.

Wrap around from here to Carol's point above. It becomes pure 
speculation as to whether Draco went to LV or was summoned by LV.
But do remember, although Draco only threatened Harry at the end of 
OotP, it was Dumbledore after all who actually captured his father. 
That does seem like a pretty strong motivation for revenge. My 
preference, Draco went to LV with the cabinet idea thinking he could 
facilitate some terrorist raid on the school. (Thanks Betsy) He 
never dreamed he would be assigned the task of killing DD.

> Carol, whose mind is foggy from a cold 

GoF, US, Pg. 714 (with one change)
"You've got to take the rest of your potion, [Carol]. Mrs. Weasley 
said" .... "You have a good long sleep."







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Wed Aug 30 23:38:17 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:38:17 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed54k1+1o6e@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed57h9+aou0@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157656

Mike:
> Wrap around from here to Carol's point above. It becomes pure 
> speculation as to whether Draco went to LV or was summoned by LV.
> But do remember, although Draco only threatened Harry at the end of 
> OotP, it was Dumbledore after all who actually captured his father. 
> That does seem like a pretty strong motivation for revenge. My 
> preference, Draco went to LV with the cabinet idea thinking he could 
> facilitate some terrorist raid on the school. (Thanks Betsy) He 
> never dreamed he would be assigned the task of killing DD.
> 

Pippin:
If Draco heard about the cabinets before the raid on the Ministry,
then there is an excellent chance that he told his father about his idea,
and *that* is how it reached Voldemort. It would be just like Voldemort
to make Lucius in some way the instrument of his own ruin.

I don't believe that Voldemort ever had the slightest belief that the
 cabinet could be fixed and I think Draco came to agree:

"But I got this far, didn't I?" he said slowly. "They thought I'd die in the
attempt, but I'm here..."  


If Voldemort had any serious idea of repairing that cabinet, would he
have assigned the task to an untried youth? 

If Voldemort  thought that the cabinet could be fixed, would he
have had Draco instructed in occlumency, yet left him on his own 
to discover how the cabinet could be repaired?

If Voldemort had been planning a raid on Hogwarts for months, why did
the  Death Eaters arrive with no plan in place  to get Dumbledore 
back to the castle (or, apparently, to wreak havoc in the corridors.) Their
supply of darkness powder was inadequate. They bunched up and were 
trapped by the Order instead of spreading out. Dumbledore was lured back 
successfully  only by luck.  The Dark Mark might just as easily have 
brought the Ministry rushing to the scene before Dumbledore returned. 

Isn't it a bit odd that in a castle of uncounted passages and 
one hundred forty-two staircases, a small group of DE's should just
happen to blunder into a small group of Order members?

And why should the attack have been scheduled for when Dumbledore
was out of the castle. Was it because while he was gone, certain Order 
members would be there, and one of them is a traitor? 


Pippin






From celizwh at intergate.com  Wed Aug 30 23:55:50 2006
From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:55:50 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed3ab8+uamt@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed58i6+qhkv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157657

Eddie:

> > I'm Curious: Can a squib see the magical things a 
> > muggle can't? Leaky Cauldron, etc?
 
zgirnius:

> Muggles can't properly see Hogwarts. It seems Filch can.

houyhnhnm:

Hermione's parents are Muggles.  They shop in Diagon Alley 
and change money at Gringott's.  Arthur invites them for a 
drink in the Leaky Cauldron.  There is no mention that they 
have to be led, so presumably they can see everything.

We have never seen the Grangers at Hogwarts (or any other 
non-magical parent of a Hogwarts student, AFAIK), but I can't 
recall any explicit statement that Muggles of Hogwarts students 
could not visit.

I don't see any evidence that Muggles are inherently unable 
to see magical places, only that those places have been charmed 
so that Muggles who do not know they are there cannot 
see them (something like the way the Fidelius charm works).

On the other hand, Muggles are inherently unable to see 
Dementors, but so are Squibs.

There is some evidence that Squibs do not respond to magical 
healing in the same way that wizards do.  The slow healing of 
Mrs. Figg's broken leg is one.  Another is the way Filch drags 
around the school with an aching head and dripping nose when 
all the sick young witches and wizards are going to Madam 
Pomfrey for a dose of pepper-up potion.

I would say that if a non-magical child is born to magical 
parents, it is called a Squib, if to non-magical parents, 
it is called a Muggle.  I see no evidence in the books to 
the contrary, and trying to work it out logically is pointless 
because the whole notion of a fertile cross between such 
radically different beings is absurd anyway. 







From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Aug 31 01:55:46 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:55:46 -0000
Subject: About those vanishing cabinets...
Message-ID: <ed5fj2+afro@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157658

Eddie:

At the beginning of CoS, Harry hides in the Vanishing Cabinet at
Borgin and Burkes.  Why didn't he get transported to Hogwarts?  The
other cabinet was not yet broken, since it was broken LATER by Peeves
(Filch: "That vanishing cabinet was extremely
valuable...") on Nearly-Headless Nick's prodding.

Or was the cabinet at B&B already broken in some way?

Or was the cabinet at Hogwarts already broken in some way before
Peeves got to it?

Eddie






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 01:58:43 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 01:58:43 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed520c+dcqe@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5foj+eui5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157659

Magpie:
> > > You mean we might not get a different explanation besides that 
whole "he wants Draco to die to punish Lucius" idea Narcissa 
> brings up in Spinner's End. It's not really presented as a mystery. 
> > >
> > Carol responds:
> > It isn't? Half the book is about Harry trying to find out what 
> Draco is up to.
> 
> Magpie:
> No, it isn't.  What Draco is up to is a different subject.  What 
> Draco is up to is a mystery given a solution at the end.  That he's 
> doing something for Voldemort and why is given in Spinner's End.  
> 
Carol again:
We're talking in circles here. We don't really get an explanation in
"Spinner's End." In fact, that whole chapter is a mystery. The only
thing we do know, after having read the book, is that Snape didn't
know about the Vanishing Cabinets. So, obviously, he couldn't have
discussed them.

So, yes, I do think that we could get a fuller explanation which
includes Voldemort's vengeance against Lucius as *one component* of
Draco's assignment. But we're still at a standstill determining which
came first, Draco telling LV about the vanishing cabinets or LV
assigning Draco to kill Dumbledore.

What Draco is up to is *not* a different subject. He spends the entire
school year trying to fix the Vanishing Cabinets. It *is* a mystery,
and JKR makes sure that neither the reader nor Harry nor Snape knows
it. I really am at a loss how to make it any clearer, so I'm going to
stop trying without being in the least persuaded that you've proven
your case.

> Carol:
>  Narcissa and Snape don't know, either, which is why the
> > Vanishing Cabinet plan doesn't come into "Spinner's End" or any of 
> the chapters involving Draco and Snape. 
> 
> Magpie:
> They know (some think Snape is bluffing) that he's trying to kill 
> Dumbledore.  Snape makes a vow to do it for him if it looks like he 
> will fail.  They don't know about the Cabinets.  The Cabinet Plot 
> that Draco starts with Borgin and that he's working on in the RoR 
> all year is a mystery during the book that is solved at the end.

Carol again:
Exactly. Snape doesn't know about the Cabinets and what he's doing is
a mystery. (You just contradicted yourself here and agreed with me.)
The only point I disagree with here is your *assumption* that the
Cabinet plot starts with Borgin. That's the first that Harry or the
reader knows of it--and, of course, Harry (and the first-time reader)
has no clue what's going on.

Carol, completely confused by your self-contradictory post






From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 02:16:17 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:16:17 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?
In-Reply-To: <ed4qf0+nu6a@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5gph+49ik@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157660

> >>bboyminn:
> > And I quote - (post#157523)
> > "No, he DID NOT. I'm sorry to be so vehement but I can't 
> > stand having this presented as canon. Voldemort discovered
> > Lucius had destroyed the Horcrux. His anger was terrible 
> > to behold. He gave Draco the task of killing Dumbledore 
> > as a response. ..."
> > Sorry, but that sounds pretty 'absolute' and 'indisputable'
> > to me, and it is centered in the Diary Horcrux. You repeat
> > this assertion again later.

> >>Magpie:
> Sorry, I guess I was being careless about that aspect (whether his 
> anger came primarily from the MoM fiasco or the diary) since I 
> honestly didn't think that was a central issue.  The actual thing 
> I was being vehement was not that Voldemort may only be angry      
> about the Diary, but that it is Voldemort's anger at Lucius that   
> leads him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore.  

Betsy Hp:
I just want to reiterate this because I think Steve (I doubt on 
purpose) is fogging the discussion by making it all about what 
exactly gets Voldemort angry at Lucius.  So here (for those 
following along) is the quote that got this whole discussion rolling:

> >>bboyminn:
> While I am not discrediting all the things that have been
> said so far, but let us not forget that Draco went to
> Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan.

Betsy Hp:
Steve's statement makes it seem like Draco going to Voldemort about 
the Cabinets is canon.  ("Let us not forget that Snape was the 
Potions Master at that time," for example.)  And it seems pretty 
obvious that what Magpie was *responding* to was the *theory* that 
not only did the cabinet come first but that this is such a clear 
fact it is indeed canon.  That was what the vehemence on Magpie's 
part was about.  At least as far as my understanding goes.

Frankly, *why* Voldemort is angry at Lucius is a redherring in this 
discussion.  (Though I do see that I misremembered the reason given 
in Spinner's End. Thanks for the canon, Steve. <g>)  In the end it 
doesn't matter.  What matters is there is a serious flaw (several 
actually, but one is massive and, probably for that reason, ignored) 
in the logic of Steve's timeline.

One flaw is when exactly Montague *told* his cabinet story.

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> Just to add on I researched the Montague/Cabinet timeline. Here's 
> what I got:

Betsy Hp:
Me too!  So I'll follow along. <g>

> >>Mike:
> Montague gets shoved into the cabinet around mid-April (F&G
> fireworks day) and emerges the next day (Pensieve snooping by Harry
> day). 

Betsy Hp:
Checked the canon, and you're quite right.  Also at this point, 
Draco has no reason to be angry at Harry.  In fact Draco is in a 
power position over Harry and having a mad fun time with it.  
Dumbledore is out of the school, so Draco has no reason to be 
gunning for him either.

> >>Mike:
> Easter Break starts that weekend. Monday after Easter Break,
> F&G swamp/Harry talks to Black & Lupin/F&G's fabulous exit. One   
> week later, which is suppose to be "just under a month" from the   
> start of OWLs making it very early May, Montague's parents visit   
> and Montague is still dazed and confused.

Betsy Hp:
Still with you.  Couldn't find the "just under a month" quote (a 
page number would have been helpful) but I'll take it on trust. <g>  
But I do think everyone should note that Montague's parents have 
been called in.  That is a pretty big deal based on how we've seen 
the calling of parents of sick students handled in the past.  
Montague must have been in pretty bad shape if they actually called 
his folks.  

We also have Hermione suggesting they tell Madame Pomfrey what 
exactly happened to Montague in order to help her figure out how to 
help him.  That is also highly suggestive that Montague is not 
entertaining groups of friends and regaling them with good stories 
about his adventures.  He's apparently not even able to tell Pomfrey 
what caused his state at this point.

And Draco is still not feeling an unusual amount of anger towards 
Harry; Dumbledore is still gone.

>> Mike:
> We next and last see Montague after OWLs are over, what appears to
> be the third Thursday of June. (The first week of June appears to  
> be OWL prep week). We get no indication of Montague's condition at 
> this point, only that Poppy is giving him medecine. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
We do get some indication, actually.  Here's a quote:

"[Harry] [...] burst through the double doors like a hurricane, 
causing Madame Pomfrey, who had been spooning some bright blue 
liquid into Montague's open mouth, to shriek in alarm." [OotP 
scholastic hardback p.730]

First of all, we've got Pomfrey spoon feeding a potion to Montague. 
(I already know what Steve will say to this. <bg>)  

> >>bboyminn:
> Not quite, Madame Pomfrey is 'spooning some bright blue
> liquid into Montague's open mouth'. That is quite different
> than the implication that Md. Pomfrey was 'spoon feeding'
> him.

Betsy Hp:
Erm... the definition of spoon feeding is, well, feeding someone 
with a spoon.  Which is what Pomfrey is doing.  She's not measuring 
out an amount of potion for Montague to take himself.  She's 
spooning it into his mouth herself.  I'd love any canon showing her 
doing that to a patient who's able to entertain groups of friends 
with really good stories.  (Actually, do we see her do that with any 
other patient at all? I have no idea and now I'm curious. <g>)

> >>bboyminn:
> And notice that Montague's mouth is open, he is not too incoherent 
> to understand what is happening.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It does establish that Montague has at least the understanding of a 
one year old child (or however old it is when babies start on baby 
food).  And I think that's probably about the level he's at.  
Possibly even a bit less.  If you read through that section you'll 
notice that Pomfrey has a great deal of responses towards Harry's 
sudden entrance and rather desperate questions.  We don't see 
Montague respond at all.  An infant would have at least looked or 
startled (especially with Pomfrey's shriek).  Montague apparently 
does nothing. 

Oh, and also at this point, Draco is still not burningly mad at 
either Harry or Dumbledore.

As Mike points out, we don't see Montague again.  Which means we 
enter the world of pure speculation.  We do know (or can be 
reasonably sure), per canon, that Montague is not in the hospital 
when Ron and Hermione are there at the end of OotP.

> >>bboymin:
> <snip>
> I agree, what is talked about in the hospital scene is a little   
> sensitive, and I don't think they would have been so open with    
> Montague there. So, I conclude he is not there, that he is back in 
> Slytherin House.

Betsy Hp:
Any canon to back that conclusion up?  Raise it above the level of 
speculation?  Because this is *really* important to your theory.  
The timing of Draco hearing Montague's story is crucial and it's a 
really tiny window you're trying to squeeze it into.

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> Speculation: Draco learned while still at school else how would he 
> have known what "everyone" else thought of the story.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But again, there's no canon.   And we've seen that students visit 
each other over the summer.  Why should we assume that Slytherins' 
don't go visiting? Especially their newly recovered Quidditch 
captain?  Or for that matter, that they don't write letters?

Okay, so there's the first flaw.  We have *no* canon support at all 
for Draco hearing the story before the end of the school year. The 
timing is all wrong and Montague is never shown as being up for 
visitors or telling amusing stories. Pure speculation is all we have.

The second flaw is Draco's anger.  We don't see Draco in a fury 
until the very last weeks of school in OotP.  And we certainly don't 
see his anger directed against anyone but Harry.  Again, the timing 
is really bad.

But the third flaw, the biggest flaw, and the one that's been 
soundly ignored, is where the timing just becomes impossible.  We're 
supposed to buy that Draco hatches the Cabinet plan in the last few 
weeks of his fifth year. But *then* we're supposed to buy that he 
*waits* several *months* (a week or so before the beginning of 
Draco's sixth year) to even check that his plan is viable and that 
the second cabinet is available.  Huh?!?  

> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> It becomes pure speculation as to whether Draco went to LV or was 
> summoned by LV.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That Voldemort gave Draco a task is, actually, canon.  The idea that 
Draco put himself in Voldemort's path is pure speculation, I agree. 

> >>Mike:
> My preference, Draco went to LV with the cabinet idea thinking he 
> could facilitate some terrorist raid on the school. (Thanks Betsy)
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, only Draco seems shocked that terrorists have invaded the 
school.  I put that terrorist idea to Voldemort (as an amusing side 
action, not any kind of main goal) *not* to Draco.  To put it to 
Draco flies in the face of canon, IMO.

So in the end we've got the story canon gives us: Voldemort assigned 
Draco the task of killing Dumbledore.  Characters within canon 
speculate that Voldemort does so because he's angry at Lucius and 
wants to punish him.  No other speculation is mentioned by 
characters as a possibility.

And then there's this theory Steve has raised: Draco heard about the 
cabinets back in OotP, decided it was a perfect way to attack 
Hogwarts, found a way to get to Voldemort (without his mother 
knowing about it), tells Voldemort his plan and gets the side job of 
killing Dumbledore, waited about three months before making sure one 
cabinet was available and the other cabinet reparable.  Canon never 
states that this occured.  Characters don't ever mention this as a 
possibility.

I don't know.  It seems like the cabinet came first theory is on 
pretty shaky ground.  Certainly not strong enough to start stating 
as canon.

Betsy Hp







From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 02:17:25 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:17:25 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed5172+sk9i@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5grl+nv8v@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157661

> > Carol responds:
> > Actually, no. Canon doesn't say that Voldemort's anger at Lucius
> leads
> > him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. What we have is
> > Narcissa's speculation that that's the case and Snape's
> confirmation
> > that Voldemort is angry at Lucius.
> 
> Magpie:
> Yes, I understand where it comes from. And this kind of speculation
> from Narcissa, plus Snape and Dumbledore's confirmation of the fact
> that Voldemort is angry at Lucius is a perfectly acceptable way for
> JKR to give us this information while staying within the limits of
> the pov she uses. Just as it would have been acceptable to actually
> make it a question as to why he would give this task to Draco with
> people asking why, and the solution finally given to us. 

Alla:

But don't you see? That is one of the main reasons why I don't see 
your answer as absolute canon, but as canon at least open to 
interpretation. There is no **definite** confirmation of Voldemort 
being angry at Lucius as the reason for punishing Draco, IMO. I 
mean, again, I am not quite sure what I am arguing about, since I 
**am** on your side in this argument, I **do** believe that 
Voldemort punishing Draco was the reason for this wierd plan and I 
seriously doubt that Draco went to Voldemort with it.

I suppose all that I am arguing against is your absolute confidence 
( the way I read it) that this is a fact, while as Carol pointed out 
Snape does not even confirm Narcissa speculation that Voldemort is 
angry at Draco.

Sure, this **is** an acceptable way for JKR to give us this 
information, but it is also an acceptable way to spin ...erm another 
tale in front of us.

I mean, personally I am much more happier with everything that 
occurred in Spinner End being a truth. Do I think that it may not be 
so? I really do, I think that it sooo possible that many tales were 
told that day and where is the truth and where is the lie, I have no 
idea.

I mean, again who gets to decide that **not** confirming Draco's 
mission is enough to allege with absolute certainty that this was 
indeed **reason** for Draco's mission?



Magpie:
> As Alla said, sure we could find out all these people were wrong 
or 
> lying for some reason in the next book. It's still physically 
> possible for JKR to do that. But within this book the question of 
why
> Voldemort would give this kid this task has only one answer
> offered in the scene that lays out the groundwork. Obviously 
> everyone is free to not accept that answer just as they can reject 
> any information in the books so far.

Alla:

I would be much much more confident  that this was indeed ** the 
only answer** given in the books if I could make Snape and Narcissa 
testify under oath, you know? :)

Right now, I see a potential for backstory Steve came up with to 
lurk in the shadows of that answer, which is IMO does look shaky 
enough.

 
> Magpie:
> No, they don't know about that. And that's why Draco would need to
> tell Dumbledore that at the end, when he told him about figuring 
out
> the Cabinet. 

Alla:

Why? I am sorry again, but why does Draco need to tell it to 
Dumbledore? Isn't that your opinion as a reader that this is the way 
storyline should go? What if JKR decided that it is **not** 
important enough to be in the book?

After all she told us that she has backstories for the characters , 
but after book 7 we will have all the backstory we need? IMO that 
means that a lot of things which we may want to know are not 
important enough and she is leaving them up to our imagination? IMO 
of course.


> Magpie:
> In a nutshell: Provide a bit of canon where this set of events--
> the part where Draco went to Voldemort with a Plot to get the DEs 
> into Hogwarts and Voldemort turned it around on him and made into 
a 
> double plot of getting DEs into a different thing. Actual words 
from 
> canon referring to this. Not an argument that as long as nobody 
says 
> it didn't happen it couldn't. Not an outline of how it could work 
> given when Draco heard Montague's story and when Spinner's End 
> happens. Not explanations for how logical this would be if this 
were 
> the story of Voldemort the great strategist instead of Draco's 
> story. Not individual explanations for each scene of this story 
> about how nothing in that scene could refer to it either.  Not 
> musings on how can we really ever know anything going on in the 
> story.
>
Alla:

I cannot do it, but if you cannot accept  the outline of how Draco 
could have learned about Cabinet and went to Voldemort, knowing that 
he proclaimed revenge on Harry and could not stand Dumbledore since 
CoS and was thrilled to be in Voldemort's service at the beginning, 
then I am not sure I can accept with absolute certainty Narcissa' 
speculation about Voldemort being angry at Lucius as only the reason 
for the plan.

Come to think of it, why Narcissa speculates, if Voldemort did come 
to their house , would not she have heard everything that was said?

Isn't that another possible hint that Draco went to Voldemort, not 
Voldemort to Draco?

 My head hurts :)

JMO,

Alla







From zgirnius at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 02:20:48 2006
From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:20:48 -0000
Subject: About those vanishing cabinets...
In-Reply-To: <ed5fj2+afro@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5h20+6f20@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157662


> Eddie:
> 
> At the beginning of CoS, Harry hides in the Vanishing Cabinet at
> Borgin and Burkes.  Why didn't he get transported to Hogwarts?  The
> other cabinet was not yet broken, since it was broken LATER by Peeves
> (Filch: "That vanishing cabinet was extremely
> valuable...") on Nearly-Headless Nick's prodding.

zgirnius:
Here's the passage:

CoS:
> Hary looked quickly around and spotted a large black cabinet to his 
> left; he shot inside it and puilled the doors closed, leaving a small 
> crack to peer through.


My guess is that the cabinet is only activated when the doors are shut 
completely.







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 02:38:18 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:38:18 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ecuava+jest@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5i2q+msm6@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157663



Snow:

Sorry for the late reply. It's only been three days and yet this 
thread became contagious and spawned the currant topic (which came 
first the chicken or the egg, no that isn't it
 the cabinet or the 
task), which was introduced with this post from Steve. 

Snow (me previously):
>
> Buy then it would simply be an act of revenge! I feel
> confident that Voldemort would make more of such a
> situation than that. ...


bboyminn:

While I am not discrediting all the things that have been 
said so far, but let us not forget that Draco went to 
Voldemort with the Vanishing Cabinet Plan. I suspect Draco 
thought he would get big time credit for bringing this info 
to the Dark Lord, but he didn't necessarily expect to have 
to carry out any plan. 

Snow:

Totally agree that Draco in his haste to take revenge on his father's 
recent incarceration approached the Dark Lord with his newfound 
enlightenment of a way in which Voldemort could penetrate the castle. 
Voldemort seized his opportunity to both use Draco at his parents' 
detriment and also test the loyalty of one Severus Snape. Even Snape 
would agree with me. HBP pg. 34

"He intends me to do it in the end, I think. "

Steve:

Suddenly, Voldemort leaves it up to Draco to fix the cabinet 
and as an added special treat decides to induct him into the 
Death Eaters. I'm not sure that's what Draco expected, but 
fixing the cabinet and letting the DE's do the dirty work 
might not be so bad. Plus, he has alway assumed he would 
eventually be a DE, so it is just coming a little sooner.

Snow:

I totally agree with you here as well. If you look at the cocky 
attitude Draco has in Borgins when he threatens him with Fenrir and 
better than that is Draco's statement to his mates on the train when 
he tells them: HBP pg. 152

"I've just said, haven't I? Maybe he doesn't care if I'm qualified. 
Maybe the job he wants me to do isn't something that you need to be 
qualified for," said Malfoy quietly.

At this point Malfoy is under the impression that he need not be 
qualified for what he is being asked to do. Now does this sound like 
someone being ordered to kill the most powerful wizard of all time 
himself? 

It doesn't sound that way to me. At this point all we can be certain 
of is that Malfoy is looking into fixing the cabinets and has the 
Dark Mark on his arm, unless someone is under the assumption that it 
would not take any qualified skill to kill the Headmaster; Even Draco 
wouldn't be that cocky to assume he could do the nasty to Dumbledore 
without skill. 

Steve:

But Voldemort is a master manipulator with his own agenda, 
once Draco is in too deep, Voldemort present Draco with 
the extreme priviledge and treat of killing Dumbledore 
himself. I doubt Draco had bargained on that, but now that 
he was in, he knew he couldn't refuse and he knew he couldn't 
negotiate.

I think Voldemort also took Draco's standard resources away 
from him to make the task harder; no Crabbe and Goyle, no 
Snape, and no running to mummy. He was assigned a few DE to 
assist him and be his outside contacts, and that was it. 

Snow:

Sounds like a fairly accurate assumption to me especially since we 
see that Draco's cocky attitude gives way to crying to Myrtle over 
halfway through the book, what changed? 

Even Dumbledore himself notices upon reflection to Draco that his 
feeble attempts at killing him seemed almost like his heart wasn't in 
it. That would be because at the point that he attempted to kill 
Dumbledore via the necklace and mead, Draco was more interested in 
the cabinets
why would that be unless he was yet to be informed of 
his actual mission?

Steve:

I further think that only involved people knew specifically 
what the plan was. Narcissa may or may NOT have know the 
plan. Certainly she knew there was a dark and dangerour 
plan that centered around her son, and to a mother, that 
alone is enough to worry you. I suspect the same it true 
of Bella, she knew generally but not specifically. Yes, I 
know some will cite 'Spinners End', but no one in that 
scene actually reveals what they know. 

Snow:

Alas, someone who reads this scene as skeptical as myself. Too much 
can be inferred or denied depending on your read. 

Steve:

I still say that a substantial part of Draco's stress was 
Secrecy. He couldn't go to Snape or his mother for help. 
He couldn't reveal to his best friends and helpers the 
secret of his mission. Though I readily admit to the teen 
angst, urge to grow up and prove himself, desire for glory 
and recognition, and all the other aspects that others have 
spoke of. But I think the up-front limiting factor on Draco 
was secrecy; he couldn't reveal the secret because to do 
so surely meant death.

Snow:

I do think that others agree with this since Draco's adolescent 
behavior has matured. Most people like to bask in the glory and a 
young person would be more eager than most. Draco was fixated with 
fixing the cabinets way beyond the `plan' we are under the assumption 
had been ordered from the beginning. 

The problem is Draco's secrecy about his cabinet venture, even from 
his mother, caused him greater problems. Draco was not expecting such 
a mediocre backup group of deatheaters as he well acknowledged to 
Dumbledore when the fact that Fenrir was inside the school of Draco's 
friends. 

Steve:

Some see Draco out of character in this book, but Draco is 
also out of his characteristic situation. Up until now all 
he had to think about were schoolboy pranks, now the stakes 
are extremely high. Much much much higher than Draco has 
ever had to operate at before. It is easy to be smug and 
arrogant when the stakes are a few lines or a detention or 
two, but Voldemort will not give 'lines' for failure.

Draco fancied himself getting into Voldemort's good graces 
with the information about the cabinet, but I suspect 
Voldemort, step by step, raised the stakes to far beyond 
what Draco ever imagined. Yes, part of that was vindictive. 
He was putting tremendous pressure on Draco, perhaps even 
putting him in harms way as a way of tormenting Draco, his 
mother, and his father. But that was not the objective, that 
was just a side benefit. Naturally with a completely secret 
way into the castle, the Dark Lord would want to use it. 
The School and Dumbledore are prime strategic targets for 
Voldemort; he simply couldn't pass it up.

Snow:

I agree with the majority of your scenario until the end where we 
must part company because as I stated above Snape was Voldemort's 
bigger target and Snape knew it! Dumbledore was quite aware of it 
also. 

Steve:

I think he kept Snape out of it because he didn't want to 
compromise Snape's spy status. By leaving Snape out, no 
suspicion could fall on him regardless of the out come. 
That way he would always have his inside man at Hogwarts. 
Also, if Draco really did fail this year, he could always 
come back next year, and with Snape help then, fix the 
cabinet. Or have Snape fix it over the summer. Draco's 
failure itself doesn't close the door. Although Draco 
getting caught most certainly would.

Snow:

This is exactly why I think this part of the scenario is a bust; If 
Dumbledore is killed by entering Hogwarts through the passage Draco 
provides, then why would Snape be necessary to stay on
to spy on 
who?  

Just a couple more thoughts

Snow








From estesrandy at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 02:44:01 2006
From: estesrandy at yahoo.com (Randy)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:44:01 -0000
Subject: Quidditch is a Clue (IMO)  WAS: Locket Horcrux as a Snitch?
In-Reply-To: <ed4b67+crdo@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5idh+ehe4@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157664

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Eddie" <harryp at ...> wrote:
>
> > Eddie:
> > >> Ever notice that the Locket Horcrux is roughly the size and 
> > shininess of a Snitch? Think Harry's Quidditch skills will come 
> > in handy in defeating Voldemort? <<
> > 
> > AnnR:
> >  
> > Nice thought.  I don't think there is anything in canon to 
suggest 
> > that Voldemort uses a broom.  He usually apparates.  Sport was 
> > never mentioned in his past so far.  Who knows..
> 
> Eddie:
> I wasn't thinking sport... just some kind of most-amazing catch by
> Harry (maybe on a broom) that keeps the locket from Voldy.
> 
> But now that you mention it, it reminds me of the game of chess 
played
> against Death from Ingmar Bergman's "The Seventh Seal", parodied so
> perfectly in the movie "Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey" where they play
> Twister, Battleship, Clue, and electronic footbal against Death.
> 
> So anyway, back to HP canon: Harry used his broom-flying skills to
> defeat the dragon in GoF.  And Quidditch is so intrinsic to Harry's
> skill-set that I'd love to see it become an important factor in the
> final book.
> 
> Eddie
>

Randy Adds a Thought about Quidditch sport.

What if Quidditch is a kind of clue!  I have thought about this for 
a while but not been able to fully define it.

There are 7 players in a Quidditch Team

3 are Chasers
2 are Beaters
1 is a Keeper
1 is a Seeker

There are 7 DADA (one is Potion's teacher so far) teachers

You could say a metaphor for each one may exist (IMO).

3 are Chasers  
(Quirrell chases the Stone, Lockhart chases fame and fortune, Maybe 
Snape chases after recognition (a bit of a stretch I admit)

2 are Beaters (Umbridge and Moody/Crouch)(ie. hurt Harry in lessons)
1 is a Keeper (Slughorn keeps a secret about Horcruxes)
1 is a Seeker  (Lupin seeks acceptance) (IMO)

The Seeker catches the Golden Snitch (Could Pettigrew be the Snitch?)

Does Lupin seek to catch the pesky Snitch Pettigrew again in Book 7)

These are metaphors but the idea of burrying clues into Quidditch is 
still very strong to me.  Maybe I am just reading the clues wrong.

Randy










From kking0731 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 02:56:22 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:56:22 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet?
In-Reply-To: <ed5gph+49ik@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5j4m+pq3a@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157665





>>Mike:
> <snip>
> Speculation: Draco learned while still at school else how would he 
> have known what "everyone" else thought of the story.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
But again, there's no canon. And we've seen that students visit 
each other over the summer. Why should we assume that Slytherins' 
don't go visiting? Especially their newly recovered Quidditch 
captain? Or for that matter, that they don't write letters?

Snow:

Not speaking for Mike of course but there is Canon: HBP pg. 587

Recount of Montague's story then:

"-- Everyone thought it was a really good story, but I was the only 
one who realized what it meant ? even Borgin didn't know ? I was the 
only one who realized there could be a way into Hogwarts through the 
cabinets if I fixed the broken one." 

This shows us that `everyone' heard the story from Montague of how he 
was in a type of limbo between two places. This would then lend us to 
the opinion that Draco became aware of the cabinets at the end of 
last school year for an all-inclusive `everyone' heard the story. 

Snow









From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 03:01:17 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:01:17 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed5grl+nv8v@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5jdt+vnac@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157666

> >>Carol:
> > Actually, no. Canon doesn't say that Voldemort's anger at Lucius
> > leads him to give Draco the task of killing Dumbledore. What we 
> > have is Narcissa's speculation that that's the case and Snape's
> > confirmation that Voldemort is angry at Lucius.

> >>Magpie:
> > Yes, I understand where it comes from. And this kind of         
> > speculation from Narcissa, plus Snape and Dumbledore's          
> > confirmation of the fact that Voldemort is angry at Lucius is a 
> > perfectly acceptable way for JKR to give us this information    
> > while staying within the limits of the pov she uses. Just as it 
> > would have been acceptable to actually make it a question as to 
> > why he would give this task to Draco with people asking why, and 
> > the solution finally given to us. 
> > <snip>
> > And that's why Draco would need to tell Dumbledore that at the  
> > end, when he told him about figuring out the Cabinet. 

> >>Alla:
> Why? I am sorry again, but why does Draco need to tell it to 
> Dumbledore?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I can't believe I'm going to say this to you, Alla, but here goes: 
Because the hero of the story is not Draco, it's Harry.  Why would 
JKR carry over a mystery involving Draco that she'll have to deal 
with in Book 7 and take time away from the story of Harry?  Draco's 
mystery in HBP (what is he up to?) was a one book mystery because 
Draco is not the hero.  If Draco approached Voldemort with a plan 
then he'd have mentioned it to Dumbledore during the great summing 
up when we learned that Draco *did* nearly kill Katie and Ron. 

> >>Alla:
> Isn't that your opinion as a reader that this is the way 
> storyline should go? What if JKR decided that it is **not** 
> important enough to be in the book?
> After all she told us that she has backstories for the            
> characters, but after book 7 we will have all the backstory we    
> need? IMO that means that a lot of things which we may want to     
> know are not important enough and she is leaving them up to our   
> imagination? IMO of course.

Betsy Hp:
But this theory isn't a backstory.  It goes right to the heart of 
the Draco mystery.  What is he doing and why?  Canon tells us one 
thing: he's trying to kill Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders, the 
cabinets is the method he came up with.  Steven's speculation is 
completely different and, if true, requires a completely different 
summing up moment.  It needs the action in book 7 to come to a 
screeching halt while Draco explains that *he* actually sought out 
*Voldemort*.  It'd be like Quirrell suddenly showing up to say that 
Voldemort was actually in his evil twin brother's head.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> ...if you cannot accept  the outline of how Draco could have       
> learned about Cabinet and went to Voldemort, knowing that he      
> proclaimed revenge on Harry and could not stand Dumbledore since 
> CoS and was thrilled to be in Voldemort's service at the          
> beginning, then I am not sure I can accept with absolute certainty 
> Narcissa's speculation about Voldemort being angry at Lucius as    
> only the reason for the plan.

Betsy Hp:
Basically you're asking us to put equal weight to the "cabinet came 
first" theory (not mentioned or thought of by *any* character in 
canon) as to what we're told in the books by a character in the 
books.  So you're asking for pure speculation (readers) to match 
actual canon (Narcissa speaking as JKR directs her to). 

I mean, sure Narcissa might be wrong about Voldemort's motivation 
(though I would ask, why?), but she's *very* clear that Voldemort 
chose Draco.  No mention is made of Draco going to Voldemort, which 
is what the "cabinet came first" theory demands.

> >>Alla:
> Come to think of it, why Narcissa speculates, if Voldemort did     
> come to their house , would not she have heard everything that was 
> said? 
> Isn't that another possible hint that Draco went to Voldemort, not 
> Voldemort to Draco?

Betsy Hp:
Actually Narcissa never speculates about who approached whom.  She 
states as fact, more than once, that Voldemort chose Draco.  It's 
only this "cabinet came first" theory that has caused various 
readers to decide that Narcissa is lying, mistaken, guessing, etc.  
Narcissa herself seems pretty sure of what is going on.

Though I agree with you.  Having a character raise a question about 
Narcissa's constant statements that Voldemort chose Draco would have 
been a *perfect* way for JKR to suggest that Narcissa's view of the 
situation might be wrong.  That it doesn't happen is, IMO, yet one 
more nail in the coffin for the "cabinet came first" theory. <g>

Betsy Hp






From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug 31 03:39:01 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:39:01 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
References: <ed5foj+eui5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <011801c6ccaf$00a452b0$d380400c@Spot>

No: HPFGUIDX 157667

> Carol again:
> We're talking in circles here. We don't really get an explanation in
> "Spinner's End." In fact, that whole chapter is a mystery. The only
> thing we do know, after having read the book, is that Snape didn't
> know about the Vanishing Cabinets. So, obviously, he couldn't have
> discussed them.

Magpie:
Okay, here's how I see the mystery of this plotline working in HBP.  "The 
Plot to kill DD" plot begins at Spinner's End.  By "begins" I don't mean 
chronologically, since obviously elements of the story have already 
happened.  But the narrator begins the story in the book with Spinner's End.

The chapter is chock full of exposition.  If we've read the other books 
we've met these people before, but even then we don't know them in this 
context.  So we're getting Snape the double or maybe triple agent, a lot 
about life on their side, some things that have happened recently that are 
important. Even someone reading the book for the first time can see that 
these are not straightforward people, and the chapter raises more questions 
than it answers.

But what's driving the action is this woman, Narcissa, who appears already 
on the run to see Snape, desperate.  At first she says her son has been 
given a dangerous assignment he can't do.  Everyone agrees on this fact. 
It's an assigment that's described as being an honor and a chance for glory, 
and one that her son is eager to prove himself by succeding at it.  Narcissa 
seems to originally want Snape to convince LV to give the assignment to 
someone else, which Snape says is impossible.  Narcissa then comes to 
believe it's as bad as she feared--her son is being set up to fail to punish 
her husband.  Lucius' screw ups--during a raid that also put Bellatrix into 
his bad graces--are also discussed, as is the Dark Lord's anger regarding 
them.

Could there be more to the story and could these people be mistaken or 
lying?  Sure.  The story calls into question some of the things learned in 
this chapter later (what side is Snape on?).  But it doesn't call everything 
into question. Presumably some stuff in the chapter is true, some is false.

The narrator's given us a dramatic situation as the start of a 
story-desperate woman, son given suicide mission, mysterious man with 
questionable alliances and motives takes vow to do it for him.  It's a 
bang-up set-up to a story.  It's hard for me to imagine that if this were a 
standalone book anyone would read that scene and respond with, "Okay, but 
what's really going on?  This Dark Lord guy couldn't really care about 
punishing these people."  The "Revenge on the Malfoys" plot appears to me to 
be part of the groundwork, not something to wonder about, but something that 
launches us into the story and then it's just--giddyup, let's find out how 
this plays out!  And the climax comes right back to everything in this 
scene, up in the Tower.

Then we've got Harry, our pov character, and he's wondering what's going on. 
He suspects that Draco is working for the Dark Lord.  Now the Spinner's End 
chapter doesn't just provide mysteries about what will happen and what is 
happening, it begins to provide suspense as well--particularly the part 
about Voldemort being angry at Lucius and this being a suicide mission.  The 
main reason Harry's theories about Draco keep getting dismissed by 
reasonable people like Hermione and Arthur and Ron is that it's Malfoy, and 
he's 16--why would Voldemort ever give him a task?  And the suspense comes 
because we, the reader, are privvy to information that these people aren't. 
We have been given an answer to that question.  We know that he does have a 
reason to give this kid an assignment.  And we know something else they 
don't know, which is that the plan is for Draco to wind up dead, so the 
logic that he can't use Draco because Draco will fail is exactly wrong. 
It's an ingenious way to use a character who one would have thought would be 
completely useless as the villain in a mystery.

What's Hitchcock's line about the difference between surprise and suspense? 
Four guys playing poker and a bomb blows up the table is surprise.   Show 
the audience the bomb and it becomes suspense.  This story has elements of 
both--in some ways we're in Harry's place not knowing what Draco's doing, so 
the DEs showing up is a surprise, for instance.  But we also know more than 
many characters.  We know that Harry is right, that Draco has an important 
mission from Voldemort (for many readers it's already clear from Spinner's 
End that the task is to kill DD), and we know something else Harry doesn't, 
that Draco is in danger as well.

So as somebody reading the story, I see the surprise, the mystery and the 
suspense as all being an important part of the story. Characters in the dark 
about Draco's mission can't question whether Voldemort really cares about 
the Malfoys enough to make Draco's death a priority because they're either 
just taking it as a given that Malfoy's working for him (Harry) or rejecting 
the idea that he could be working for Voldemort, period (Hermione, Ron, 
Arthur, etc.).  Characters who do know about the revenge plot aren't 
questioning the motives either that we see, just operating with that as 
their priority, trying to protect Draco.  So since nothing in canon raises 
this as something that needs to be questioned twice, it wasn't a question 
the text seemed to be encouraging me to ask.

Alla:

I would be much much more confident  that this was indeed ** the
only answer** given in the books if I could make Snape and Narcissa
testify under oath, you know? :)

Magpie:
Heh--well that basic difference has come up before.  It's a good policy with 
real people.  But when you're writing a story, it's all an illusion to begin 
with.

Alla:
Right now, I see a potential for backstory Steve came up with to
lurk in the shadows of that answer, which is IMO does look shaky
enough.

Magpie:
If by potential you mean that there's nothing stopping the author from 
writing that in the next book I absolutely agree to that.  I don't feel 
confident at all about anything in book VII.  If Book VII never references 
the Cabinet plot again except as just something everyone knows happened 
then I will be adamant about it, but not before.  I'm chicken that way.:-)

Snow:
"I've just said, haven't I? Maybe he doesn't care if I'm qualified.
Maybe the job he wants me to do isn't something that you need to be
qualified for," said Malfoy quietly.

At this point Malfoy is under the impression that he need not be
qualified for what he is being asked to do. Now does this sound like
someone being ordered to kill the most powerful wizard of all time
himself?

Magpie:
Yes, it does sound like a young wizard being ordered to kill the most 
powerful wizard of all time--and it's important that that (killing DD) is 
his task because Snape has vowed to do it for him if it seems he will fail. 
The whole story will lead up to Draco failing (necklace, wine, stand-off in 
the Tower) and Snape doing it.  Draco is completely right in saying that he 
doesn't need to be qualified to kill Dumbledore.  Nobody needs to have a 
degree to commit murder.  Draco doesn't think Dumbledore's the greatest 
wizard of all time--he's an old man--possibly a "stupid old man" who's the 
headmaster of his school.

In fact, this is yet another scene I should have mentioned as a big place 
where "Draco went to Voldemort" should go, along with the other scenes. He's 
boasting cryptically in totally the wrong way.

Snow:
At this point all we can be certain
of is that Malfoy is looking into fixing the cabinets and has the Dark Mark 
on his arm, unless someone is under the assumption that it would not take 
any qualified skill to kill the Headmaster; Even Draco
wouldn't be that cocky to assume he could do the nasty to Dumbledore without 
skill.


Magpie:
We know Draco is looking into fixing the Cabinets.  We don't know that he 
has the Dark Mark on his arm.  He is indeed under the assumption that it 
would not take full qualifications to kill the headmaster, and is cocky 
about it. Draco isn't saying he can kill Dumbledore without *skill.*  He's 
saying it's something he doesn't need to be "fully qualified" for, and he's 
right.

Snow:

Sounds like a fairly accurate assumption to me especially since we see that 
Draco's cocky attitude gives way to crying to Myrtle over halfway through 
the book, what changed?

Magpie:
He discovered he wasn't cut out for killing, for one.

Snow:
Even Dumbledore himself notices upon reflection to Draco that his feeble 
attempts at killing him seemed almost like his heart wasn't in it. That 
would be because at the point that he attempted to kill Dumbledore via the 
necklace and mead, Draco was more interested in the cabinets.why would that 
be unless he was yet to be informed of his actual mission?

Magpie:
Good lord, the entire plot is unraveling before my eyes!  Draco is 
confronting his not being a killer and the reality behind his fantasy of 
being a DE.  His attempts to kill are not half-hearted because he's more 
interested in fixing furniture, but because he doesn't have the heart of a 
murderer. This is a transformative story, Draco's not just passively 
reacting to off-page plot complications.

Snow:
The problem is Draco's secrecy about his cabinet venture, even from his 
mother, caused him greater problems. Draco was not expecting such a mediocre 
backup group of deatheaters as he well aknowledged to Dumbledore when the 
fact that Fenrir was inside the school of Draco's friends.

Magpie:
Mediocre?  No, the issue isn't that they're mediocre.  They burst in at the 
moment when Draco was lowering his wand, accepting that he did not want to 
kill.  And once they show up and he can't do that, they're there waiting for 
him to kill and he knows now he isn't going to for sure. The back up is now 
preventing the back out.  The arrival of Fenrir just piles on more 
horror--he's not mediocre, he's terrifying.  When DD says he's surprised 
Draco would bring him to the place where his friends are, Draco, for the 
first time in all of canon, actually wants DD to think him a better person 
than someone who would do that.  It's not the story of a school-age Death 
Eater reacting to practical difficulties between and his goal to kill DD and 
attack the school.

Betsy Hp:
Any canon to back that conclusion up?  Raise it above the level of 
speculation?  Because this is *really* important to your theory.  The timing 
of Draco hearing Montague's story is crucial and it's a
really tiny window you're trying to squeeze it into.

Magpie:
I'm going to go further and say that imo the whole timeline here is not very 
important at all.  "Oh dear, maths!" September 1 is always the same day of 
the week in this series--I don't think JKR is using a calender to plot out 
this story.  Reading HBP I thought the only thing that mattered was that 
Draco knew about the Cabinet before Draco's Detour, Chapter Six, which seems 
to be his first step in that plan.  The other important thing is that we saw 
the Montague stuff in OotP.  Draco's anger at Harry in OotP is the threat in 
the hallway and the attempted ambush on the train, and I think it's wrapped 
up in HBP when he breaks Harry's nose "for his father."  Symbolically, 
actually, Draco finally jumps off that emotional hamster wheel there.

-m 





From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 03:42:50 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:42:50 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed5jdt+vnac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5lrq+7vi8@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157668

> > >>Alla:
> > Why? I am sorry again, but why does Draco need to tell it to 
> > Dumbledore?
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I can't believe I'm going to say this to you, Alla, but here goes: 
> Because the hero of the story is not Draco, it's Harry.  Why would 
> JKR carry over a mystery involving Draco that she'll have to deal 
> with in Book 7 and take time away from the story of Harry?  
Draco's 
> mystery in HBP (what is he up to?) was a one book mystery because 
> Draco is not the hero.  If Draco approached Voldemort with a plan 
> then he'd have mentioned it to Dumbledore during the great summing 
> up when we learned that Draco *did* nearly kill Katie and Ron. 

Alla:

Heee, well, it is a good enough reason if one considers Draco going 
to Voldemort first to be a mystery not as a part of backstory which 
not have needed to be revealed.
So, I am afraid I cannot accept as a given that Draco would have 
mentioned it to Dumbledore, although shhhhh, I think he probably 
would have. What again I am arguing against? :-)

 
> Betsy Hp:
> But this theory isn't a backstory.  It goes right to the heart of 
> the Draco mystery.  What is he doing and why?
<SNIP>

Alla:

See above, I see the argument that it does not necessarily go to the 
heart of Draco's mystery, because after the initial point, Steve and 
Magpie's version is really collide IMO.



 > Betsy Hp:
> Basically you're asking us to put equal weight to the "cabinet 
came 
> first" theory (not mentioned or thought of by *any* character in 
> canon) as to what we're told in the books by a character in the 
> books.  So you're asking for pure speculation (readers) to match 
> actual canon (Narcissa speaking as JKR directs her to). 
> 
> I mean, sure Narcissa might be wrong about Voldemort's motivation 
> (though I would ask, why?), but she's *very* clear that Voldemort 
> chose Draco.  No mention is made of Draco going to Voldemort, 
which 
> is what the "cabinet came first" theory demands.

Alla:

No, not at all. I would not dream of matching canon facts with 
speculation. I mean I think it is a fair game to respond to canon 
argument with speculation because after book 7 any speculation can 
become correct IMO, but I would always acknowledge that speculation 
as of this moment is a weaker argument.

I see Narcissa asking Snape to confirm Voldemort motivations and not 
really see him doing that. I see chapter name as "Spinner End", I 
see three people in the room , who really do not trust each other 
IMO. All of that makes me question the reliability of this canon, or 
more like totally see the reasonableness of the questioning of how 
realiable this canon is.

I do not **deny** that Steve's theory is speculation, although if 
you ask me it is a very very canon built on speculation, because to 
me from Draco learning about cabinet, Draco wanting revenge and 
Draco **not** acting as being forced to do something and being 
thrilled to be in Voldemort's service is a very small leap to make 
to Draco approaching Voldemort himself. Draco remarks that Greyback 
is friend of the family, Bella has direct access to Voldemort,etc.

I see no problem of Draco getting to Voldemort if he wishes so, 
**but** it is of course speculation. The only thing is to me it is 
speculation vs potentially unreliable canon or in some places canon 
interpretation.

 
I think the main reason I am writing this post since I felt I have 
said enough on the subject is the argument that I SO do not buy from 
Steve's is the idea that this plan of Voldemort could not have 
happened ( punishing Lucius through Draco) is because it is 
irrational.

Um, here I can echo Magpie's words. We are talking about Voldemort, 
who waited whole year to kidnap Harry and who. did. not. kill. him . 
when. he. had. the child. tied up. Nooooo, he had to duel with the 
boy to show that he is erm... better wizard. We are talking about 
**that** Voldemort.

Sorry, Steve, I don't think that rationality is Voldemort strong 
suit at all.

He hits below the belt, he hits on people's love towards their 
families, he tries to steer discourse between friends (Marauders 
suspecting each other anyone?)

Nah, that is probably the main reason I am so buying Voldemort 
punishing Lucius without any other **rational** purpose in mind, 
because that is what evil overlords do IMO, even though I can 
totally see "cabinet came first" :)

JMO,

Alla.







From kking0731 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 04:30:34 2006
From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:30:34 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <011801c6ccaf$00a452b0$d380400c@Spot>
Message-ID: <ed5ola+5ndm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157669





Snow (me previously):
At this point all we can be certain 
of is that Malfoy is looking into fixing the cabinets and has the 
Dark Mark 
on his arm, unless someone is under the assumption that it would not 
take 
any qualified skill to kill the Headmaster; Even Draco
wouldn't be that cocky to assume he could do the nasty to Dumbledore 
without 
skill.

Magpie:
We know Draco is looking into fixing the Cabinets. We don't know that 
he 
has the Dark Mark on his arm. He is indeed under the assumption that 
it 
would not take full qualifications to kill the headmaster, and is 
cocky 
about it. Draco isn't saying he can kill Dumbledore without *skill.* 
He's 
saying it's something he doesn't need to be "fully qualified" for, 
and he's 
right.

Snow:

You are not forgetting that Harry has stated in canon of his 
suspicions that Draco indeed has shown his arm to be a sensitive and 
yet a pants-wetting threat to Borgins have you? Let me remind you 
where you can find these quotes: HBP pgs. 114 and 125.

Snow (me previously):

Sounds like a fairly accurate assumption to me especially since we 
see that 
Draco's cocky attitude gives way to crying to Myrtle over halfway 
through 
the book, what changed?

Magpie:
He discovered he wasn't cut out for killing, for one.

Snow:

Yes that's one!

Snow (previously):

Even Dumbledore himself notices upon reflection to Draco that his 
feeble 
attempts at killing him seemed almost like his heart wasn't in it. 
That 
would be because at the point that he attempted to kill Dumbledore 
via the 
necklace and mead, Draco was more interested in the cabinets.why 
would that 
be unless he was yet to be informed of his actual mission?

Magpie:
Good lord, the entire plot is unraveling before my eyes! Draco is 
confronting his not being a killer and the reality behind his fantasy 
of 
being a DE. His attempts to kill are not half-hearted because he's 
more 
interested in fixing furniture, but because he doesn't have the heart 
of a 
murderer. This is a transformative story, Draco's not just passively 
reacting to off-page plot complications.

Snow:

Wow! Are you really attempting to find out what happened or are you 
more concerned with your own ending? I'm not even sure where you are. 

Snow (previously):
The problem is Draco's secrecy about his cabinet venture, even from 
his 
mother, caused him greater problems. Draco was not expecting such a 
mediocre 
backup group of deatheaters as he well aknowledged to Dumbledore when 
the 
fact that Fenrir was inside the school of Draco's friends.

Magpie:
Mediocre? No, the issue isn't that they're mediocre. They burst in at 
the 
moment when Draco was lowering his wand, accepting that he did not 
want to 
kill. And once they show up and he can't do that, they're there 
waiting for 
him to kill and he knows now he isn't going to for sure. The back up 
is now 
preventing the back out. The arrival of Fenrir just piles on more 
horror--he's not mediocre, he's terrifying. When DD says he's 
surprised 
Draco would bring him to the place where his friends are, Draco, for 
the 
first time in all of canon, actually wants DD to think him a better 
person 
than someone who would do that. It's not the story of a school-age 
Death 
Eater reacting to practical difficulties between and his goal to kill 
DD and 
attack the school.

Snow:

OK! If that's what you wish to believe but I guess we are reading 
things way differently here. 

Best of luck in the upcoming book!

Snow








From amsmith422 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 03:25:20 2006
From: amsmith422 at yahoo.com (amsmith422)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:25:20 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed5jdt+vnac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5kr0+tp7f@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157670

<snip>
> Betsy Hp:
> Basically you're asking us to put equal weight to the "cabinet
> came first" theory (not mentioned or thought of by *any* character
> in canon) as to what we're told in the books by a character in the
> books.  So you're asking for pure speculation (readers) to match
> actual canon (Narcissa speaking as JKR directs her to).
>
> I mean, sure Narcissa might be wrong about Voldemort's motivation
> (though I would ask, why?), but she's *very* clear that Voldemort
> chose Draco.  No mention is made of Draco going to Voldemort,
> which is what the "cabinet came first" theory demands.
>
> > >>Alla:
> > Come to think of it, why Narcissa speculates, if Voldemort
> > did come to their house, would not she have heard everything
> > that was said? Isn't that another possible hint that Draco
> > went to Voldemort, not Voldemort to Draco?
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Actually Narcissa never speculates about who approached whom.
> She states as fact, more than once, that Voldemort chose Draco.
> It's only this "cabinet came first" theory that has caused
> various readers to decide that Narcissa is lying, mistaken,
> guessing, etc.  Narcissa herself seems pretty sure of what is
> going on. <snip>

Anna:
I'm not sure if I should really jump in on this runaway train but if
I recall, on the tower Draco tells Dumbledore that he came up with
the cabinet idea by himself and that no one knew what he was doing?
He resorted to using the necklace and wine because he did not
believe he could fix the cabinet and was getting desperate. Don't
you think that if Voldemort knew he was trying to fix the cabinet
and failing at it...holding up the task..he would have contacted him
in some way, punished him in some way?

I think JKR made it fairly obvious that Voldemort gave Draco this
task as revenge on Lucius for failing him because he did not intend
him to succeed-we know he is evil and would see Lucius losing his
son as just punishment for losing him the prophecy. I don't think
Draco told anyone about the cabinet until it was fixed and he knew
he could use it for sure. So therefore, the cabinet could not have
come first. This argument could go on for an eternity...which came
first "the chicken or the egg"......or at least until book 7 comes
out.

Anna










From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 06:07:10 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:07:10 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos
In-Reply-To: <ed5lrq+7vi8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed5uae+t73o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157671

> >>Alla:
> > Why? I am sorry again, but why does Draco need to tell it to 
> > Dumbledore?
> > <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I can't believe I'm going to say this to you, Alla, but here    
> > goes: Because the hero of the story is not Draco, it's Harry.    
> > Why would JKR carry over a mystery involving Draco that she'll   
> > have to deal with in Book 7 and take time away from the story of 
> > Harry?
> > <snip>
  
> >>Alla:
> Heee, well, it is a good enough reason if one considers Draco     
> going to Voldemort first to be a mystery not as a part of         
> backstory which not have needed to be revealed.
> So, I am afraid I cannot accept as a given that Draco would have 
> mentioned it to Dumbledore, although shhhhh, I think he probably 
> would have. What again I am arguing against? :-)
> <snip>
> ...I see the argument that it does not necessarily go to the 
> heart of Draco's mystery, because after the initial point, Steve   
> and Magpie's version is really collide IMO.

Betsy Hp:
Except they really, really don't.  Magpie's version (or as I like to 
call it, "canon" <eg>) shows Draco thrown in over his head (though 
at first the poor stupid boy doesn't realize it) and slowly coming 
to the conclusion that Death Eating is not for him.  It's a 
wonderful coming of age thing and an unfolding of Draco's character 
in a way I've long hoped for.  (Went wildly beyond my expectations, 
actually.)  It shows Draco seeing how very little worth Voldemort 
actually has for him and his family.  And it gives Draco a chance to 
really think about what sort of person he wants to be.  

Steve's version undercuts all of that.  (And I think it's incredibly 
telling that part of his version was labeled "mean Draco".)  Draco 
isn't over his head, he's biting off more than he can chew.  He's 
not a child victim of Voldemort's manipulated by his love for his 
family, he's an eager little Death Eater, hell bent on revenge and 
glory.

Actually, I think I'd reverse your last statement there.  Magpie and 
Steve *start* with a very similar Draco, romantic visions of being a 
Death Eater, intent on revenge and glory.  But Magpie's version 
allows Draco to grow.  To leave vengence behind on the train under 
an invisibility cloak at the beginning of the year.  And to come to 
a sickening realization that there's nothing romantic or glorious in 
being a Death Eater.

And I've noticed that most folks arguing the "cabinet first" theory 
really, really want Draco to stay the sort of selfish and flat 
character he's been through so many books.  At least, that's how 
their statements come across to me.  And that undercuts one of the 
more powerful stories told in HBP.  Which is why I'm making such a 
massive hue and cry for canon.  If you're going to piss all over 
what I consider some of the more poignant scenes in HBP, at least 
have the decency to present some solid facts.  Or at least, that's 
my thinking on the matter. <g> 

Though the lack of hard canon and the logic breakdown with "Draco's 
Detour" in the "cabinet first" theory is also a bit of sticking 
point for me. <veg>

Betsy Hp (up soo far past her bed time it's beyond scary... um, 
blame any fuzzy thinking on that, please <g>)







From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk  Thu Aug 31 06:37:25 2006
From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 06:37:25 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed58i6+qhkv@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6035+3lvm@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157672

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> wrote:

> On the other hand, Muggles are inherently unable to see 
> Dementors, but so are Squibs.

Geoff:
That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that Arabella Figg can see and 
recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....

'"S'up, Figgy?" he (Mundungus) said, staring from Mrs. Figg to Harry and Dudley. "What 
'appened to staying undercover?"

"I'll give you undercover!" cried Mrs. Figg. "Dementors, you useless, skiving sneak thief!"

"Dementors?" repeated Mundungus, aghast. "Dementors, 'ere?"

"Yes, you worthless pile of bat droppings, here!" shrieked Mrs.Figg. "Dementors attacking the 
boy on your watch!"'
(OOTP "A Peck of Owls" p.26 UK edition)






From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 07:30:02 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:30:02 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed5jdt+vnac@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed635q+7qv5@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157673

---  "horridporrid03" <horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
> ...
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> But this theory isn't a backstory.  It goes right to 
> the heart of the Draco mystery.  What is he doing and 
> why? Canon tells us one thing: he's trying to kill 
> Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders, the cabinets is the 
> method he came up with.  Steven's speculation is 
> completely different and, if true, requires a completely 
> different summing up moment.  ...


bboyminn:

No, my speculation isn't completely different, my 
speculation is exactly that 'he's trying to kill Dumbledore 
on Voldemort's orders, the cabinets is the method he came 
up with'. Just not in that order.


> Betsy Hp continues:
> It needs the action in book 7 to come to a screeching 
> halt while Draco explains that *he* actually sought out 
> *Voldemort*. ...
> 

bboyminn:

Once again...no. From the point in both suggested scenarios,
where Voldemort assigns Draco that task of killing Dumbledore, 
the story and the next book play out the same either way. It
is purely your speculation that the current book or the next
will or will need to play out differently.

> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Basically you're asking us to put equal weight to the 
> "cabinet came first" theory ... as to what we're told 
> in the books by a character in the books.  ...
> 
> ...
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> ... It's only this "cabinet came first" theory that has 
> caused various readers to decide that Narcissa is lying, 
> mistaken, guessing, etc.  Narcissa herself seems pretty 
> sure of what is going on.
> 
> ... 
> 
> Betsy Hp
>

bboyminn:

Again...no. Your argument is completely flawed, because no 
one is doubting that Voldemort gave Draco the task because 
he was angry at Lucius. I never said that wasn't the story. 
I never denied Voldemort's anger. I only denied that it was 
exclusively based in the Diary. Canon gives little support 
to that idea. In fact I repeatedly said that was definitely 
the story. What I have said is that it is not the /whole 
story/.

Some how we have to get Voldemort and Draco into a room 
together, I speculate a pretty convincing way for them to 
come together. A way for them to come together that has 
plenty of clues in canon and a thin but viable timeline.

In your way, as I said before, it is nothing but 'Bring me
Draco. Draco, your dad is an ass, now kill Dumbledore or
die trying'. That is the most ridiculous, worthless, and
pointless time wasting plan that has occurred so far. 

If Voldemort wanted to 'punish' Draco there many more 
effective ways than sending him on a pointless resource
wasting mission to do the impossible. He could inprison 
him. He could torture him. He could outright kill him. 
If that is all there is to the plan, then there is nothing.

However, if Voldemort becomes aware of a means of entering
Hogwarts by stealth, then we have the perfect seed upon 
which all other things can be built.

You don't have to believe that, but you do have to argue fair.
In this post, you are assigning aspects to my theory that
simply don't exist, and are making assumptions and assertions
that simply don't exits. In your other post, you hopelessly 
warped the timeline to suit your needs by assigning actions 
to a few months when they actually took a few weeks. 

I still say the position you are arguing in just as filled
with speculation and interpretation as mine is. The difference
is that with my version, we actually have a reason for Voldie
and Draco to come together, and we actually have a coherent
plan with some strategic value.

I have no problem with you not agreeing with me, but please,
when you argue, don't let your enthusiasm warp your facts.

Just a thought.

Steve/bboyminn







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 08:50:26 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:50:26 -0000
Subject: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ed5i2q+msm6@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed67si+os83@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157674

---  "snow15145" <kking0731 at ...> wrote:
> 
> Snow:
> 
> ... and better than that is Draco's statement to his 
> mates on the train when he tells them: HBP pg. 152
> 
> "I've just said, haven't I? Maybe he doesn't care if 
> I'm qualified. Maybe the job he wants me to do isn't 
> something that you need to be qualified for," said 
> Malfoy quietly.
> 
> At this point Malfoy is under the impression that he 
> need not be qualified for what he is being asked to do. 
> Now does this sound like someone being ordered to kill 
> the most powerful wizard of all time himself? 
> 

bboyminn:

Just one comment on a very small point. When Draco says he 
doesn't need qualifications, I don't think he is saying he
doesn't need skill in order to kill Dumbledore. I think he
is saying he doesn't need a high school dipoloma to be a
Death Eater. 

In a sense, he is taking the same attitude as Fred and 
George, that formal education is not for them. Draco is 
saying that if Hogwarts closes, or if he leaves school 
to be a DE, or leaves for whatever reason it is not that 
big a deal because Voldemort is not incline to check 
people's high school records when he recruits them.

So, in short, I don't think 'qualifications' is referring
to skill, it is referring to a certificate of education.

> 
> Steve:
> 
> Some see Draco out of character in this book, but Draco 
> is also out of his characteristic situation. ...
> 
> ... Naturally with a completely secret way into the 
> castle, the Dark Lord would want to use it. The School 
> and Dumbledore are prime strategic targets for Voldemort; 
> he  simply couldn't pass it up.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> I agree with the majority of your scenario until the end 
> where we must part company because as I stated above 
> Snape was Voldemort's bigger target and Snape knew it! 
> Dumbledore was quite aware of it also. 
> 


bboyminn:

Actually, I don't disagree with you. But this is a 
conversation about Draco and his role, a conversation 
that has already gotten complicated enough, so I saw 
no reason to bring Snape into it. But without a doubt, 
the Dark Lord is playing a game with Snape here too.

Why did he keep Snape out of the plan, especially the 
Cabinet Plan? It seems that Snape knew in the beginning 
(Spinners End) that Voldemort meant him to complete the 
task in the end. That implies that Snape knew something, 
but that his information was thin and very selective.

Why would Voldemort very selectively fill Snape in? Why 
would he let him know that there was a plan, but 
intentionally not give Snape crucial details of the 
overal plan?

Partly, I think that's the way Voldemort works. Each 
person no matter how valuable or close to Voldemort is 
only given information on the aspects of the plan they 
are involved them. But I also agree that Voldemort is 
playing Snape. He trust him enough to accept the 
information he receives from him, but I think he is aware 
that this information is precisely the information that 
Dumbledore wants him to have. I'm sure Voldie is very 
pleased that Snape killed Dumbledore, but at the same 
time, I don't think he fully trusts him. Can you ever 
really trust a spy?

So, I agree there is a lot to explore in the 
Voldemort/Snape dynamic in this story, and that will 
certainly carry over into the next book.

> Steve:
> 
> I think he kept Snape out of it because he didn't want 
> to compromise Snape's spy status. ...
> 
> Snow:
> 
> This is exactly why I think this part of the scenario 
> is a bust; If Dumbledore is killed by entering Hogwarts 
> through the passage Draco provides, then why would Snape 
> be necessary to stay on
to spy on who?  
> 
> Just a couple more thoughts
> 
> Snow
>

bboyminn:

You misunderstood slightly. Since Snape is completely out
of it. If Draco's plan had succeeded perfectly, there would
be nothing to implicate Snape. But, even without Dumbledore, 
Snape is still in the Order, and would still be able to 
gather information and influence decisions. If Draco has 
simply failed to kill fix the cabinet and kill Dumbledore, 
it's not a big deal because, Draco, Snape, and the Cabinet 
will be at school the next school year and they can keep 
working on it.

So, there is a strategic advantage to keeping Snape completely 
out of the plan. Regardless of perfect success or an aborted 
mission, Snape is still in a valuable position. As it is, Snape 
is not all that valuable to Voldemort except as one of his
hired thugs. Before Snape could move freely through the world
and gather information. Now he is an outlaw on the run. 

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn






From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug 31 12:04:13 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:04:13 -0000
Subject: Squibs and Magic (wasBigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed6035+3lvm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6j7t+bvvv@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157675

 
> Geoff:
> That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that 
Arabella Figg can see and 
> recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....

Potioncat:
I think she can feel the effect of Dementors, and she knows what they 
are, but I don't think she was telling the truth about seeing them. It 
doesn't appear that wizards and witches are certain of what Squibs can 
and cannot do--didn't someone ask?

I'm 99% certain that I've seen a quote from JKR that confirms this, but 
I'm darn if I can find it.

Potioncat







From willsonkmom at msn.com  Thu Aug 31 12:50:00 2006
From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:50:00 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed2d39+g591@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6lto+d8hd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157677




> Betsy Hp:
> I agree that Hagrid is not on the same level. Just as his insult
> isn't *quite* on the same level of Draco's insult to Hermione. But
> it's on the same scale, even if it's at a different level. And it
> points to an underlining issue within the WW. One that JKR has
> purposefully (IMO) brought to our attention.
>
> A good question may well be why? Why does JKR choose to have
Hagrid
> say what he says? (I suspect there's a reason.)

Potioncat:
I think this is a good question. Why did the author have this
character speak this way to Filch? Whether or not this is considered
a full blown act of bigotry, most list members seem to think it was a 
wrong thing to do. He's putting a negative twist on being a Squib.

Stepping up a bit, take out a few LOLLIPOPS and compare this
situation with Severus calling Lily a dirty mudblood.

And, for that matter, how does it compare to McGonagall's "worst sort
of Muggles"?

While it seems to me JKR is showing how pervasive prejudice is in the
WW (and RL?) She might be very surprised at this thread. I mean,
she's the one who doesn't mind using a person's weight against
someone, yet berates media for encouraging teens to aspire to an 
image of thin beauty.

Potioncat, hoping she hasn't brought up two ideas which are two
different. And, and who agrees with JKR about the media. 









From jamess at climaxgroup.com  Thu Aug 31 13:20:33 2006
From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:20:33 +0100
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Squibs and Magic (wasBigotry or NOT? Re: CHAP
	DISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39BF6@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>

No: HPFGUIDX 157678


> Geoff:
> That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that 
Arabella Figg can see and 
> recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....

Potioncat:
I think she can feel the effect of Dementors, and she knows what they 
are, but I don't think she was telling the truth about seeing them. It 
doesn't appear that wizards and witches are certain of what Squibs can 
and cannot do--didn't someone ask?

I'm 99% certain that I've seen a quote from JKR that confirms this, but 
I'm darn if I can find it.

James:

I'm sure I've seen that comment. If I remember correctly she specifically
stated that Figg did not see the dementors (Mealy felt them and recognized
them for what they were). When I get round to it I'm going to post a rather
extensive theory I've been developing on how magical talent is passed on (It
an intellectual toy rather than a plan I think JKR is following, but it does
fit everything in cannon).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



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




From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com  Thu Aug 31 13:30:40 2006
From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 13:30:40 -0000
Subject: Squibs and Magic (wasBigotry or NOT? Re: CHAP DISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39BF6@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk>
Message-ID: <ed6oa0+miue@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157679

> > Geoff:
> > That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that 
> Arabella Figg can see and 
> > recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....
> 
> Potioncat:
> I think she can feel the effect of Dementors, and she knows what 
they are, but I don't think she was telling the truth about seeing 
them. It doesn't appear that wizards and witches are certain of what 
Squibs can and cannot do--didn't someone ask?
> 
> I'm 99% certain that I've seen a quote from JKR that confirms 
this, but I'm darn if I can find it.
> 
> James:
> 
> I'm sure I've seen that comment. If I remember correctly she 
specifically stated that Figg did not see the dementors (Mealy felt 
them and recognized them for what they were). 



It is here:
http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19

Dungrollin
(Does that count as a one-liner?)






From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 31 14:00:23 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:00:23 -0000
Subject: Squibs and Magic (wasBigotry or NOT? Re: CHAP DISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed6oa0+miue@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6q1n+9bjn@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157680

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin"
<spotthedungbeetle at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Geoff:
> > > That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that 
> > Arabella Figg can see and 
> > > recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....
> > 
> > Potioncat:
> > I think she can feel the effect of Dementors, and she knows what 
> they are, but I don't think she was telling the truth about seeing 
> them. It doesn't appear that wizards and witches are certain of what 
> Squibs can and cannot do--didn't someone ask?
> > 
> > I'm 99% certain that I've seen a quote from JKR that confirms 
> this, but I'm darn if I can find it.
> > 
> > James:
> > 
> > I'm sure I've seen that comment. If I remember correctly she 
> specifically stated that Figg did not see the dementors (Mealy felt 
> them and recognized them for what they were). 
> 
> 
> 
> It is here:
> http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=19
> 
> Dungrollin
> (Does that count as a one-liner?)
>

I hope I don't come off sounding too much like Bill Clinton but it all
comes down to what you mean by the word "see" doesn't it? In a very
real sense Dudley could see the dementor. He didn't see it in the
normal sense but he could see the world going black. He didn't know
what that meant but Arabella must have seen it too and she did know
what it meant. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Muggles
can *detect* dementors, if they are trained to recognize the signs.
Arabella and Dudley must both have felt the sense of despair that
dementors produce, that would be a pretty good indication that a
dementor is about in itself. So Figgy wasn't lying when she testified,
she was using her brain to supply the details that her eyes could not
see with their usual clarity. It is the sort of thing that Muggles do
all the time and that wizard's lazy brains are incapable of.

It's an interesting quote you link to. It pretty well establishes that
it *is* the cats, not the Squibs, who are special.

Ken







From random832 at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 14:02:29 2006
From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 10:02:29 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bigotry or NOT? Re: CHAPDISC:HBP19,Elf Tails
In-Reply-To: <ed6035+3lvm@eGroups.com>
References: <ed58i6+qhkv@eGroups.com> <ed6035+3lvm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <7b9f25e50608310702j39ba61b9hc4a4012ca0f52d33@mail.gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157681

> Geoff:
> That is in conflict with canon. It is quite clear in OOTP that Arabella Figg
> can see and recognise Dementors. Just to give one instance....

Well - she knows what dementors are, they do have _effects_ that can
be evident - and didn't Harry use a Patronus? She could see the
patronus, right?



From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk  Thu Aug 31 14:02:17 2006
From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:02:17 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed57h9+aou0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6q59+orrq@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157682

Hi All,

Pippin asked:
>>> If Voldemort had any serious idea of repairing that cabinet, 
would he have assigned the task to an untried youth? If Voldemort 
thought that the cabinet could be fixed, would he have had Draco 
instructed in occlumency, yet left him on his own to discover how 
the cabinet could be repaired? <<<

I think Pippin's probably right there, but I had a worrying doubt 
that I'd seen an unlikely hero given a quest that rumbles on until 
an unlikely success. Bingo ? Lord of the Rings. Tom Riddle may well 
have read Lord of the Rings. The Lexicon suggests that Voldemort was 
born in December 1926 which would make him 27 when it was published. 
Granted that's long after he was immersed in the muggle world, but 
who knows? Perhaps he saw Lucius as Bilbo, and Draco as Frodo. Draco 
is such an unlikely choice, and that helped Draco "fly under the 
radar" of the more weighty characters.

Cheers,

Dumbledad.

PS If Narcissa suddenly moves house I'll peg her as Lobelia 
Sackville-Baggins








From klhutch at sbcglobal.net  Thu Aug 31 14:58:28 2006
From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:58:28 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed6lto+d8hd@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6tek+rj8j@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157683

> 
> > Betsy Hp:
> > I agree that Hagrid is not on the same level. Just as his insult
> > isn't *quite* on the same level of Draco's insult to Hermione. But
> > it's on the same scale, even if it's at a different level. And it
> > points to an underlining issue within the WW. One that JKR has
> > purposefully (IMO) brought to our attention.
> >
> > A good question may well be why? Why does JKR choose to have
> Hagrid
> > say what he says? (I suspect there's a reason.)
> 
> Potioncat:
> I think this is a good question. Why did the author have this
> character speak this way to Filch? Whether or not this is considered
> a full blown act of bigotry, most list members seem to think it was a 
> wrong thing to do. He's putting a negative twist on being a Squib.
> 

Ken:

Most but certainly not all. These were words said in anger in order to
push someone's buttons. Furthermore they are literally correct, Filch
is both a sneak and a Squib. Calling some one who is both habitually
filthy and Jewish a filthy Jew is not the same thing at all as talking
about all Jews in that manner. 

Hagrid strikes me as the least prejudiced of the characters who are
life long members of the magical community. No, he is not politically
correct and God bless him for that! He does not filter his speach, he
says exactly what he is thinking *at the time*. Not every thought that
flits through our heads represents our true core beliefs. Most of us
train ourselves to hide those errant neuron firings from public view,
Hagrid does not. It is the same personality trait that prevents him
from keeping secrets.  If we really lived in the Potterverse and one
of us found ourselves in a position where we had to trust a member of
the magical community who better to petition than Hagrid? He is
remarkably accepting of all sorts of creatures. I think the only Squib
we see him interact with is Filch and the only regular Muggles are the
Dursleys. I cannot fault him his taste in Muggles, I would not
associate willingly or graciously with that group either.

If you *must* see a deeper meaning to Hagrid's choice of words in this
scene why not consider who, among the known Hogwarts staff, is most
Squib-like and who might have a burden of self doubt because of it.
The answer is Hagrid. Is he being a bigot here or is he expressing his
inner feelings of inadequacy by attacking someone else at exactly the
source of his self-doubt? 

> potioncat:

> Stepping up a bit, take out a few LOLLIPOPS and compare this
> situation with Severus calling Lily a dirty mudblood.
> 
> And, for that matter, how does it compare to McGonagall's "worst sort
> of Muggles"?
> 

Ken:

I think Severus's mudblood comment could be seen in the same light as
James's bullying. Young boys really *don't* know how to impress young
girls and adult men are nearly as clueless with adult women. We do
have an innate understanding of the marketing maxim which I will
paraphrase as "scornful attention is better than no attention". I
think it reasonable to assume that Severus might have had some
interest in Lily at the time even if it isn't a motivation for the
adult Snape's action. We know that Draco's prejudice is for real, we
see him express it in too many ways and too many situations for it to
be anything else. With Snape do we really know? He isn't a nice man,
as JKR confirms. What he *is* is really an engima to be resolved in
book 7. But at this point I think we *can* say that Lily/mudblood
*could* have been just a teenaged boys misguided attempt to make a
girl notice him for something other than being the James Gang's victim.

I don't remember the context for Minerva's comment. Certainly every
group into which you could divide humanity has it's "worst sort". It
could be a reflection of the general disdain with which the magical
community views Muggles. I have a sense that she has a core decency
about her that would transcend this in the right circumstances though.

> potioncat:

> While it seems to me JKR is showing how pervasive prejudice is in the
> WW (and RL?) She might be very surprised at this thread. I mean,
> she's the one who doesn't mind using a person's weight against
> someone, yet berates media for encouraging teens to aspire to an 
> image of thin beauty.
>

Ken:

I have to confess I don't know what JKR is thinking or if she would be
surprised by this discussion. In a way her magical community practices
a weird inverted sort of apartheid. It adopts the separation strategy
typical of an oppressed minority while holding the sort of superiority
prejudices typical of the oppressive majority. I can't think of a
parallel in real life and I am not certain what JKR is trying to say
by means of this.

Ken







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Aug 31 14:59:24 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:59:24 -0000
Subject: Is Lupin a Legilimens? Is that Suspicious?
In-Reply-To: <ed4ge7+s4lr@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6tgc+rpfd@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157684

> > Pippin wrote:
> > 
> > <huge snip>
> > 
> > >I notice he's [Lupin] not on JKR's A-list for dinner companions any
> > >more. And it can't be because he's going to be dead. <g>
> > 
Aida:
> > Huh?  Did I miss something in one of her interviews?

> Renee:
> 
> Lupin's still on JKR's list of favourite characters on her website.
> What seems to have disappeared from the site (unless I did a really
> bad search) is the question who she'd like to have dinner with, to
> which the answer was Lupin. But AFAIK this was never a list.

Pippin:
JKR, Edinburgh Book Festival 2004
"If I could meet anyone, I might choose Lupin. I really like him. "

JKR, An Evening with Harry, Carrie and Garp 2006
(asked which five characters she would invite to dinner)

"Pretend I can take anyone? Well then I would definitely take Dumbledore.
 I'd take Dumbledore, Harry, Ron, Hermione...and.. (crowd shouts 
characters) um, Hagrid. I'd take Hagrid, yeah. "

So there is an A-list,  so to speak,  (an A-list is Hollywood slang 
for a group of the most desirable people to invite) and Lupin's not on it.
I thought there was a quote where JKR said she'd like to have Lupin
to dinner but I can't find it either.

I can't access the video of New York events-- can anyone tell if Lupin 
is one of the characters the crowd suggested?

Pippin







From belviso at attglobal.net  Thu Aug 31 15:10:14 2006
From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:10:14 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not?
In-Reply-To: <ed5ola+5ndm@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed6u4m+j8tl@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157685


> Magpie:
> We know Draco is looking into fixing the Cabinets. We don't know 
that 
> he 
> has the Dark Mark on his arm. He is indeed under the assumption 
that 
> it 
> would not take full qualifications to kill the headmaster, and is 
> cocky 
> about it. Draco isn't saying he can kill Dumbledore without 
*skill.* 
> He's 
> saying it's something he doesn't need to be "fully qualified" for, 
> and he's 
> right.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> You are not forgetting that Harry has stated in canon of his 
> suspicions that Draco indeed has shown his arm to be a sensitive 
and 
> yet a pants-wetting threat to Borgins have you? Let me remind you 
> where you can find these quotes: HBP pgs. 114 and 125.

Magpie:
No, I'm not forgetting.  Draco's having a Dark Mark is raised as a 
distinct possibility--it's not canon that Draco *isn't* marked.  But 
it's still just a possibility at the end of the book.  In Madam 
Malkin's Malkin tries to ignore the fight brewing and pin up Draco's 
sleeve. Draco yells, "Ow!  Watch where you're sticking those pins, 
woman!" and pulls the robes over his head.  Harry remembers Draco 
jerking when Malkin touched his arm, but we saw the scene ourselves 
and in it Draco gives an alternate reason for jerking his arm--she 
stuck him with a pin.  Harry doesn't reference that fact when he 
brings it up.  And Harry doesn't not see what Draco is doing at all 
with Borgin that suddenly makes him go pale.  So while Draco having 
a Dark Mark is a possibility raised in canon absolutely, but so is 
Harry's being mistaken.  Since a mark on Draco's skin doesn't effect 
events one way or another it could go either way.  
 
> Snow (previously):
> 
> Even Dumbledore himself notices upon reflection to Draco that his 
> feeble 
> attempts at killing him seemed almost like his heart wasn't in it. 
> That 
> would be because at the point that he attempted to kill Dumbledore 
> via the 
> necklace and mead, Draco was more interested in the cabinets.why 
> would that 
> be unless he was yet to be informed of his actual mission?
> 
> Magpie:
> Good lord, the entire plot is unraveling before my eyes! Draco is 
> confronting his not being a killer and the reality behind his 
fantasy 
> of 
> being a DE. His attempts to kill are not half-hearted because he's 
> more 
> interested in fixing furniture, but because he doesn't have the 
heart 
> of a 
> murderer. This is a transformative story, Draco's not just 
passively 
> reacting to off-page plot complications.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> Wow! Are you really attempting to find out what happened or are 
you 
> more concerned with your own ending? I'm not even sure where you 
are. 

Magpie:
I'm relating the events of the book.  You claimed that when Draco 
made the attempts to kill DD with the necklace and poison it was 
half-hearted because he was "more interested in the cabinets."  You 
then said that this was because he had yet to actually be informed 
of his actual mission, that mission being to kill DD.  Which 
unravels the plot, because that's the mission Snape has agreed to do 
if Draco fails at it--and it's also what Draco is trying to do with 
the poison and the necklace.  If he hasn't been informed of his real 
mission of killing DD and is just fixing the cabinet, he wouldn't be 
trying to kill DD in alternate ways.  It also veers away from the 
central act of the story, which is committing murder and splitting 
the soul. It replaces the character's emotional arc, which is what 
it leads to in the book (ending with the choice) and which is talked 
about and dramatized in the book with a series of complications 
external both to Draco and to the text.  The whole conversation at 
the end with Dumbledore is about exactly how Draco's heart wasn't in 
it and why.  He's not a killer.


> 
> Magpie:
> Mediocre? No, the issue isn't that they're mediocre. They burst in 
at 
> the 
> moment when Draco was lowering his wand, accepting that he did not 
> want to 
> kill. And once they show up and he can't do that, they're there 
> waiting for 
> him to kill and he knows now he isn't going to for sure. The back 
up 
> is now 
> preventing the back out. The arrival of Fenrir just piles on more 
> horror--he's not mediocre, he's terrifying. When DD says he's 
> surprised 
> Draco would bring him to the place where his friends are, Draco, 
for 
> the 
> first time in all of canon, actually wants DD to think him a 
better 
> person 
> than someone who would do that. It's not the story of a school-age 
> Death 
> Eater reacting to practical difficulties between and his goal to 
kill 
> DD and 
> attack the school.
> 
> Snow:
> 
> OK! If that's what you wish to believe but I guess we are reading 
> things way differently here. 

Magpie:
I actually think we're doing different things entirely.

bboyminn:

Again...no. Your argument is completely flawed, because no
one is doubting that Voldemort gave Draco the task because
he was angry at Lucius. I never said that wasn't the story.
I never denied Voldemort's anger. I only denied that it was
exclusively based in the Diary. Canon gives little support
to that idea. In fact I repeatedly said that was definitely
the story. What I have said is that it is not the /whole
story/.

Magpie:
I do understand that this is what you are saying.  However what I, 
and I think Betsy, are pointing out is that that beginning to the 
story can't just be stuck on before what's written, because it 
raises issues that are not dealt with in the story.  I wish I could 
think of some metaphor to illustrate it.  A Draco who goes to 
Voldemort with the Cabinet plan and gets assigned this task is a 
perfectly compelling beginning to a story.  So compelling that it 
has to be played out.  Every second of the year you have to 
substitute that beginning for the beginning we get, and that brings 
up different issues that he has to struggle with and re-think just 
as canon shows him struggling with the issues of this story because 
it's important to the story.  

Another poster brought up Voldemort reading LotR and his seeing 
Draco as Bilbo or Frodo.  I find that bizarre (Voldemort has the 
exact same kinds of blindspots Sauron did), but where I will bring 
in LotR is to say that it's important how Frodo gets the Ring.  It's 
important how Frodo decided to try to destroy the ring as opposed to 
the way Harry got roped into having to try to destroy Voldemort.  
Both characters go back to these reasons when they can't go on to 
push themselves forward.  That's what Draco keeps explicitly doing 
in canon as well. JKR hits the things that are driving Draco hard 
right from that first chapter--chance for glory, threats to family, 
with ultimately the threats to family being the one left standing 
when he rejects the glory one and lowers his wand.  In this version 
neither of those things set events in motion.  On the contrary, 
Draco is was seeking petty revenge from the safety of a child's 
position.  He didn't want to be the man, he wanted to be the clever 
child manipulating grown-ups into taking revenge for him.  In the 
case of Draco's story it's even more important because Draco isn't 
the Quest hero in this book, his story is all about a personal 
change and emotional development.  

Ken:
If you *must* see a deeper meaning to Hagrid's choice of words in 
this scene why not consider who, among the known Hogwarts staff, is 
most Squib-like and who might have a burden of self doubt because of 
it. The answer is Hagrid. Is he being a bigot here or is he 
expressing his inner feelings of inadequacy by attacking someone 
else at exactly the source of his self-doubt?

Magpie:
And again, you describe something completely stereotypical of the 
way bigotry works as if it somehow proves it can't be bigotry.  
Hagrid has self-doubt, so asserts his dominance over someone even 
lower on the totem pole.  To me this doesn't seem like a deeper 
meaning, it's the surface meaning, the literal meaning.   

-m







From foxmoth at qnet.com  Thu Aug 31 15:45:10 2006
From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:45:10 -0000
Subject: Emtional satisfaction and traitors was Re: ACID POPS and Teenager Draco
In-Reply-To: <ectnv5+t2je@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7066+63q7@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157686

  
> > Sydney:
> > 
> > Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin,
> > because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. 
> > Because it's not emotionally satisfying.  If it WAS emotionally
> > satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon.
> > 
> 
> Neri:
> The problem with the "emotionally satisfying" argument is that
> emotions tend to be subjective, and we don't always know what does the
> *Author* find emotionally satisfying.  I don't believe in ESE!Lupin
> myself, and I don't find it emotionally satisfying, but when I'm
> arguing against it I usually try to use canon and rational arguments.
> I certainly wouldn't try to convince Pippin that I know better than
> her because I'm a Lupin fan. If anything, being  Lupin fan would make
> me a *less* objective judge of any Lupin theory, especially theories
> that Lupin is evil. 

Pippin:
Emotional satisfaction doesn't vary *that* much, or there wouldn't
be untold millions of Harry Potter fans. Our anxiety about traitors has 
been raised by Snape's apparent betrayal of Dumbledore, and to resolve
the story in an emotionally satisfying way, JKR is going to have to deal 
with it. But how?

Which did you find more emotionally satisfying, the unmasking of
Quirrell in PS/SS, or the unmasking of Kreacher in OOP? Kreacher
fell a little flat, right? Having the character that raised our anxiety about
treachery  turn out to be the villain doesn't nail us with the full impact of
treachery, because to effectively address our anxiety about treachery, 
the treachery has to be unsuspected.

In the Empire Strikes Back, our anxiety about treachery is raised by
Lando. We *don't* have any emotional need to see Luke's father as
a traitor. It's not emotionally satisfying that he is a traitor, what's
emotionally satisfying is that Luke has to to deal with it.

Any social structure that depends on mutual obligation and consent
is going to generate anxiety about traitors. We know there are people
like Voldemort for whom mutual obligation has no meaning, there
are people like the Slytherin Quidditch team who are always trying to
game the system, and there are people who secretly identify with the
excluded, which of course also plays into our anxiety about excluding
people. 

In HP this latter category has mostly not been treated seriously. Hagrid
goes overboard with his sympathy for monsters, and Hermione gets 
carried away with trying to help the House Elves. James, Peter and Sirius
got carried away with helping  Lupin. But the potential for
seriousness is there -- the animagi transformations and the werewolf
outings were a betrayal of Dumbledore's trust, and may have laid
the groundwork for later ones.

Pippin







From bboyminn at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 17:21:50 2006
From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 17:21:50 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not?
In-Reply-To: <ed6u4m+j8tl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed75re+b610@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157687

---  "sistermagpie" <belviso at ...> wrote:
>
> ...edited...
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Again...no. Your argument is completely flawed, because no
> one is doubting that Voldemort gave Draco the task because
> he was angry at Lucius. ...  I never denied Voldemort's 
> anger. I only denied that it was exclusively based in the 
> Diary. ... ... What I have said is that it is not the 
> /whole story/.
> 
> Magpie:
> ... However what I, and I think Betsy, are pointing out 
> is that that beginning to the story can't just be stuck 
> on before what's written, because it raises issues that 
> are not dealt with in the story. .... A Draco who goes 
> to Voldemort with the Cabinet plan and gets assigned this 
> task is a perfectly compelling beginning to a story.  So 
> compelling that it has to be played out.  


bboyminn:

First, I think Betsy's inaccuracies in her version of what
I said and in her justificaton against what I said are just 
exaggerations do to over-enthusiasm in making her point. 
That is something we all do, and something we all allow for 
when reading posts. But, I had to comment because her 
enthusiasm was a substantial distortion of what I actually 
said. 

Next, I absolutely deny that my version alters the current or
future story in any way. I'm not forcing it in a new direction; 
only explaining the direction it took. It is crystal clear 
that events took place before the printed story began, so what 
are those events?

I base my theory, and yes it is only a theory, on what is 
already printed in the books; the story as it has /already/
played out. I see it as a logical and reasonable prelude to 
the timeline that begins on the printed page. And deny that
it alters the existing story in any way. Further if you do
not accept it, you are left with the 'Draco, your father is
an ass. Now kill Dumbledore or die trying' idea, and I find
that irrational beyond even Voldemort.

My theory brings Voldemort and Draco together. I suspect
Draco thought he would pass the Cabinet information to 
Voldemort and gain the bragging rights of having personally
helped the Dark Lord. But Voldemort has deeper, darker, and
more desperate ideas, and so begins the start of the printed
page. 

Admittedly, the timeline is thin, but JKR has never really 
been good at the 'numbers' thing. There are several other 
examples of questionable timelines in the books. Snape's 
delay in calling in the cavalry after Harry and Umbridge go 
into the forest for one. Though, I am personally content 
with that timeline.

So, I flatly reject the idea that my theory alters the 
storyline or character motivation in any way. 

In any event, thanks for a great discussion. Nice to go a 
week without having to be buried in Snape, Horcrux, and 
heaven forbid, timeturner discussions. You've force me to 
look deeply into the details of my theory, and even at times
cast real doubt in my mind. But in the end, I stand by what
I said, I think there is enough canon to support my 
interpretation. I want to thank all those who rallied to my
support, and give an appreciative nod to those who jump in
to defend your position. 

I enjoyed every hair-pulling, fist-banging, foot-stomping,
finger-wagging minute of it. (no really, it's true)

Steve/bboyminn






From sydpad at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 18:57:56 2006
From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 18:57:56 -0000
Subject: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed2k0a+39f0@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7bfk+fq67@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157688


> Mike:
> And I continue to be amazed that people equate Hagrid calling Filch 
> a "sneakin' Squib" to someone using the bigoted slur "dirty Jew". 
> Furthermore, calling someone a "Jew" is not equal to calling 
> someone "Jewish". But calling someone a "Squib" is the same as 
> calling someone a "Squib". Do you get it now? 


Sydney:

I'm afraid I still don't.  It's just not that simple, that you're
being a bigot if you use the word Paki, but you're not if you use the
term Pakistani.  If you are using the word as though it is *in itself*
an insult, then it's a bigoted use of language:

"What do you know, you dirty Pakistani".

I shall continue to express my amazement, in the face of your
amazement, that anyone could view is as not an example of bigotry.  If
you just thought the person you were arguing with was a jackass, you
would say, "What do you know, you dirty jackass".  Using the word
"Pakistani" instead of another insult, puts "Pakistani" in the
category of insults.  "What do you know, you 'bad thing', 'bad thing'.
 You just wouln't use the word in that way, unless you knew there was
a general agreement that being a Pakistani was *a point against* your
adversary.  *Categorically* a point-- that is, being in the category
of Pakistanis makes this person lower.   That's what bigotry *is*.

Mike:

> African-Americans don't use the "N-word" when referring to 
> themselves, (the rappers have changed it to "niggah", which I don't 
> like either, but I'm not them). Jewish people refer to themselves as 
> Jewish not as "Jews", unless they want to put in some self-bigotry 
> or point out others bigotry. 

Sydney:

I just don't think this is true.  I'm no linguist, but I do have a
memory and have had a personal stake in this.  Around 10 years ago,
you would be just as likely to use the word 'Jew' as 'Jewish'.  It
would be a *little* old-fashioned for a young person now to say, "I'm
a Jew", rather than "I'm Jewish", but it's wouldn't be *that* strange.
 The avoidence of the word NOW I think is a reaction to rising
anti-Semitism.  In the same way as during the civil-rights movement,
people starting using "Black" instead of "Negro".

Mike:

>If "Squib" was only 
> used by Filch, I wouldn't be sure. But how Figgy used it, when she 
> used it, I was convinced that "Squib" was not a bigoted slur.

Sydney:
I think in the Wizarding World, we have a society that hasn't even
gone through a phase where a new 'euphemism' for Squib would appear,
because even the Squib population accepts its lower status.  They
don't need an insulting version of the word Squib because the word
itself is an insult-- it's used in that way against Mereope, and
Neville speaks of everyone thinking 'he's practially a Squib', and Ron
says they have a cousin 'they don't talk about' because he's an
accountant.  

It's like the word "Negro" up until the 1950's, which was used by both
sides, the bigoted and the not.  Then a movement started to use the
word 'Black' instead, because the word Negro had become in itself
negative by centuries of use for negative things.

The word 'Squib' is in this catagory.  Ron sniggers when he introduces
the term, then says it's not funny, then says, "Well, as it's
Filch..".  The word "Squib" itself presumably comes from "damp
squib"-- a pathetic firecracker that doesn't go off.

So Figgy can call herself a squib with pride, as Fredick Douglas
called himself a Negro.  On the other hand, someone saying, "What do
you know, you sneakin' Negro" in the 1950's is obviously using the
word 'Negro' as a put-down.  As a slur.  A non-bigoted person who
disliked their adversary would use, "What do you know, you sneakin'
weasel" or something of that sort.

Perhaps a lot of the difficulty here is that Filch IS an unpleasant
person.  That might muddy the waters.  I think if some other
unpleasant character, said, "you sneakin' Squib" to Arabella Fig, we
wouldn't be having this discussion.


Mike:
> Conversely, my adversaries in this argument are convinced that it 
> was a bigoted slur. Will I change your minds? No, you seem spring 
> loaded to find bigotry in Hagrid's comment because there are obvious 
> undertones of bigotry running throughout this series.

Sydney:

I think I'm pointing out that this is a clear example of the bigotry
theme running through the series. 

Mike:
> I'll let Ken put something in here:
> I think we have two long time rivals here who know *exactly* how to
> push each other's buttons. Filch is sensitive about being a Squib.
> Hagrid is sensitive about being substandard teacher with a tenuous
> hold on his position. Each of them attacks the other at their weakest
> point. This is a personal battle, there is no need to elevate it into
> an exchange of bigotry. 

Sydney:

And if Filch had said, "these kids are out of bounds, you half-Giant",
that wouldn't be bigotry, because after all Hagrid is a half-Giant! He
says so himself! Now I'm all clear.

Half-Giants and Werewolves are ostracised because people think they're
dangerous.  Squibs are just laughed at and ignored because they are
pathetic.  They are all, however, in the same category of people whose
identifying term is used as an insult, to their faces.  There aren't
two words, one insulting and one not, because the entire society
agrees that being in their cateogry is automatically bad.  

 Mike now:
> I am not an apologist for Bigots, far from it, I deplore bigotry and 
> racism. Likewise, I have an enormous distaste for people that too 
> easily pronounce something as bigoted or call someone a bigot. If 
> you are going to put someone into a position of defending themself 
> against the charge of bigotry, you better have a damn good reason 
> for levelling that charge. Defending oneself against a bigotry 
> accusation is akin to trying to prove a negative. 
> 
> Like I said before, pronouncing bigotry at the drop of the hat 
> trivializes those situations that are truly serious bigotry.

Sydney:

I hope I know where you're coming from and, believe it or not, I'm not
a big advocate for Political Correctness and holding people to crazy
standards of sensitivity.  And the reason I'm shy of just plain using
the word 'bigot' is because it's so often used in the same way as
Hagrid uses the word 'Squib', as an arguement-ender, a way of lowering
the other person by shoving him into a labelled box and closing the lid.

But I do, and Magpie did, have a damn good reason for levelling the
charge of bigotry here.  It's because Hagrid, bless him, was putting
Filch 'in his place' as a *Squib*.   Not as a janitor, or as jackass,
or as someone Hagrid didn't like.  But *as a member of this group*.  


-- Sydney, still not happy to be in this discussion, but really sure
that JKR is trying to make a point here







From jlcaron at gmail.com  Thu Aug 31 19:45:03 2006
From: jlcaron at gmail.com (jlcaron at gmail.com)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 15:45:03 -0400
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bigotry or NOT?
In-Reply-To: <ed7bfk+fq67@eGroups.com>
References: <ed7bfk+fq67@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <6B95E185-D26B-4747-AF59-6C789220C7B9@gmail.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157689

>
> Mike:
>
>> African-Americans don't use the "N-word" when referring to
>> themselves, (the rappers have changed it to "niggah", which I don't
>> like either, but I'm not them). Jewish people refer to themselves as
>> Jewish not as "Jews", unless they want to put in some self-bigotry
>> or point out others bigotry.
>
> Sydney:
>
> I just don't think this is true.  I'm no linguist, but I do have a
> memory and have had a personal stake in this.  Around 10 years ago,
> you would be just as likely to use the word 'Jew' as 'Jewish'.  It
> would be a *little* old-fashioned for a young person now to say, "I'm
> a Jew", rather than "I'm Jewish", but it's wouldn't be *that* strange.
>  The avoidence of the word NOW I think is a reaction to rising
> anti-Semitism.  In the same way as during the civil-rights movement,
> people starting using "Black" instead of "Negro".

Jaime:

As a Jewish person, I have absolutely no qualms with being called a  
Jew. I have definitely called myself a "Jew" both in serious  
conversation and in joking. Nor have I ever come across or heard  
anyone take offense to being called a Jew if it's not in a negative  
connotation. It's all in the context. If someone says, "Jews are  
responsible for all wars," (Thanks, Mel) or "dirty Jew," I'm going to  
take offense. If someone says, "Jaime is a Jew," I'm going to say,  
"Yes, I am." In the same way, I'd say "she's a Christian," or "she's  
an American." It's a religious/racial statement, not necessarily a  
racist one. I think sometimes people can be a little hyper-sensitive;  
I have yet to find a person of the Jewish race who would be seriously  
offended if you called them a Jew. Hopefully if they didn't like it  
(which I can't fathom), they would polite tell you so. (But Mike, if  
you are such a Jewish person, I certainly welcome your point of view.)

As far as Hagrid v. Filch is concerned, it sounds very much like  
Hagrid just not thinking before he spoke. As it's been mentioned  
several times already, they don't seem to get along. But squib seems  
to be a perfectly acceptable term for a person in that situation.  
Mrs. Figg is called a squib at the Wizengamot, after all. I equate,  
as I said above, as just another term for someone. You can call me a  
Jew or a Jewish person and I won't take offense (though I'd prefer to  
be addressed by first name). You can call a Filch a squib or the non- 
magical offspring of magical parents but the latter is a bit of a  
mouthful.

Jaime






From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Thu Aug 31 19:46:12 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 12:46:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Waking up from the dead in HP /some Buffy spoilers WAS: Re: prophecy
In-Reply-To: <ed3kcv+hkj8@eGroups.com>
References: <ed3kcv+hkj8@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <711319366.20060831124612@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157690


Maria Vaerewyck wrote:

MV> Yes, JKR made that clear, but what I mean is, Buffy wasn't at all 
MV> dead, all the slaying stuff was just in her mind. she's a schizo 
MV> patient and the doctor and her parents were trying to make her choose 
MV> or stick to getting better but she chose to being a slayer and be with 
MV> her friends, hence the vampire slaying stuff continue and it became 
MV> her reality.I do not know if anybody from this list watched that 
MV> eppisode of Buffy. So it's more like waking up and it's all just a bad 
MV> dream.

Dave:

So you mean it's like the episode of _Red Dwarf_ where the crew
hallucinate so that they *think* that their years on the big
crimson spaceship was just an elaborate "total immersion" video game
and that reality is that they are oppressed citizens in a futuristic
fascist dictatorship on Earth.  Then they "wake up" back on the ship,
and find that Red Dwarf *is* the reality after all.

I guess these kind of "which is the dream and which is reality?"
ideas have been played with at least since Lewis Carroll's
_Sylvie and Bruno_, but somehow I doubt Jo would go there...

Or would she??

--
Dave (Hoping the people here who aren't fans of Buffy OR Red Dwarf
       OR Lewis Carroll aren't totally lost.) :)

P.S. I once considered using this theme in an Oz pastiche I'm working
on, in order to explain why Dorothy thinks Oz is a dream at the end of
the MGM film, even though it's very real for her in the books; but I
was advised against it on the grounds that any Oz book that alludes to
Hollywood adaptations *can't* be a good thing... :)




From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 20:49:37 2006
From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:49:37 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2/Bigotry or Not?
In-Reply-To: <ed6u4m+j8tl@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7i11+kjlj@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157691

> Magpie:
< HUGE SNIP>
 In this version 
> neither of those things set events in motion.  On the contrary, 
> Draco is was seeking petty revenge from the safety of a child's 
> position.  He didn't want to be the man, he wanted to be the clever 
> child manipulating grown-ups into taking revenge for him.  In the 
> case of Draco's story it's even more important because Draco isn't 
> the Quest hero in this book, his story is all about a personal 
> change and emotional development.  

Alla:

Yes, of course Draco's story is about a personal change and emotional 
development, or I should correct myself and say that I hope it is 
about change, because it may just as well be Draco choosing Voldemort 
side in the end IMO, but this is I guess besides the point here. But 
Steve seems to agree with it and does not cross out any of it, IMO.

I am just not understanding how Draco wanting to be a man dissappears 
from "cabinet came first" addition to the story. It is not like we 
can say for sure what **exactly** Draco views as being a man, no?

I mean we sure see one thing that Draco absolutely views being in 
Voldemort's service as exactly that **being a man**. For all I know 
** being a man** means bringing cabinet plan to Voldemort's attention 
and accepting whatever mission Voldemort gives him afterwards. It is 
not like they are mutually exclusive, IMO.

As I said, I buy Voldemort being completely irrational and executing 
this crasy plan just because he can, not because Draco brought 
anything to his attention, but I buy it for mostly metathinking 
reasons, not because anything in the way story developed prevented 
Draco from going to Voldemort, in fact Draco on the train sounds to 
me as exactly Draco who would have enough audacity and arrogance to 
go to Voldemort and offer him that.

Steve:
> I base my theory, and yes it is only a theory, on what is 
> already printed in the books; the story as it has /already/
> played out. I see it as a logical and reasonable prelude to 
> the timeline that begins on the printed page. And deny that
> it alters the existing story in any way. 

Alla:

Heee, I agree with that Steve, it is plausible.

Steve:
Further if you do
> not accept it, you are left with the 'Draco, your father is
> an ass. Now kill Dumbledore or die trying' idea, and I find
> that irrational beyond even Voldemort.

Alla:

Here we differ, I actually find this plan to be one of the 
Voldemort's most sane plans, actually much more sane than the earlier 
mentioned GoF and him trying to make Harry go in the MoM, instead of 
going and getting prophecy himself. I just want to say that I found 
your summary to be hysterically funny.

Steve: 
> My theory brings Voldemort and Draco together. I suspect
> Draco thought he would pass the Cabinet information to 
> Voldemort and gain the bragging rights of having personally
> helped the Dark Lord. But Voldemort has deeper, darker, and
> more desperate ideas, and so begins the start of the printed
> page. 

Alla:

Yeah, sounds reasonable for me.
 

JMO,

Alla







From harryp at stararcher.com  Thu Aug 31 20:56:50 2006
From: harryp at stararcher.com (Eddie)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 20:56:50 -0000
Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore?
Message-ID: <ed7iei+lslg@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157692

Eddie:
In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black
lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any
anymore.

Why?

Eddie








From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 21:52:49 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 21:52:49 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - The Plan v1 & v2
In-Reply-To: <ed635q+7qv5@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7lnh+779k@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157694

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But this theory isn't a backstory.  It goes right to 
> > the heart of the Draco mystery.  What is he doing and 
> > why? Canon tells us one thing: he's trying to kill 
> > Dumbledore on Voldemort's orders, the cabinets is the 
> > method he came up with.  Steven's speculation is 
> > completely different and, if true, requires a completely 
> > different summing up moment.  ...

> >>bboyminn:
> No, my speculation isn't completely different, my 
> speculation is exactly that 'he's trying to kill Dumbledore 
> on Voldemort's orders, the cabinets is the method he came 
> up with'. Just not in that order.

Betsy Hp:
Steve, all I'm talking about is the order.  Canon says Voldemort 
sought out Draco.  You're speculating that Draco sought out 
Voldemort.  Because I'm focused on the order, I definitely see that 
these two versions are completely different.

> >> Betsy Hp:
> > It needs the action in book 7 to come to a screeching 
> > halt while Draco explains that *he* actually sought out 
> > *Voldemort*. ...

> >>bboyminn:
> Once again...no. From the point in both suggested scenarios,
> where Voldemort assigns Draco that task of killing Dumbledore, 
> the story and the next book play out the same either way. It
> is purely your speculation that the current book or the next
> will or will need to play out differently.

Betsy Hp:
What I'm saying is that for your speculation to be proven correct 
there will need to be a moment in canon that states it as such.  
That did not happen in HBP.  So a halt will need to be called to the 
action of book 7 so that the readers can learn that Draco sought out 
Voldemort, not the other way around as HBP would have had you 
believe.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > ... It's only this "cabinet came first" theory that has 
> > caused various readers to decide that Narcissa is lying, 
> > mistaken, guessing, etc.  Narcissa herself seems pretty 
> > sure of what is going on.
> > ... 

> >>bboyminn:
> Again...no. Your argument is completely flawed, because no 
> one is doubting that Voldemort gave Draco the task because 
> he was angry at Lucius.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I'm not talking about Voldemort's *reasons* for choosing Draco.  I'm 
talking about who did the choosing.  Did Draco choose to seek out 
Voldemort?  Not a single character raises that view.  Did Voldemort 
choose Draco?  Narcissa states this (and she doesn't qualify it at 
all) several times. No one questions her.  All the characters in 
that room seem quite comfortable with Narcissa stating as fact that 
Voldemort chose Draco.

> >>bboymin:
> Some how we have to get Voldemort and Draco into a room 
> together, I speculate a pretty convincing way for them to 
> come together. A way for them to come together that has 
> plenty of clues in canon and a thin but viable timeline.

Betsy Hp:
And I say that there is nothing in canon to back up your speculation 
and a massive hole in your timeline.  Please, give me some canon to 
work with; explain the gap in the timeline.

> >>bboymin:
> In your way, as I said before, it is nothing but 'Bring me
> Draco. Draco, your dad is an ass, now kill Dumbledore or
> die trying'.

Betsy Hp:
And this is the way canon supports.  In Spinner's End, on the train 
to Hogwarts, in the boys bathroom, and on the Tower.

> >>bboymin:
> That is the most ridiculous, worthless, and pointless time wasting 
> plan that has occurred so far. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The logic of the plan is a different issue though.  Personally, I 
see a rather elegantly simple and cruel way of making the Malfoy 
family twist in the wind with little to no effort on Voldemort's 
part.  But I can certainly see where others might disagree.  (I saw 
a similar cruelty in the GoF plan -- though the simple elegance was 
missing. And I know others disagree with me on that.  Don't make the 
GoF plan untrue. <g>)

> >>bboymin:
> If that is all there is to the plan, then there is nothing.
> However, if Voldemort becomes aware of a means of entering
> Hogwarts by stealth, then we have the perfect seed upon 
> which all other things can be built.

Betsy Hp:
What other things?  Because the invasion of Hogwarts was a total 
bust.  The Death Eaters didn't have a leader, they didn't seem to 
have a goal.  This was Voldemort's big plan?  Big plan to do what?

> >>bboymin:
> You don't have to believe that, but you do have to argue fair.

Betsy Hp:
I am, Steve.  You're the one who keeps bringing it back to *why* 
Voldemort was angry, when really the bone of contention is who 
approached whom.

> >>bboymin:
> In this post, you are assigning aspects to my theory that
> simply don't exist, and are making assumptions and assertions
> that simply don't exits.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not.  But I think you see it that way because you're trying to 
argue the "why" and all I'm interested in is seeing any kind of 
support for your "when".  So I do tend to ignore the "why" stuff. 

> >>bboymin:
> In your other post, you hopelessly warped the timeline to suit    
> your needs by assigning actions to a few months when they actually 
> took a few weeks. 

Betsy Hp:
Blame Mike for that.  Though actually, blame canon.  Because Mike 
followed the canon timeline and I followed along.  According to 
Mike's timeline the best (and most logical) time for Draco to hear 
Montague's cabinet story and to really start thinking about it is in 
the last few weeks of the school year (late June, I think?).  
Personally, I disagree and think the most logical time is mid-summer 
(mid-July).  Canon doesn't tell us for sure.  So when exactly Draco 
heard Montague's tale is debatable.  Could have been during the end 
of his fifth year, could have been over the summer.  

When Draco actually had reason to *think* about what that story 
meant is a bit more reduced, IMO.  Draco isn't angry until after the 
OWLs.  Personally, I think at that point he was *too* angry to be 
putting a clever idea together like the cabinet plot.  And I think 
he was too focused on getting Harry.  (When we know for certain that 
Draco has come up with the cabinet plot, we also can see that he's 
not focused on Harry any longer.)

But we do know, for absolute certain, that Draco was given his task 
at the beginning of the summer (first week of July?), and he doesn't 
do a thing about the cabinets until mid-August.  That's a fairly big 
gap.  And the gap only widens if we're to believe Draco approached 
Voldemort with his Cabinet plan.

> >>bboymin:
> I still say the position you are arguing in just as filled
> with speculation and interpretation as mine is.

Betsy Hp:
Well you can *say* that.  But it'd be nice to see some canon. <g>  
(I've provided quite a bit, I think.)

> >>bboyminn:
> The difference is that with my version, we actually have a reason 
> for Voldie and Draco to come together, and we actually have a      
> coherent plan with some strategic value.

Betsy Hp:
The canon version has a good reason for Voldemort to seek out Draco, 
and his plan is incredibly coherent with a high amusement value.  
(Which is all the plan is supposed to have as per canon.)

The only difference I see is that for some reason you want Draco to 
seek out Voldemort.  (Why is that important to you, out of 
curiosity?)

> >>bboymin:
> I have no problem with you not agreeing with me, but please,
> when you argue, don't let your enthusiasm warp your facts.

Betsy Hp:
Just point out those facts I've warped and I'll apologize. <g>

Betsy Hp







From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 22:36:01 2006
From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:36:01 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos
In-Reply-To: <ed7k6p+fb8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7o8h+842o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157695

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> It's clear that Draco wanted to keep his plans secret from his    
> mother, so he couldn't just sneak off to Knockturn Alley any old   
> time.

Betsy Hp:
I just find it very odd that Draco would seek out Voldemort with a 
half-backed, not fully formed, might not work at all, plan.  And I 
find it even harder to believe that Voldemort, upon hearing the half-
assed plan, wouldn't send somebody to check up on it himself.

I also have a really hard time believing that Draco couldn't have 
talked his mother into going to Diagon Alley for some shopping much 
earlier in the summer.  Especially with Auntie Bella's help.

> >>Carol:
> At that point, he talks to Borgin about getting instructions
> to fix the cabinet and threatens to send Fenrir Greyback if he    
> doesn't cooperate. It's pretty clear at this point that he must   
> have told LV the plan and that at least some Death Eaters,        
> including greyback, are in on it.

Betsy Hp:
Why?  We have nothing to show that Draco was in communication with 
Greyback.  Considering his fear of werewolves (going back to PS/SS), 
it seems quite likely Draco is lying here.  It's not like we haven't 
seen Draco fronting before.  The boy excells at such behavior.

> >>Carol:
> So although I think that it's perfectly possible and very much in
> character (not to mention in line with Draco's expressed desire for
> revenge in OoP and the whole Montague subplot) for Drado to have   
> gone to LV in the first place...

Betsy Hp:
Actually, I'd say it's very much *not* in character for Draco to 
seek out Voldemort.  He's never taken such an active role in the 
past.  Never.  He prefers to make up clever songs, or create silly 
buttons than get actively involved.

I also don't see the follow through in Draco's expressed desire for 
revenge *on Harry personally* and the leap to a plan to take down 
Hogwarts into which Harry never enters. 

> >>Carol:
> ...(much more likely from a logical standpoint than LV coming     
> after *him* and Draco just happening to have the perfect way of   
> getting DEs into Hogwarts)...

Betsy Hp:
It's only logical if we're supposed to believe Voldemort approached 
Draco and asked him to figure out a way to get some Death Eaters 
into Hogwarts.  Which we're not. (As shown by what Draco under 
pressure to perfom and perfom now actually does: try and kill 
Dumbledore.)

What we *are* supposed to believe is that upon being told that he 
was to kill Dumbledore, Draco started thinking on various ways he 
could do such a thing and survive.  Then the logic of his cabinet 
plan shines through.  Get himself some back up, and (as suggested 
by... ooh, can't remember sorry, upthread somewhere) possibly get 
himself a way out.

> >>Carol:
> ...I don't disagree with Magpie's general approach to Draco's     
> character arc or her view of his deteriorating relationship with   
> Snape.

Betsy Hp:
Having read your posts I think you take a harsher view of Draco's 
relationship with Snape.  But that's a different discussion. <g>

However, by going with the "Cabinet came first" theory, you do 
undermine the character arc that I, and I believe Magpie, see for 
Draco in HBP.  For some odd reason you "Cabinet first" folk have a 
hard time seeing that.

> >>bboymin (post 157687>:
> <snip>
> Next, I absolutely deny that my version alters the current or
> future story in any way. I'm not forcing it in a new direction;
> only explaining the direction it took. 
> <snip>
> So, I flatly reject the idea that my theory alters the
> storyline or character motivation in any way.
> <snip>

> >>Alla (post 157691):
> Yes, of course Draco's story is about a personal change and       
> emotional development, or I should correct myself and say that I   
> hope it is about change, because it may just as well be Draco     
> choosing Voldemort side in the end IMO, but this is I guess       
> besides the point here. But Steve seems to agree with it and does 
> not cross out any of it, IMO.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No, Steve's version *completely* changes the thrust and the 
underlying theme and even the growth of Draco's character.  He's 
insisting that Draco suddenly (out of nowhere, really) decides 
(chooses) to play with the big boys and goes to Voldemort.  

But the entire theme of Draco's story in HBP is that he feels he 
*has no choice*.  Draco says this time and again.  And it's not 
until he's in front of Dumbledore that Draco is made to see that he 
*can* choose.  It's an extremely powerful gift Dumbledore is giving 
Draco, and something Dumbledore has always been big on: the power of 
choice.

The canon has this rather elegant story where a naive child is 
chosen by Evil to do an evil deed.  The child did not choose to 
become evil, but Evil has selected him and the child cannot choose 
differently.  Or at least, so Evil would have the child believe.

But Good comes along and tells the child that he is still innocent, 
that the child can still make a choice, can choose *against* being 
Evil.  Good gives the child what Evil would deny him: the freedom, 
the ability to choose.  And we see the child choose against Evil.  
(Now we're just waiting to see if the child will choose *for* 
Good.)  

Steve's version has it that the child has *already chosen*.  So 
Dumbledore's offer, Good's offer, is empty.  Draco cannot choose 
*against* Evil because he's already chosen *for* it.  So instead of 
a tale of growth, we have a tale of a fall (all told off page), that 
*might* turn into a tale of redemption (but probably not).  If Steve 
is right I'm betting that Draco dies within the opening pages of 
book 7.  Actually, I'm betting we read that Draco has already died, 
because the Draco story is now an off-page thing.  (And boy, didn't 
JKR waste her time in HBP!)

> >>Carol, who hopes that Betsy will examine her arguments and her   
> earlier posts in this thread, which I'm sure contain no such      
> motive as is attributed to posters who "want" Draco's idea to come 
> before L's assignment (actually, I only want it to be considered   
> as a possibility)

Betsy Hp:
Oh sure, this "cabinet first" theory may turn out to be true.  
Quirrell may have been replaced by his evil twin brother; Ginny may 
have stolen the diary from Lucius; rocks may fall from the sky and 
kill everyone.

Anything could happen, but some things don't seem all that likely to 
me. <g>

Betsy Hp (who really does find that the "cabinet first" people are 
pretty down on Draco on a whole and is suspicious that this is big 
motivation behind the theory)






From justcarol67 at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 23:02:04 2006
From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:02:04 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos
In-Reply-To: <ed7k6p+fb8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7ppc+9u2o@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157696

BetsyHP wrote:
> <snip>And I've noticed that most folks arguing the "cabinet first"
theory really, really want Draco to stay the sort of selfish and flat
> character he's been through so many books. At least, that's how
> their statements come across to me. And that undercuts one of the
> more powerful stories told in HBP. Which is why I'm making such a
> massive hue and cry for canon. If you're going to piss all over
> what I consider some of the more poignant scenes in HBP, at least
> have the decency to present some solid facts. Or at least, that's
> my thinking on the matter. <g> <snip>
>
Carol responds:
Ages ago I posted the possibility that Draco may have gone to LV
rather than Voldemort going to him and we got into much the same
discussion. If need be, I can hunt up the post and the thread, but
it's interesting that people think this idea is exclusively Steve's.

At any rate, I don't know why you think that people who don't consider
LV's revenge on Lucius as *necessarily* precipitating the whole Draco
plot are denying the change in Draco's character. I'm not saying this
very clearly (cold medication doesn't make for clear thinking), but I
don't for a moment deny that HBP is a coming-of-age story for Draco
that in some ways parallels Harry's, including the falling out with
his formerly trusted mentor.

Absolutely all I'm saying is that Draco, desiring revenge for his
father's arrest, *could* have gone to LV to tell him about the
Vanishing Cabinet connection expecting recognition for his creative
idea (which, ironically, he received from Dumbledore on the tower),
but not expecting LV to use that idea in a more diabolical
way--assigning Draco to fix the cabinet and let the DEs into Hogwarts
as back-up so that Draco can kill Dumbledore. I'm quite sure that part
came as a surprise to Draco, and he would have seen it as a chance fo
"glory" rather than an attempt to punish his father's mistakes.
(Narcissa, knowing only of the impossible assignment to kill DD and
not about the cabinet, saw it differently.) When repairing the cabinet
isn't as easy to fix as Draco supposed, he starts feeling the
pressure to kill Dumbledore by any means available (hence the foolish
and doomed-to-fail necklace and mead attempts). I don't think that
he's started to receive death threats at that point, however. There's
a huge change, a decrease in arrogance and an increase in desperation,
between the "Unbreakable Vow" and "Sectumsempra" chapters.

To backtrack to "Draco's Detour," it's clear that Draco wanted to keep
his plans secret from his mother, so he couldn't just sneak off to
Knockturn Alley any old time between the end of fifth year and the
beginning of sixth. He seems to have waited until he was in Diagon
Alley anyway for his robes and books, etc., then sneaked away from her
to see Borgin. (His mother knew that he'd been ordered to kill DD but
didn't know the Vanishing Cabinet plan, which which *may* have come
before the assignment to kill DD--we don't know whether it did or not.
she, however, had Snape under the Unbreakable Vow, so as far as she
was concerned, everything was under control. We see her back to her
normal pureblood snob, pro-LV self in Madam Malkin's--very different
from the hysterical Narcissa in "Spinner's End.") At that point, Draco
orders Borgin to give him instructions for fixing the cabinet and
threatens to send Fenrir Greyback if Borgin doesn't cooperate. It's
pretty clear that Draco must have told LV the plan and that at least
some Death Eaters, including Greyback, are in on it. It's only Snape
and Narcissa who are out of the loop. (Since Draco is learning
Occlumency from Aunt Bellatrix specifically to thwart Snape, I'm
guessing that she has offered him assistance--maybe to excuse herself
from her involvement in the Unbreakable Vow if LV gets wind of
it?--and is engineering such details as the Imperioing of Rosmerta
even if she doesn't cast the spell personally. She is, after all, a
wanted fugitive. IOW, whether Bellatrix knows about the vanishing
Cabinet plan In "Spinner's End" or not, and I'm guessing that she
doesn't, she seems pretty deeply involved in Draco's plan or plans and
may have been instrumental in the necklace and mead plots. There are
*many* unexplained elements in Draco's plan, a possibly unavoidable
problem with telling the story mostly from Harry's pov and never from
Draco's.)

Whether draco went to LV or LV sent for him in no way alters Draco's
crisis on the tower, when he realizes that killing isn't quite as easy
glorious or as Daddy has always implied. We see him throughout the
book growing consistently paler and losing sleep, looking ill, giving
up Quidditch and failing to hand in his Transfiguration homework. At
first, and we see this on the train and in the interview with Snape,
he thinks he has more important work to do than schoolwork. He tells
his friends that he may not be back next year (he thinks he's a man
now, and being a fully qualified wizard no longer matters--neither, of
course, do NEWTs or classes or even being a Prefect). Even in "The
Unbreakable Vow," he sneers at Snape for teaching *Defense Against"
the Dark Arts, which he claims that "we" have no need for. (Snape
doesn't argue with him, but it's unlikely that he agrees.) Only when
Draco continues to find the cabinet impossible to repair and the other
attempts to kill DD have gone badly awry does he start to become
desperate rather than arrogant and defiant. It seems that he's
receiving death threats at his point. His "plan" (fixing the cabinet)
is failing and, consequently, the "job" (killing DD) isn't getting
done. And he still doesn't confide in Snape, either because LV has
ordered him not to or because Bella has undermined his trust in his
mentor.

So although I think that it's perfectly possible and very much in
character (not to mention being consistent  with Draco's expressed
desire for revenge in OoP and the whole Montague subplot) for Draco to
have gone to LV in the first place (and much more likely from a
logical standpoint than LV coming after *him* and Draco just happening
to have the perfect way of getting DEs into Hogwarts), I don't
disagree with Magpie's general approach to Draco's character arc or
her view of his deteriorating relationship with Snape. Nor do I insist
that I'm right because of some desire to diminish Draco's painful
realization of what being a DE is all about. The order of the events
preceding "Spinner's End" and "Draco's Detour" makes no difference in
that regard at all. We still see the progression, or regression, from
arrogance to defiance to despair to explanations and excuses ("I
didn't invite him!") to lowering his wand almost imperceptibly. I
think that Draco is in limbo like Montague in the Vanishing Cabinet,
not knowing which path to choose, but at least now he has a better
understanding of the choice he'll be making, an understanding he
didn't have when he went to LV with his Vanishing cabinet idea *or* LV
gave him his assignment out of the blue and he just happened to have a
plan that fit perfectly with it. Either way, he's a changed boy (how
appropriate that the tower incident occurs within a few days of his
seventeenth birthday.)

To repeat a point I've made in earlier posts, Snape does *not* confirm
Narcissa's hysterical conclusion that Voldemort assigned the task to
Draco to punish Lucius. All he confirms is that LV is angry with
Lucius. He never says that Voldemort summoned Draco and assigned him
the task of killing Dumbledore as a result of that anger. Probably
Snape doesn't know exactly what happened and wasn't present when Draco
had his conversation with Voldemort. Certainly, he doesn't know about
the cabinet plot, and neither does Narcissa, so of course they don't
talk about it. That doesn't mean it didn't precede the plot to kill
Dumbledore. 

Again, we *don't know* which came first, and a desire to get revenge
on DD by bringing DEs into Hogwarts and to be rewarded for coming up
with the cabinet idea could well have led to LV's desire to punish
Lucius via Draco rather than the other way around. That would be
splendidly ironic and bangy, actually, with Draco learning the hard
way about the consequences of his choices, as well as being faced with
the reality of death and murder (a lesson he might not have learned
had Harry not used Sectumsempra on him so that he might have bled to
death had he not been saved by Snape).

At any rate, I'm not trying to "piss all over" poignant scenes or
deny Draco's character arc, nor is Steve. All we're trying to do is to
establish that we *don't know* which came first, Draco's cabinet idea
or Voldemort's assigning Draco the impossible job of killing
Dumbledore. Nor do we know where Snape fits in (or why he took the UV
or even whether he really knew Draco's assignment to kill DD).
"Spinner's End" raises as many questions as it answers--as does the
whole of Book 6. All we know is that neither Snape nor Narcissa knew
about Draco's idea for the Vanishing Cabinet, over which Draco lost
sleep and on which he worked all year with Polyjuiced!Crabbe and Goyle
as uninformed backup, and over which he "whooped" in triumph when he
finally accomplished the task.

Obviously, some sort of plan was in place to bring the DEs into
Hogwarts when the cabinet was repaired, some sort of communication
with the DEs was involved, but we don't know what it was, especially
with all the precautions in place. And obviously they were under
orders from Voldemort, who obviously knew about the Vanishing Cabinet
plan, to let Draco kill DD once they got him on the tower--at least,
to give him the opportunity before killing him for failing, as
presumably they would have done. And, really, that's all we know. For
all the lengthy conversation on the tower, many questions remain
unanswered. And none of them in any way diminish Draco's dilemma or
his character development.

Carol, who still wants to know, for example, whether Rosmerta was
under orders to point out the Dark Mark to DD and what Blaise was
doing lolling against that column









From pam_rosen at yahoo.com  Thu Aug 31 21:49:25 2006
From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 14:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Why didn't Sirius need his motorbike anymore?
In-Reply-To: <ed7iei+lslg@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <20060831214925.62946.qmail@web30804.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157707


Eddie <harryp at stararcher.com> wrote:          
In PoA, Chapter "Marauder's Map", Hagrid says that Sirius Black
lent/gave Hagrid his motorbike and said he (Sirius) wouldn't need any
anymore.

Why?

  Pam:
  My thought on this was that he knew his next stop (if Hagrid didn't give him Baby Harry, which was why he went there in the first place) was to go after Peter Pettigrew.  He knew that if he killed Pettigrew, he would be going to Azkaban.  Ask it turned out of course, he was half right.  Of course, Sirius isn't thinking quite rationally at the moment; he knew he'd be going to Azkaban but didn't quite work out what would happen to the baby had Hagrid given Harry to him.  But we see even 12 years later, Sirius is still reckless and short-sighted, isn't he?
  Pam



         






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






From CliffVDY at juno.com  Thu Aug 31 22:25:31 2006
From: CliffVDY at juno.com (Clifford Vander Yacht)
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:25:31 -0000
Subject: What Came First: Task or Cabinet? - A tale of two Dracos
In-Reply-To: <ed7k6p+fb8b@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <ed7nkr+onk9@eGroups.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 157708

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

> Carol responds:
> ... Nor do we
> know where Snape fits in (or why he took the UV or even whether he
> really knew Draco's assignment to kill DD). 

Cliff:
Snape first refused the UV as he may have been unsure that Draco could
kill DD. He did agree only after narrowing the UV to the three items
which when taken narrowly mean that he doesn't have to make Draco kill
DD and he may do so instead. On the tower, Snape doesn't hesitate
long, just enough to make sure he doesn't have an unwelcome witness
(Harry was under his IC), to kill DD and thus get rid of Draco and DD
leaving himself an open field.









From DaveH47 at mindspring.com  Mon Aug 14 19:08:12 2006
From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook)
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:12 -0700
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which Dumbledore ?
In-Reply-To: <ebq8lk+gbrp@eGroups.com>
References: <ebq8lk+gbrp@eGroups.com>
Message-ID: <1723855811.20060814120812@mindspring.com>

No: HPFGUIDX 161793


Monday, August 14, 2006, 9:33:56 AM, robertpatrickallen wrote:

r> It is all going to end in the Department of Mysteries and Harry is 
r> going to somehow knock Voldi through the arch.

Dave:
Assuming a DoM ending, I think it's either going to be the Arch
or the "Love Room".

r> This way he won't have to AK him. I don't think JKR would want
r> Harry to kill outright.

Agreed.  I also agree that Jo isn't trying to be tricky when she says
"Dumbledore is dead" without saying "Albus" or "Professor".

-- 
Dave