From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 1 00:31:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:31:34 -0000 Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162211 > a_svirn: > Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's > anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't > really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion. > Pippin: Really? Then what do we mean by 'disobedience'? If disobedience is an option, then obedience must be an option too. Dobby, and all the other Elves, do have a choice about whether they obey their masters. What they don't have a choice about is whether they can escape punishment. Kreacher illustrates this in an interesting way. He did not leave the house until Sirius gave him an order, presumably because he didn't wish to have to punish himself for it. But his bond with Narcissa then gave him the impetus to defy his master and lie about where he'd been, though he had to bandage his fingers for it. Carol: Even "little" Grawp, picked on by the others, roars and pulls up trees for entertainment, beats up his brother (gives new meaning to "Am I my brother's keeper?"), and can barely string two mispronounced words together ("Where Hagger?"). I don't know of anyone who really enjoyed the chapter on the giants or who considers Grawp a favorite character. Most of us wish he hadn't been brought into the books and consider him a deus ex machina brought into the plot because JKR needed someone or something to chase the Centaurs away and Dumbledore was not available. Pippin: Oh, I don't think it's an accident that Dobby and Grawp, who are unattractive, hard to like and difficult to understand (Snape!) have unexpectedly proven themselves to be just as useful and loyal to Harry as those we'd prefer to read about. JKR did something a bit risky. It would have been much more typical of a popular entertainment if those noble and attractive centaurs had come to their senses and rescued Harry from a crude and brutal Giant. If JKR was only interested in entertaining the readers , that's what she'd have written, IMO. But she wants us to *think*, IMO, and clearly one of the things she wants us to think about is the fact that our sympathies often lead us astray. I share your opinion of Dobby and Grawp. I'm not intrigued by their past or concerned about their future. And yet it's because the wizards can't bring themselves to care about Elves or Giants that Voldemort has been able to recruit them to his service, or so Dumbledore believed. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 1 02:01:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:01:08 -0000 Subject: Le Guin and JKR Re: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162212 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > I am hopeful the next book will fix the problems I'm having with the > series so far. Hermione may well end up with egg on her face and > realize she has to come down a peg or five hundred. But, given some > of JKR's comments, I'm not holding my breath. > > It's funny you bring up LeGuin, Pippin, because wasn't she the one > who said the Potter books were a bit cruel, or mean, or something > like that? It was the sort of thing I scoffed at for a long while. > At this point, I tend to agree. Pippin: Le Guin said she thought the first book was 'ethically rather mean-spirited'. http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,1144428,00.html I can understand that, though I don't agree. Plenty of people think that Slytherin didn't get a fair shake from Dumbledore. Me, I don't think we can judge the ethical message of the books until we have all seven. But I don't expect I'll be 100% satisfied with the philosophy of the books. Why should a young, Christian mother in Scotland have the same take on life as a middle-aged Jewish empty-nester in California? Still, I don't see what is so offensive about saying that Hermione makes a better role model than Pansy. I don't think it's Pansy's girly-ness that offends Rowling, considering this quote: "There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She's become irreligious basically because she found sex," Rowling says. "I have a big problem with that." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-time-grossman.htm Given that, I have to believe Rowling called Pansy a Stupid Girl because Pansy is mindlessly fond of a would be Death Eater, not because she was interested in boys or wore an unbecoming dress to the ball. Pippin Hoping Betsy enjoys her liedown on the beach, and who forgot to say that she can relate to Betsy's awful prom night. While I cleaned up well in my prom pictures, my wedding album shows a less than flattering haircut, too much eyeshadow, and the desperately wide-eyed stare of a woman who is trying not to squint because she was too vain to wear her glasses. Eurgh! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 01:59:31 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:59:31 -0000 Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162213 > Pippin: > Oh, I don't think it's an accident that Dobby and Grawp, who > are unattractive, hard to like and difficult to understand (Snape!) > have unexpectedly proven themselves to be just as useful and > loyal to Harry as those we'd prefer to read about. JKR did something > a bit risky. It would have been much more typical of a popular > entertainment if those noble and attractive centaurs had come to their > senses and rescued Harry from a crude and brutal Giant. If JKR was > only interested in entertaining the readers , that's what she'd have > written, IMO. But she wants us to *think*, IMO, and clearly one of > the things she wants us to think about is the fact that our sympathies > often lead us astray. > > I share your opinion of Dobby and Grawp. I'm not intrigued by their > past or concerned about their future. And yet it's because the wizards > can't bring themselves to care about Elves or Giants that Voldemort has > been able to recruit them to his service, or so Dumbledore believed. Alla: Hmmmm. I had been thinking about the reasons why I dislike house elves ( not even dislike, but terribly annoyed with all of them). Oh, and by the way I really really don't dislike Giants - I absolutely respect them ( don't care for them much), but totally respect as alien race, which is different, but we cannot be the same, right? So, I read Carol's post and while I found her description of Dobby hilarious, I am not sure that I agree that he is portrayed as caricature. I read Steve's post, it did not answer my question either. I mean, sure it is hard to understand emotional reaction I am having,I mean not hard about Kreacher, but hard enough for me to undestand why I feel that way about Dobby. And now finally your post comes along. Hehe. I had been awaiting something like that, but not quite. If I understand you correctly, the gist of what you said is that most unsympathetic being deserves respect, deserves freedom and most unsympathetic being may prove to be your most reliable ally. Fair enough, as long as we are talking about Kreacher. I am intelligent enough to figure out that it is quite likely the lesson JKR wants me to learn with him, that no matter how I hate him, he still deserves to be free. Agreed, understood, etc. As I said, no matter how I feel about him, I understand or I think I understand ( I maybe totally wrong) authoritarial intent behind all that. But we are not talking about Kreacher here, no? We are talking about Dobby and nowhere in the books did I get the impression that Dobby is meant to be portrayed as unsympathetic, quite the contrary. So, what is that about our sympathies leading us astray? I mentioned before by the way, that so far my sympathies did not deceive me yet, we shall see what happens in book 7 of course. Grawp - sure, don't care for him at all, don't mind him dropping dead, but I don't hate him, so I am not sure whether that can be considered pulling the rug either - as in we thought he was evil and he was not. I think your analogy with Snape really falls flat ( to me of course) Dobby and Grawp are annoying to me, but never ever I regarded them as evil, while Snape I surely do. Oh, and centaurs? Noble? Blinks. I like centaurs, I absolutely do, but I am not sure I remember them being noble too often, so I am not sure if contrast works either. Alla, still trying to figure out why she finds Dobby annoying, because his speech patterns do not bother her that much. From dla123 at hughes.net Fri Dec 1 02:08:25 2006 From: dla123 at hughes.net (Diane Alderman) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:08:25 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] A thought..But NOT on whether Harry likes to read, but where the others learn References: Message-ID: <056101c714ed$9e4dec20$2415730a@yourxb2x7j77gn> No: HPFGUIDX 162214 I know that Harry went to Muggle school before he went to Hogwarts, but I'm having trouble imagining The Weasleys or other Wizarding families going to muggle schools. Didn't say they were their version of homeschooled, didn't mention schools either. Don't remember anyway,. Diane in WV From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 02:21:49 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:21:49 -0000 Subject: Le Guin and JKR Re: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162215 > Pippin: > I can understand that, though I don't agree. > Plenty of people think that Slytherin didn't get a fair shake from > Dumbledore. Me, I don't think we can judge the > ethical message of the books until we have all seven. Alla: Heee, me simply does not see it, like at all, never did. Seven years, seven years Slytherin got the house cup - with DD being Headmaster, so I tend just laugh a lot, when I hear that Slytherin does not get fair share from Dumbledore. Sure, their reign stops when Harry comes to school, but isn't that the point sort of? I tend to laugh even more about Slytherins not getting fair share from DD after HBP, after seeing to what length he went to protect one Slytherin who was ready to kill him. Pippin: > Given that, I have to believe Rowling called Pansy a Stupid Girl > because Pansy is mindlessly fond of a would be Death Eater, not > because she was interested in boys or wore an unbecoming dress > to the ball. Alla: Yes, with that I am completely agreeing. I mean, that is precisely what I got from that rant. And I am completely with her on that :) From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Fri Dec 1 02:42:39 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:42:39 -0000 Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162216 AmanitaMuscaria wrote: > why would Snape g to Voldemort, or think Dumbledore was > sending him to Voldemort, if he believed the prophecy > referred to himself? Abergoat writes: I have what I think is a beautiful answer to this. If the barman referred to a batty woman saying Death Eater Snape would defeat the dark lord as Snape was thrown from the building some other Death Eaters at the bar may have overheard. If so, they'd demand that Snape go to Voldemort and tell Voldemort what was said. I think Snape made a choice, stay alive (and continue his role as a spy for Dumbledore) by allowing Legilimens Voldemort to view the memory. The alternative was to risk death for defying Voldemort. So Snape's greatest regret may be that he thought his life was more important than some nameless family. If Snape is like Dumbledore he didn't believe in prophecies so he may have thought Trelawney was just 'acting' to get a job, it would be silly to risk himself if this was the case. Snape may have thought that Voldemort would dismiss the prophecy too. Carol wrote: > If we take Dumbledore's version of events at face value, > Snape would have heard at least the first two lines, up > to "born as the seventh month dies." Abergoat writes: My explanation above works whether Snape knew about the seventh month or not, but I do like play with the idea that Snape continued to believe he might be the one the prophecy referred to even after the prophecy was given. Snape had the MEMORY of "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" so the Voldemort could legilimens all of this off of him. But the question is whether Snape KNEW all of that. From Harry's excursion into Snape's memory it is clear the mind holds more than the person is aware of at the time. So if the barman arrived as the 'born as the seventh month dies' was spoken then Snape may not have KNOWN that part even if he had it for Voldemort to hear via Legilimens. Snape the Occlumens can hide memories from Voldemort that Voldemort doesn't know he has but if others told Voldemort about Trelawney's prophecy I suspect it was 'give me that memory or else'. Another possibility is that Snape DIDN'T hear the 'born as the seventh month dies' because the barman cast a charm over him. It is possible that Voldemort got the 'born as the seventh month dies' from the barman, not Snape. Just brainstorming! Abergoat, who thinks that the event around the prophecy can make perfect sense once we have all the facts...and who also shivered in Tucson's freezing temperatures last night! From blueheronpl at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 02:45:43 2006 From: blueheronpl at yahoo.com (Amy LoBianco) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 02:45:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162217 Amy L.: Hi everyone - I'm new to this list, and I love the discussions I've read so far. My question is this: did anyone else find it odd that Dumbledore got so emotional in HBP when Harry told him about being questioned by the new minister and saying that he was "Dumbledore's man through and through" ? I thought it seemed out of character for Dumbledore to be so emotional. After all, he knew how loyal Harry was to him after he was able to summon Fawkes in the chamber of secrets, and even mentioned how strong Harry's loyalty would have to be for that to occur. He acted like he didn't deserve Harry's loyalty. Do you think that maybe JKR was making some kind of a point about Dumbledore's character changing for a specific reason or maybe it will come into play in the last book somehow? Of course, it could just be that, thinking it might be a fatal trip, Dumbledore extracted so many of his memories into the pensive to preserve them in case he didn't make it back, that he was not able to control his emotions very well or something like that. Apologies if this topic has already been discussed to death! From unicornspride at centurytel.net Fri Dec 1 03:16:03 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:16:03 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore question References: Message-ID: <02ed01c714f7$08cf7600$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 162218 >Amy L wrote.: >My question is this: did anyone else >find it odd that >Dumbledore got so emotional in HBP >when Harry told him about being >questioned by the new minister and >saying that he was "Dumbledore's >man through and through" ? I thought it >seemed out of character for >Dumbledore to be so emotional. After >all, he knew how loyal Harry was >to him after he was able to summon >Fawkes in the chamber of secrets, >and even mentioned how strong Harry's >loyalty would have to be for >that to occur. Lana writes: Well, alot happened between the 2 books. In GoF, Harry was pretty unhappy about everything. Angry beyond words. I have to think that DD knew that Harry was more often than not pretty ticked off at him. So, he may have thought that Harrys faith and loyalty in him was running low. Maybe not.. But keep in mind that knowing someone is loyal to you is one thing.. Hearing them say it to your face is another. I know that my husband loves me, but when he says it to me makes all the difference in the world. Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 1 04:02:32 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:02:32 -0000 Subject: Hi Carol - question about your DADA curse theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162219 "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > > Part of my thesis is that that the "DADA curse" was a distraction > (lie!) on the part of Dumbledore specifically to cover up the > continued animatory status of Quirrell. The curse is fishy to me > because first, there is no comment about it in Book 1. One would > expect something like "Dumbledore has been having quite a bit of > trouble over the past 40 years keeping someone in this post." You > would think such a multi-decade pattern would be noticed, no? Potioncat: Does DD mention the curse at all? Is it in HBP that he brings it up? I don't think (but I could be wrong) that he mentions it in connection with Quirrell. I think it's Percy who first suggests a jinx on the job. I can't get to the books. Not sure if it's book 2 or 3. We didn't know (at that time) that the DADA teachers turned over so quickly prior to Harry's years. In fact, the wording in SS/PS makes it sound as if Quirrell has been teaching a while. Percy says that Snape has been after his (Quirrell's) job for years. Take a look at this essay at the Lexicon. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-quirrells-leave.html > CV: > Secondly, there is no notice of Quirrell being new or new to an > assignment in the first book. One must believe that he occupied that > position for at least the previous year. Quirrell can not have been > subject to the DADA curse, if there even was such a thing. Potioncat: He could have had the job a year, gone off and returned for an other year. It would be two divided years. For that matter, we don't know he taught DADA before going off to Albania. I think JKR sees each book as a complete story in a series while we seem to see the whole thing as one story in parts. I think she didn't want to introduce the DADA jinx all at once, but has strung it out over several books. We used to argue about whether there was a jinx or if it was a red herring. Of course, at that time, we thought the turnover happened after Harry arrived. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 04:10:36 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 04:10:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162220 > Amy L.: > Hi everyone - I'm new to this list, and I love the discussions I've > read so far. My question is this: did anyone else find it odd that > Dumbledore got so emotional in HBP when Harry told him about being > questioned by the new minister and saying that he was "Dumbledore's > man through and through" ? I thought it seemed out of character for > Dumbledore to be so emotional. After all, he knew how loyal Harry was > to him after he was able to summon Fawkes in the chamber of secrets, > and even mentioned how strong Harry's loyalty would have to be for > that to occur. He acted like he didn't deserve Harry's loyalty. zgirnius: At the end of OotP, Dumbledore more or less came out and told Harry that he didn't deserve Harry's loyalty. He took responsibility for Sirius's death and apologized for keeping Harry in the dark. So the situation in their relationship was not the same as in CoS at all. I think Dumbledore was moved to learn that, in the end, Harry had forgiven him. Also, I think the Ring Horcrux injury brought home to Dumbledore that his life might soon be coming to an end. I don't think this is something that he feared or was saddened by. Even though he considered death his 'next great adventure', though, he would naturally give some thought to those he would be leaving behind. To know he would be missed by the boy he had come to love must have also added poignancy to the moment. I guess I didn't find it odd or out of character. From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 04:25:50 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 20:25:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: Quiditch Message-ID: <20061201042551.18525.qmail@web30214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162221 < Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162222 career advisor: > Wow that was a lot to write for a fictional game. I do think JKR made on mistake in the scoring system of the game, making the center hoop 30 points instead of 10 would have made goal strategy more interesting for the keeper and made the chasers even more more important, but she wanted to empasize the seeker since it is Harry's spot. > > What do you think? zgirnius: I think you are brilliant! This has always bothered me, but your explanation makes so much sense. The only excuse for the Snitch I was able to come up with was the idea of very long games. If the Snitch simply decided to take a long flight off in a random direction, and play lasted for enough hours, a team whose Chasers/Seekers/Beaters were better would slowly rack up such an advantage that the Snitch would not be enough, and it would make little sense for the Seeker to deliberately wait, since it was the inferiority of the rest of his team that led to the problem in the first place. It's not like they would be able to make up the gap, it would probably only get worse. But we only see or hear of one such game (QWC) that I can recall. But we see a Quidditch tournament almostg every year. :D From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 07:32:32 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 07:32:32 -0000 Subject: A thought....where the others learn In-Reply-To: <056101c714ed$9e4dec20$2415730a@yourxb2x7j77gn> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162223 --- "Diane Alderman" wrote: > > I know that Harry went to Muggle school before he went > to Hogwarts, but I'm having trouble imagining The > Weasleys or other Wizarding families going to muggle > schools. Didn't say they were their version of > homeschooled, didn't mention schools either. Don't > remember anyway,. > > Diane in WV > bboyminn: There is nothing in the books to explain what kids do before Hogwarts, but it is a good question, and JKR has taken the time to answer it on her website. - - - - - - - - - - - - - http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=101 Q: What education do the children of wizards have before going to Hogwarts? A: They are, as many of you have guessed, most often home educated. With very young children, as you glimpsed at the wizards' camp before the Quidditch World Cup in 'Goblet of Fire', there is the constant danger that they will use magic, whether inadvertently or deliberately; they cannot be trusted to keep their true abilities hidden. Even Muggle-borns like Harry attract a certain amount of unwelcome attention at Muggle schools by re-growing their hair overnight and so on. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Though also not in the books, I have assumed that rich people like the Malfoys hire private tutors to come in and educate their children before Hogwarts. I really can't see Lucius or Narcissa spending their time at teaching their kids. I have to wonder about their early education though, is it just reading and writing, is math or arithmatic included, is magic involved both as a subject and as a mean of educating the kids? Since Harry's story starts at Hogwarts, I don't think we will ever here much about his aspect, so we are left to speculate on the details. Steve/bboyminn From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri Dec 1 08:07:38 2006 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 00:07:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <14679840.1164822954941.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <14679840.1164822954941.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <264718280.20061201000738@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162224 Leah: > The name (also confirmed by JKR in an interview) comes from Mansfield > Park by Jane Austen. Mrs Norris is the heroine's aunt and one of the > most unpleasant characters to grace English Literature. Me: There are many points _Mansfield Park_ where Mrs. N. does or says something (usually to hurt Fannie) that makes you quote Ron and say, "Oh, can't we kick her just this once?" Bart: > We could probably find a dozen meanings in Harry Potter alone > (consider "potter", one who works with clay to build things, > "putter", meaning that he doesn't learn things thoroughly > but goes ahead without knowledge, "potter", when he gambles, > always wins the pot, just to give a few). Me: I found myself wondering the other day if Jo might have settled on "Potter" for her hero simply by taking the name of her favorite animal and putting a "P" in front... :) Dave From c.john at imperial.ac.uk Fri Dec 1 11:34:32 2006 From: c.john at imperial.ac.uk (esmith222002) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:34:32 -0000 Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162225 > Carol: > > As a faithful DDM!Snaper who trusts that Dumbledore's faith in Snape > will be validated in Book 7, I would love to believe this hypothesis, > and as I've already said, I'm not convinced by any explanation that > I've read so far that the discrepancies in the two versions of the > eavesdropping incident that we've encountered so far can be > reconciled. (Please, JKR, don't let them be mere careless > inconsistencies!) Brothergib now - So much good stuff here, I'm not sure where to begin. I'll start with my ideas on the discrepancy in the two versions of the prophecy. The prophecy begins and Snape is quite happily listening outside. DD then becomes aware of the eavesdropper and blocks the door (as in OOTP). He also somehow alerts his brother that someone is listening in. The prophecy ends and Trelawney comes round, at which point Aberforth enters with Snape, telling DD and Trelawney that he an caught Snape listening to their conversation. > Carol again - > However, Dumbledore says that Snape heard only the first half of the > Prophecy, which means that the first of two lines about the seventh > month would be included in what he heard. Not to be pedantic, as I've > been accused of being for sticking to canon, but here's the Prophecy > as Harry hears it in OOP: > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... Born > to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies > ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have > power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of > the other for neither can live while the other survives.... The one > with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh > month dies...." (OoP Am. ed. 841). Brothergib again - I've mentioned this previously, but compare the two prophecies that we have heard. 1. First hand delivered from Trelawney to Harry; 2. Second hand - what DD chooses to tell Harry. The first prophecy is a perfectly constructed sentence. The second is rambling, has many pauses/gaps (....) in it, and is poorly constructed - e.g. too many ands in one sentence. JKR was an English teacher before an author. Nobody with even a rudimentary grasp of English, would consider the paragraph above as even remotely grammatically correct. IMO, the pauses (....) are parts of the prophecy that DD 'chose' not to let Harry hear. i.e. DD knows the whole prophecy, Snape knows the first half (roughly) word for word and Harry knows bits and pieces of all of it. As a result we do not have sufficient info to interpret the prophecy > Carol again: > I do agree that there are many unsolved puzzles related to Godric's > Hollow and, as you didn't say but did imply, the eavesdropping scene > as well. > Brothergib again: And the big one for me - how did DD know Harry had defeated LV, if he didn't know the attack was going to take place?? Answer - because someone at GH witnessed the whole scene and reported to DD. Obvious candidate - Snape! Brothergib (relatively warm in London - global warming is improving the climate!) From kennclark at btinternet.com Fri Dec 1 08:44:05 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 08:44:05 -0000 Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162226 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > However, it would therefore follow that he has made SIX > Horcruxes; the seventh soul fragment remains in him and > is thus not a Horcrux. > Ken says: But he may not yet have made the last one. Surely his repeated attempts to kill Harry and, more importantly, his instructions to his Death Eaters that they DO NOT kill Harry would imply (not to put it any stronger than that) that he is reserving his last horcrux for Harry's murder. BTW I've now realised there are at least two potential Ravenclaw items at Hogwarts - the claw footed Mirror of Erised and the claw footed desk in the Headmaster's study. From buzzy_adam91 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 03:33:48 2006 From: buzzy_adam91 at yahoo.com (buzzy_adam91) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 03:33:48 -0000 Subject: snape matter... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162227 hullo there, I have a question to ask.. why did Snape kill Dumbledore in the 6th book? I don't have any idea on it because Snape is one of the Order members. Plus he seems to be so kind when he troubled with his enchanted brooms in CoS... in addition to that, Dumbledore put all his trust to Snape... why did he betray at the last moment? I can't understand why Dumbledore dies although Harry is theatened by Voldemort who is currently powerful with all the death eater group expanding.. I hope my question had an answer or more.. Thanks for now, bye buzzy_adam From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 1 14:16:35 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:16:35 -0000 Subject: snape matter... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162228 "buzzy_adam91" wrote: > I have a question to ask.. why did Snape kill Dumbledore in the 6th book? Potioncat: Because he's Ever So Evil (ESE) and has always been serving LV. OR Because he's Dumbledore's Man (DDM). DD was sacrificing himself for Draco and/or the wizarding world and that's what DD was asking on the tower when he said, "Severus, please." OR Because Snape's Out For Himself (OFH) and every step of the way he's made a decision based on what is best for him at the time. Besides, if he didn't kill DD on the tower, Snape would have dropped dead. (Remember the Unbreakable Vow) You get to take your pick....at least until book 7 when we may, or may not, find out. buzzy_adam: Plus he seems to be so kind when he troubled with his enchanted brooms in CoS... Yes, Snape has a hard exterior, but inside he's like warm chocolate. You mean the jinxed broom in SS/PS when it was really Quirrell who was casting the hex? Potioncat, with a handful of Christmas M&Ms (if you couldn't tell)... ;-) and who just realized that Christmas M&Ms are in the Gryffindor and Slytherin colors. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 1 15:02:19 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:02:19 -0000 Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162229 > Ken says: > But he may not yet have made the last one. Surely his repeated > attempts to kill Harry and, more importantly, his instructions to his > Death Eaters that they DO NOT kill Harry would imply (not to put it > any stronger than that) that he is reserving his last horcrux for > Harry's murder. Jen: Voldemort would think making a Horcrux after Harry's murder was supremely powerful, it fits the rest of his obsessive thought patterns like deeming seven Horcruxes to be the most powerful or insisting on Harry's blood for his rebirthing. OTOH, his choice of containers seems as important as the victim and in some cases it is *more* important, i.e. Hepzibah Smith. Voldemort would view the murder of Frank Bryce as significant because it marked his second ascent to power, but I think the use of Nagini was the most important aspect of that murder. He made a practical decision to use her since no Founder's object was readily available and for sentimental reasons (using that phrase loosely). Not to mention the long years in a vapor state and the fact that Harry got away again in the graveyard may have hastened the making of a sixth Horcrux. The reason I favor Nagini at this point is mostly curiousity, how Harry will use Parseltongue and other means at his disposal to make sure Nagini is destroyed--she is like Voldemort's second skin. She would likely be the last Horcrux left before vanquishing Voldemort because she's the most difficult to get to in some ways as both an animate and connected with LV. Unlike the other Horcruxes, he'll know if someone is messing with Nagini! Jen From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 15:07:23 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:07:23 -0000 Subject: Question about your DADA curse theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162230 > Potioncat: > > Does DD mention the curse at all? Is it in HBP that he brings it up? > I don't think (but I could be wrong) that he mentions it in > connection with Quirrell. Sydney: "'Oh, he definitely wanted the Defence Against the Dark Arts job,' said Dumbledore. 'The aftermath of our little meeting proved that. You see, we have never been able to keep a Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher for longer than a year since I refused the post to Lord Voldemort.'" (HBP, brit. paperback, pg.529) Pippin: >In fact, the wording in SS/PS makes it sound as if Quirrell > has been teaching a while. Percy says that Snape has been after his > (Quirrell's) job for years. Sydney: There was a lot of speculation about how long Quirrel taught DADA before HBP came out, but Dumbledore's statement seems pretty definitive. I would say what makes most sense is that Quirrel was teaching some other subject, took a year off to get field experience, then came back to teach DADA the year Harry started. Percy's statement could read as, Snape's been after Quirrel's job-- that is, the DADA post-- for years. That's what JKR might have meant... or, of course, it is just a case of her (I'm afraid) habitual carelessness with pesky details! -- Sydney From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 15:33:14 2006 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:33:14 -0000 Subject: Names in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <14679840.1164822954941.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote:> Bart: > Which brings us back to names. ...We could probably find a dozen >meanings in Harry Potter alone (consider "potter", one who works >with clay to build things, "putter", meaning that he doesn't learn >things thoroughly but goes ahead without knowledge, "potter", when >he gambles, always wins the pot, just to give a few). AND ... putting is the lynchpin of golf, as in "You drive for show but you putt for dough," and since JKR is Scottish, and Scotland is the birthplace of golf, maybe Harry Putter means that he is the lynchpin of the wizarding world ... Okay, it's easy to get carried away with the names. I like your interp, though. And I love speculating on names. JKR's names are great, and it's so much fun. >Now, sometimes these names are so obvious that it is very difficult >to imagine that JKR did not intend the multiple puns (look at the I >am Lord Voldermot anagram, for example; she spent a LOT of time on >many of the names). Some are certainly pushing things, and may be >just coincidence. But for the major characters, certainly, she >clearly put a lot of effort into their names (so much so that she >has been embarassed a couple of times by names for which she did >not put in much work). > Bart Dare we raise the spector of Maaaaark Eeeeeevaaaaaans? Eek! Yours in Potter, TK Kenyon www.tkkenyon.com RABID: A Novel, coming in April, 2007 "RABID is a solid good read by first time novelist TK Kenyon, a gifted writer who has crafted a book of such mystery that you find yourself, at midnight, on the edge of your seat, asking, 'What's next? What's next?'" -- Thom Jones, National Book Award-winning author of: The Pugilist at Rest, Cold Snap, Sonny Liston was a Friend of Mine From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 15:43:38 2006 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (Cheryl) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:43:38 -0000 Subject: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162232 > One key point you are overlooking, these people did not > return from the 'dead', they returned from the 'PRESUMED > Dead'. That is quite a different thing. ***Nope, didn't overlook it. Just wondered if there were any more "presumed dead" that I'd forgotten. > Quirrel is absolutely dead. ***I agree. Quirrel is dust. > Barty Jr, same, his death was a reasonable assumption > given the apparent circumstance, but we learn that > circumstances were not as they seemed, and he was alive > all along. ***Right, this was a case of 'presumed dead because someone told Harry he was dead.' > Regulus Black, now that is a stretch. We have no > indications or even hints that he might still be alive. ***Exactly! See above! Someone TOLD Harry that Regulus was dead. > So, no Regulus returning from the dead. ***Wheeee! I actually disagree with you, for once!! I think he's alive. In fact, I have a little theory that I have not once seen even vaguely suggested in fandom! I'm so excited! (Rubs hands together and cackles in a way that the Grinch would envy.) Unfortunately, I can't tell anyone yet because I'm writing my own version of Book 7 and it would really spoil the ending. So I can't tell until it's finished. But it neatly ties up a whole bunch of little threads that JKR left dangling all over the place. > So, while all hope is not lost, it > is EXTREMELY thin and very unlikely. For all intent and > purpose, Sirius is gone. ***I have to agree here. I think our little doggie man is gone forever. (Sobs into pillow.) > Albus, admitedly there is some ever so small teeny tiny > element of ambiguity in his death. ***Hopefully, because he really annoyed me in the last two books. Actually, he started annoying me the minute he left Harry at the Dursleys, but an issue we won't get into again! > I know lots of people are hoping for one character or > another to return from the dead, or technically dead, > and I am hoping for it too, but I think the chances are > very very very very very very very slim. ***Except Regulus. LOL! Cheryl From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 15:09:27 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:09:27 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162233 > I do not believe that he could have faked his allegiance to the > mirror, because mirrors, in the books, are very powerful, and cannot > be fooled. I.E. the Mirror of Erised. I believe that JKR uses > mirrors to reflect the true nature of things. So, Snape is a good > guy in my book, vindicated by the Foe-Glass. By the way, I apologise > for the rambliness of this post and if this has been brought up > before. > > kmalone1127 I've personally always detested Snape. He makes my skin crawl! He's so mean to Harry all through the books. He seems to condone cruelty to others - especially if it's done by Draco and done to one of the Trio. Of course the HUGE thing is killing Dumbledore!! It's not just that Snape actually killed Dumbledore, it's the look on his face that JKR describes just before he did it - of revulsion and hatred. It's the comments he makes to Harry about Lily being a 'Mudblood'. It's all kinds of things throughout all the books. However, there IS a little voice inside my head that is saying that Snape will redeem himself in the last book somehow. I don't know why I feel that way. I can't stand Snape. But yet it is there, whispering. I've wondered about the Foe Glass thing myself. Why would Snape show up in them if he was truly on Voldemort's side? But, everyone keeps pointing out(people here in the posts and the characters in the books themselves) how proficient Snape is as an Occlumens. Maybe he COULD fool the mirrors, if he was powerful enough. I'm hoping (why oh why?) that Snape will redeem himself. He has done so much evil. I'm hoping he will somehow make atonement for his sins. Personally I think that it is the debt that Snape owes James (since James did save Snape's life) that will have Snape save Harry's life. Wormtail also owes Harry his life, so maybe these two Death Eaters will work together to save Harry from Voldemort. Who knows how the great mind of JKR works! We'll just have to wait - on pins and needles - for the 7th book to be released to find out what happens. Jenni from Alabama (who still thinks that JKR is out of her mind to think she can tie up all the loose ends in 1 final book, but here's hoping!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 16:56:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:56:11 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162234 Alla wrote: > > Hmmmm. I had been thinking about the reasons why I dislike house > elves ( not even dislike, but terribly annoyed with all of them). > Oh, and by the way I really really don't dislike Giants - I > absolutely respect them ( don't care for them much), but totally > respect as alien race, which is different, but we cannot be the > same, right? > > So, I read Carol's post and while I found her description of Dobby > hilarious, I am not sure that I agree that he is portrayed as > caricature. I read Steve's post, it did not answer my question > either. > Dobby and Grawp are annoying to me, but never ever I regarded them > as evil, while Snape I surely do. > > > > Alla, still trying to figure out why she finds Dobby annoying, > because his speech patterns do not bother her that much. > Carol responds: And here I thought that Steve had figured out the reason for your reaction better than I had! Hmmm. Leaving Snape out of it, since he's not a caricature and his speech patterns aren't annoying and his loyalties are ambiguous, unlike Dobby's or Grawp's (you think he's evil; I don't), let's look again at Dobby and Grawp. I think it's clear why Grawp is annoying; his vocabulary and repertoire of actions are extremely limited. His head is like a boulder with eyes. He's clearly not human, merely anthropomorphic. The best that can be said of him is that he's not as mindlessly violent and cruel as the other giants and that he's trainable, like a dog or a toddler. He doesn't mean to do any harm; he just doesn't know his own strength. He'd be harmless, or no more dangerous than a toddler who spills his food on the floor and uproots houseplants for entertainment, if he weren't so outrageously big. Okay, no reason to hate him, but no reason to empathize with him, either. At best, most of us can take him or leave him. He slows the story down. We'd rather read about human characters whom we can relate to and empathize with or be angry with because we disapprove of their choices. Grawp has essentially no choice but to act as he does, except to heed or ignore "Hagger" ("bad boy, Grawpy!"). I'd as soon read about toddler!Dudley and toddler!Harry choosing to fling or not to fling their cereal at the wall. The same can't be said for Dobby, who makes his own decisions even as a slave to the Malfoys, knowing the consequences in advance or even inflicting them on himself. His speech patterns, which you don't find annoying and I do, are more varied than Grawp's but nonetheless repetitive and instantly recognizable as different from normal (i.e., human) speech. Most obviously, Dobby (like Gollum in LOTR) refers to himself in the third person. He never says "I," "me," or "myself." It's almost as if he's denying his own selfhood. He also uses incorrect grammar ("we is," etc.), presumably denoting lack of formal education, but how is it that he (and house-elves in general) can be around Wizards who speak proper English and not pick up their speech patterns? (Kreacher certainly picks up the Black family's pro-pureblood terminology--"Mudblood," "blood traitor," etc., meaning that part of his idiosyncratic speech pattern comes from his "family." So why can't Dobby put "we" and "are" together as the Malfoys do?) And, of course, there's the persistent reference to Harry as "Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter, sir." Dobby can't bring himself to use only Harry's first name, which would place him on the level of a friend or equal or an adult relative or affectionate adult superior, or Harry's last name, which would place Harry at a distance (as Draco Malfoy and Professors Snape and McGonagall do), so he uses the full name Harry Potter, the name by which celebrity!Harry, the Boy Who Lived and now the chosen One, is known to the WW at large. (Lucius Malfoy, of course, is "Master," both in the second and third person, until Dobby is freed, after which Dobby doesn't mention him.) The speech patterns, IMO, indicate servility toward wizards in general and idolatry of Harry. But you say that it isn't the speech patterns that annoy you, either with their repetition or their servility, and that you don't find them caricatured. I do see them as caricatured in that they're exaggerated and unrealistic, more like the behavior of a cartoon character than a literary character (and derivative of Gollum, whether JKR intended them to be or not--maybe that's what annoys me most?). His appearance is equally cartoonish--out-sized eyes, pencillike nose, skinny arms and legs sticking out from a dirty pillowcase. Yes, he's pathetic in more senses than one, but he's so obviously not human that our empathy is limited from the outset, and his behavior reinforces that perception of cartoonish exaggeration--wailing, blowing his nose on his pillowcase (yecch!), beating himself on the head with the nearest object or otherwise punishing himself (bad role model for kids with low self-esteem approaching Dobby's). And his idea of helping Harry is to get him in trouble with the Dursleys and the MoM (the pudding incident), to prevent him from taking the Hogwarts Express and potentially injure both him and Ron in the process (solidifying the barrier they're supposed to walk through), and setting a rogue Bludger on him ("Not kill you, sir! Never kill you!" Could have fooled me, Dobby.) Of course, he stops trying to "help" Harry in dangerous ways after CoS, and the servility becomes a little less cringing, but the cartoonishness (all those hats and socks) and the tearful idolatry of Harry remain. I don't know about you, but I find him annoying rather than empathetic for all of these reasons. He's not realistic; his plight is too exaggerated to evoke my sympathy. His speech and behavior patterns get on my nerves. I really wish he would just go away, and that JKR would stick with human characters whose experiences, appearance, and behavior I can at least relate to. It's odd--I don't mind the nonhuman characters in LOTR nearly as much, even though I recognize Legolas and Gimli as typical representatives of their respective "races" who learn to care about each other rather than individuals like the various hobbits. Maybe it's because they're neither so exaggerated nor so undignified. And Gollum, the former hobbit (near enough) has good reason for his habit of talking to himself and even for his bad grammar, never having lived among educated people even before his long exile under the mountain. Does that help at all? I'm not expecting you to agree with my characterization, just explaining why I find Dobby annoying and wondering how my reaction to him compares with yours and that of anyone else who wants to join this thread. Carol, wishing that the Hogwarts kids could just do their own laundry, with or without a spell, or have it done by a paid human housekeeping staff From kennclark at btinternet.com Fri Dec 1 15:41:31 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:41:31 -0000 Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162235 Jen: > The reason I favor Nagini at this point is mostly curiousity, how > Harry will use Parseltongue and other means at his disposal to make > sure Nagini is destroyed--she is like Voldemort's second skin. She > would likely be the last Horcrux left before vanquishing Voldemort > because she's the most difficult to get to in some ways as both an > animate and connected with LV. Unlike the other Horcruxes, he'll > know if someone is messing with Nagini! Ken says: But we shouldn't assume that only Harry is capable of destroying the horcruxes. He isn't the only one knows about them, both Ron and Hermoine are bound to be in at the kill and, depending on who else they tell, we may well see others of the Order engaged in finding and destroying horcruxes. Ken From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 15:47:40 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 15:47:40 -0000 Subject: "Stand aside, girl!" In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010517010759.02e46160@netmail.home.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162236 Deeblite: Or it could be a chivalry type thing. He doesnt want to kill > women unless he really needs to. I know, Bertha Jorkins, but > he "needed" to do that. Voldemort didn't "need" to kill Bertha. He'd extracted the memories he needed from her and her mind was mush. He could have just let her wander aimlessly. Someone could have found her and she'd have been spending her days in St. Mungos being cared for like the Longbottoms. But no, he just killed her. She was no longer of any use to him, so he 'dicarded' her, like some object. There are so many accounts of Voldemort killing for killing's sake. He ENJOYS it! Look at the very beginning chapter in HBP! He causes the bridge in England to collapse "sending a dozen cars into the watery depths of the river below". He causes the 'Hurricane' in the West Country that destroys people and property. Voldemort has absolutely no regard for human life at all. He didn't have to kill Cedric, but he does. Didn't have to kill all the helpless muggles in the years before his attack on Harry that took away his powers. But he did, without batting an eye or a inkling of remorse. There are two things on Volemort's agenda - evil and destruction. He destroys anyone and anything that stands in the way of what he wants. Even his so-called 'friends'. Jenni from Alabama From spookedook at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 1 16:14:22 2006 From: spookedook at yahoo.co.uk (spookedook) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:14:22 -0000 Subject: EYES (Was Re: Luna's silvery eyes) In-Reply-To: <001601c71487$cb29c040$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162237 Carol: We've seen eye magic(Legilimency and Occlumency), which does not seem to be related to eye color. DD's are blue, Voldemort's are now red, and Snape's are black. Tinktonks: I am CONVINCED that there is going to be something major involved with eyes. And I know that we have had many discussions about eyes before but I still feel a huge intreague for th subject. If you actually narrow down how many times eyes are mentioned in the books I think the number would be staggering. Interesting then that Ron's eye colour has never been disclosed! I wonder whether this is of consequence!!! Also the part that really struck me was when Dumbledore's Periwinkle Blue eyes look Green when reflecting the potion in the stone basin. WHY PUT IN THIS DETAIL? Surely it must be of some importance but I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason. I have considered this is an omen of Dumbledore sacrificing his life for Harry as Lily did, but somehow that just doesn't feel right! Can anyone help me out? Tinktonks From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Fri Dec 1 17:41:27 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:41:27 -0000 Subject: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162238 > bboyminn: > > Quirrel is absolutely dead. While we aren't given the > details, there is no reason to think that Dumbledore > didn't find Quirrel's body in the last chamber when he > found Harry there. CV: Actually, the only thing we know for sure is that Dumbledore found Quirrell ALIVE in the chamber. I'm at work and don't have my books, but he says something like: "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you." Quirrell had to have been putting up a fight to have to be "pulled" off of Harry. Later on in the hospital, Dumbledore says (again, paraphrased) "Voldemort cares little for his followers, he left Quirrell to die." NEVER does Dumbledore say Quirrell is dead. Only that Voldemort THINKS Quirrell is dead because he intended it so. Steve/bboyminn: So, DEAD, no presumption about it. CV: We'll just have to disagree about this. But there is NO conclusive proof. Steve/bboyminn: Plus, what possible purpose could he now serve in an already over complicated plot with far far far too many subplots to resolve. None, I say. CV: Agreed, the plot is massively overcomplicated. Too many characters and too many objects. There should be lots of Chekov's gunfire in the final book. But since JKR has set that as a pattern, doesn't it sort of make a resurrection of a "cold" character even MORE likely? Don't forget that he is a walking representation of the god Janus (the two-faced god) who is the ruler of beginnings *and endings*. I think we will just have to wait and see. Steve/bboyminn: I know lots of people are hoping for one character or another to return from the dead, or technically dead, and I am hoping for it too, but I think the chances are very very very very very very very slim. You heard it here first. CV: OK. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 17:54:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:54:53 -0000 Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162239 > >a_svirn: > > Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's > > anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't > > really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion. > > Carol again: > I hate resorting to definitions, but here goes: > > obey > transitive verb > 1 : to follow the commands or guidance of > 2 : to conform to or comply with the laws of physics> > intransitive verb : to behave obediently a_svirn: I may be very slow indeed, but does not command mean compulsion? Dobby proclaims that he obey whoever he chooses, but NOT a person, force, agency etc that compels him to obey. This means that he does not obey at all. > Carol: > Dobby *chooses* to follow the commands or guidance of Harry Potter. No > one compelled him to do it. a_svirn: No, he chooses to render Harry Potter services. Harry did not give him orders at first, he didn't even remember about him. He only thought about Kreacher. Later on he did say something like "You can sleep Dobby", but it was after Dobby made his choice, and doesn't Harry any credit, anyway. > Carol: That satisfaction from service > well performed is Dobby's reward, the only reward he wants from Harry. a_svirn: Then why I ask again didn't he seek his employment with Harry? ? Why all that fuss about wanting paid employment, if he doesn't want to be paid? Doesn't make sense at all. > Carol: > I suppose it's possible to render services to your equal, but in most > instances your equal could and would perform them for himself. You > render services to someone in need who can't perform them for him or > herself for whatever reason or for a superior who has some claim over > you (authority or a paycheck). Even the equal has the claim of > friendship and would expect favors in return if the need arose. But > Dobby isn't offering his services to, or as, an equal. He is offering > them to his chosen human, whom he chooses to obey, as he said himself. > He neither asks nor expects services in return. Imagine the reaction > if Harry offered to help Dobby with his elfly duties in the kitchen. > Or "I'll make my own bed and wash my own laundry, Dobby. You don't > need to do that." "But Dobby wishes to be of service to Harry Potter, > sir. Please tell Dobby what else he can do to help Harry Potter, sir." a_svirn: Except, we don't see Dobby doing Harry's laundry. We see him trying to save Harry's life, helping Harry to solve the clue, or to unravel Draco's plot. The sort of thing that friends and equals might do. > a_svirn: > > His relationship with Harry is reciprocal. Harry bestowed a gift of > freedom on Dobby, and Dobby wants to return the favour by only way he > knows ? render him services. > > Carol: > Such an exchange is not reciprocal. Only a superior can offer freedom, > and the offer of services is the offer to become his unpaid servant. a_svirn: Yes, that's true. I did say that Dobby tries to repay the favour in the only way he knows. That's again the question of indoctrination. Harry shouldn't have allowed him to do that. Instead he sized the opportunity, like with Kreacher. > > a_svirn: > > They were well on the way on being equals in GOF and OOP. In the > last book, Harry treats Dobby more like inferior. Hardly surprising, > considering he's become a slave owner and rather enjoys the experience. > > Carol: > I see no evidence of equality in the other books. The offer to help is > entirely on Dobby's side. Harry buys him socks (without perhaps > realizing that they symbolize his release from bondage to Lucius > Malfoy), but nowhere do I see him offering his services to Dobby. a_svirn: Harry didn't just "buy socks". First of all, it was Dobby who started the exchange of socks, which is symbolic, because an inferior don't take incentive in such matters ? it's presumptuous. Second, Harry took trouble to buy socks that would specially please and amuse Dobby ? something you do for friends. And it was a thank-you gift too. (And he must be an idiot not to see the symbolism.) > Carol: In > HBP, Harry finally requests the services that Dobby has been offering a_svirn: Well he became a slave owner in HBP. He seems to think that he is entitled to it. That makes him regard even Dobby as an inferior. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 17:57:51 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:57:51 -0000 Subject: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162240 > > a_svirn: > > Sure, he does. If we are told that fair is foul, we know that it's > > anything but fair. If Dobby obeys by his own volition he doesn't > > really obey at all. Obedience requires compulsion. > > > > Pippin: > Really? Then what do we mean by 'disobedience'? If disobedience > is an option, then obedience must be an option too. a_svirn: By disobedience we mean not obedience. When we disobey we defy whatever agency that compels us to obey. But can't choose this agency ? that's nonsense. From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 17:10:55 2006 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:10:55 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162241 > rduran1216 wrote: > > ... The implied clues dictate that Dumbledore planned > > what happened, but at the same time, it doesn't seem > > like anyone besides Snape was in on it as well. ... > > > > So my question is, let's assume the opposite, that > > Snape really is an instrument of Voldemort's, how > > can the story possibly be brought together, given > > that Rowling has said no new major characters will be > > introduced? > > bboyminn: > As to whether Dumbledore 'planned what happened', > my answer is yes and no. Dumbledore certainly had many > plans, general and specific, for what was happening > and for what might happen. These plans were constantly > being refined base on more information becoming > available and circumstances changing. > > I believe his general plan for Snape was for Snape to > always act for the greater good, even if in the > moment, the greater good seemed to be outweighed by > an immediate need. rduran1216: It seems we have differing views on the extent of Dumbledore's knowledge of what had been going on. I look at things like the Invisibility cloak in the first book, the "convenient" awarding of a time-turner to Hermione, the "gleam of triumph", the meeting with the Dursleys, the instructions before the trip to the cave as the most poignant examples of Albus seeming to be ahead of the game. My contention is that if Snape turns out to be evil, how can the way Dumbledore acted in HBP be explained? This question may boil down to a few scenarios; Dumbledore knows something about Snape that nobody else did, or Dumbledore is a supreme legilimens and can see something that tells him Snape's loyalties lay with their side. Either way, I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit, because in my mind its predetermined that something is yet to be explained that will bring Severus' character some redemption. rduran1216 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 19:03:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:03:36 -0000 Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162242 --- "Kenneth Clark" wrote: > > --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > > However, it would therefore follow that he has made > > SIX Horcruxes; the seventh soul fragment remains > > in him and is thus not a Horcrux. > > > Ken says: > > But he may not yet have made the last one. Surely his > repeated attempts to kill Harry and, more importantly, > his instructions to his Death Eaters that they DO NOT > kill Harry would imply (not to put it any stronger > than that) that he is reserving his last horcrux for > Harry's murder. > > ... bboyminn: While I do, to some extent, agree with Jen Reese's statements about how and why Voldemort might have made Nagini into the final Horcrux, but I'm not actually sure that he did. My impression of Dumbledore's statements on this matter leaves me with an intuitive feeling that Dumbledore has his doubts about Nagini. He seems to be saying that IF Voldemort made his 6th Horcrux then it is /probably/ Nagini. Now I know that is far from a direct quote, but Dumbledore's attitude combined with his statements just doesn't leave me with the same feeling of sureness that he has with the other known Horcruxes. So, in my opinion, the jury is still out on Nagini. Dumbledore's statements could be a red herring, a misdirection to send Harry off on a /wild goose chase/. Yet, is Harry likely to encounted Nagini /before/ he encounters Voldemort? I don't see how, so if Nagini is or is not a Horcrux, Harry can't possibly find out until the last minute. Now if we pause for a moment and assume Nagini is not actually a Horcrux, then we must ask, is something else a Horcrux in her place, or is Voldemort saving the 6th and final Horcrux for Harry's death? A part of me wonders if Harry will actually find all the Horcruxes before his final confrontation with Voldemort? They seem nearly impossible to find, especially when one of them is a complete unknown (Ravenclaw or Gryffindor object). Based on this, there is a part of me that wonders if ALL the Horcruxes aren't... well... red herring-ish. Certainly they are significant to the next story, but will they really matter in the final showdown? And if they don't matter, then what unimaginable twist of fate will nullify them? So, I agree with Jen Reese's statement regarding Voldemort motivations IF he made Nagini a horcrux, but I also agree with KEN, that there is an element of uncertainty as to whether Nagini really is a horcrux. Don't have a clue what that all adds up to though. Steve/bboyminn From kjones at telus.net Fri Dec 1 19:15:09 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:15:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: EYES (Was Re: Luna's silvery eyes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45707F3D.9070009@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162243 spookedook wrote: > Carol: > > We've seen eye magic(Legilimency and Occlumency), which does not seem to be related to eye color. DD's are blue, Voldemort's are now red, and Snape's are black. > > Tinktonks: > > I am CONVINCED that there is going to be something major involved with eyes. And I know that we have had many discussions about eyes before but I still feel a huge intreague for th subject. > > If you actually narrow down how many times eyes are mentioned in the books I think the number would be staggering. Interesting then that Ron's eye colour has never been disclosed! I wonder whether this is of consequence!!! > > Also the part that really struck me was when Dumbledore's Periwinkle Blue eyes look Green when reflecting the potion in the stone basin. WHY PUT IN THIS DETAIL? Surely it must be of some importance but I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason. > > I have considered this is an omen of Dumbledore sacrificing his life for Harry as Lily did, but somehow that just doesn't feel right! > > Can anyone help me out? > > Tinktonks KJ writes: Considering the emphasis that has been put on the colour of Harry's eyes, I think that it will be interesting to see if Harry has a sudden change of eye colour when the portion of Voldemorte's soul is removed. I am assuming, of course, that Harry is carrying a piece of Voldie's soul. I am not clear why his eyes would be the same colour as his mother's eyes, as a result of this event, however. Voldemorte's eyes were described as dark before they started to turn red. If the green of Harry's eyes has something specific to Lily's sacrifice, they might change colour when the blood protection is lifted on Harry's birthday. Interesting questions. KJ From kjones at telus.net Fri Dec 1 19:55:42 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 11:55:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457088BE.4060007@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162244 Steve wrote: > --- "Kenneth Clark" wrote: >> --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: >> >>> However, it would therefore follow that he has made >>> SIX Horcruxes; the seventh soul fragment remains >>> in him and is thus not a Horcrux. >>> >> Ken says: >> >> But he may not yet have made the last one. Surely his >> repeated attempts to kill Harry and, more importantly, >> his instructions to his Death Eaters that they DO NOT >> kill Harry would imply (not to put it any stronger >> than that) that he is reserving his last horcrux for >> Harry's murder. >> >> ... > > bboyminn: > > While I do, to some extent, agree with Jen Reese's > statements about how and why Voldemort might have made > Nagini into the final Horcrux, but I'm not actually sure > that he did. > > My impression of Dumbledore's statements on this matter > leaves me with an intuitive feeling that Dumbledore has > his doubts about Nagini. He seems to be saying that IF > Voldemort made his 6th Horcrux then it is /probably/ > Nagini. Now I know that is far from a direct quote, but > Dumbledore's attitude combined with his statements just > doesn't leave me with the same feeling of sureness that > he has with the other known Horcruxes. > > So, in my opinion, the jury is still out on Nagini. > Dumbledore's statements could be a red herring, a > misdirection to send Harry off on a /wild goose chase/. > Yet, is Harry likely to encounted Nagini /before/ he > encounters Voldemort? I don't see how, so if Nagini is > or is not a Horcrux, Harry can't possibly find out until > the last minute. snip of an excellent post > Don't have a clue what that all adds up to though. > > Steve/bboyminn KJ writes: I also have a problem with believing that Nagini is a horcrux for several reasons: 1. She does not fit into Voldemorte's pack-rat love for shiny things. The things that we know he collected were a diary, a ring, a harmonica, a yo-yo, a thimble, a necklace, and a cup. 2. He has no more affinity for animals than he does people. I think that he values Nagini as something owns rather than important enough to use her as a horcrux. He possessed her on one occasion for a short period of time. As she is such a large snake, and the duration a short one, she suffered no ill effects. When Voldemorte possessed smaller snakes and animals, they did not survive. Voldemort would realize that Nagini's life span could not be trusted to harbour a horcrux long enough. 3. JKR agreed that Harry needed to find four more horcruxes in the final book, but then she qualified that by saying that it was what Harry thought he had to do. So, depending on how we all interpret this, there are either fewer horcruxes than Harry believes, or more. I think that Nagini is a red herring used to inform us that a soul piece can be put in a living being, but that the living receptacle still has the ability to think for itself. I believe that Harry has a soul piece, which gives him the power the Dark Lord knows not, and that it will end up being the final soul piece to be destroyed somehow. For this reason, I am convinced that Voldemorte has not made any more horcruxes. If he does so, not knowing that Harry has his sixth horcrux, what would the effect be? Perhaps making one too many horcruxes by accident would overwhelm the magic and destroy all of them. That doesn't seem a very exciting ending though. KJ From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 19:19:11 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 19:19:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162245 > zgirnius: > At the end of OotP, Dumbledore more or less came out and told Harry > that he didn't deserve Harry's loyalty. He took responsibility for > Sirius's death and apologized for keeping Harry in the dark. So the > situation in their relationship was not the same as in CoS at all. I > think Dumbledore was moved to learn that, in the end, Harry had > forgiven him. > > Also, I think the Ring Horcrux injury brought home to Dumbledore that > his life might soon be coming to an end. I don't think this is > something that he feared or was saddened by. Even though he > considered death his 'next great adventure', though, he would > naturally give some thought to those he would be leaving behind. To > know he would be missed by the boy he had come to love must have also > added poignancy to the moment. > > I guess I didn't find it odd or out of character. I didn't find it odd or out of character either. I see it as you do. Harry had come to think/feel of Dumbledore as a grandfather figure. He is (as his father was)Dumbledore's man through and through. He loves that old man. He sees Dumbledore as his ultimate protector and shelter. Though Dumbledore does make mistakes and fails sometimes (as we all do as humans)he does all within his power (which is immense, though limited) to protect Harry. He loved Harry. I hope to see Harry helped quite a bit through Dumbledore's pensieve and Dumbledore's portraits scattered throughout the wizarding world. Dumbledore was a very 'decorated' wizard, he'll have portraits throughout the 'important' buidings in the wizarding world. I hope to see Harry taking advantage of this. I also hope to see Fawkes choosing to 'belong' to Harry. Fawkes certainly seemed to have a soft spot for Harry, as Dumbledore did. Hopefully we will see Fawkes return as Harry's protector again in the 7th book. Jenni from Alabama (who knows in her mind that Dumbledore is dead but can't get it through to her heart!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 21:01:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:01:05 -0000 Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162246 Carol earlier: > > I'm not convinced by any explanation that I've read so far that the discrepancies in the two versions of the eavesdropping incident that we've encountered so far can be reconciled. (Please, JKR, don't let them be mere careless inconsistencies!) Brothergib responded: > So much good stuff here, I'm not sure where to begin. Carol again: Thanks. Brothergib: > I'll start with my ideas on the discrepancy in the two versions of the prophecy. The prophecy begins and Snape is quite happily listening outside. DD then becomes aware of the eavesdropper and blocks the door (as in OOTP). He also somehow alerts his brother that someone is listening in. The prophecy ends and Trelawney comes round, at which point Aberforth enters with Snape, telling DD and Trelawney that he an caught Snape listening to their conversation. > Carol: Lots of speculation here, right? We don't know, for example, that Dumbledore was aware of the eavesdropper before the door was opened to reveal young Snape standing there with "the uncouth barman" (Trelawney's version), or that DD cast any kind of spell (I agree that Impervius is more likely than Snape's own invention, Muffliato), or that he somehow alerted his brother, who could simply have seen young Snape going upstairs and acted to intercept him, knowing that Albus was holding a job interview and would not wish to be overheard. (Obviously, Aberforth could not have anticipated a Prophecy any more than his brother did.) We simply don't know what happened. But Snape's standing there with Aberforth after the Prophecy (which Sybill doesn't know she's delivered) is inconsistent with the eavesdropper's being "thrown from the building" halfway through the Prophecy, which is what DD tells Harry in OoP. Your version doesn't resolve that basic inconsistency for me. Snape can't be in two places at once (unless we bring in a Time Turner, and I don't want to get into that!). Carol earlier: > > However, Dumbledore says that Snape heard only the first half of the Prophecy, which means that the first of two lines about the seventh month would be included in what he heard. here's the Prophecy as Harry hears it in OOP: > > > > "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches.... Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ... and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not ... and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives.... The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies...." (OoP Am. ed. 841). > Brothergib: > I've mentioned this previously, but compare the two prophecies that we have heard. 1. First hand delivered from Trelawney to Harry; 2. Second hand - what DD chooses to tell Harry. > > The first [PoA] prophecy is a perfectly constructed sentence. Carol again: Is it? Let's quote it for comparison (eliminating the distracting all-capital letters): "It will happen tonight" [delivered in a loud, harsh voice before Trelawney's eyes start to roll and interrupted by Harry's "S-sorry?"] "The Dark Lord lies alone and friendless, abandoned by his followers. His servant has been chained these twelve years. Tonight, before midnight ... the servant will break free and set out to rejoin his master. The Dark Lord will rise again with his servant's aid, greater and more terrible than ever he was. Tonight ... before midnight ... the servant ... will set out ... to rejoin...his master..." (PoA Am. ed. 324). That looks to me like six perfectly constructed sentences, with one longish interruption and ellipses for pauses rather than omissions. (We know that Harry heard the whole thing.) To examine it a bit more closely: The diction is somewhat formal but not noticeably old-fashioned (except for "ever he was"), and only "chained" and "break free" are figurative. Otherwise, it's quite clear and unambiguous, in contrast to the other prophecy. Granted, it's temporarily misleading in that "servant" appears to refer to Sirius Black but really refers to Peter Pettigrew, but otherwise, it's straightforward and accurate, not only with regard to the events of that night but with regard to the Dark Lord's return. (We have yet to see "greater and more terrible than ever he was," but I expect we'll see that in Book 7. Makes me wonder whether DD was wrong to think so little of Divination, but I don't want to get sidetracked.) Brothergib: The second [the OoP prophecy] is rambling, has many pauses/gaps (....) in it, and is poorly constructed - e.g. too many ands in one sentence. JKR was an English teacher before an author. Nobody with even a rudimentary grasp of English, would consider the paragraph above as even remotely grammatically correct. Carol: IIRC, she was a French teacher, not an English teacher, if it matters. But I taught college-level English for eighteen years, and I do consider the OoP Prophecy to be grammatically correct. It contains no grammatical errors though "Born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies" is a sentence fragment. The diction is formal and old-fashioned ("thrice," "knows not") and ambiguous (as befits a prophecy), but unless the sentence fragment indicates that something has been omitted, the ellipses serve the same purpose as in the PoA prophecy, indicating pauses (I imagine Trelawney gasping for breath, but that could be movie contamination). The "ands," BTW, are a stylistic device used very frequently, for example, in the King James version of the Bible. Here's a brief Old Testament passage relating to Elijah: And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived. And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth. And the woman said to Elijah, Now by this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the LORD in thy mouth is truth. Or maybe this New Testament prophecy is a better example: "He shall be great, and shall be called the son of the highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." Luke 1:31-33. To return to the point: the OoP Prophecy is not ungrammatical, but its style and structure mark it as an inspired utterance spoken by someone in a trance (as Trelawney is in both cases) rather than normal speech. (She's "inspired" in the sense that the Greeks used the term; i.e., a being or spirit of some sort is speaking through her. Or maybe the future is revealing itself through her--I can't quite work out how prophecy operates in the WW. My point is that the diction and sentence structure, as well as the trancelike state and the harsh voice, set aside these prophetic utterances as distinct from, say, Ron's faked predictions in Divination class or Trelawney's own prediction that Harry will have twelve children and be the Minister for Magic. Brothergib: > IMO, the pauses (....) are parts of the prophecy that DD 'chose' not to let Harry hear. i.e. DD knows the whole prophecy, Snape knows the first half (roughly) word for word and Harry knows bits and pieces of all of it. As a result we do not have sufficient info to interpret the prophecy > Carol: As I said, the ellipses seem for the most part to be used in the same way as in the other prophecy, to indicate pauses. I see only one place where words may have been omitted, but the way Harry hears the Prophecy, with Trelawney rising out of the Pensieve, seems to preclude that possibility unless DD altered the memory, and there's no hint that he did so (in contrast to the fog in Slughorn's altered memory). Nor do I think JKR would allow him to do that with no hint to either Harry or the reader that the memory had been tampered with. What Dumbledore does is not to *tell* Harry parts of the Prophecy but to *show* him the Prophecy out of context, as he did with Bertha Jorkins earlier and with Caractacus Burke in HBP, only in this case his motive is not simple expediency; it's concealment--not of any part of the Prophecy, which Harry has the right to know in its entirety, but of the presence of Severus Snape, whose identity as the eavesdropper DD doesn't want Harry to know Brothergib: > And the big one for me - how did DD know Harry had defeated LV, if he didn't know the attack was going to take place?? Answer - because > someone at GH witnessed the whole scene and reported to DD. Obvious > candidate - Snape! > Carol: Well, I don't agree with this part of your post, either, but I don't want to get into that now. I think that Snape was at Hogwarts on the night of Godric's Hollow with no idea where the Potters were hiding because no one had told him the Secret. See message #158920 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/158920 for one of my many posts on the subject. > Brothergib (relatively warm in London - global warming is improving > the climate!) > Carol, wondering if this is the first time Tucson has ever been colder than London! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 21:57:23 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:57:23 -0000 Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162248 Carol: > But Snape's standing there with Aberforth after the Prophecy (which > Sybill doesn't know she's delivered) is inconsistent with the > eavesdropper's being "thrown from the building" halfway through the > Prophecy, which is what DD tells Harry in OoP. Your version doesn't > resolve that basic inconsistency for me. Snape can't be in two places > at once (unless we bring in a Time Turner, and I don't want to get > into that!). zgirnius: I don't see a discrepancy at all. First, it is in retrospect obvious that Dumbledore was actively hiding the identity of the eavesdropper from Harry in OotP. This is why he used the Pensieve to make Trelawney rise out of it and speak, instead of showing the memory in the usual way. That would have risked the possibility that if Harry was not pulled out of the memory in time, he would have seen the barman and Snape. At the time I thought nothing of it, but it had not occured to me that the eavesdropper might be someone we and Harry actually knew. OK, if you can agree thus far, here is what Dumbledore actually said: > OotP: > My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was > detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the > building. zgirnius again: Note the absence of any indication of time in this statement. He was detected, he was thrown out. Immediately? moments later? hours later? Dumbledore doesn't say. He's not lying to Harry, but he is not telling the full story. The full story would be he was caught, he was brought to me, and he was thrown out. But 'he was brought to me' would probably cause even the occasionally unquestioning Harry to ask the question, 'who was he?' While the way it actually was worded, sugests without saying that Dumbledore might not even have seen the eavesdropper. Personally, I think the barman chanced on Snape as Snape heard the first part of the prophecy, and pulled him away from the door before he heard the rest. A very short discussion involving protestations of innocence by Snape might have ensued, or a tussle, and then the barman threw open the door to show Dumbledore who had been listening to him. This occured just as Trelawney came out of her prophetic trance, hence her story of feeling funny, and then seeing Snape. The barman then left Dumbledore and Trelawney to their conversation and threw Snape out. Dumbledore also does not say that he knew THEN how much of the prophecy Snape had heard. He just states, without any explanation, that only the first part was heard. I would guess that this he may have learned later from Snape, after Snape 'returned'. I think this is the way it has to be, unless Rowling goofed (doubt it, the event is too central to her story) or Dumbledore lies to Harry. (The theory that Snape heard all of the prophecy is consistent with Trelawney's version, but involves Dumbledore lying both in OotP and in the later conversation in the Weasley's shed.) I don;t believe Dumbledore would lie to Harry. > Carol earlier: > > > However, Dumbledore says that Snape heard only the first half of > the Prophecy, which means that the first of two lines about the > seventh month would be included in what he heard. here's the > > Brothergib (relatively warm in London - global warming is improving > > the climate!) > > > Carol, wondering if this is the first time Tucson has ever been colder > than London! zgirnius, wishing she were in Tucson, or London, or anyplace else not covered by fourteen inches of snow which needs to be removed from her driveway. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Fri Dec 1 22:26:07 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:26:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162249 >Jen: >The locked room gets my vote for the vanquishment of Voldemort, mainly for the reason you stated above. Plus I'd like to add a possible addition: Harry will learn to understand the power in that room better when he grows in his knowledge of Lily who worked at the DOM in my opinion. Even if that bit isn't true, a locked door full of the power Voldemort knows not? That's too compelling to *not* have Voldemort come face to face with his doom there. Love IS his downfall, the thing he's overlooked in every instance, his achilles heel, all the cliches you can think of Nikkalmati I like this idea of Bess' and yours that LV will meet his doom in the Room of Love. I wonder if LV will be undone by finding out in that room that his mother loved him after all? I am not sure JKR wants to leave LV in terrible pain forever, but the realization he was loved may take away his power and desire to do harm. I always felt a great deal of pity for Meriope for not having the strength to live and being blamed for it on top of everything else. I think she is in the mode of mothers who loved their sons in the book and that will be revealed. Narcissa also is one of the mothers who loved their sons and I wonder if she will have to die for Draco in the end, or perhaps she is the character JKR decided to spare. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 23:46:42 2006 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 15:46:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: Quiditch Message-ID: <20061201234642.22347.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162250 zgirnius: Actually I was going to add in an explanation of the Bulgaria/Ireland thing but I already felt the post was too long. I'm you read GOF you will see that other World Cup pre-liminary games are mentioned. England is beaten by some African country which I can't recall and it is is a shocking upset and there prob' were other games. These were prob round robin with a cumalative point system as with Hogwarts. Most likely these 'pre-liminary world cup games' were played somewhere other then then England so that the muggles wouldn't catch on, and only the final championship was played in England. The top two teams on points played again in the championship game. It seems logical that Bulgaria came in down on points to Ireland because of Ireland's superior chasers. However, they must have been within snitch points because there was heavy beating on Bulgaria. When Ireland pulled away like they did there was a good chance Bulgaria would be embarrased on the world stage, since the point lead very quickly became beyond snitch range; so Krum either finished it when he did to keep the final score respectable like Harry said, or maybe Ron was right and Krum just messed up by miscalculating the points (was he distracted by Hermione IIRC it said in the book that Krum noticed Hermione ). Ron at least doesn't think him very bright, but if he spends all the time in the library with Hermione, Krum must have learned something. We won't know unless JKR has Krum tell us. By the way, I'm DA Jones. I can't believe I made such a long post and left off my tag. LOL! DA Jones --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 1 22:23:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:23:37 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162251 Alla, still trying to figure out why she finds Dobby annoying, > because his speech patterns do not bother her that much. > Carol responds: And here I thought that Steve had figured out the reason for your reaction better than I had! Hmmm. Alla: Right, no, unfortunately he did not at all. Did not figure them out for me, I mean, because this is what I am trying to do right now ?V figure out the reasons why I find Dobby so very annoying and what Steve said ( if I summarize correctly) that I sympathize with beings who fight for their plight more than those who are not, is not it. Because the POV that I share that elves had been indoctrinated in not fighting ( for the most part) usually should have made me pity them even more. Carol: Leaving Snape out of it, since he's not a caricature and his speech patterns aren't annoying and his loyalties are ambiguous, unlike Dobby's or Grawp's (you think he's evil; I don't), let's look again at Dobby and Grawp. Alla: Well, yes, that is what I would like to do too ?V leave Snape out of it. I was just surprised about the analogy Pippin made, because I cannot see it even with magnifying glass. ?? Carol: I think it's clear why Grawp is annoying; his vocabulary and repertoire of actions are extremely limited. Okay, no reason to hate him, but no reason to empathize with him, either. At best, most of us can take him or leave him. He slows the story down. Alla: Right, I suppose I will take the *slows the story down* argument as the one I most agree with. Carol: We'd rather read about human characters whom we can relate to and empathize with or be angry with because we disapprove of their choices. Alla: Well, no I would rather read about better written character, I could care less whether character is human or not. In Louis Bujold saga about Miles Vorkosigan for example there are plenty fascinating non-human character. So, as of today, I guess I just think that Grawp is not written well, contrary to Dobby. Carol: But you say that it isn't the speech patterns that annoy you, either with their repetition or their servility, and that you don't find them caricatured. Alla: Right, no, see being around people who struggle to learn foreign language and struggling with this language myself , hehe, I tend to be incredibly sympathetic towards house elves speech patterns. Who knows, maybe Dobby is just not very gifted with languages. But as I said, I still find Dobby annoying, see below. Carol: And his idea of helping Harry is to get him in trouble with the Dursleys and the MoM (the pudding incident), to prevent him from taking the Hogwarts Express and potentially injure both him and Ron in the process (solidifying the barrier they're supposed to walk through), and setting a rogue Bludger on him ("Not kill you, sir! Never kill you!" Could have fooled me, Dobby.) Alla: Ooooooo, I have to think about it, but that just may be it. Thank you. Dobby is hurting Harry in CoS IMO, while he is trying to help him and I have no doubt that he is trying to help him, but I absolutely wanted to slap him as to his methods. Yes, on intellectual level I realize his good intentions, but I still cannot stand his actions for the most part of the book, maybe that is where my annoyance stems from. I mean if Dobby at the end would have indeed helped Harry in some significant way, it would make me feel less annoyed with him, but while he wanted to help, he did not really do anything helpful, no? So, yeah, that is probably the main reason. Carol: Does that help at all? I'm not expecting you to agree with my characterization, just explaining why I find Dobby annoying and wondering how my reaction to him compares with yours and that of anyone else who wants to join this thread. Alla: It does help, see above, I think I may have found the main reason of my annoyance with Dobby. As I said I could care less whether character is non-human or human and how he speaks, if character is written well and I do think that Dobby is written well, but his idiotic attempts to help Harry I think did it for me. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 00:27:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:27:34 -0000 Subject: EYES (Was Re: Luna's silvery eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162252 Carol earlier: > > We've seen eye magic(Legilimency and Occlumency), which does not seem to be related to eye color. DD's are blue, Voldemort's are now red, and Snape's are black. > Tinktonks responded: > > I am CONVINCED that there is going to be something major involved with eyes. And I know that we have had many discussions about eyes before but I still feel a huge intreague for th subject. > > If you actually narrow down how many times eyes are mentioned in the books I think the number would be staggering. Interesting then that Ron's eye colour has never been disclosed! I wonder whether this is of consequence!!! > > Also the part that really struck me was when Dumbledore's Periwinkle Blue eyes look Green when reflecting the potion in the stone basin. WHY PUT IN THIS DETAIL? Surely it must be of some importance but I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason. > > I have considered this is an omen of Dumbledore sacrificing his life for Harry as Lily did, but somehow that just doesn't feel right! > > Can anyone help me out? > > Tinktonks > Carol responds: I'm not sure that I can help with the Dumbledore question. (It would help if you'd provide the exact quote and a page reference.) It may simply be that the reflected green of the potion adds an ominous note to an already tension-filled and, for me, terrifying scene. In the HP books, green (except in relation to Harry's and Lily's eyes) is a rather eerie and sinister color, associated with Slytherin (not all Slytherins are evil, but in general, the House is regarded as if they were), with poison (the Basilisk is a poisonous green), and with Avada Kedavra, a Dark and deadly Unforgiveable Curse. So I'm guessing that the green reflected in Dumbledore's eyes, permanently bereft of their twinkle, either reinforces or foreshadows the mental anguish and physical agony that he's suffering or will suffer from the poisoned memory (or whatever the potion in the Pensievelike bowl is). I don't think Ron's eye color is particularly important. JKR has disclosed in an interview that they're blue (while Hermione's are brown and Harry's, of course, are green). It may be that she's giving each of her Trio a different eye color and hair color, just as she gave each of them one of the three Ollivander wand cores (Phoenix fether for Harry, unicorn hair for Ron, and, according to an interview, dragon's heartstring for Hermione) and made one a pureblood, one a halfblood, and one a Muggleborn. Equal opportunity heroes, I suppose. (She also made one of the Trio a girl, possibly for similar reasons. Not that I really want to try to second-guess JKR!) But Luna's eyes are not within the normal range of eye colors, and their resemblance to Ollivander's is striking. Not only are the eyes silvery, but neither Ollivander or Luna seems to blink, at least not as often as "normal people," as the narrator puts it (reflecting Harry's pov). Since you find the references to eyes intriguing (and I agree they're ubiquitous), you may find this essay on Snape's eyes interesting: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-snapes-eyes.html At least one of the quotes cited referred to Snape's unblinking eyes in relation to Legilimency, and as I mentioned in my original post, I think Ollivander is also a Legilimens. Maybe Luna, who seems to be chiefly characterized by her eccentricity and seemingly naive faith in the improbable, is, too. (BTW, I trust Luna's instincts and keep hoping that they'll triumph over Hermione's reliance on faith and reference books.) Carol, who thinks that DD's death will be significant in unforeseen ways, but not as a form of magical protection for Harry From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 1 22:11:29 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 17:11:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) References: Message-ID: <00b801c71595$a7e399d0$1aba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162253 Carol: > Does that help at all? I'm not expecting you to agree with my > characterization, just explaining why I find Dobby annoying and > wondering how my reaction to him compares with yours and that of > anyone else who wants to join this thread. > > Carol, wishing that the Hogwarts kids could just do their own laundry, > with or without a spell, or have it done by a paid human housekeeping > staff Magpie: Just adding my own opinion, but I think what bugs me about both Dobby and Grawp is the sort of romanticization of inferiority. Dobby has no dignity in the way he's constantly kissing up to Harry for doing what was right, something Dobby deserved. Grawp, meanwhile, is Hagrid's half-brother but is treated like a pet. At times it's like Hagrid's put a leash on his mentally challenged brother like just another one of his dangerous animals. At other times it's like Grawp's just being a giant makes him animalistic. Giants are supposed to be simply a different society, yet Grawp must be "civilized" by being dressed up in Wizard clothes and taught to ape the manners of Wizards, presumably validating the colonial/native vibes of the Hagrid's Tale chapter. And Grawp responds to this with affection (like most of Hagrid's animals he instinctively warms to the right people). Grawp's personality is imo inconsistent with the other giants as well--he seems incoherent compared to what we hear of the others. It's not pleasant to imagine what kind of marriage produced Hagrid if his father was meant to have married a female version of Grawp. Kreacher, ironically, doesn't really bother me because despite having the same superficial qualities as Dobby his personality seems much more defiant. When he fawns over the dead Blacks or the Malfoys, it reads to me as more tied to his own sense of superiority, even if that superiority comes from being the slave of a good family. Winky, too, is at her least annoying to me when she's asserting herself against Wizards. This is something I've really spend time trying to resolve in my head: why is Dobby, the elf that wants to be free, seemingly the most obsequious of all? It's like his, to me, attractive claim to his freedom is overbalanced by something approaching self-hatred of his race or something. Maybe that's not it. It's hard to put my finger on. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 00:33:27 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:33:27 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162254 > >>Jenni from Alabama: > I've personally always detested Snape. He makes my skin crawl! Betsy Hp: I've long since resigned myself to the fact that there are those poor souls out there who completely miss the wonderfuly sexy beast that is Snape. So I'm quite sure I'm not going to change your mind, but I can't resist commenting on a few of your points, Jenni. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > He's so mean to Harry all through the books. Betsy Hp: And yet he just can't quite seem to keep himself from constantly saving Harry's life. ::sighs a bit over how gosh darn heroic Snape is:: > >>Jenni from Alabama: > He seems to condone cruelty to others - especially if it's done by > Draco and done to one of the Trio. Betsy Hp: Kind of like how the Trio condone cruelty to "others" especially if it's done to Draco (or any Slytherin, really)? And how can you not melt a little at the tender kindness Snape showed a near dying Draco? I mean, he sang! (Seriously, that was like a puppies and kittens moment for me, folks. Who'd have thunk we'd ever get a sweet!Snape?) > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Of course the HUGE thing is killing Dumbledore!! Betsy Hp: ... yeah actually I've got nothing. That is a huge thing, and while I certainly see *why* a DDM!Snape (or Dumbledore's Man Snape) would do such a thing, it all rests on book 7. (But I'm pretty darn confident that a DDM!Snape will finally be definitively revealed .) > >>Jenni from Alabama: > It's not just that Snape actually killed Dumbledore, it's the look > on his face that JKR describes just before he did it - of revulsion > and hatred. Betsy Hp: You mean, the exact hatred and revulsion Harry was feeling (for himself) as he force-fed Dumbledore poison in the scene just before this one? That look of hatred and revulsion? ::grins madly, because I really, really love that parallel:: > >>Jenni from Alabama: > It's the comments he makes to Harry about Lily being a 'Mudblood'. Betsy Hp: I'm calling for a canon check on this one: when does Snape *ever* comment to Harry about Lily being a mudblood? For that matter, does Snape ever speak of Lily to Harry? > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > However, there IS a little voice inside my head that is saying that > Snape will redeem himself in the last book somehow. I don't know > why I feel that way. I can't stand Snape. But yet it is there, > whispering. > Betsy Hp: It's the sexy beast thing. Snape is too darn cool to completely write off. Doubts of his pure evilness will linger. Goodness, even Harry likes to curl up in bed with him! (Erm, okay, I'll admit I'm stretching things on that last one... But Harry definitely felt a kinship with young!Snape. See? Even Harry can't completely write off Snape!) Betsy Hp [Completely off-topic here (and most if not all, won't care ) but it's come to my attention that due to my sign off on my last post folks think I'm actually on a beach somewhere. Alas, I'm still at home, shivering in a suddenly cold Kentucky. I was just trying to make a clever allusion to an opening statement I'd made in that discussion about a billion and six posts back. Often I think I'm being clever and I'm, well, not. ::sigh::] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 00:46:27 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:46:27 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162255 --- "rduran1216" wrote: > > > rduran1216 wrote: > > > ... The implied clues dictate that Dumbledore planned > > > what happened, but at the same time, it doesn't seem > > > like anyone besides Snape was in on it as well. ... > > > > > > So my question is, let's assume the opposite, that > > > Snape really is an instrument of Voldemort's, how > > > can the story possibly be brought together, ... > > > > bboyminn: > > As to whether Dumbledore 'planned what > > happened', my answer is yes and no. Dumbledore > > certainly had many plans, general and specific, for > > what was happening and for what might happen. These > > plans were constantly being refined base on more > > information becoming available and circumstances > > changing. > > > > I believe his general plan for Snape was for Snape > > to always act for the greater good, even if in the > > moment, the greater good seemed to be outweighed by > > an immediate need. > > > rduran1216: > It seems we have differing views on the extent of > Dumbledore's knowledge of what had been going on. bboyminn: Don't get me wrong, absolutely and with certain certainty Dumbledore knows FAR more than he has told. In OotP when Dumbledore told Harry he was going to tell him 'everything' I laughed to myself and though 'you aren't even going to tell him one tenth of what you know', and I stil believe that. What I am objecting to is the general idea that Dumbledore planned his own death. Planned it as in he sat Snape down and said, 'OK, look, just as Draco is about to kill me, I want you to jump in front of him and kill me yourself; it's the perfect plan, it's bound to work'. Nothing so bold and cold as that, so says I. I think what Dumbledore told Snape was that if it came down to winning the battle to save Dumbledore's life OR winning the war, Snape should chose winning the war. AND I think that is exactly the choice Snape made. In that moment, he couldn't save himself, he couldn't save Harry, he couldn't save Dumbledore because to try to do so would have virtually guaranteed the loss of everyone including Dumbledore. So, as I see it, Snape chose the path of least resistance, the path of least destruction, and the path of the greatest long term good in the battle against Voldemort. The choices were attempt to engage in a prolonged battle with likely high casualties to save Dumbledore and Harry and most likely lose either literally or strategically, or kill Dumbledore and get Draco and the DE out of the castle as quickly as possible. > rduran1216: > ... My contention is that if Snape turns out to be evil, > how can the way Dumbledore acted in HBP be explained? > bboyminn: Well...he can't! You are absolutely right. In my view, it is simply a matter of how Snape will help Harry, not /if/. Snape is mean, rotten, nasty, sarcastic, ill-tempered,... what am I leaving out?? He is as bad as they come, but he is good; I guess you could say he is bad-good, rather than nice-good. Remus Lupin is nice-good, almost too nice for his own good. Back to Snape, as not-nice as Snape is, he seems to be there to do the right thing, in his own nasty way, when the chips are down. When it really counts, count on Snape. In the scene at the top of the tower, Snape chose the path of the quickest exit and least damage. The damage was terrible, but it could have been far worse. I say that if Snape turns out to be evil, meaning his true alligiance is to Voldemort, then a lot of Dumbledore's actions and statements don't make sense, which is what I hear you saying. So, on this line of thought, I think we are in agreement. > rduran1216: > ,,, > > Either way, I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit, > because in my mind its predetermined that something is > yet to be explained that will bring Severus' character > some redemption. > > rduran1216 > bboyminn: Well, I've already agreed, so let's just call this summing up. Absolutely 'predetermined', there is something about Snape that we don't know, and once we do know it, Snape's actions will be explained. I don't think they will be quite justified or forgiven, but they will be explained and understood. Snape acted in his role as a spy, and as I've said before, at some point or other, a spy will have to betray everyone. Circumstances in that moment demanded that Snape fulfill his role as a spy and 'betray' Dumbledore. But the time will come, of this I am absolutely sure, when the tables are turned and Snape will commit the ultimate act of betrayal against Voldemort. Though, sadly I am wondering if it will cost him his life? Perhaps just as well, since while I think his actions will be explained, I don't think he will get off Scot-free for killing Dumbledore, so perhaps better he die a noble death. I believe that heart of the next book will be related to how Snape will get Harry to trust him again, or for that matter how Snape can even managed to contact Harry. But I believe a resolution between these two characters is critical to bringing Voldemort down. Though it runs off on a tangent, I think there will be a similar struggle for Draco to convince Harry that he no longer wants to support Voldemort. I think Peter will come around when he suspects Voldemort might not win, and he will want to repay his life debt and engraciate himself to Harry and the Ministy in hopes that he won't have to spend his entire life in prison, or worse suffer the Dementor's Kiss. Just a few more thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 01:23:55 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 01:23:55 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162256 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Alla, still trying to figure out why she finds Dobby > > annoying, because his speech patterns do not bother > > her that much. > > > > Carol responds: > > And here I thought that Steve had figured out the reason > for your reaction better than I had! Hmmm. > > Alla: > Right, no, unfortunately he did not at all. ... what > Steve said ... that I sympathize with beings who fight > for their plight more than those who are not, is not it. > ... > bboyminn: I was trying to explain the underlying psychology that would produce the type of reaction you described, and I still think that is a subliminal part of it, but... Could it be you find Dobby and Grawp annoying because THEY ARE! I mean Grawp is a big dumb lump that does nothing but blunder about. He is stupid, clumsy, unaware, and generally dangerous. Dobby's idea of saving Harry is to repeatedly try to injure him in ways that could certainly lead to his death. Dobby is fawning, servile, moderately irrational, and well... like you said annoying. So, where do we find our sympathy for these characters? I think it is in their potential evolution; how they progress as sentinet beings over the course of the story. At Dumbledore's funeral we see a very changed Grawp. From a blind blundering fool, to someone capable of behaving in public, and more important, someone capable of offering comfort and solace to his brother. That is quite a change. That tells me that Grawp is more capable and more likable than the blundering fool we first met. Dobby, and warped as he is by the centuries of conditioning of his race, he is a rebel. In my own, fan fiction I see great things for Dobby. I see him becoming a sucessful business consultant to Harry. I see him becoming a successful business man (with Harry's help of course). I see him and Winky raising the first generation of free elves. ...and my fantasies go on.... So, yes in this moment, they are obnoxious characters, and if you met them in real life, you would have little interest in spending a lot of time with them. Certainly in you own life you have met moderately benign people who you just couldn't stand to be around. That's just life. But can we dream about their potential and hope for their future, and in a sense, isn't that a mark of caring and compassion for them? I think to some extent we are reacting to these character exactly the way JKR wanted us to. Do you really think she expected us to read that chapter about Grawp and go 'aww... isn`t he cute'? No I think she meant us to be as horrified and frustrated has Harry, Ron, and Hermione were. I think stunned disbelief that Hagrid could be so stupid is right on the mark. As written in OotP, Grawp is not suppose to be a sympathetic character, and I think our sympathy for Hagrids sinks right along with the Trio's. But who Grawp is then, and what he does then, is not who he will grow to be, and what he will grow to do. (It is not how we are born, but who we grow to be...) I think the same is true of Dobby too. Really, having Dobby around all the time would become very obnoxious for anyone. He is a friend best taken in small doses which is exactly what Harry does. I think Harry loves Dobby, but just like relatives on the holidays, ...again... best taken in small doses. So, why do you find them so obnoxious and annoying, well it could be because they are. But isn't your own world filled with obnoxious and annoying people too? And don't you cope with their existance by limiting your 'dosage' of them? And don't you hope that one day they will 'snap out of it'? Hey...just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 2 02:05:53 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:05:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162257 Carol: I think it's clear why Grawp is annoying; his vocabulary and repertoire of actions are extremely limited. Okay, no reason to hate him, but no reason to empathize with him, either. At best, most of us can take him or leave him. He slows the story down. Alla: Right, I suppose I will take the *slows the story down* argument as the one I most agree with. Sherry now: Ok, I know exactly why Grawp bothers me, why I wish he had never entered the story, why I don't care if we ever see him again. Besides the fact that he is just not interesting as a character, that is. Because of Grawp, we, the reader, and Harry, missed Ron's big moment in Quidditch. I was so upset when we finally escaped from Grawp, to return to the quidditch pitch, only to learn we'd missed the game; Ron has saved the day, and I had missed it all! I really can't say if I would have felt differently about Grawp if he'd been introduced at any other time. I think not, because the chapter with Hagrid telling the trio about his adventures in Giant land bored me too. But missing Ron's big moment was the main problem I had. Alla: Ooooooo, I have to think about it, but that just may be it. Thank you. Dobby is hurting Harry in CoS IMO, while he is trying to help him and I have no doubt that he is trying to help him, but I absolutely wanted to slap him as to his methods. Yes, on intellectual level I realize his good intentions, but I still cannot stand his actions for the most part of the book, maybe that is where my annoyance stems from. I mean if Dobby at the end would have indeed helped Harry in some significant way, it would make me feel less annoyed with him, but while he wanted to help, he did not really do anything helpful, no? So, yeah, that is probably the main reason. Sherry now: I felt the same way about dobby in COS, but I have come to like the little guy quite a bit. I began to like him in GOF, when he brought the gilly weed to Harry and talked about Harry Potter having to get his "weezy" back. He's kind of grown on me ever since, though of course, not on the same level as characters like on, Hermione, Ginny, other Weasleys and Sirius. Winky makes me want to shake her, and Kreacher ... well, I won't go there. Dobby's loyalty to Harry--not as a slave but just loyalty--endears me to him for some reason, that I really can't explain. When we first met him again in the kitchens in GOF, I thought, Oh no, not again. But by the end of that scene I was hooked on him. Maybe it was the contrast between Dobby and Winky. Sherry From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 02:43:08 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 02:43:08 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162258 > Jenni from Alabama wrote: > It's not just that Snape actually killed Dumbledore, it's the look > on his face that JKR describes just before he did it - of revulsion > and hatred. It's the comments he makes to Harry about Lily being > a 'Mudblood'. zanooda: Well, Snape sure is nasty, mean and all the rest of it, but let us be fair: never ever did he make any comment to Harry about Lily being a "Mudblood". In fact, he never mentions Lily in Harry's presence, not even once. He never misses an opportunity to tell Harry how arrogant, cowardly etc. his father was, but Lily seems a tabu subject. It's quite a contrast, actually, and this is one of the reasons why many people think that Snape loved Lily or at least respected her as a friend. As for "revulsion and hatred", it's possible that these feelings are not intended for DD, but for Snape himself, that's how Harry felt when he had to force-feed DD that green potion in the cave, it's described in practically the same words in both cases. Or maybe Snape hated DD at that moment for making him do what had to be done. Of course, maybe I'm not very objective here, because I'm absolutely sure that Snape is DDM, otherwise I don't see much sense in what happened so far. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Dec 2 03:00:37 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 03:00:37 -0000 Subject: Snape as "the One"? (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162259 > zgirnius: > I don't see a discrepancy at all. First, it is in retrospect obvious > that Dumbledore was actively hiding the identity of the eavesdropper > from Harry in OotP. (snip) > > OK, if you can agree thus far, here is what Dumbledore actually said: > > > OotP: > > My - our - one stroke of good fortune was that the eavesdropper was > > detected only a short way into the prophecy and thrown from the > > building. > zgirnius again: > Note the absence of any indication of time in this statement. He was > detected, he was thrown out. Immediately? moments later? hours later? > Dumbledore doesn't say. He's not lying to Harry, but he is not > telling the full story. The full story would be he was caught, he was > brought to me, and he was thrown out. But 'he was brought to me' > would probably cause even the occasionally unquestioning Harry to ask > the question, 'who was he?' While the way it actually was worded, > sugests without saying that Dumbledore might not even have seen the > eavesdropper. wynnleaf I completely agree. I think that in focusing on some big discrepancy here, readers are trying to read much more into it -- as in "the two accounts are so different there must be some Big Hidden Something that we're not being told." Dumbledore *does* lie occasionally after all. And this isn't really even a direct lie, it's just leaving out enough detail that Harry gets the wrong idea -- misdirection, if you will. And we even have an excellent reason for *why* Dumbledore would want to misdirect Harry - in order to keep the conversation away from *who* had heard the prophecy and taken it to Voldemort. *That* was the Big Hidden Something -- that Snape was the one to hear the prophecy and take it to Voldemort -- and now we and Harry know it. zgirnius > Personally, I think the barman chanced on Snape as Snape heard the > first part of the prophecy, and pulled him away from the door before > he heard the rest. A very short discussion involving protestations of > innocence by Snape might have ensued, or a tussle, and then the > barman threw open the door to show Dumbledore who had been listening > to him. This occured just as Trelawney came out of her prophetic > trance, hence her story of feeling funny, and then seeing Snape. (snip) > Dumbledore also does not say that he knew THEN how much of the > prophecy Snape had heard. He just states, without any explanation, > that only the first part was heard. I would guess that this he may > have learned later from Snape, after Snape 'returned'. wynnleaf Certainly. Dumbledore only learned later that Voldemort had only gotten half the prophecy. By the way, this is another reason for Dumbledore to trust Snape. When Snape came back to Dumbledore wanting to change sides, and told Dumbledore that he'd only given part of the prophecy to Voldemort, Dumbledore would have been gradually able, from Voldemort's actions, to see that Snape had told him the truth about how much prophecy Voldemort knew. wynnleaf, who has never quite understood why so many assume the barman grabbed Snape and ejected him within seconds of seeing him. From jnoyl at aim.com Sat Dec 2 01:43:23 2006 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:43:23 -0700 Subject: Cohesion Message-ID: <25764A9A-B7EF-4A07-9B5A-7B2462E6011A@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162260 For those who think Dumbledore was "The Light" and was wise, consider book 6: He KNOWS there is a plot to kill him. He ALLOWS two students to almost be killed without taking any action. He ALLOWS the ferret virtual free reign of the castle to access the RoR. Thus, the battle itself is almost as much DD's fault as the ferret's since he took no actions to stop it or prevent it. Then, the megalomaniac has a burial monument placed conspicuously on the Hogwart's grounds, something no other headmaster had the ego to do. If I was Bill and found out that DD did NOTHING to prevent the battle, I would probably go a p--s on the old fart's grave. When book 7 is out and we've had time to "digest" all the happenings from 1 to 7, I REALLY want someone to explain all of DD's action as being wise and caring--beginning with dropping a baby off at someone's doorstep in the dead of night. To me, we will never understand DD or SS based on whether they are good or bad-they had a lot of DARK in them if you ask me. James From jnoyl at aim.com Sat Dec 2 01:57:42 2006 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:57:42 -0700 Subject: Dumbledore question Message-ID: <94626E64-6301-44AD-A540-AF97D3FA400F@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162261 If one considers that DD had a plan or great wisdom or real affection for Harry, here are my questions: 1) Why didn't DD give Harry some battle training over the last 6 years? 2) Why didn't DD ever tell Harry how he destroyed the ring horcrux? 3) Did DD ever let the OotP know that Harry is the one that has to vanquish Moldie? 4) Why would DD want Harry to go back to the Dursley's? Will those few weeks keep the protection up for another year or will the protection fall on 31 Sept, leaving Harry and the Dursley's at the mercy of the DEs. 5) Why didn't DD insist that the DA continue? James From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 2 04:46:56 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:46:56 -0000 Subject: Is there a limit on the number of Horcruxes a person can make? In-Reply-To: <457088BE.4060007@telus.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162262 Steve/bboy: > My impression of Dumbledore's statements on this matter leaves me > with an intuitive feeling that Dumbledore has his doubts about > Nagini. He seems to be saying that IF Voldemort made his 6th > Horcrux then it is /probably/ Nagini. Now I know that is far from a > direct quote, but Dumbledore's attitude combined with his > statements just doesn't leave me with the same feeling of sureness > that he has with the other known Horcruxes. Jen: Dumbledore's not as definitive about Nagini as the other Horcruxes, that's very true. He uses phrases like "I wonder"; "I think"; "it might have occurred to him to use..." Not phrases that inspire complete confidence in his conjecture. Steve/bboy: > So, in my opinion, the jury is still out on Nagini. Dumbledore's > statements could be a red herring, a misdirection to send Harry off > on a /wild goose chase/. Yet, is Harry likely to encounted > Nagini /before/ he encounters Voldemort? I don't see how, so if > Nagini is or is not a Horcrux, Harry can't possibly find out until > the last minute. Jen: I've always pictured Nagini being part of the final chapters regardless of whether she's a Horcrux or not and Harry will face a huge serpent under Voldemort's control once again. Only this time Harry will understand his Slytherin traits are useful: He doesn't fully grasp how his 'cunning' helped him obtain the memory from Slughorn, or why he identified so much with the HBP, but before the end of Book 7 he'll discover he can use the powers Voldemort passed to him to his advantage. The use of Parseltongue to control snakes was foreshadowed in COS and never played out because Harry didn't try it out in the chamber. He does have the ability to control snakes just as Voldemort does, and he might be able to control Nagini. KJ: > 2. He has no more affinity for animals than he does people. I > think that he values Nagini as something owns rather than important > enough to use her as a horcrux. He possessed her on one occasion > for a short period of time. As she is such a large snake, and the > duration a short one, she suffered no ill effects. When Voldemorte > possessed smaller snakes and animals, they did not survive. > Voldemort would realize that Nagini's life span could not be > trusted to harbour a horcrux long enough. Jen: Nagini appeared in the story after Voldemort was in Albania so I figured he found her there and she was one of the snakes he possessed until Wormtail arrived on the scene. The other possibility is when Wormtail arrived, Voldemort realized he had a helper to mix and administer the potion and they found Nagini at that point for her venom. Either way, I think it's possible Voldemort possessed her before the time Harry dreamed about. On another thread I speculated the smoke snakes coming out of the silver instrument were Voldemort and Harry, symbolizing their growing connection but still 'in essence divided'. Several people replied the smoke snakes were Voldemort and Nagini and that was the moment Dumbledore started to wonder if Nagini was a Horcrux. I'm still not certain but if true, then Nagini is not like the other animals Voldemort possessed. She is still able to retain her own essence even while being possessed which means she would be more like Quirrell than the rats or snakes in Albania. Still, everything else you said about not having an indefinite life span is true and the choice to use her would be one of those decisions that leave you scratching your head about Voldemort's plans. KJ: > I think that Nagini is a red herring used to inform us that a soul > piece can be put in a living being, but that the living receptacle > still has the ability to think for itself. I believe that Harry has > a soul piece, which gives him the power the Dark Lord knows not, > and that it will end up being the final soul piece to be destroyed > somehow. Jen: Well, something is a red herring! Either Nagini as a Horcrux or Dumbledore's explanation of the 'curse that failed' and transfer of powers. A soul piece in Harry seems plausible to me, the only thing I stumble over every time with this explanation is Dumbledore knowing Voldemort 'put a bit of himself in Harry' and never guessing the 'bit' is a soul piece. His biggest emotional mistake? Maybe so, maybe so, he's said his love for Harry interferes with seeing the truth. KJ: > For this reason, I am convinced that Voldemorte has not made any > more horcruxes. If he does so, not knowing that Harry has his sixth > horcrux, what would the effect be? Perhaps making one too many > horcruxes by accident would overwhelm the magic and destroy all of > them. That doesn't seem a very exciting ending though. Jen: Off on a tangent here: I could see both Nagini and Harry as Horcruxes and Dumbledore being wrong about another Gryffindor or Ravenclaw object. That would leave only the cup to locate and destruction of the locket and cup. Nagini, Harry's soul piece and Voldemort would all be destroyed near the same time in the final confrontation. That would really narrow the quest down for Harry although he won't know he's reached the final bell when he, Nagini and Voldemort find themselves thrown together for some reason. Harry would still think there are more Horcruxes to destroy not realizing all the reamining ones are present and accounted for. Jen R. From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 2 05:38:11 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 00:38:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: snape matter... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45711143.6020208@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162263 potioncat wrote: > Because he's Ever So Evil (ESE) and has always been serving LV. > > OR > > Because he's Dumbledore's Man (DDM). DD was sacrificing himself for > Draco and/or the wizarding world and that's what DD was asking on the > tower when he said, "Severus, please." > > OR > > Because Snape's Out For Himself (OFH) and every step of the way he's > made a decision based on what is best for him at the time. Besides, > if he didn't kill DD on the tower, Snape would have dropped dead. > (Remember the Unbreakable Vow) Bart: And, of course, combinations thereof, such as, he IS evil, but is willing to side with the Order against a far greater evil (there are other members of the Order who are not good guys, like Dung). I am also of the school that Dumbledore was going to die soon anyway, and had arranged with Snape to kill him. A major clue to this is Snape's anger at Harry; Snape was running away, and he is a man with tremendous self-control, and here he is showing Harry exactly what he needs to work on to fight Voldemort. Either Snape is showing uncharacteristic foolishness ad loss of self-control, or he's telling Harry, "If I get you angry enough, maybe you'll make yourself barely adequate to fight Tommy!" Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 05:29:05 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 05:29:05 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162264 > Sherry now: > > Ok, I know exactly why Grawp bothers me, why I wish he had never entered the > story, why I don't care if we ever see him again. Besides the fact that he > is just not interesting as a character, that is. Because of Grawp, we, the > reader, and Harry, missed Ron's big moment in Quidditch. Alla: Oh, brilliant Sherry. :) > Sherry now: Winky makes > me want to shake her, and Kreacher ... well, I won't go there. Alla: Heeee, yes, we won't go to Kreacher's territory, won't we? I wish Harry would have freed him and kicked him far far away and he would never come back, blasted elf. Strangely, as I mentioned before from all three elves I am most sympathetic towards Winky - in a sense that I pity her at least somewhat. Sherry: Dobby's > loyalty to Harry--not as a slave but just loyalty--endears me to him for > some reason, that I really can't explain. When we first met him again in > the kitchens in GOF, I thought, Oh no, not again. But by the end of that > scene I was hooked on him. Maybe it was the contrast between Dobby and > Winky. Alla: I totally know what you mean about loyalty to Harry - usually I am very sympathetic towards the characters who are loyal to Harry, who love him, since I love Harry's character so much, the attitude of the other characters towards him certainly influences my sympathies, but as I said funnily enough with Dobby annoyance factor wins even over his loyalty to Harry. ( Never try to save my life again indeed, hehe - is it movie contamination? It is way too late here and I just came from birthday party, so not checking the book right now) From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 04:36:15 2006 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 04:36:15 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: <25764A9A-B7EF-4A07-9B5A-7B2462E6011A@aim.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162265 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Lyon wrote: > > For those who think Dumbledore was "The Light" and was wise, consider > book 6: > He KNOWS there is a plot to kill him. He ALLOWS two students to almost be killed without taking any action. He ALLOWS the ferret virtual free reign of the castle to access the RoR. Thus, the battle itself is almost as much DD's fault as the ferret's since he took no actions to stop it or prevent it. Then, the megalomaniac has a burial monument placed conspicuously on the Hogwart's grounds, something no other headmaster had the ego to do. If I was Bill and found out that DD did NOTHING to prevent the battle, I would probably go a p--s on the old fart's grave. When book 7 is out and we've had time to "digest" all the happenings from 1 to 7, I REALLY want someone to explain all of DD's action as being wise and caring-- beginning with dropping a baby off at someone's doorstep in the dead of night. To me, we will never understand DD or SS based on whether they are good or bad-they had a lot of DARK in them if you ask me. > > Dumbledore answered this question for us already. He knew that if Voldemort suspected that Dumbledore suspected Draco, then he would have just killed him. The Order was called in full force that night as Dumbledore stated to bring protection for what was bound to happen. Its alot like Harry, I was wondering why Dumbledore puts him in so much crap, but I think I have the answer. The charm he used to protect Harry must be absolute, it makes sense as far as why DUmbledore would put him in such situations if it was guarenteed that Harry would survive...perhaps? As far as those in danger, Dumbledore says something like, "what do I care if numerous nameless and faceless people are killed if in the here and now you are happy and alive and healthy. Take that for what its worth, but since Dumbledore knows Harry is the only one who can vanquish the Dark Lord, protecting and nurturing that seems admirable. rduran1216 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 05:59:59 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 05:59:59 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162266 > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > He's so mean to Harry all through the books. > > Betsy Hp: > And yet he just can't quite seem to keep himself from constantly > saving Harry's life. ::sighs a bit over how gosh darn heroic Snape > is:: Alla: Starts counting, counts to one and a half, maybe. Stops ;) > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > He seems to condone cruelty to others - especially if it's done by > > Draco and done to one of the Trio. > > Betsy Hp: > Kind of like how the Trio condone cruelty to "others" especially if > it's done to Draco (or any Slytherin, really)? Alla: Oh, no, no, no. I will give Snape the first place in that context easily. Trio has waaaay to go in my book to condone cruelty and produce cruelty as easily as Snape does, in my book of course. > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > It's not just that Snape actually killed Dumbledore, it's the look > > on his face that JKR describes just before he did it - of revulsion > > and hatred. > > Betsy Hp: > You mean, the exact hatred and revulsion Harry was feeling (for > himself) as he force-fed Dumbledore poison in the scene just before > this one? That look of hatred and revulsion? ::grins madly, because > I really, really love that parallel:: Alla: As you said Betsy, I got nothing here - if Snape is DD!M, then it can easily be exactly that - direct parallel. But there is another possibility - that what looks as parallel, would turn out to be a contrast between Harry and Snape - while Harry performs what Dumbledore requires and hates himself for doing it, Snape indeed hates Dumbledore and kills him, etc. > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > It's the comments he makes to Harry about Lily being a 'Mudblood'. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm calling for a canon check on this one: when does Snape *ever* > comment to Harry about Lily being a mudblood? For that matter, does > Snape ever speak of Lily to Harry? Alla: He does not to my recollection, ever. Sigh. Precisely the reason why I see Snape/Lily coming. Alla, who must must must figure out Sexy!Snape one day. (I mean hurt/comfort I get, but sexy? Bleh. Well, you know Betsy who is my new eye candy, hehe. None of the potterverse characters qualify, unfortunately. Even Sirius whose character I am very very fond of is not there. ;)) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 06:00:45 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:00:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore question In-Reply-To: <94626E64-6301-44AD-A540-AF97D3FA400F@aim.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162267 James: > 1) Why didn't DD give Harry some battle training over the last 6 years? zgirnius: Because Harry's 'power he knows not' isn't duelling skill superior to Voldemort's, though Harry's certainly gofted in that area. Also because Harry needed to learn how to use magic in the first place, for any purpose at all, before learning advanced stuff-based on seeing Snape, Voldemort, and Dumbledore in action, I'd say he is only now reaching the point where he can learn the sorts of stuff they do. Further, Harry actually does have the opportunity to learn that sort of stuff at Hogwarts, and has taken good advantage of it. Dumbledore has facilitated this at times. Seeking is probably a relevant skill-Dumbledore allowed the rule against first years with brooms to be broken for Harry in PS/SS. I'm sure he was pleased at the formation of a Duelling Club (did he suggest Snape volunteer to help, I wonder, to make sure the kids learned something?) Harry and Co. learned Expelliarmus, a spell that ahs saved Harry's life in a duel with Voldemort. In PoA Harry himself arranged to learn the Patronus charm-I imagine Dumbledore know this and approved of private lessons for Harry from his DADA instructor. In GoF Harry learned lots of spells useful in battle-McGonagall arranged for a place for him to practice with his friends. I think she would have mentioned this to Dumbledore. In OotP, I think Dumbledore know of, and approved, the DA. > 2) Why didn't DD ever tell Harry how he destroyed the ring horcrux? zgirnius: I don't know how he did, and that could certainly explain why. It is an answer I hope to get in 7. Also, as far as simple facts Harry was not told but might need, I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that Harry might yet learn them from Dumbledore in a letter, Pensieve memory, etc. Dumbledore expected he was going into danger when they left for the cave, and might have made arrangements in case of his death. > 3) Did DD ever let the OotP know that Harry is the one that has to vanquish Moldie? zgirnius: No, he did not (assuming, as I believe, that he would not tell a flat- out lie to Harry). Hed even told Harry so, when he stated that only he and Harry know the Prophecy in full. There is, however, a living member of the Order (Snape) who knows at least that Harry has 'the power to vanquish the Dark Lord'. There may be others. > 5) Why didn't DD insist that the DA continue? zgirnius: Two reasons. One, Harry was going to be busy learning the really important stuff that Dumbledore believes is the key to vanquishing Voldemort. (Voldemort's background and the Horcruxes). Two, the DA was necessary because the DADA teacher in fifth year was deliberately teaching nothing. Dumbledore arranged to change that by appointing as DADA teacher in the sixth year a man he knew to be outstanding in the field, and trusted completely. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Dec 2 06:45:38 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:45:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612012245r4cbf6457ya79defba0701d5c4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162268 Betsy Hp: Hee! Oh, I'm quite sure you were all stunning fourteen year olds who found the perfect color and cut of dress, applied just the right amount of make-up, and did your up-do just so, for your very first formal event as a young lady without a bit of help. Lynda: I don't know about the others who replied, but I didn't (at 14-18) go to any of the formals at my schools. I didn't have parental permission. I did have permission to invite a young man of my choice to dinner (chaperoned) and I found out later that the young man I would have asked given the guts to do such a thing also had permission from his parents to invite a young lady of his choice to dinner (chaperoned) but at the time we were both too timid and probably too embarrassed. So my first formal was after high school, when I was in college. I was an undergrad and one of the grad students asked me to one of their formals. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 2 07:38:16 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:38:16 -0000 Subject: jKR's nationality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162269 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" wrote: > AND ... putting is the lynchpin of golf, as in "You drive for show > but you putt for dough," and since JKR is Scottish, and Scotland is > the birthplace of golf, maybe Harry Putter means that he is the > lynchpin of the wizarding world ... Geoff: Just to get matters right. Jo Rowling is NOT Scottish. She was born in Yate, in the north-east outskirts of Bristol in the West of England in 1965 and did not move to live in Edinburgh until 1994. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 2 07:50:01 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 07:50:01 -0000 Subject: Quiditch In-Reply-To: <20061201234642.22347.qmail@web30201.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, career advisor wrote: > > zgirnius: > Actually I was going to add in an explanation of the Bulgaria/Ireland thing but I already felt the post was too long. > > I'm you read GOF you will see that other World Cup pre-liminary games are mentioned. England is beaten by some African country which I can't recall and it is is a shocking upset and there prob' were other games. These were prob round robin with a cumalative point system as with Hogwarts. > > Most likely these 'pre-liminary world cup games' were played somewhere other then then England so that the muggles wouldn't catch on, and only the final championship was played in England. The top two teams on points played again in the championship game. Geoff: England lost to Transylvania 390-10. Transylvania ain't an African country! Dracula will be turning in his grave more than usual... If the series follows the pattern of the world cup in football, cricket or Rugby Union, the various rounds would be played in the host country. If the Wizarding world can hide the final from the Muggles, they should be able to do the same for the earlier rounds. Possibly, as in World Cup football, the qualifying preliminary rounds would be played in other host countries with the last 16 or 32 or whatever coming to the finals. (depending on how many countries have Quidditch teams). From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Dec 2 13:33:27 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:33:27 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: <25764A9A-B7EF-4A07-9B5A-7B2462E6011A@aim.com> References: <25764A9A-B7EF-4A07-9B5A-7B2462E6011A@aim.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612020533p314ac924yf9f032652725b570@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162271 James wrote: > > For those who think Dumbledore was "The Light" and was wise, consider > book 6: > He KNOWS there is a plot to kill him. He ALLOWS two students to almost be > killed without taking any action. He ALLOWS the ferret virtual free reign of > the castle to access the RoR. Thus, the battle itself is almost as much DD's > fault as the ferret's since he took no actions to stop it or prevent it. > Then, the megalomaniac has a burial monument placed conspicuously on the > Hogwart's grounds, something no other headmaster had the ego to do. If I was > Bill and found out that DD did NOTHING to prevent the battle, I would > probably go a p--s on the old fart's grave. When book 7 is out and we've had > time to "digest" all the happenings from 1 to 7, I REALLY want someone to > explain all of DD's action as being wise and caring--beginning with dropping > a baby off at someone's doorstep in the dead of night. To me, we will never > understand DD or SS based on whether they are good or bad-they had a lot of > DARK in them if you ask me. > Debbie: I have the same answer to this question that I would have given after reading only PS/SS (and actually did give on this list in its long-ago, pre-OOP days). Dumbledore knows that the WW is a dangerous place. His official job is to run a school whose job is to prepare young witches and wizards to live in that world. Although Hogwarts' protections may make it safer than it is on the outside, it is not perfectly safe. Dumbledore can't protect every student from every danger. (Though Umbridge had a major hidden agenda, her facade was a teaching method based on the principle that the primary objective was to keep the little students safe, and if learning is sacrificed in the process, that's the price that must be paid.) Any parent who sends his or her child to a school that holds a TriWizard Tournament can't expect 100% certainty that his or her child won't be hurt. Dumbledore's other job, of course, is leader of the underground resistance, and the stakes there are much greater; the entire WW is at risk. This is the world that Dumbledore must prepare his students for. Harry most of all. Dumbledore can't sit at Harry's elbow all his life and keep him from getting hurt. All he can do is try to give Harry the tools he needs -- as Harry himself figures out at the end of PS/SS ("I think [Dumbledore] pretty much knows everything that goes on here, you know. I think he knew we were going to try, and instead of stopping us, he taught us just enough to help.") He's not into mollycoddling, and frankly, it doesn't seem like a very useful approach for the WW. (I don't think it's the right approach for the RW either, but that's not a subject for this list.) That's not to say WW parents aren't concerned for their children, but I think most felt their children were reasonably safe as long as Dumbledore was there. The Weasleys would have been devastated if Ron had died. This is Molly's worst fear. But I have no doubt that all of them would have understood why Dumbledore did what he did. Note that Dumbledore never spoke about shutting down Hogwarts; McGonagall did that (twice, in CoS and HBP) after Dumbledore was gone. Basically, as a protector and a teacher, Dumbledore is a minimalist and a non-interventionist. He famously gives people second chances, because he knows they learn better from their mistakes than from being told what is right and what is wrong. How many second chances has Hagrid received? Didn't you want to throttle him after he revealed how to get past Fluffy? The lesson that Draco learns in HBP is one of the most important things that Dumbledore could teach anyone -- who am I and who do I want to become? And there was no way to learn it except by letting him try. It was a risk, but it was a calculated one. So how did Dumbledore protect the Hogwarts students in HBP? First, he was the primary target, not the students. Second, he had Snape keeping an eye on Draco. We know that Snape told Draco about the necklace incident, because Harry heard him tell Draco how "clumsy and stupid" it was. We don't know if that was the first time or not, but we know it happened. And it seems to have worked. Other than the poisoned mead (which probably had already been delivered to Dumbledore by then), he didn't try any more crude devices that could get anyone killed. And when Draco finally did succeed in getting the DEs into the castle, the Order was there. No student got hurt, and no one was at risk except those that deliberately joined in the battle. It wasn't luck. The Order was there for a reason. Yup, I'm Dumbledore's woman, through and through. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 06:53:18 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 06:53:18 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162272 > Alla: > > I totally know what you mean about loyalty to Harry - usually I am > very sympathetic towards the characters who are loyal to Harry, who > love him, since I love Harry's character so much, the attitude of > the other characters towards him certainly influences my sympathies, > but as I said funnily enough with Dobby annoyance factor wins even > over his loyalty to Harry. ( Never try to save my life again indeed, > hehe - is it movie contamination? It is way too late here and I just > came from birthday party, so not checking the book right now) > maria8162001: I am sympathetic to Dobby as well but I wouldn't want him or anybody like him saving my life too. Can you imagine him saving a simple muggle, the muggle will end up dead or in prison instead of being saved, lucky for Harry he's a wizard, so he didn't end up dead or harmed. No, that phrase wasn't a movie contamination, Harry really told Dobby that it was in COS,chapter 18 Dobby's Reward, page 339, paperback Scholastic. Cheers. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 14:27:34 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 14:27:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612020533p314ac924yf9f032652725b570@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162273 > Debbie: >> That's not to say WW parents aren't concerned for their children, but I > think most felt their children were reasonably safe as long as Dumbledore > was there. The Weasleys would have been devastated if Ron had died. This > is Molly's worst fear. But I have no doubt that all of them would have > understood why Dumbledore did what he did. Note that Dumbledore never spoke > about shutting down Hogwarts; McGonagall did that (twice, in CoS and HBP) > after Dumbledore was gone. > The lesson that Draco learns in HBP is one of the most important things that > Dumbledore could teach anyone -- who am I and who do I want to become? And > there was no way to learn it except by letting him try. It was a risk, but > it was a calculated one. Alla: Are you sure that Weasleys would have understood? That is if Dumbledore would have told him the truth of why Ron died. Not - fighting the fight against Voldemort and his minions. **That** - I am pretty sure Weasleys would have been devastated, but understood. After all if parents joined that fight, they could hardly expect the kids to not learn their values and join the fight as well. But if Ron would have died because Dumbledore wanted to teach Draco Malfoy who he is and whom he wants to become. That is why their child could have died. I have my doubts about Weasleys being understanding. I have even more doubts about Katie's parents being very understanding, whom we don't even know AFAIK where they stand at all. So, if that was a calculated risk, IMHO Dumbledore took into equasion the lives of those he had no right to gamble with. in my opinion of course, Alla From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 08:31:32 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 08:31:32 -0000 Subject: EYES (Was Re: Luna's silvery eyes) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162274 > Tinktonks: > > I am CONVINCED that there is going to be something major involved with eyes. And I know that we have had many discussions about eyes before but I still feel a huge intreague for th subject. > > If you actually narrow down how many times eyes are mentioned in the books I think the number would be staggering. Interesting then that Ron's eye colour has never been disclosed! I wonder whether this is of consequence!!! > > Also the part that really struck me was when Dumbledore's Periwinkle Blue eyes look Green when reflecting the potion in the stone basin. WHY PUT IN THIS DETAIL? Surely it must be of some importance but I cannot for the life of me think of a good reason. > > I have considered this is an omen of Dumbledore sacrificing his life for Harry as Lily did, but somehow that just doesn't feel right! > > Can anyone help me out? > > There is an old quote about eyes. They say you can see into someone's soul through them. If this is why JKR put the eye colors in them, then it would represent a lot of things. JKR seems to use a lot of "colors" in her books. Green being the most common color. She seems to use green as death, pain, suffering, etc... This would explain why Harry's eyes are green. He has to go through a lot of pain and suffering and possibly death. Voldemorts eyes are red. Red usually represents fire, passion and conviction. Voldemort's personality is exactly that. DD's eyes are blue. Blue usually represents peace and harmony. Also explains DD's personality very nicely. Snape's eyes are black. Black usually represents darkness, deception, etc... Perfect for Snape's personality. He is a "double agent" if you will. With this "theory" it would also explain why DD's eyes looked green in the reflection of the basin. He knew that he was going to have to endure whatever it was that was going to hurt him. Again using the green color as pain and suffering. I think that JKR put this in to foreshadow the events to come in DD's life. Ron's eye color shouldn't really matter to much. Ron has always been sorta wishy washy when it comes to things. He will be there for you when you need him. But he will have the "you sure" attitued to go along with it. So if I had to pick an eye color for Ron, I would say his eye color should be hazel, because they seem to change colors depending on the mood that person is in. This is just my theory behind it. graverobber23 From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 2 15:32:13 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:32:13 -0000 Subject: The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162275 Nikkalmati > I like this idea of Bess' and yours that LV will meet his doom in >the Room of Love. I wonder if LV will be undone by finding out in >that room that his mother loved him after all? I am not sure JKR >wants to leave LV in terrible pain forever, but the realization he >was loved may take away his power and desire to do harm. I >always felt a great deal of pity for Meriope for not having the >strength to live and being blamed for it on top of everything else. Jen: After HBP I started thinking about the graveyard scene and how Voldemort glosses over his mom's part in his life. And then again when we see the flashbacks, he's silently furious about the Slytherin locket and how Burke cheated Merope and 'stole' the family heirloom. You wonder if there's any piece of humanity left inside around his mom since he bases his whole *life* on the notion, "she couldn't have died, she was a witch." It's almost like he's trying to undo what happened to his mom by proving a magical person can become immortal. Now, he could also blame his father more because Riddle was a Muggle and glosses over Merope because she was a witch and had the Slytherin connection. And he was furious about the locket because the valuable 'trinket' was stolen from him, i.e., much more like Marvolo and Morfin than Merope in that case. As for what might happen in the Room of Love....I don't think someone like Voldemort, especially now with his ripped soul, is capable of going back. I'm pretty sure the power in the room would still be excrucuatingly painful as it was for him in Harry's body. The entire story of Riddle transforming into Voldemort is very psychological, though, sometimes I do wonder even if LV can't go back does that negate a moment of humanity before he (presumably) dies? It's just so hard to imagine! > Nikkalmati > I think she is in the mode of mothers who loved their sons in the >book and that will be revealed. Narcissa also is one of the mothers >who loved their sons and I wonder if she will have to die for Draco >in the end, or perhaps she is the character JKR decided to spare. Jen: This I definitely agree with re: Merope. Even if the book doesn't revisit Merope's story again, I believe she felt some kind of love for the baby she carried and knew for one short hour. She didn't use magic to take care of herself and the baby, but he was OK when he was born and a healthy weight and size. In a book about choices it wasn't simply the biological imperative at work, she chose to eat, rest and find a safe place to deliver in the end and to ensure her baby would survive. Jen, testing the text editor and hoping for the best. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 17:08:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:08:48 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162276 bboyminn wrote: > > I think what Dumbledore told Snape was that if it came > down to winning the battle to save Dumbledore's life OR > winning the war, Snape should chose winning the war. AND > I think that is exactly the choice Snape made. In that > moment, he couldn't save himself, he couldn't save Harry, > he couldn't save Dumbledore because to try to do so would > have virtually guaranteed the loss of everyone including > Dumbledore. So, as I see it, Snape chose the path of least > resistance, the path of least destruction, and the path > of the greatest long term good in the battle against > Voldemort. > The choices were attempt to engage in a prolonged battle > with likely high casualties to save Dumbledore and Harry > and most likely lose either literally or strategically, > or kill Dumbledore and get Draco and the DE out of the > castle as quickly as possible. > Carol responds: I agree that he couldn't save the wandless, weakened Dumbledore, who would be killed by the DEs if not by the poison if neither Draco nor Snape killed him, and that Dumbledore wanted Snape to save himself rather than be killed by the UV or the DEs, as he surely would have been fighting against four DEs, one of them a ravening werewolf who didn't need to transform to rip people apart with his teeth. Skilled as Snape is, he can't duel and use Legilimency on four opponents at once. He had sworn to protect Draco, and that was a motivation to, with or without the UV. He had to get Draco off the tower before the DEs decided to kill him for failing to kill Dumbledore, as they surely would have done if Snape died. And then there was Harry. Snape must have noticed the two brooms as Draco did, and unlike Draco, he would have drawn the conclusion that Harry must be there in his Invisibility Cloak. The only way to keep Harry from rushing out to fight the DEs (and Greyback from having Dumbledore for "afters") when Dumbledore was killed was to send him over the battlements. So by killing Dumbledore, who would have died anyway, Snape saved himself and the two boys. (Granted, Harry did follow him and petrified one DE from the back, but he had to be rescued from Greyback and Snape himself rescued him from a DE who would have Cruciod'd him, but that's better than dying on the tower fighting against four DEs and wildcard!Draco, who might have chosen to fight with rather than against the DEs in such circumstances.) So Snape escaping to join the DEs, which must always have been part of the plan (Dumbledore probably anticipated that the DADA curse would take that form, especially after he learned of the UV) was only one advantage of having Snape kill Dumbledore if Dumbledore had to die. And, of course, neither of them wanted Draco to do it. Snape took a lot upon himself--personal guilt and remorse, the hatred of the wizarding world, and the exchange of his "comfortable job" for fugitive status and whatever duties Voldemort will assign him--all to save the son of his friend and the Chosen One whom he hates and to do what he can to bring down Voldemort from the inside. And yet the alternative would have been worse: dead Dumbledore, dead Snape, dead Draco, dead Harry, the DEs including Fenrir Greyback free to run loose in the school with only the Order members and a few kids to oppose them, Voldemort victorious. rduran1216: > > ... My contention is that if Snape turns out to be evil, how can the way Dumbledore acted in HBP be explained? > > > > bboyminn: > > Well...he can't! You are absolutely right. In my view, it > is simply a matter of how Snape will help Harry, not /if/. > Snape is mean, rotten, nasty, sarcastic, ill-tempered,... > what am I leaving out?? He is as bad as they come, but > he is good; I guess you could say he is bad-good, rather > than nice-good. > > In the scene at the top of the tower, Snape chose the path > of the quickest exit and least damage. The damage was > terrible, but it could have been far worse. > > I say that if Snape turns out to be evil, meaning his true > alligiance is to Voldemort, then a lot of Dumbledore's > actions and statements don't make sense, which is what I > hear you saying. > > So, on this line of thought, I think we are in agreement. Carol: I would hardly call Snape "as bad as they come." I reserve that label for Voldemort and for such characters as Umbridge, Bellatrix, and Barty Crouch Jr. Snape is sarcastic, strict, occasionally unfair, and somewhat scary, but he has also consistently watched over Harry and either saved or attempted to save his life and the lives of his friends at least three times. His Occlumency lessons explained what Occlumency is, why it was necessary (except for the information about the Prophecy, which Dumbledore wanted him to conceal), and, to the extent that it's possible to explain such a thing, how it's done. (Harry learns by doing, not by listening, in any case, and would have learned at least rudimentary Occlumency had he not been so full of anger and determination to have that dream.) I agree that Snape isn't nice, but not that he's bad. His actions throughout the book indicate that he's on the side of good, despite his training and his natural inclinations, making him, for me, by far the most interesting character in the books. And I agree that Dumbledore's actions, and Snape's own, make sense only if he's Dumbledore's man, not Voldemort's. There is some chance that he's out for himself, though that's not how I see it. But the six books we've read so far make no sense at all if Snape is what Draco thinks he is, a double agent secretly loyal to Voldemort. I think he's a double agent not so secretly loyal to Dumbledore. It's only when he's in front of Slytherins or DEs or Harry that he must conceal his loyalties. I think that both Snape and Dumbledore knew that DD would not survive the year, in part because of the ring Horcrux and in part because no one survived once Voldemort decided to kill them, and that Snape would be forced under some circumstances to join the DEs because of the UV and the DADA curse. I think the agreement was that Snape would do whatever he had to do to save Draco and Harry and gain Voldemort's trust, even if that meant carrying out the Unbreakable Vow. IMO, DD saw Snape's life as more important than his own, just as he saw Harry's as more important than his own (and said so in the cave chapter). Carol, hoping that much of the plot of Book 7 centers around Snape, who is much more interesting to her than Horcruxes of any variety From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 17:47:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:47:37 -0000 Subject: Merope (Was: The Locked Room) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162277 Nikkalmati: > > I think she [Merope] is in the mode of mothers who loved their sons in the book and that will be revealed. > Jen: This I definitely agree with re: Merope. Even if the book doesn't revisit Merope's story again, I believe she felt some kind of love for the baby she carried and knew for one short hour. She didn't use magic to take care of herself and the baby, but he was OK when he was born and a healthy weight and size. In a book about choices it wasn't simply the biological imperative at work, she chose to eat, rest and find a safe place to deliver in the end and to ensure her baby would survive. Carol responds: Good points. She sold the locket as a desperation measure to keep herself alive long enough to give birth to the baby and make sure that he had someone to take care of him even though she herself had lost the desire to live. And I see her last act, giving her baby the name of the two men she loved (though neither loved her) as an act of love. The name Tom Riddle linked him with his father and gave him the means, if he so desired, of locating that father. The name Marvolo linked him with his Wizarding heritage. The act of naming your baby is an act of love, and Merope made sure that her child had the name she wanted him to have. Carol, who agrees that Merope is a variation on the theme of a mother's love for her son and who sees her primarily as an object of pity From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 2 17:50:25 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:50:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162278 > Alla: > > Are you sure that Weasleys would have understood? That is if > Dumbledore would have told him the truth of why Ron died. Not - > fighting the fight against Voldemort and his minions. **That** - I > am pretty sure Weasleys would have been devastated, but understood. > After all if parents joined that fight, they could hardly expect the > kids to not learn their values and join the fight as well. > > But if Ron would have died because Dumbledore wanted to teach Draco > Malfoy who he is and whom he wants to become. That is why their > child could have died. Pippin: But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. The freedom to decide who you are and what you want to be is what Voldemort wants to take away from people. If the wizarding world decides it's not worth fighting for, then Voldemort wins. Alla: > So, if that was a calculated risk, IMHO Dumbledore took into > equasion the lives of those he had no right to gamble with. Pippin: Dumbledore told all those in the Hall in GoF that he planned to unite all those who were willing to oppose Voldemort -- and his eyes were on the Slytherin table as he said it. He offered them a bond of friendship and trust. His strategy was no secret, and those who disagreed with it were welcome to pull their children out of Hogwarts. Some did. Pippin From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 2 18:15:29 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 10:15:29 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162279 Pippin: Dumbledore told all those in the Hall in GoF that he planned to unite all those who were willing to oppose Voldemort -- and his eyes were on the Slytherin table as he said it. He offered them a bond of friendship and trust. His strategy was no secret, and those who disagreed with it were welcome to pull their children out of Hogwarts. Some did. Pippin Sherry now: However, he did not tell the students nor their parents that he was purposely allowing an attempted murderer to roam loose in the school. An attempted murderer who was sharing classes, dorm rooms, common rooms, meals with everyone else. Realistically, parents would have and should have been up in arms over that one. No responsible parent would have willingly kept their kids in a school under those circumstances. I can't imagine molly and Arthur doing so, nor the Grangers nor anyone but those who supported Draco's mission, if they knew it. Of course, this all had to happen for the story, but objectively, any school headmaster who did such a thing, if he did know it was happening, could probably be brought up on criminal charges for it, especially once it went from suspicion to actual attempts, as with Katie Bell. Sherry From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 2 18:22:15 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 18:22:15 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying? (Was: Freedom for House-Elves) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162280 > Alla: > Well, yes, that is what I would like to do too ?V leave Snape out of > it. I was just surprised about the analogy Pippin made, because I > cannot see it even with magnifying glass. Pippin: ::blinks:: In the very post in which you decide that you don't like Dobby because he's injured Harry, you also proclaim that you can't see any analogy with Snape? > Alla: > > Well, no I would rather read about better written character, I could > care less whether character is human or not. > In Louis Bujold saga about Miles Vorkosigan for example there are > plenty fascinating non-human character. > So, as of today, I guess I just think that Grawp is not written well, > contrary to Dobby. Pippin: So you're assuming that JKR's aim is to make you like the character, and therefore if you don't like him, he must be poorly written? But what if she doesn't want to make you like the character very much? You said in a previous post that you thought canon wants us to be sympathetic to Dobby. Certainly Dobby is more sympathetic than Kreacher. But compare the way Dobby is handled and described to Lupin or Firenze. Harry thinks Lupin is kind and skillful. He doesn't have a whole lot of use for Firenze's subject, but he has to admit the classroom is cool. Dobby, OTOH, he characterizes as weird. We never hear anyone tell us that Dobby is cool or speak of him in an admiring way. Even the other Elves think he's strange. Lupin is described in ways that make us think of consumptive nineteenth century poets, Firenze is a very handsome centaur indeed, but Dobby gets bat ears and saucer eyes. As far as Harry knows, Firenze and Lupin haven't injured him in any significant way. Dobby has. JKR knows perfectly well that starstruck gush is wearing, she points it out knowingly in Lockhart's fans and shows us Harry finding Colin Creevy annoying. Lupin and Firenze, OTOH, both show a great deal of feeling for the boy who lived, but they never gush about it. Finally, it's hard to identify with Dobby because, like Snape, we're not sure what to make of his attitude. We don't debate whether the centaurs or werewolves have human feelings, but we're not so sure about House Elves, and we're not so sure about Snape. > Carol: > > And his idea of helping Harry is > to get him in trouble with the Dursleys and the MoM (the pudding > incident), to prevent him from taking the Hogwarts Express and > potentially injure both him and Ron in the process (solidifying the > barrier they're supposed to walk through), and setting a rogue Bludger > on him ("Not kill you, sir! Never kill you!" Could have fooled me, > Dobby.) Pippin: Hah! Another Snape analogy: "But he never wanted you *dead*." > > Alla: I mean if Dobby at the end would have > indeed helped Harry in some significant way, it would make me feel > less annoyed with him, but while he wanted to help, he did not really > do anything helpful, no? Pippin: I see you've forgotten that he saved Harry from whatever curse Lucius meant to put on him at the end of CoS. Pippin From myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com Sat Dec 2 18:42:35 2006 From: myladysw at myladyswardrobe.com (Bess Chilver) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 18:42:35 -0000 Subject: The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7) Message-ID: <000601c71641$a647d800$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM> No: HPFGUIDX 162281 >Nikkalmati said: >>I like this idea of Bess' and yours that LV will meet his doom in the Room of Love. I wonder if LV will be undone by finding out in that room that his >>mother loved him after all? I am not sure JKR wants to leave LV in terrible pain forever, but the realization he was loved may take away his power and >>desire to do harm. I always felt a great deal of pity for Meriope for not having the strength to live and being blamed for it on top of everything else. I >>think she is in the mode of mothers who loved their sons in the book and that will be revealed. Narcissa also is one of the mothers who loved their sons >>and I wonder if she will have to die for Draco in the end, or perhaps she is the character JKR decided to spare. Bess replies: Thanks Nikkalmati! This is exactly what I was wondering. In one sense, Merope's action in finding the orphanage could be interpreted/viewed as having saved her son, Tom Riddle's life. If she hadn't forced herself to find that orphanage, he may well have been born and then died soon after Merope died as there would not have been anyone to look after a defenceless and helpless baby, regardless of the fact that he was a wizard. Harry asked Dumbledore in HBP why Merope had not used magic to save her life - I think it is said in the books in relation to Tonks, that a shock or depression can reduce/remove the powers of a witch/wizard - perhaps that was the reason why Merope could not use magic. The shock of losing her husband and the her experience at the hands of her belittling father may have meant that she lost what powers she had. Also, one needs to remember that she was in Muggle London - using magic especially in her condition may well have been risky in light of the wizarding laws. So, she did what any new muggle mother would do, find the best help possible in the hope of ensuring that her tiny child, when born, would have at least a chance of surviving. Best wishes, Bess. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sat Dec 2 20:00:25 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:00:25 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162282 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > I agree that he couldn't save the wandless, weakened Dumbledore, who > would be killed by the DEs if not by the poison if neither Draco nor > Snape killed him, and that Dumbledore wanted Snape to save himself > rather than be killed by the UV or the DEs, as he surely would have > been fighting against four DEs, one of them a ravening werewolf who > didn't need to transform to rip people apart with his teeth. Skilled > as Snape is, he can't duel and use Legilimency on four opponents at > once. Quick_Silver: I disagree that Snape couldn't have saved Dumbledore on Tower (in the context of their being to many Des). In OotP we see Dumbledore take 4 wizards (albeit one secretly being on his side) while not hitting Harry, McGonagall, and Marietta, at the end of OotP, we see Kingsely battling two wizards at the same time, we see the Death Eaters fleeing at the mere presence of Dumbledore (and there was at least seven(?) still standing compared to 3 Order wizards), Dumbledore implies to Fudge after dueling Voldemort that he can fight the Aurors can despite being outnumbered and win again, in the cave scene of HBP we see Harry take down six or seven Inferi with one body-bind curse, it's implied that Harry hit multiple with Inferi with his Sectumsempra curses, and when he's chasing Snape Harry will drop two of the wizards (or in this case a wizard and a witch) that were on the Tower. On the Tower we have 3 wizards (and the brother sister pair are not exactly amazing duelists...I think Harry beats the brother twice during the chase sequence?), a werewolf, and Draco. What's more the Death Eaters, even the werewolf, are described as being cowed by Snape. Snape's supposed to be a master of Defense against the Dark Arts, skilled at non-verbal magic, has his own spells (including Sectumsempra), the Death Eaters are fixated on Dumbledore (Amycus's eyes and wand don't even leave Dumbledore when he talks to Snape), and the Death Eaters seem genuinely intimidated by Snape. So Snape doesn't have to duel the Death Eaters on the Tower he could simply crush them. It's not like their expecting him to turn on them. Having said all of that I agree that Snape couldn't save Dumbledore on the Tower...I just don't think that the Death Eaters had anything to do with it (in the sense that they were a physical threat...IMO they represent the risk of Snape being exposed). I put it more to having a plan with Dumbledore, the UV, Draco's moral journey, and Harry being there. It's just to me by saying that Snape couldn't have won on the Tower you knock the underlying emotional context of that scene IMO. Snape holding back on the Tower is more emotional because he wants to save Dumbledore (his mentor) but he can't because of the cause, the plot, the greater good, perhaps the UV, etc, etc. And that then explains why he freaks out when Harry calls him a coward...Snape just made the hardest choice of his life and here's Harry calling him a coward. If Snape couldn't have won on the Tower then there's no real choice involved...die pointlessly or kill Dumbledore and continue with the plan. It just doesn't strike me as being as deep as Snape being able to win on the Tower although you may disagree. Quick_Silver From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 2 20:45:35 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:45:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162283 > Sherry now: > > However, he did not tell the students nor their parents that he was > purposely allowing an attempted murderer to roam loose in the school. An attempted murderer who was sharing classes, dorm rooms, common rooms, meals with everyone else. Realistically, parents would have and should have been up in arms over that one. Pippin: He didn't tell them when he hired a werewolf either. But Molly for one was in no position to complain. Ginny was never questioned to find out exactly how cognizant she was of cooperating with Riddle (though we know it was more than she admitted to because she burgled Harry's room and stole back the diary of her own volition.) Molly also knew very well that her children were attending school with the children of Death Eaters, because she heard Harry accuse Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. So did everyone else, once Harry had published his Quibbler article. Not only that, she didn't want Arthur or Percy to stop working at the ministry, though she knew they were in everyday proximity to Malfoy and Macnair. I went to school with people who were suspected of belonging to one of the deadliest street gangs in the nation. We were in no doubt about their allegiance or activities, but they weren't expelled because there was no concrete evidence against them. I have yet to see that Dumbledore could have proved that Draco had poisoned the wine or purchased the necklace (which wasn't a crime anyway. It was openly offered for sale.) Needless to say not every family whose children attended the school was in sympathy with the gangs. For some, it was the best education available despite the danger, while others could have gone elsewhere but didn't want to cede their school to gangs. But the last thing we would have wanted was a policy of expelling people without evidence that they'd broken rules or committed crimes. The gangs would have loved that. They'd have turned it to their advantage very quickly. Pippin From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 20:46:48 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:46:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162284 > > Alla: > > > > Are you sure that Weasleys would have understood? That is if > > Dumbledore would have told him the truth of why Ron died. Not - > > fighting the fight against Voldemort and his minions. **That** - I > > am pretty sure Weasleys would have been devastated, but understood. > > After all if parents joined that fight, they could hardly expect the > > kids to not learn their values and join the fight as well. > > > > But if Ron would have died because Dumbledore wanted to teach Draco > > Malfoy who he is and whom he wants to become. That is why their > > child could have died. > > Pippin: > But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. The freedom to decide > who you are and what you want to be is what Voldemort wants to take > away from people. If the wizarding world decides it's not worth > fighting for, then Voldemort wins. a_svirn: And what does fighting Voldemort have to do with wanting to save Draco's immortal soul? > > Alla: > > So, if that was a calculated risk, IMHO Dumbledore took into > > equasion the lives of those he had no right to gamble with. > > Pippin: > Dumbledore told all those in the Hall in GoF that he planned to > unite all those who were willing to oppose Voldemort -- and > his eyes were on the Slytherin table as he said it. He offered them > a bond of friendship and trust. His strategy was no secret, and > those who disagreed with it were welcome to pull their children > out of Hogwarts. Some did. a_svirn: I fail to see what it has to do with anything. If he meant to risk his students' lives to foster the bond of friendship with Slytherins he should have had the decency to say so. Of course, the only students left in Hogwarts in that case would have been mugglebornes, and that only because their parents don't have the foggiest about the war. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 21:08:44 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:08:44 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162285 > > Sherry now: > > > > However, he did not tell the students nor their parents that he was > > purposely allowing an attempted murderer to roam loose in the > school. An attempted murderer who was sharing classes, dorm rooms, > common rooms, meals with everyone else. Realistically, parents would > have and should have been up in arms over that one. > > Pippin: > He didn't tell them when he hired a werewolf either. a_svirn: And that doesn't give him much credit either. Especially since he fired Lupin as soon as the latter's secret was exposed. > Pippin: > But Molly for one was in no position to complain. Ginny > was never questioned to find out exactly how cognizant she was of > cooperating with Riddle (though we know it was more than she > admitted to because she burgled Harry's room and stole back the > diary of her own volition.) a_svirn: So, because Ginny was spared a proper investigation, Molly should be prepared to spare one of her children? > Pippin: > Molly also knew very well that her children were attending school with > the children of Death Eaters, because she heard Harry accuse > Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle. So did everyone else, once Harry had > published his Quibbler article. a_svirn: Children aren't responsible for their fathers' crimes, though, are they? The trouble with Draco is not that he's a death eater's son, but that he took to death eating himself. > Pippin: Not only that, she didn't want > Arthur or Percy to stop working at the ministry, though she knew > they were in everyday proximity to Malfoy and Macnair. a_svirn: Arthur and Percy aren't children. They decide for themselves. And not always according to Molly's wishes. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 21:04:09 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:04:09 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying?/ Dumbledore's plans in HBP LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162286 > Pippin: > ::blinks:: > In the very post in which you decide that you don't like Dobby > because he's injured Harry, you also proclaim that you can't see > any analogy with Snape? Alla: Huh? Oh, I suppose if we will take the assumption of Snape's good intentions as canon, then I can see your analogy somehow. Dobby's good intentions **are** canon though, Snape's are not IMO. > > Alla: > > > > Well, no I would rather read about better written character, I could > > care less whether character is human or not. > > In Louis Bujold saga about Miles Vorkosigan for example there are > > plenty fascinating non-human character. > > So, as of today, I guess I just think that Grawp is not written well, > > contrary to Dobby. > > Pippin: > So you're assuming that JKR's aim is to make you like the character, > and therefore if you don't like him, he must be poorly written? But > what if she doesn't want to make you like the character very much? Alla: It is backwards, Pippin. I am thinking that character is not well written, that is why I do not like him much. And I was talking about Grawp, not Dobby as bad written. I mean, again going back to Kreacher I am pretty sure that JKR does not want me to like him much and he is well written too. Pippin: > You said in a previous post that you thought canon wants us to be > sympathetic to Dobby. Certainly Dobby is more sympathetic than > Kreacher. But compare the way Dobby is handled and described to > Lupin or Firenze. Alla: Um, okay. So, Lupin and Firense are described cooler than Dobby. I do not remember Dobby on his own without making comparisons to other characters being described as unsympathetic. Pippin: > As far as Harry knows, Firenze and Lupin haven't injured him in any > significant way. Dobby has. Alla: Well, yeah, they did not injur Harry. As far as I remember, it should read they did not injure Harry, period. Do you know something none of us knows, Pippin? :) Pippin: > Finally, it's hard to identify with Dobby because, like Snape, we're > not sure what to make of his attitude. We don't > debate whether the centaurs or werewolves have human feelings, > but we're not so sure about House Elves, and we're not so > sure about Snape. Alla: Sorry, but as I said above - I am hundred percent sure about Dobby's attitude in that sense analogy with Snape does not work for me. Dobby was doing harmful things while trying to help Harry. That is IMO canon. Snape on the other hand is doing them for some reasons. Oh, and I guess if we were to compare them after all Dobby wins, because as Sherry said in GoF and another books Dobby does help without hurting Harry, something which Snape is else to demonstrate ( that is if he was doing things to help in the first place) And here I want to bring up Goblins again - do you have any explanation why I like them so much while they are barely in the books? They certainly not described with any kind of love to Harry, no? We are not sure about how human their feelings are, etc. Again, with werewolves as I said earlier I undoubtedly sympathetic to them because of Remus first and foremost. Centaurs - while I do not see their general coolness in the books ( Firense seems an exception, no?), I think that subconsciously I indentify with them as the cousins of centaurs from greek mythology, which I love and that is quite likely to be underlying reason of me liking them. Really, purely subjective, I am thinking. Centaurs in the books just want to be left alone by humans, no? Oh, and personally I do not debate at all that house elves have emotions remarkably close to humans - I don't see what makes you doubt it. > > > Carol: > > > > And his idea of helping Harry is > > to get him in trouble with the Dursleys and the MoM (the pudding > > incident), to prevent him from taking the Hogwarts Express and > > potentially injure both him and Ron in the process (solidifying the > > barrier they're supposed to walk through), and setting a rogue Bludger > > on him ("Not kill you, sir! Never kill you!" Could have fooled me, > > Dobby.) > > Pippin: > Hah! Another Snape analogy: "But he never wanted you *dead*." Alla: And if Harry would have died while Dobby was trying to help him? Would anybody cared what he wanted to do? That is incredibly wierd for me - because I always insist that intent matters and will keep insisting on that in analysing characters, but as I said I suppose with Dobby the annoyance from his actions is just too great, but I am positive that he is a good guy, I just don't like him much, contrary to Snape, whom I am not sure about and hate. > > Alla: > I mean if Dobby at the end would have > > indeed helped Harry in some significant way, it would make me feel > > less annoyed with him, but while he wanted to help, he did not really > > do anything helpful, no? > > Pippin: > I see you've forgotten that he saved Harry from whatever curse > Lucius meant to put on him at the end of CoS. Alla: I forgot that Lucius start the curse in the book, I thought that was in the movie only. I thought that in the book Lucius advances at Harry, but does not curse him yet? Did he start the curse in the book? He probably would have cursed him in any event, eventually, I guess. Dobby meant well, again and finally executed it not bad either. So that adds more to Dobby's good deeds, unquestionable good deeds - if he saves Harry again at the end of book 7, maybe I will come to like him. > bboyminn: > > I was trying to explain the underlying psychology that > would produce the type of reaction you described, and > I still think that is a subliminal part of it, but... > > Could it be you find Dobby and Grawp annoying because > THEY ARE! > Alla: Well, of course it is sometimes not possible to explain one's emotional reaction to the characters and it could be that one reacts to the characters in the certain way just because it does. For the most part though for me there is always a reason why I react to the characters in certain way - it may be not the most logical reson, but the reason nonetherless. I was trying to see for the purpose of this thread whether somebody else's emotional reaction matches mine and whether I can hit upon something and it seems that with Dobby I did. It is also funny for me that I almost blocked for myself the reason why I want to slap Dobby, even though I remembered his actions in CoS well enough. As I said above - to me intent always matters, so maybe I sort of hypnotised myself :) that despite Dobby doing what he did in CoS, what counts the most is what he wanted to do and I should not be annoyed with him. Well, I suppose my intellect and my emotions are at odds here, while my mind tells me I should not be annoyed with him, since he meant well, my emotions are telling me that because of his life saving attempts Harry got hurt badly, and could have been hurt worse. I mean, as I also said above, he did better in next books, so maybe annoyance factor will go away someday. In any event, what I am trying to say - it had been useful exercise for me. > Pippin: > But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. Alla: You mean dying for Draco Malfoy being able to have a revelation? Sorry, not my interpretation at all. Pippin: The freedom to decide > who you are and what you want to be is what Voldemort wants to take > away from people. If the wizarding world decides it's not worth > fighting for, then Voldemort wins. Alla: And did anybody ask Ron and Katie whether they wish to give up their lives in order for Malfoy to understand that signing up for killing Headmaster is a stupid thing to do? I mean, if it is Dumbledore's choice to do that for Malfoy - sure, who knows maybe Ron would have also decided that it is worth dying for ( miracle of miracles). Nobody ask them to risk their lifes for little assasin. Nobody. Dumbledore made that decision for them in my opinion. Pippin: Dumbledore told all those in the Hall in GoF that he planned to unite all those who were willing to oppose Voldemort -- and his eyes were on the Slytherin table as he said it. He offered them a bond of friendship and trust. His strategy was no secret, and those who disagreed with it were welcome to pull their children out of Hogwarts. Some did. Alla: His strategy to risk the innocent lives in order to make sure the wannabe murderer turns out to the right side was no secret? Then he fooled me for sure. I had an impression that Dumbledore meant something different there. This is the classic case of how Dumbledore's good intentions fall flat sometimes for me when it comes down to practical executions of them. Nice words at the end of GoF, but if that is what their practical implication is.... shakes her head at DD. > > Pippin: > > But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. The freedom to decide > > who you are and what you want to be is what Voldemort wants to take > > away from people. If the wizarding world decides it's not worth > > fighting for, then Voldemort wins. > > a_svirn: > And what does fighting Voldemort have to do with wanting to save > Draco's immortal soul? Alla: Thank you a_svirn :), well said. I mean turning Voldemort's minions and wanna be minions to the right side can sure part of the fight, but this is the extension of the fight, which IMO should be purely voluntary, meaning that no shadow can be cast on some courageous soul, who is all for resitance fight, but who could care less whether Voldemort's minions can be saved. That is sort of an extracirricular activity of the war ( if those words can be applied to the war) - if Dumbledore wants to take it upon himself by all means, I do not think that he has a right to ask the same of anybody else. > a_svirn: > I fail to see what it has to do with anything. If he meant to risk > his students' lives to foster the bond of friendship with Slytherins > he should have had the decency to say so. Of course, the only > students left in Hogwarts in that case would have been mugglebornes, > and that only because their parents don't have the foggiest about > the war. > Alla: I can just see Ron agreeing to put his life in geopardy to save Draco Malfoy. Although I would not exclude him or any other Trio doing that in book 7, but I am betting anything that if that happens, it would be their own choice, made of the goodness of their hearts, **not** the choice that Dumbledore made for them. IMHO of course, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 20:13:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:13:19 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162287 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > And yet he just can't quite seem to keep himself from constantly > saving Harry's life. ::sighs a bit over how gosh darn heroic Snape > is:: True, Snape has saved Harry's life. But that, I think, has absolutely, positively nothing to do with anything as far as Snape's moral status goes. He has abused Harry from day one. If JKR does not deal with that, and with DD's reprehensible policy of allowing the abuse to continue, then she has failed in a particularly contemptible way. > > Betsy Hp: > Kind of like how the Trio condone cruelty to "others" especially if > it's done to Draco (or any Slytherin, really)? Not cruelty, justice. Draco's suffering is richly deserved, as are those of the other Slytherins. Harry's most definitely is NOT. And therein lies the total difference in the moral status, and the total difference in what Snape and Harry have coming to them. Lupinlore From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 2 21:59:35 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 21:59:35 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162288 > quick_silver: > If Snape couldn't have won on the Tower then there's no real choice > involved...die pointlessly or kill Dumbledore and continue with the > plan. It just doesn't strike me as being as deep as Snape being able > to win on the Tower although you may disagree. zgirnius: I see it differently. I think he couldn't win. What makes it so awful, is that the reason he had no chance is the UV. Without the UV, I agree, he miht have had a fighting chance to kill Dumbledore. WHich, I suspect, makes it Snape's own fault, in his mind. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sat Dec 2 22:27:17 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 22:27:17 -0000 Subject: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > > quick_silver: > > If Snape couldn't have won on the Tower then there's no real choice > > involved...die pointlessly or kill Dumbledore and continue with the > > plan. It just doesn't strike me as being as deep as Snape being able > > to win on the Tower although you may disagree. > > zgirnius: > I see it differently. I think he couldn't win. What makes it so awful, > is that the reason he had no chance is the UV. Without the UV, I agree, > he miht have had a fighting chance to kill Dumbledore. WHich, I > suspect, makes it Snape's own fault, in his mind. > Quick_Silver: Well yeah I guess the point I was trying to make was that I don't think it was the Death Eaters that made the Tower necessary so much as it was the UV. That's why I listed the examples from the books of wizards fighting (and often beating) multiple opponents. The way that I've come to read Snape is that he's a big dog in the wizarding world...i.e. I consider him to be very talented and very powerful. So to say that Snape couldn't beat three wizards (two which appear to be inferior to Harry in their skills) and a werewolf that doesn't appear to have a wand is a stretch in my opinion (plus Snape has the element of surprise on his side). Quick_Silver From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 2 23:16:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:16:57 -0000 Subject: Why are Dobby and Grawp so annoying?/ Dumbledore's plans in HBP LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162290 > Alla: > > Huh? Oh, I suppose if we will take the assumption of Snape's good > intentions as canon, then I can see your analogy somehow. Dobby's > good intentions **are** canon though, Snape's are not IMO. Pippin: Dobby's good intentions didn't become unambiguous until **after** he'd almost gotten Harry expelled, launched the flying car fiasco, and broken Harry's arm. Canon suggested that he might be acting on Lucius or Draco's orders. > Pippin: > > As far as Harry knows, Firenze and Lupin haven't injured him in any > > significant way. Dobby has. > > Alla: > > Well, yeah, they did not injur Harry. As far as I remember, it > should read they did not injure Harry, period. Do you know something > none of us knows, Pippin? :) Pippin: I think we all know that the dementors injured Harry. Lupin is partly responsible for that at the very least because he withheld information that he himself thought might have helped to capture Sirius, making the dementor guard unnecessary. > > Pippin: > > Finally, it's hard to identify with Dobby because, like Snape, > we're > > not sure what to make of his attitude. We don't > > debate whether the centaurs or werewolves have human feelings, > > but we're not so sure about House Elves, and we're not so > > sure about Snape. > > Alla: > Oh, and I guess if we were to compare them after all Dobby wins, > because as Sherry said in GoF and another books Dobby does help > without hurting Harry, something which Snape is else to demonstrate > ( that is if he was doing things to help in the first place) Pippin: Huh? How did Snape saving Harry from Quirrell's curse hurt him? > > > > Pippin: > > I see you've forgotten that he saved Harry from whatever curse > > Lucius meant to put on him at the end of CoS. > > > Alla: > > I forgot that Lucius start the curse in the book, I thought that > was in the movie only. I thought that in the book Lucius advances at > Harry, but does not curse him yet? Pippin: 'Then [Mr. Malfoy] lunged at Harry. "You've lost me my servant, boy!" But Dobby shouted, "You shall not harm Harry Potter!" There was a loud bang and Mr. Malfoy was thrown backwards. He crashed down the stairs, three at a time, landing in a crumpled heap on the landing below. He got up, his face livid, and pulled out his wand,but Dobby raised a long, threatening finger. "You shall go now," he said fiercely, pointing down at Mr. Malfoy. "You shall not touch Harry Potter. You shall go now." --- So he advances on Harry, is thrown back, and then draws his wand. > > Pippin: > > But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. > > Alla: > > You mean dying for Draco Malfoy being able to have a revelation? > Sorry, not my interpretation at all. Pippin: Um, no, dying so that Draco, and everyone else in the WW, can have a choice besides the one that Voldemort offers: Be one of my killers or die. > Alla: > > And did anybody ask Ron and Katie whether they wish to give up their > lives in order for Malfoy to understand that signing up for killing > Headmaster is a stupid thing to do? Pippin: They were at the closing feast in GoF, no? They were told that they needed to unite in friendship and trust or Voldemort would defeat them, and that the choice that was before Cedric might come before them. That doing what was right instead of what was easy might mean that they would die. Dumbledore's counsel, like the counsel of Gandalf, was not based on foreknowledge of safety for himself or for others. It was based on the idea that some things are worth dying for. Pippin From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Dec 3 02:45:02 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 02:45:02 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162291 zanooda wrote: > As for "revulsion and hatred", it's possible that these feelings are > not intended for DD, but for Snape himself, that's how Harry felt > when he had to force-feed DD that green potion in the cave, it's > described in practically the same words in both cases. Abergoat offers: Or perhaps Snape's hatred was directed at Harry him he was seeing pour potion down Dumbledore's throat via Legilimens? Harry sealed Snape's fate in that moment...but Snape hated Harry for that. Abergoat From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 03:34:12 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 21:34:12 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40612021934n7b503c65w11e8d269d222675c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162292 > > kmalone1127: > I've wondered about the Foe Glass thing myself. Why would Snape show > up in them if he was truly on Voldemort's side? montims: Well, as it's now Barty Crouch's foeglass, Snape IS his enemy - he betrayed LV in Crouch's viewpoint. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 03:50:21 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:50:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162294 > Pippin: > I have yet to see that > Dumbledore could have proved that Draco had poisoned the wine or > purchased the necklace (which wasn't a crime anyway. It was openly > offered for sale.) Amiable Dorsai: Excellent point. There's also that fact that there's a whole lot more riding on Draco's allegiance than custody of an obnoxious albino ferret. Where Draco goes, there goes Narcissa, the Malfoy fortune, and whatever dirt Narcissa has on Death Eaters that her husband worked with. If Dumbledore can turn Draco, Voldemort loses an important source of ready cash, the Death Eaters lose some security... ...and Kreacher loses his mind. Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 03:52:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 03:52:33 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162295 If anybody wishes to discuss this book, here are some discussion starters. This post appears because of Potioncat. Please thank her if you like it and blame her if you do not. Questions. 1. Mr. Salamander gives us a brief history of attempts to classify magical creatures as beings and beasts. Do you agree or disagree with any of those classification attempts? Do you have your own ideas which creatures are beings and which ones are beasts? Please share it with us if you feel like it. 2. It is being stated that several creatures are classified as beasts because they are incapable of overcoming their own violent natures. In particularly Mr. Salamander mentions acromantulas, manticores and sphinx as examples of such creatures. Does it strike you as important that two of those beings already played some part in the rather important plot points of the book? Are we going to meet manticores in book 7? Have we already met them (I don't think we did, but maybe I have forgotten?) 3. Here are the creatures mentioned in "Fantastic beasts" (I tried not to miss anybody, sorry if I did) Acromantula, Ashwinder, Augurey, Basilisk, Billywig, Bowtruckle, Bundimun, Centaur, Chimaera, Chizpurfle, Clabbert, Crup. Demiguise. Diricawl, Doxy, Dragon ( different species are mentioned - too many to quote here). Dugbog, Erkling, Erumpent, Fairy, Fire Crab, Flobberworm, Fwooper, Ghoul, Glumbumble, Gnome, Graphorn, Griffin, Grindylow, Hippocampus, Hippogriff. Horklump, Imp, Jarwey, Jobberknoll, Kappa, Kelpie, Knarl, Kneasle, Leprechaun, Lethifold, Mackled Malaclaw, Manticore, Merpeopeople, Moke, Mooncalf, Murtlap, Niffler, Nogtail, Nundu, Occamy, Phoenix, Pixie, Plimpy, Pogrebin, Puffskein, Quintaped, Ramora, Red Cap, Re'em, Runespoor, Salamander, Sea Serpent, Shrake, Snidget, Sphinx, Streeler, Tebo, Troll, Unicorns, Werewolves, Winged Horse, Yeti. We met quite a few of them already, my guess is we may meet some more in book 7. Please feel free to bring anything worth discussing of any of them here. Anything of future significance for the plot of main books? Like is it important that Patronus also works against highly dangerous Lethifold, which reminded me of Dementors way too much for my liking? Could it be that somebody will mistake them for Dementors in book 7? Another thing that strokes me when I flipped through the book today is that Centaurs are skilled not only in Divination, but also in Archery and magical healing. Well, we had seen them doing divination and archery, but as far as I can remember we did not see them heal somebody just yet or did we? Is it possible that they will show this skill to us in book 7? So, again, please feel free to talk about any magical creature you wish to talk here as it relates to canon discussion. 4. I found the comments in this book by Harry and Ron to be hilarious. Did you find them to be more than that? Any possible canon clues? 5. Please feel free to bring up any question about this book, which is worth discussing. Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 04:12:34 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 04:12:34 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162296 > Alla: > This post appears because of Potioncat. Please thank her if you like > it and blame her if you do not. zgirnius: Thank you, Potioncat! (And you too, Alla!) > 3. Here are the creatures mentioned in "Fantastic beasts" (I tried > not to miss anybody, sorry if I did) Quintaped. > Anything of future significance for the plot of main books? zgirnius: Harry hides the HBP's Advanced Potions text in the Room of Requirement, in a cabinet which already contains the skeleton of a five legged creature. Since 5-legged creatures do not, so far as I know, exist in the Muggle world, I presume this was a Quintaped. How did it come to be there, when they all reside on an island off the coast of Scotland which is Unplottable and Muggle-Repelling, I wonder? (Did Hagrid have more than one insanely dangerous XXXXX pet in his school career?) I wonder if this detail matters. Some of the other stuff pointed out to us in that scene could be handy to help Harry find the book again. But what is *inside* the cabinet surely would not matter? Anyway, that's the random magical creature thought I had when I read the entry on Q-peds for the first time..."Hey, I've seen one in teh books!" > Alla: > Like is > it important that Patronus also works against highly dangerous > Lethifold, which reminded me of Dementors way too much for my liking? zgirnius: I am so depressingly sure we will be seeing a lot mroe of the Dementors before Book 7 is over. Nasty pieces of work. I wonder if they are related to Lethifolds? They are not in the book, and I wonder why. Could they be the creation of a Dark Wizard, based on the Lethifold? (That way they would not be naturally occuring...on the other hand, neither are Quintapeds. Oh well.) > Alla: > Another thing that strokes me when I flipped through the book today > is that Centaurs are skilled not only in Divination, but also in > Archery and magical healing. Well, we had seen them doing divination > and archery, but as far as I can remember we did not see them heal > somebody just yet or did we? zgirnius: No, I do not recall seeing them heal either. But was it not a Centaur that explained to Harry in PS/SS about the healing properties of Unicorn blood (and warning of the evil and cursed nature of such use?) This would, anyway, suggest they know about things related to Healing. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Dec 3 13:26:56 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 08:26:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0612020533p314ac924yf9f032652725b570@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612030526y26c532f2k12178d1047d4de6f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162297 Alla: Are you sure that Weasleys would have understood? That is if Dumbledore would have told him the truth of why Ron died. Not - fighting the fight against Voldemort and his minions. **That** - I am pretty sure Weasleys would have been devastated, but understood. After all if parents joined that fight, they could hardly expect the kids to not learn their values and join the fight as well. But if Ron would have died because Dumbledore wanted to teach Draco Malfoy who he is and whom he wants to become. That is why their child could have died. I have my doubts about Weasleys being understanding. I have even more doubts about Katie's parents being very understanding, whom we don't even know AFAIK where they stand at all. Debbie: Pippin's excellent response has largely answered this point, but I'll add that even though Draco may have already committed the crime of conspiracy to murder Dumbledore before the necklace incident, Dumbledore's only evidence of the crime is hearsay provided to him by Snape. Both because it's inadmissible and because Snape's cover would be blown, he can't use Snape to get the authorities to arrest Draco anyway. In any event, it's not like he could subpoena Voldemort to provide testimony to support Draco's conviction. (Narcissa's knowledge is probably also hearsay, unless she was present when Voldemort assigned Draco his task.) As a result, Dumbledore's only real option was to keep an eye on Draco, which Snape was tasked to do. In light of this, and the fact that Dumbledore, not the students, was the target, I don't see what anyone could have done to protect Katie from the Imperius Curse. Or Ron, for that matter. Even if Draco had been arrested, he could still have Imperiused Rosmerta to deliver the poisoned mead. Alla: So, if that was a calculated risk, IMHO Dumbledore took into equasion the lives of those he had no right to gamble with. Debbie: No school of any kind is 100% safe. Parents who send their kids to Hogwarts should know that (except the Muggleborn parents), and they are taking a calculated gamble. They also know there's a war on, and they should know that children of suspected DEs go there, that some of those children might engage in DE activities and that their own children might be recruited. There are dangers at Hogwarts, and parents take gambles when they send their kids there. They are also relying on the excellent medical services provided by Madam Pomfrey, which seems to protect most kids from lasting consequences. Ron might not have had enough time to get to her, but I'll bet she knew enough to use a bezoar. > Pippin: > But that *is* the fight against Voldemort. The freedom to decide > who you are and what you want to be is what Voldemort wants to take > away from people. If the wizarding world decides it's not worth > fighting for, then Voldemort wins. a_svirn: And what does fighting Voldemort have to do with wanting to save Draco's immortal soul? Debbie: Because Draco is the key to taking the Malfoys out of action. Voldemort would be deprived of a key, influential supporter, and any monetary support that goes along with it. And because Draco is a student who can be saved from becoming a murderer. Dumbledore's objectives as headmaster and his objectives as leader of the Order are one and the same. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Dec 3 15:23:25 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 15:23:25 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162298 Alla wrote: > > This post appears because of Potioncat. Please thank her if you like > it and blame her if you do not. Potioncat blushes. Thanks Alla! Glad to have inspired. Now, just a few comments before I rush off to the local library to get a copy of FBaWTFT. > 3. Here are the creatures mentioned in "Fantastic beasts" (I tried > not to miss anybody, sorry if I did)... Hippocampus,... Potioncat: Hippocampus? Really? That's a part of the brain. JKR is having fun with us. ********************************************************* Here's a bit of info from Wikipedia: The hippocampus is a part of the brain located inside the temporal lobe (humans and other mammals have two hippocampi, one in each side of the brain). It forms a part of the limbic system and plays a part in memory and spatial navigation. The name derives from its curved shape in coronal sections of the brain, which resembles a seahorse (Greek: hippo=horse, kampos=sea monster). ********************************************************** (Appropriate that whales have this organ too.) > >Alla: > 5. Please feel free to bring up any question about this book, which > is worth discussing. Potioncat: Fantastic Beasts....fantastic beasts...Oh, yeah, Snape! He disputes the imformation about Kappas (is it Kappas?) Most of us thought he had made a mistake. But, given his "improvement" on the potions from the potions text, do we think he's correct on this issue? Thanks Alla, for starting this new discussion. From MadameSSnape at aol.com Sun Dec 3 16:33:45 2006 From: MadameSSnape at aol.com (MadameSSnape at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 11:33:45 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salam... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162299 In a message dated 12/3/2006 10:36:42 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, willsonkmom at msn.com writes: > 3. Here are the creatures mentioned in "Fantastic beasts" (I tried > not to miss anybody, sorry if I did)... Hippocampus,Hip Potioncat: Hippocampus? Really? That's a part of the brain. JKR is having fun with us. ============== Sherrie here: It's also Hippocampus hippocampus, aka the short-snouted seahorse. (The one we all know from aquariums.) Hippocampus is the genus for all seahorses. Hippocampus (campuses? campii?) come from ancient Greek mythology - among other things, they pulled Poseidon's chariot. Sherrie (possessed temporarily by her Inner Hermione) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 3 17:15:17 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:15:17 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162300 > > 3. Here are the creatures mentioned in "Fantastic beasts" (I tried > > not to miss anybody, sorry if I did)... > Hippocampus,... > > Potioncat: > Hippocampus? Really? That's a part of the brain. JKR is having fun > with us. Pippin: It's a mythical sea-horse, with the fore-feet of a horse and the tail of a dolphin or a fish, according to my ancient shorter Oxford. Here's an Art Deco interpretation: http://bayimages.net/chicago/buckingham-fountain/i10489.html Pippin waving at Chicago From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 3 17:40:48 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:40:48 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162301 > zgirnius: > I am so depressingly sure we will be seeing a lot mroe of the > Dementors before Book 7 is over. Nasty pieces of work. I wonder if > they are related to Lethifolds? They are not in the book, and I > wonder why. Could they be the creation of a Dark Wizard, based on > the Lethifold? (That way they would not be naturally occuring...on > the other hand, neither are Quintapeds. Oh well.) Jen: Hey, maybe that's why Voldemort has such control over them, he's their creator! I've always wondered what he was doing all those years away after Borgin and Burkes. You get the impression it was his immortality experiements, but maybe the Dementors came out of those failed experiements unintentionally? I don't remember reading in the books when Dementors came about, how old they are, etc. Anyway, just a stray thought there. > zgirnius: > No, I do not recall seeing them heal either. But was it not a > Centaur that explained to Harry in PS/SS about the healing > properties of Unicorn blood (and warning of the evil and cursed > nature of such use?) This would, anyway, suggest they know about > things related to Healing. Jen: Maybe that's where Snape learned how to heal the wounds caused by Sectumsempra. Jen, liking the idea of Snape trotting out to the Forbidden Forest to consult with the Centaurs. From MIKEDOVE2001 at YAHOO.COM Sun Dec 3 17:35:43 2006 From: MIKEDOVE2001 at YAHOO.COM (mikedove2001) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:35:43 -0000 Subject: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find them by Newt Salamander In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162302 > Pippin: > > It's a mythical sea-horse, with the fore-feet of a horse and the tail > of a dolphin or a fish, according to my ancient shorter Oxford. > > Here's an Art Deco interpretation: > http://bayimages.net/chicago/buckingham-fountain/i10489.html Mike: Here is the Wikipedia link. It also mentions Harry Potter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocampus_(mythology) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 17:51:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:51:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162303 Sherry now: > > However, he did not tell the students nor their parents that he was purposely allowing an attempted murderer to roam loose in the school. An attempted murderer who was sharing classes, dorm rooms, common rooms, meals with everyone else. Realistically, parents would have and should have been up in arms over that one. No responsible parent would have willingly kept their kids in a school under those circumstances. I can't imagine molly and Arthur doing so, nor the Grangers nor anyone but those who supported Draco's mission, if they knew it. Of course, this all had to happen for the story, but objectively, any school headmaster who did such a thing, if he did know it was happening, could probably be brought up on criminal charges for it, especially once it went from suspicion to actual attempts, as with Katie Bell. Carol responds: Dumbledore knew that he, not a student, was Draco's intended victim. He had a man on the staff who could handle just such emergencies as the cursed necklace--Snape. (Snape would also have handled the poisoning incident easily, in contrast to slughorn; it was he, both as a teacher and as the HBP, wh taught Harry about bezoars in the first place.) And he was watching Draco through Snape, and after Snape talked to Draco, Draco made no more "amateurish" attempts that could go astray (it was too late to stop the mead, which Slughorn would already have bought). As long as Draco confined his efforts to whatever he was doing in the RoR, no students were in danger except Draco himself, who would be killed by voldemort or the DEs if he failed. Dumbledore had every conceivable protection in place--no owls, no Floo network, no brooms, no Apparition, students checked going in and out of Hogwarts, the Order in Hogsmeade. Both the students and their parents knew that these protections were necessary because Voldemort was back. And yet the parents chose to send their children there. A few made their children return home after the Katie Bell incident, but some, such as the Patil twins (or at least Parvati) talked their children into letting them stay. And Katie's own parents allowed her to return to the school after some five months in St. Mungo's. There was danger everywhere in the WW, as the Montgomery sisters found when their five-year-old brother was killed by Fenrir Greyback and Hannah Abbott found when her mother was murdered by Death Eaters. There was no need to warn students and parents against Draco, who was not after anyone's children. It would only have caused unnecessary panic and sent them out into a world that was even less safe than Hogwarts. Once the protective measures were in place and the desperation measures (necklace, mead, etc.) were stopped, the only thing left was to watch Draco and, after the Sectumsempra incident, keep Harry away from him, accomplished in part through the Saturday detentions. To do anything else would be to kill Draco or force his hand or to activate the UV and kill Snape, the one man at Hogwarts who could keep the Dark magic at bay. Carol, who trusts Dumbledore's wisdom and Snape's loyalty despite Dumbledore's death From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 3 17:59:10 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 Dec 2006 17:59:10 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/3/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1165168750.10.36407.m36@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162304 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 3, 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: From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 3 18:04:52 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:04:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162305 Carol responds: Dumbledore knew that he, not a student, was Draco's intended victim. He had a man on the staff who could handle just such emergencies as the cursed necklace--Snape. (Snape would also have handled the poisoning incident easily, in contrast to slughorn; it was he, both as a teacher and as the HBP, wh taught Harry about bezoars in the first place.) And he was watching Draco through Snape, and after Snape talked to Draco, Draco made no more "amateurish" attempts that could go astray (it was too late to stop the mead, which Slughorn would already have bought). As long as Draco confined his efforts to whatever he was doing in the RoR, no students were in danger except Draco himself, who would be killed by voldemort or the DEs if he failed. Dumbledore had every conceivable protection in place--no owls, no Floo network, no brooms, no Apparition, students checked going in and out of Hogwarts, the Order in Hogsmeade. Both the students and their parents knew that these protections were necessary because Voldemort was back. And yet the parents chose to send their children there. A few made their children return home after the Katie Bell incident, but some, such as the Patil twins (or at least Parvati) talked their children into letting them stay. And Katie's own parents allowed her to return to the school after some five months in St. Mungo's. Sherry now: I'm not going to discuss Snape, since you and I know we completely disagree about him. But once a student was hurt, the stakes were raised too high for Dumbledore's complacent attitude of let everything happen as it will. In the real world, it doesn't matter if a student means to shoot the principal and accidentally gets a fellow student too. It's still a crime. Oh well, we're not going to agree on that one either. But an objective, outside the story, look at Dumbledore's actions does not make him the epitome of goodness and wisdom for me. I can accept his actions as the needs of the story, but still be thankful no real life children are under his headship. Sherry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 18:28:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:28:03 -0000 Subject: The Locked Room (Re: Great Battles of Book 7) In-Reply-To: <000601c71641$a647d800$0200a8c0@MYPOJ4J8EP5FMM> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162306 Bess wrote: In one sense, > Merope's action in finding the orphanage could be interpreted/viewed as having saved her son, Tom Riddle's life. If she hadn't forced herself to find that orphanage, he may well have been born and then died soon after Merope died as there would not have been anyone to look after a defenceless and helpless baby, regardless of the fact that he was a wizard. Carol responds: True. His father certainly wasn't going to do it, nor would the Gaunts. So a Muggle orphanage, which would take the child out of charity, was apparently her only option. (We haven't seen any Wizarding orphanages.) Bess wrote: > Harry asked Dumbledore in HBP why Merope had not used magic to save her life - I think it is said in the books in relation to Tonks, that a shock or depression can reduce/remove the powers of a witch/wizard - perhaps that was the reason why Merope could not use magic. The shock of losing her husband and the her experience at the hands of her belittling father may have meant that she lost what powers she had. Carol responds: Yes. Dumbledore makes that very point. But surely he ought to have mentioned what JKR has pointed out in her interviews: magic has its limitations and conjured objects don't last. If Wizards could conjure money, they wouldn't need to work (or sell their possessions) to buy food. If they could conjure manor houses and fine furniture, the Weasleys wouldn't have to live at the Burrow. If they could conjure food, Harry could have lent Sirius Black his wand to conjure a month's supply, along with the means of keeping it fresh, instead of getting it from the house-elves. Or he could have conjured a wand for Sirius. Which makes me wonder if Merope rejected her wand and threw it away when she rejected or lost her magic. And yet, from what I understand of the limitations of magic, the wand would not have saved her. She must have begged or stolen food to stay alive since she didn't sell her locket (for ten lousy galleons--curse that Caractacus Burke and his cold heart!) till near the end of her life. Bess wrote: Also, one needs to remember that she was in Muggle London - using magic especially in her condition may well have been risky in light of the wizarding laws. Carol responds: Well, yes. But I don't think magic alone could have saved her, even combined with the will to live. What she needed was money, and I doubt that she even knew how to apply for a job. And who in that era would hire a dirty, ugly, wall-eyed, obviously pregnant girl with no skills to speak of? I suppose she could have gotten a job at, say, the Leaky Cauldron--unless she had lost or rejected her magical powers. I think her situation was desperate in every way, and, yes, she kept her child alive out of love for him or her, and maybe love for the child's father, but that was as much as she could do, weak as she was in health, education, mind, and will. Carol, wishing that the HP books were more consistent in depicting the limitations of magic and that we didn't have to rely on the interviews for such information So, she did what any new muggle mother would do, find the best help possible in the hope of ensuring that her tiny child, when > born, would have at least a chance of surviving. > Best wishes, > Bess. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 18:49:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 18:49:27 -0000 Subject: Dobby and some Snape/ Dumbledore's plans in HBP LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162307 > > Alla: > > > > Huh? Oh, I suppose if we will take the assumption of Snape's good > > intentions as canon, then I can see your analogy somehow. Dobby's > > good intentions **are** canon though, Snape's are not IMO. > > Pippin: > Dobby's good intentions didn't become unambiguous until > **after** he'd almost gotten Harry expelled, launched the > flying car fiasco, and broken Harry's arm. Canon suggested > that he might be acting on Lucius or Draco's orders. Alla: I meant that as of today Dobby's good intentions are clear, while Snape's are not ( to me of course). As of today Dobby's good intentios are canon, IMO. > > Alla: > > > Oh, and I guess if we were to compare them after all Dobby wins, > > because as Sherry said in GoF and another books Dobby does help > > without hurting Harry, something which Snape is else to demonstrate > > ( that is if he was doing things to help in the first place) > > Pippin: > Huh? How did Snape saving Harry from Quirrell's curse hurt him? Alla: That did not hurt Harry of course, but I meant that Snape hurt Harry before saving his life in a variety of ways. > > Alla: > > > > I forgot that Lucius start the curse in the book, I thought that > > was in the movie only. I thought that in the book Lucius advances at > > Harry, but does not curse him yet? > > Pippin: , go UPTHREAD to read it. > So he advances on Harry, is thrown back, and then > draws his wand. Alla: Thanks, so I did forgotten that. Dobby saved Harry yes, good for him. > > Alla: > > > > And did anybody ask Ron and Katie whether they wish to give up their > > lives in order for Malfoy to understand that signing up for killing > > Headmaster is a stupid thing to do? > > Pippin: > They were at the closing feast in GoF, no? > > They were told that they needed to unite in friendship > and trust or Voldemort would defeat them, and that the choice > that was before Cedric might come before them. That doing > what was right instead of what was easy might mean that > they would die. > > Dumbledore's counsel, like the counsel of Gandalf, was not > based on foreknowledge of safety for himself or for others. It was > based on the idea that some things are worth dying for. Alla: Pippin, let me repeat my question - where during the closing feast in GoF Dumbledore gave his students a choice whether they are ready and willing to die for Draco Malfoy? Not die standing up to Voldemort with their comrades, but die saving Draco Malfoy - the one who tries to kill their Headmaster. Of course Dumbledore did not know that would have come, but if he did not know, how could these words be interpreted that way? Sorry, not buying this argument. Unless I see it in big bold letters - guys, would you like to die to save Malfoy's soul? I am pretty sure that Dumbledore never said something to that effect. Amiable Dorsai: If Dumbledore can turn Draco, Voldemort loses an important source of ready cash, the Death Eaters lose some security... ...and Kreacher loses his mind. Alla: Awwwww, I would agree with any action that makes Kreacher lose his mind, you got me here Amiable Dorsai. So, if Malfoys are turned in book 7 ( which is a possibility, yes) and that leads to Kreacher losing his mind, I promise to get off Dumbledore's back ;) Alla, who feels for Dumbledore in the cave big time and wants to believe Jen Reese idea that Dumbledore in the cave was feeling remorse for what he put his students through, but who is not holding her breath. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 19:13:40 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:13:40 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162308 > zanooda wrote: > > Well, Snape sure is nasty, mean and all the rest of it, but let us be > fair: never ever did he make any comment to Harry about Lily being > a "Mudblood". Jenni from Alabama responds: You asked for proof (Canon) that Snape called/referred to Lily as a Mudblood. Here it is. Am. Edition pg 648 Order of the Pheonix: "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" Lily shouted. She had her own wand out now. James and Sirius eyed it warily. "Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you," said James earnestly. "Take the curse off him, then!" James sighed deeply, then turned to Snape and muttered the countercurse. "There you go," he said, as Snape struggled to his feet again, "you're lucky Evans was here, Snivellus -" *****Here it is*********Snape is talking here********************* "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her! ******************************************************************* Lily blinked. "Fine," she said coolly. "I won't bother in the future...." So, I was mistaken in that Snape didn't say it TO Harry. Harry heard it/saw it all in the pensieve. But, he does call her a Mudblood. Notice Lily's reaction. She's stunned! Here she is defending the jerk and he trashes her! That is hitting below the belt, IMO. Zanooda wrote: > As for "revulsion and hatred", it's possible that these feelings > are not intended for DD, but for Snape himself, that's how Harry > felt when he had to force-feed DD that green potion in the cave, > it's described in practically the same words in both cases. Or > maybe Snape hated DD at that moment for making him do what had to > be done. Jenni from Alabama responds: This is, of course, possible. However, given Snape's past behaviors, I doubt it. I mainly feel that Snape showed his true colors on that tower and really is a bad guy, a death eater and evil. But there is that little part of me whispering that Snape will redeem himself somewhat by saving Harry in the 7th book. Jenni from Alabama - in response to some other posts: Yes, Snape has saved Harry in the past. But - as he says to the Death Eaters at the end of HBP when they try to hurt Harry (page 603, Am. Edition): "No!" roared Snape's voice and the pain stopped as suddenly as it had started; Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere overhead Snape was shouting, "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord - we are to leave him! Go! Go!" I think LV had Snape 'save' Harry to gain DD's trust. To make it look like Snape was really on the Order's side when he truly is/was a Death Eater. Waiting for the voice/whisper. Yep, there it is. Jenni from Alabama (wishing the voice would just shut up!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 3 19:28:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:28:11 -0000 Subject: Dobby and some Snape/ Dumbledore's plans in HBP LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162309 > Alla: > Pippin, let me repeat my question - where during the closing feast > in GoF Dumbledore gave his students a choice whether they are ready > and willing to die for Draco Malfoy? Not die standing up to > Voldemort with their comrades, but die saving Draco Malfoy - the one > who tries to kill their Headmaster. Pippin: Where during the closing feast did Dumbledore say that they'd get a chance to die standing up to Voldemort? What he said was that a person who was good and kind and brave died "because he strayed across the path of Lord Voldemort." He told them Cedric didn't die "as the result of an accident or some sort of blunder of his own." He didn't tell them that if they were careful, they'd be safe. Just the opposite. He told them that if they unite in friendship and trust, Voldemort could be defeated, but "and never have I so hoped I was mistaken," they were all facing dark and difficult times. He told them that tonight a student was taken from their midst, ie, neither the walls of Hogwarts nor Dumbledore's mere presence could protect them any more. After saying all the things he said that night, how could Dumbledore say "Draco, dear boy, when I said we should fight by showing an equally strong bond of friendship and trust, I meant that you should trust me, not that I would trust you. When I said that every guest in this hall would be welcomed here at any time, I meant to add, 'unless you have strayed across Lord Voldemort's path and he's decided to use you as a weapon.' When I said you should remember Cedric if the time should come when you have to make a choice between what is right and what is easy, I didn't mean that I would do the same. Though I told the school that Cedric did not blunder, I personally happen to think he was an almighty idiot not to open fire on Pettigrew when he had the chance, and that Cedric was wrong to risk Harry's life as well as his own by waiting to see what Pettigrew's intentions were. So I'm afraid that unlike Cedric I am not going to wait. I am going to assume that your intentions are evil and act accordingly. Even though one of my own blunders has resulted in a death that I never intended, I don't think anyone would understand if I extended mercy to you for what might have happened to Katie and Ron, because even though my blunder was huger, I think I deserve more mercy than you. And even though I warned everyone that Hogwarts couldn't answer for the safety of its students any more, I still think I owe it to them to not to risk your presence here." Is that the Dumbledore you want? You can have him Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 19:26:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:26:43 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories!/ Snape, Snape and Snape . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162310 > Jenni from Alabama responds: You asked for proof (Canon) that Snape > called/referred to Lily as a Mudblood. Here it is. > > Am. Edition pg 648 Order of the Pheonix: > > > *****Here it is*********Snape is talking here********************* > "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her! > ******************************************************************* > > Lily blinked. "Fine," she said coolly. "I won't bother in the > future...." > > So, I was mistaken in that Snape didn't say it TO Harry. Harry heard > it/saw it all in the pensieve. But, he does call her a Mudblood. > > Notice Lily's reaction. She's stunned! Here she is defending the > jerk and he trashes her! That is hitting below the belt, IMO. Alla: Well, yes, of course he does do that in that scene. I cannot speak for others but I definitely asked for canon-check on Snape calling Lily mudblood to Harry and as you said he never does. Which is not to say that Snape still does not think of her as such, tee hee. I love the speculation (forgot who first suggested) that Snape may have hated James first and foremost because James despite his pureblood status was brave enough to seek out attentions of muggleborn witch and Snape who wanted to belong to pureblood circle, sacrificed his possible feelings to Lily on altar of his prejudice and then maybe regretted it. > Jenni from Alabama responds: This is, of course, possible. However, > given Snape's past behaviors, I doubt it. I mainly feel that Snape > showed his true colors on that tower and really is a bad guy, a > death eater and evil. But there is that little part of me whispering > that Snape will redeem himself somewhat by saving Harry in the 7th > book. Alla: Oh, I think the same way ( I am not sure that Snape was Voldemort's servant all along, I much prefer OFH and LID Snape), but no matter what variety Snape we will get at the end, I think him doing something redemptive to help Harry ( without any extra reasons that will benefit himself) at the end of the book 7 is pretty much a given. > Jenni from Alabama - in response to some other posts: > I think LV had Snape 'save' Harry to gain DD's trust. To make it > look like Snape was really on the Order's side when he truly is/was > a Death Eater. Waiting for the voice/whisper. Yep, there it is. > Alla: YAY. Let it be so. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Dec 3 19:10:09 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:10:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Devic... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162311 >Alla >smip> >I find centaurs to be totally cool and I so want to know more about goblins and find their rebellions mentioned in passing to be much more sympathetic than house elves plight. Nikkalmati The goblin rebellions are mentioned more than once in the books in connection with History of Magic. I am not sure we will ever know more about them but I wonder did they win? It would seem the goblins are not under the control of wizards and play an vital and independent role in WW finance, ergo, they must have won? Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 19:33:45 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 19:33:45 -0000 Subject: Dobby and some Snape/ Dumbledore's plans in HBP LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162312 > Alla: > Pippin, let me repeat my question - where during the closing feast > in GoF Dumbledore gave his students a choice whether they are ready > and willing to die for Draco Malfoy? Not die standing up to > Voldemort with their comrades, but die saving Draco Malfoy - the one > who tries to kill their Headmaster. Of course Dumbledore did not > know that would have come, but if he did not know, how could these > words be interpreted that way? Sorry, not buying this argument. > Unless I see it in big bold letters - guys, would you like to die to > save Malfoy's soul? I am pretty sure that Dumbledore never said > something to that effect. zgirnius: He really almost does say it anyway, almost in black and white, in the bit about extending a hand of friendship and trust (while looking at the Slytherins). He showed himself a friend to Draco by offering to protect him and his family from Voldemort, who threatened to kill them all, and he trusted that Draco was not a murderer at heart. It was his judgment, expressed in his discussion with Draco on the Tower, that Draco did not want to kill anyone. He believed the earlier attempts were sabotaged by Draco's own unwillingness. I am not willing to say he was wrong. On the contraty, to me the evidence suggests he nailed it. He's conducting a secret war. He can't announce the details of every plan he's carrying out for public discussion. Could Churchill have asked the people in English cities threatened by German bombings whether whether they wanted to leave their homes in advance, based on information he had obtained through the breaking of the Enigma code? The very question would give away the secret he wanted to protect. It is illogical to expect that Churchill, or Dumbledore, should announce such a plan. One is certainly free to criticize either Dumbledore or Chruchill for such a decision after the fact, but that is a different matter. Personally, I find that Dumbledore's plan, and his precautions, were reasonable. Further, they did not result in death or permanent harm to any students (which any other decision would have, by leading to Draco's death), so they were not a mistake, either. The benefits, if any, of the plan will be seen in Book 7. I'm willing to wait and see, since I can certainly see the possibility of some considerable benefits. From technomad at intergate.com Sun Dec 3 19:34:13 2006 From: technomad at intergate.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 13:34:13 -0600 Subject: The Role of Kreacher Message-ID: <003b01c71712$04707ec0$48570043@D6L2G391> No: HPFGUIDX 162313 It occurs to me that Kreacher might still have a very important role to play in the story. We know that House-Elves have powerful magic. We also know that Kreacher's bought into the whole "purebloods rule, mudbloods drool, Muggles we scrape off the bottom of our shoe" even more firmly than most DEs seem to have. Even Bella Lestrange can occasionally put together a sentence without disparging reference to "Mudbloods," blood-traitors, and suchlike subjects. What if Kreacher were to find out, in a way he couldn't ignore, that Voldemort's a half-blood? I could see a battle scene where Kreacher's present, and finds this out---and, all of a sudden, particularly if V'mort's been making it clear that he couldn't care less about Kreacher's precious purebloods, Harry's got an unexpected ally as Kreacher throws the whole arsenal of House-Elf magic at the Dark Lord. We know that House-Elves are powerfully magical in their own right---as I mentioned in an earlier post, Dobby, once free to do as he chose, was able to face off with, and face down, Lucius Malfoy, who is not portrayed as a coward or a weak wizard. An enraged House-Elf, or two or three (hello, Dobby and Winky!) doing an all-out banzai attack could be just the thing to even things up in the big final fight. And as far as their position in the wizard world goes---sometimes there ARE no good choices to be had. (I've been reading about Finland in WWII, which is what brought that to mind.) As described, House-Elves strike me as too powerful to be safe to have around unless they're under control---a control which they themselves seem to welcome and want. Kind of like the Giants---I feel bad for them, stuck in a valley too small for them and fighting like the Kilkenny cats, but they're big, dumb, nearly-invulnerable and much too dangerous to be let roam free. House-Elves are rather like (the medieval concept of) demons---and you did NOT want to have a demon around unless you had it under very firm control. Medieval sorcery often included a lot of stuff about summoning, binding, controlling and dismissing demons safely, and a lot of stories centered around what would happen to a sorcerer who failed to keep control. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 20:23:56 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:23:56 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162315 > Jenni from Alabama: > He's so mean to Harry all through the books. > > Betsy Hp: > And yet he just can't quite seem to keep himself from constantly > saving Harry's life. *sighs a bit over how gosh darn heroic > Snape is: Jenni from Alabama responds: I truly feel that LV has Snape 'save' Harry so it will look like he is really on the Order's side. The whole while he is doing LV's bidding. Harry is not the one that shows instant animosity towards Snape. Snape is cruel to Harry right off the bat. > Jenni from Alabama: > He seems to condone cruelty to others - especially if it's done by > Draco and done to one of the Trio. > > Betsy Hp: > Kind of like how the Trio condone cruelty to "others" especially > if it's done to Draco (or any Slytherin, really)? Jenni from Alabama responds: Really? Show me where any of the Trio are the first to start up things with any of the Slytherins! They always are defending themselves (or others). They even try to avoid confrontations with Draco and his bullies. Draco (or Crabbe and Goyle)comes to seek them out, not vice versa. Show me one time where any of the Trio seeks out a member of Draco's crew to start things up. And they don't condone cruelty, especially Hermione. Examples: Draco tried to jinx Harry when Harry's back was turned, she still said that it was wrong for Barty Crouch Jr. (as Moody) to turn him into the ferret and bounce him. (Sorry, I have to giggle here, mental image!) She says that he really shouldn't have done that, Malfoy could really have been hurt. Ron and Harry very reluctantly agree, though they all still think it is funny. I don't condone it either, it was wrong of Crouch, but it is funny! Hermione also says the twins were wrong for putting Montague in that Vanishing Cabinet. Though Montague was quite mean to the twins and others. When Harry walks in on Draco in tears in the bathroom with Moaning Myrtle. Harry is shocked and (IMO) moved. If Draco hadn't attacked him, Harry may even have listened and offered help. But Draco did attack him. Draco tries to jinx Harry twice before Harry uses the Sectumsempra Curse. Harry had no clue what the curse did and immediately tried to undo it after it is cast and hits Draco. He feels a huge amount of remorse. Draco however tried to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry knowing full well what that curse does and so therefore would have had full responsibility for his actions. Draco also attacked Harry on the train, stunned him and roughed him up (kicked him, broke his nose). Draco feels no remorse for this. Even laughs about it! Harry nor any of the Trio would have done such a thing. Yeah, they may have fought with Draco or his crew, but they would never lash out unless attacked first. >Jenni from Alabama: > Of course the HUGE thing is killing Dumbledore!! And it's not > just that Snape actually killed Dumbledore, it's the look > on his face that JKR describes just before he did it - of > revulsion and hatred. > > Betsy Hp: > You mean, the exact hatred and revulsion Harry was feeling (for > himself) as he force-fed Dumbledore poison in the scene just before > this one? That look of hatred and revulsion? ::grins madly, because > I really, really love that parallel:: Jenni from Alabama responds: I don't see it that way. I think Snape really is a bad guy. > Jenni from Alabama: > It's the comments he makes to Harry about Lily being a 'Mudblood'. > Betsy Hp: > I'm calling for a canon check on this one: when does Snape *ever* > comment to Harry about Lily being a mudblood? For that matter, > does Snape ever speak of Lily to Harry? > Jenni from Alabama responds: OK, you asked for Canon, here it is. American Edition pg.648 Order of the Pheonix: "I don't need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" Lily blinked. "Fine," she said coolly. "I won't bother in the future..." My mistake was that it wasn't said TO Harry, it was said to James. Harry just heard it in the pensieve. But Snape did refer to/call Lily a Mudblood. She was defending him and he still trashed her! Talk about low. >Jenni from Alabama: > However, there IS a little voice inside my head that is saying that Snape will redeem himself in the last book somehow. I don't know why I feel that way. I can't stand Snape. But yet it is there, whispering. > > Betsy Hp: > It's the sexy beast thing. Snape is too darn cool to completely > write off. Doubts of his pure evilness will linger. Goodness, > even Harry likes to curl up in bed with him! (Erm, okay, I'll > admit I'm stretching things on that last one... But Harry > definitely felt a kinship with young!Snape. See? Even Harry > can't completely write off Snape! Jenni from Alabama responds: Not until he kills Dumbledore. That is when I write him off too. Though the voice whispers, I don't see how in the heck Snape can fully redeem himself in the last book. He can atone for SOME of it, but not all. Never could make up for killing Dumbledore! There's that dang voice again! I wish it would just shut up! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 20:46:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 20:46:22 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40612021934n7b503c65w11e8d269d222675c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162316 kmalone1127: > > I've wondered about the Foe Glass thing myself. Why would Snape show up in them if he was truly on Voldemort's side? > > > montims: > Well, as it's now Barty Crouch's foeglass, Snape IS his enemy - he betrayed LV in Crouch's viewpoint. > Carol responds: IOW, Barty Jr. was *Snape's* enemy because Snape betrayed Voldemort. But that's not the reason that Snape showed up in the Foe Glass. He showed up because he was *Barty's* enemy even before he knew who Barty was--not because Snape was "a Death Eater who walked free," which is Barty's reason for hating him--I doubt he knows that Snape was spying for Dumbledore, only that Snape wasn't sent to Azkaban) but because Snape was the enemy of the Voldemort supporter and probable DE who had disguised himself as Mad-Eye Moody and placed Harry's name in the Goblet of Fire in order to send him to Voldemort. The Foe Glass sensed Snape's enmity toward its new owner, not its owner's animosity toward Snape. Snape represented a danger to Barty Jr. or he would not have shown up there. He, like McGonagall (for whom Barty Jr. had no particular animosity), was loyal to Dumbledore and would do what Dumbledore wished to expose Barty Jr. and to thwart his goals of killing Harry and restoring Voldemort to power. We see Snape's surprise at the identity of Barty Jr. but no hesitation on his part to follow Dumbledore's orders regarding both Fake!Moody/Barty Jr. and Voldemort, including one order (a request really, and part of a plan between DD and Snape) that could lead to Snape's torture or death, the return to Voldemort. And we see Snape voluntarily reveal his Dark Mark to Fudge as proof that Voldemort is back. Those actions validate the reflection in the Foe Glass: he is Barty Jr.'s enemy and therefore Voldemort's. (Note that Harry notices Snape's reflection in particular as well as the three together but fails to recognize its significance). Carol, pretty sure that the Foe Glass, like the Dark Mark gesture in GoF and Snape's hand gripping his chair when he learns that Ginny has been taken into the Chamber of Secrets in CoS, is strong evidence that Snape's loyalities lie with Dumbledore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 21:11:24 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:11:24 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162317 Carol earlier: > > I agree that he couldn't save the wandless, weakened Dumbledore, who would be killed by the DEs if not by the poison if neither Draco nor Snape killed him, and that Dumbledore wanted Snape to save himself rather than be killed by the UV or the DEs, as he surely would have been fighting against four DEs, one of them a ravening werewolf who didn't need to transform to rip people apart with his teeth. Skilled as Snape is, he can't duel and use Legilimency on four opponents at once. > > Quick_Silver: > I disagree that Snape couldn't have saved Dumbledore on Tower (in the context of their being to many Des). On the Tower we have 3 wizards (and the brother sister > pair are not exactly amazing duelists...I think Harry beats the > brother twice during the chase sequence?), a werewolf, and Draco. > What's more the Death Eaters, even the werewolf, are described as > being cowed by Snape. Snape's supposed to be a master of Defense > against the Dark Arts, skilled at non-verbal magic, has his own > spells (including Sectumsempra), the Death Eaters are fixated on > Dumbledore (Amycus's eyes and wand don't even leave Dumbledore when > he talks to Snape), and the Death Eaters seem genuinely intimidated > by Snape. > > So Snape doesn't have to duel the Death Eaters on the Tower he could > simply crush them. It's not like their expecting him to turn on them. > > Having said all of that I agree that Snape couldn't save Dumbledore > on the Tower...I just don't think that the Death Eaters had anything > to do with it (in the sense that they were a physical threat...IMO > they represent the risk of Snape being exposed). I put it more to > having a plan with Dumbledore, the UV, Draco's moral journey, and > Harry being there. > > It's just to me by saying that Snape couldn't have won on the Tower > you knock the underlying emotional context of that scene IMO. Snape > holding back on the Tower is more emotional because he wants to save > Dumbledore (his mentor) but he can't because of the cause, the plot, > the greater good, perhaps the UV, etc, etc. And that then explains > why he freaks out when Harry calls him a coward...Snape just made the hardest choice of his life and here's Harry calling him a coward. > > If Snape couldn't have won on the Tower then there's no real choice > involved...die pointlessly or kill Dumbledore and continue with the > plan. It just doesn't strike me as being as deep as Snape being able > to win on the Tower although you may disagree. Carol responds: I don't think that Dumbledore's skill is evidence of Snape's equal power, and I don't think that Harry made a particularly great showing, hitting one DE in the back, having to be rescued from Fenrir Greyback, and tripping up the brother and sister only to be Crucio'd by (apparently) the big blond DE and rescued by Snape. None of which is intended to denigrate Snape's skill; he certainly handled Harry effortlessly, and IMO he's the best DADA teacher Harry has ever had, if Harry would only realize that. But even Snape can only, AFAWK, perform Legilimency on one DE at a time, and even he had trouble with Fluffy (true, the plot demanded that) because he could only watch one head at a time. More important, IMO, the moment DDM!Snape revealed his true allegiance and started to defend Dumbledore (who could not have been saved anyway, IMO) Snape would have died, either killed by the DEs or by the Vow, at least if Ron is right (you break it; you die). But my point was that his choice was between dying bravely but futilely along with Dumbledore and Draco and Harry or killing DD himself, making sure to get his body off the tower so Fenrir would have no reason to stay and then getting Draco and the DEs off the tower before Harry had time to rush out and fight them. True, Harry did rush out, but not in time to fight them. The one DE that he actually Petrified was hit in the back. I absolutely agree that Snape's choice required immense courage despite appearances. I just think that the choice between what is right and what is easy is not what Harry thinks it is: it was a choice between a seemingly honorable but actually pointless death and a seemingly dishonorable but actually courageous and necessary saving of himself, without which Draco and Harry would also have been killed or kidnapped. If Snape could have defeated the DEs on the tower, as perhaps he could have if it weren't for the UV, then you're right that the irony and the courage are even greater, but I don't think he could have survived. I think the UV would have struck him down, and I think that's what Dumbledore was reminding him on the tower. "Severus, please. Do whatever is necessary to save yourself and these boys. Keep your vow!" Carol, who hopes we'll see Snape taking on multiple DEs in Book 7 and that you'll be proven correct about his abilities when the vow is not in play From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 21:22:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:22:42 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162318 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > I truly feel that LV has Snape 'save' Harry so it will look like he > is really on the Order's side. The whole while he is doing LV's > bidding. Harry is not the one that shows instant animosity towards > Snape. Snape is cruel to Harry right off the bat. Carol responds: I won't respond to the "cruelty" to Harry charge, since Snape's sarcasm hardly compares to Umbridge's detentions and Dementors or Fake!Moody's sending him to Voldemort and then attempting to kill him himself. But Snape saves Harry from Quirrell!mort before Voldemort has returned. He's trying to thwart Quirrell, not help him, whether or not he knows or suspects that Quirrell is under Voldemort's control. So he can hardly trying to save Harry so it looks like he's on the Order's side. The Order hasn't even been reestablished yet, and Snape did not have to cast the countercurse to save Harry. No one else did anything. Snape could have pretended to be as ignorant of what was happening as they were and let Harry die. Instead, he saved Harry. And Dumbledore wasn't even watching. byt the same token, in PoA he conjures stretchers to take HRH and Sirius Black, his enemy, back to Hogwarts. He didn't have to do that. He could have left them to the doubtful mercies of the werewolf and the Dementors, who would have returned when the threat of the person casting the Patronus was gone and they sensed helplessness again. In PoA, too, Voldemort had not returned and Snape could not have been acting on his orders. Carol, glad to see Snape posts dominating the list again From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 3 20:52:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 15:52:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) References: Message-ID: <005001c7171c$f6df7030$a16c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162319 >> Betsy Hp: >> Kind of like how the Trio condone cruelty to "others" especially >> if it's done to Draco (or any Slytherin, really)? > > Jenni from Alabama responds: > Really? Show me where any of the Trio are the first to start up > things with any of the Slytherins! They always are defending > themselves (or others). Magpie: Starting things up with the Slytherins and condoning cruelty against others are two different things. And while I agree with some of the basic ideas you present here, I think you go too far to the other extreme for the Gryffindors, who really are not all that bothered by cruelty to others. Hermione does point out that Moody's ferret bounce was too extreme. Jenni: Hermione also says the twins were wrong for putting Montague in that > Vanishing Cabinet. Though Montague was quite mean to the twins and > others. Magpie: No, she doesn't say the Twins were wrong for putting him there, nor do we see Montague being quite mean to the twins and others. Montague was in the IS and tried to take points from the Twins, which is why they pushed him into the Cabinet. He wasn't hurting them. Hermione's line comes weeks later when she sees Montague's parents coming to the school to see their son, who is still in the infirmary. She "in a worried voice" wonders if they shouldn't tell someone what happened to him to help cure him. Both boys shoot her down very easily. So that particular exchange doesn't show much on their part, imo. They see someone suffering, think they might have a way of helping them, and decide against it without much trouble because the continued suffering is better for them. There's never any discussion of the Twins being wrong to have pushed him in the first place that I recall. Jenni:> > When Harry walks in on Draco in tears in the bathroom with Moaning > Myrtle. Harry is shocked and (IMO) moved. If Draco hadn't attacked > him, Harry may even have listened and offered help. But Draco did > attack him. Draco tries to jinx Harry twice before Harry uses the > Sectumsempra Curse. Harry had no clue what the curse did and > immediately tried to undo it after it is cast and hits Draco. He > feels a huge amount of remorse. Magpie: This again is going a little too far, imo. First, there is no indication that Harry actually is moved by Malfoy's crying, and we certainly can't assume that he would have done any particular thing if Malfoy hadn't hexed him, much less listen to him and offer help. Harry is shocked by Malfoy crying--too shocked to move and leave, which I think would be more what he would have done if he'd had his wits about him. As for showing a huge amount of remorse, I'd say that's very specifically lacking in the book. He's horrified at what he's done at the time, but once Malfoy is healed really avoids much thought about the matter at all. He protests his detentions (which he says he does not deserve because he is not a liar and a cheat--the reason Snape gives for punishing him), runs to hide the book where he got the curse. What he feels about what he did is mostly twinges of conscience that personally I find really interesting but aren't dwelt on by Harry himself. I would never describe him as feeling a huge amount of remorse. Jenni: > > Draco however tried to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry knowing full > well what that curse does and so therefore would have had full > responsibility for his actions. Draco also attacked Harry on the > train, stunned him and roughed him up (kicked him, broke his nose). > Draco feels no remorse for this. Even laughs about it! Magpie: And it's a sign of Ron's friendship, apparently, that he keeps himself from laughing. Others laugh at the Slytherins when they're unconscious and turned into slugs. I think JKR clearly puts both of these things on the same level of kid-fighting where no one feels much remorse and the victims feel more humiliated for being gotten the better of than lasting pain. Harry does, of course, attempt Crucio elsewhere in canon. I've come to think of that being a common instinct in adolescent Wizard boys who want to make other people hurt the way they do. Harry has that kind of feeling a lot himself. I think in both cases it's actually very different from the way Bellatrix throws a Crucio, and that that would always show in how the curse came out. Jenni: > > Harry nor any of the Trio would have done such a thing. Yeah, they > may have fought with Draco or his crew, but they would never lash > out unless attacked first. Magpie: Obviously Harry has tried to throw Crucio so would conisider throwing it. And you're stretching "attack first" to mean "provoked" so imo that's not accurate. (Presumably the way they're provoked justifies an attack unlike the way another person might be provoked to attack them.) Harry and the Twins both attacked Malfoy in OotP because they were provoked, but they were not attacked first. Nor were they attacked first in GoF. The Twins cause fairly longterm damage to Montague without having been attacked themselves. Harry hexes Filch, who can't attack at all. The Twins don't mind having a bit of fun with Dudley. Draco's two attacks on Harry in HBP are actually kind of unique in that for once he's not really just starting things. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 21:43:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:43:10 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162320 > Carol responds: > I won't respond to the "cruelty" to Harry charge, since Snape's > sarcasm hardly compares to Umbridge's detentions and Dementors or > Fake!Moody's sending him to Voldemort and then attempting to kill him > himself. Alla: Yes, Umbridge and Fake!Moody planned Harry's murders, Snape did not plan Harry murder, although even that can turn out to be true yet. Snape did things to Harry which did not include planning his murder. There are many bad things that could be done to the person without planning his murder. Carol: By the same token, in PoA he conjures > stretchers to take HRH and Sirius Black, his enemy, back to Hogwarts. > He didn't have to do that. He could have left them to the doubtful > mercies of the werewolf and the Dementors, who would have returned > when the threat of the person casting the Patronus was gone and they > sensed helplessness again. In PoA, too, Voldemort had not returned and > Snape could not have been acting on his orders. > > Carol, glad to see Snape posts dominating the list again > Alla: Snipping Saving Harry in PS/SS - too many rounds on that one. :) No, Snape could not have acted on Voldemort's orders in PoA, I agree, he could have acted on his own orders though. And what is better way to get in DD good graces, when hoping that he won't interfer in execution of Sirius Black, then to deliver Trio on stretchers back to castle? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 22:09:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:09:10 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!/Harry, Draco. In-Reply-To: <005001c7171c$f6df7030$a16c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162321 > Magpie: > This again is going a little too far, imo. First, there is no indication > that Harry actually is moved by Malfoy's crying, and we certainly can't > assume that he would have done any particular thing if Malfoy hadn't hexed > him, much less listen to him and offer help. Harry is shocked by Malfoy > crying--too shocked to move and leave, which I think would be more what he > would have done if he'd had his wits about him. Alla: I am not sure if Harry is moved by Malfoy's crying. Probably not, but he was shocked as you said and the possible indication that he felt something is IMO the fact that he does not try Sectusemptra right away, and he was itching to try it. I think he was moved tiny bit, but maybe not (too much to expect too suddenly) Magpie: > Harry does, of course, attempt Crucio elsewhere in canon. I've come to > think of that being a common instinct in adolescent Wizard boys who want to > make other people hurt the way they do. Harry has that kind of feeling a > lot himself. I think in both cases it's actually very different from the > way Bellatrix throws a Crucio, and that that would always show in how the > curse came out. Alla: Likely I would agree, nevertheless, I would never compare the curse thrown at the killer of your loved one and the curse thrown at somebody.... why? I mean, yes, I agree with your basic premise - that Draco wanted Harry to hurt as badly as he was hurting, but I would put his curse **much** closer to Bella's one, because Harry did not kill Draco's loved one in front of him. I suppose you can argue that Draco wanted Harry to hurt for putting Lucius in jail, but that was still not imminent, IMO. Harry throws his curse minutes after Sirius' death. > Magpie: > Obviously Harry has tried to throw Crucio so would conisider throwing it. > And you're stretching "attack first" to mean "provoked" so imo that's not > accurate. (Presumably the way they're provoked justifies an attack unlike > the way another person might be provoked to attack them.) Alla: Yes, often it is IMO. The original point as I understood it was though to argue against comparison of Trio condoning cruelty same way as Snape does. Snape attacks them unprovoked, no? Magpie: Harry and the > Twins both attacked Malfoy in OotP because they were provoked, but they were > not attacked first. Alla: True, they should have kept themselves in check here. Magpie: Nor were they attacked first in GoF. Alla: Um, if we are talking about Train scene, I would strongly disagree. It is your right to consider that as not being attacked, I consider showing up uninvited and issuing death threats as attack and physical attack in making. Didn't they look as about to take their wands out? Magpie: Draco's two attacks on Harry in HBP are actually > kind of unique in that for once he's not really just starting things. Alla: Yes, Harry had no business being in their compartment. But I cannot even find adequate words to object against Draco not starting things in the bathroom. Harry was doing nothing to him before Draco thrown Crucio. That does not count as starting things? Self defense pure and simple as far as I am concerned and he still does not do Sectusemptra right away. Only when he is tripping on the floor. And people are wondering why Snape did not press charges against Harry here. Um, maybe because Draco dearest would have landed in Azkaban first? IMO, Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 3 22:48:02 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 17:48:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!/Harry, Draco. References: Message-ID: <00a001c7172d$1c5fdc40$a16c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162322 > Alla: > > I am not sure if Harry is moved by Malfoy's crying. Probably not, > but he was shocked as you said and the possible indication that he > felt something is IMO the fact that he does not try Sectusemptra > right away, and he was itching to try it. I think he was moved tiny > bit, but maybe not (too much to expect too suddenly) Magpie: I could believe that Harry might have been moved a bit (though he's conscious of being so)--Harry doesn't do anything bad to Malfoy in the scene, I agree. I just think it's going to far to assume that Harry would have his heart melted by just the sight of Draco's crying. He's shocked, but he's not suddenly sympathetic to his plight. Harry's been perfectly pleased by signs of Malfoy's distress in the past--this one just shocks him because it's so over the top. > Magpie: >> Harry does, of course, attempt Crucio elsewhere in canon. I've > come to >> think of that being a common instinct in adolescent Wizard boys > who want to >> make other people hurt the way they do. Harry has that kind of > feeling a >> lot himself. I think in both cases it's actually very different > from the >> way Bellatrix throws a Crucio, and that that would always show in > how the >> curse came out. > > Alla: > > Likely I would agree, nevertheless, I would never compare the curse > thrown at the killer of your loved one and the curse thrown at > somebody.... why? I mean, yes, I agree with your basic premise - > that Draco wanted Harry to hurt as badly as he was hurting, but I > would put his curse **much** closer to Bella's one, because Harry > did not kill Draco's loved one in front of him. Magpie: I don't think I would. Because while obviously Harry hasn't done anything to Draco while Bellatrix just killed Sirius I think both boys are throwing the curse out of desperation and their own feelings. Harry's walking in on Draco in the worst possible state Draco would want Harry to see him and Harry's probably getting the brunt of a lot of feelings besides even just that. So while I would say that Harry's Crucio makes more sense at Bella or Snape since they'd both just truly hurt him, I don't think that makes Draco's closer to Bellatrix's in terms of being about cold-blooded sadism. The distinction I'm making isn't in the circumstances--there I agree that someone having just murdered a loved one is totally different from someone just walking in on you crying. Alla: I suppose you can > argue that Draco wanted Harry to hurt for putting Lucius in jail, > but that was still not imminent, IMO. Harry throws his curse minutes > after Sirius' death. Magpie: That's not the connection I'm drawing. Harry is certainly acting out of a more justified rage at the person in question. I'm saying I think that Draco, too, was acting out of extreme emotion in the moment. Neither of them are acting out of the kind thing that seems to make Bellatrix and Barty Crouch fans of the spell. >> Magpie: >> Obviously Harry has tried to throw Crucio so would conisider > throwing it. >> And you're stretching "attack first" to mean "provoked" so imo > that's not >> accurate. (Presumably the way they're provoked justifies an attack > unlike >> the way another person might be provoked to attack them.) > > Alla: > > Yes, often it is IMO. The original point as I understood it was > though to argue against comparison of Trio condoning cruelty same > way as Snape does. Snape attacks them unprovoked, no? Magpie: But condoning cruelty is not the same thing as acting out first. And also it gets complicated because for the pov character the cruelty probably is often provoked. > Magpie: > Nor were they attacked first in GoF. > > > Alla: > > Um, if we are talking about Train scene, I would strongly disagree. > It is your right to consider that as not being attacked, I consider > showing up uninvited and issuing death threats as attack and > physical attack in making. Didn't they look as about to take their > wands out? Magpie: I don't think there's any suggestion of any of the Slytherins taking out their wands--nor do I think they're making death threats. (Predicting that in future you and your friends will be targetted by another person is not a death threat that I can see. It's threatening to hear, but I don't think it could be considered a statement of intent to kill yourself.) They are certainly being provoking, but nobody's attacked physically except themselves. > Alla: > > Yes, Harry had no business being in their compartment. But I cannot > even find adequate words to object against Draco not starting things > in the bathroom. Harry was doing nothing to him before Draco thrown > Crucio. That does not count as starting things? Self defense pure > and simple as far as I am concerned and he still does not do > Sectusemptra right away. Only when he is tripping on the floor. Magpie: I think even Harry recognizes that Draco is not just starting things in the bathroom. He's a teenaged boy come upon by his worst peer enemy while he's crying like a baby. Harry's unfortunately done something like accidentally cornering a wounded animal and it strikes at him. Harry has not actually done anything wrong himself, and Draco doesn't have any justification for hurting Harry--but I can't believe that as another teenaged boy Harry wouldn't find Draco's attack in that scene inevitable, which is why Harry isn't really angry when he's fighting Malfoy the way he usually is. Draco is in a twisted way acting in response to Harry. It's not literal self-defense at all, but I do think he's acting out of a sense of defending himself. Alla: > And people are wondering why Snape did not press charges against > Harry here. Um, maybe because Draco dearest would have landed in > Azkaban first? Magpie: I have to say--I doubt it since Draco didn't actually cast the Unforgivable. Not that I have a big problem with Snape not pressing charges--I think pressing charges is rarely something that's going to happen in canon, and anyway it wasn't something I wanted Snape to do either. But of all the reasons he had for not doing so, I don't think Malfoy going to prison was really a danger (for that at least). -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 3 23:13:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 23:13:16 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162323 > >>Jenni from Alabama: > I truly feel that LV has Snape 'save' Harry so it will look like he > is really on the Order's side. The whole while he is doing LV's > bidding. Betsy Hp: Woot! A Snape debate!! (The character of Snape is one of the saving graces of this series, IMO.) ::rubs hands together gleefully:: Well, Carol answered this one pretty well I think. As she pointed out, Voldemort wasn't in any position to give Snape orders regarding Harry and the treatment thereof. And while you put the word "save" in quotation marks, the fact is without Snape, Harry would have died in PS/SS. And without Snape, Harry, Luna, Ginny, Neville, Hermione, and Ron would have died in OotP. So the saving has been actual, no matter the motivation. > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Harry is not the one that shows instant animosity towards Snape. > Snape is cruel to Harry right off the bat. Betsy Hp: This is one of those tomayto-tomahto things. You call Snape's opening scene cruel. I'd call it hard or tough. I do think Snape went a bit too far, but not to the level of cruelty, IMO. (And yes, I know that folks disagree and feel that what Snape did equals pulling the legs off kittens. But I'm just throwing out my opinion. ) > >>Jenni from Alabama responds: > Really? Show me where any of the Trio are the first to start up > things with any of the Slytherins! They always are defending > themselves (or others). They even try to avoid confrontations with > Draco and his bullies. > Betsy Hp: Good lord, the amount of times Draco gets hit from behind and in greater numbers!. There's the train scene in GoF. There's the quidditch pitch scene in OotP. There's the laughing over the ferret scene in GoF. There's the infamous near murder of Montague in OotP. I do agree that Draco does *say* mean things, but it's Harry and friends doing the physical attacks. And never (that I can recall) in honest to goodness self-defense. (Except the bathroom scene in HBP.) Honestly, that Gryffindor is hailed as the house of chilvary is yet more proof that chilvary is dead. (Except for maybe Neville; I love Neville. ) > >>Jenni from Alabama: > And they don't condone cruelty, especially Hermione. > Betsy Hp: Oh dear... Hermione... I think she's one of the cruelist characters in the Potterverse. Heading down a path to become the next Umbridge. Um... I'm quite sure tons of you will disagree. But there it is. (My opinion only here.) Also, regarding the ferret scene: When I was a very small child (five or six) my family toured a place somewhere (Africa? South America? England?) where there were still dents on the floor made by people dropped on the floor as a form of torture. I had nightmares for a while and have never forgotten it (though obviously some details were lost ). So I have a different take on a scene that involves a known sadist throwing a child repeatedly against a stone floor because he's mad at the child's father. That Harry and Ron weren't horrified by it is I think only explained by the fact that it was a ferret squealing in pain rather than a real boy. Both boys were young and sheltered, so I don't think they recognized how far Fake!Moody was going. > >>Betsy Hp: > > You mean, the exact hatred and revulsion Harry was feeling (for > > himself) as he force-fed Dumbledore poison in the scene just > > before this one? That look of hatred and revulsion? ::grins > > madly, because I really, really love that parallel:: > >>Jenni from Alabama responds: > I don't see it that way. I think Snape really is a bad guy. Betsy Hp: I was referencing the exact word choice used: "Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the goblet back toward Dumbledore's mouth..." [HBP scholastic hardback p.571] "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. [ibid p.595] So a parallel is presented in canon. Whether is means anything will depend on Book 7 of course. But I think it's fairly significant. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm calling for a canon check on this one: when does Snape *ever* > > comment to Harry about Lily being a mudblood? > > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > OK, you asked for Canon, here it is. > > My mistake was that it wasn't said TO Harry, it was said to James. > Harry just heard it in the pensieve. > But Snape did refer to/call Lily a Mudblood. She was defending him > and he still trashed her! Talk about low. Betsy Hp: What's significant, IMO, is that there's nothing to suggest that Snape (adult Snape) has a blood prejudice. That he did in his youth is shown by his joining the Death Eaters in the first place. But as an adult there's nothing to suggest that his change of heart isn't genuine (at least philosophically). As to trashing Lily, there are so many things going on in that scene, including a large amount of flirting between Lily and James. There were a lot of reasons for Snape to try and hurt Lily, despite her defending him. > >>Betsy Hp: > > It's the sexy beast thing. Snape is too darn cool to completely > > write off. > > > > Even Harry can't completely write off Snape! > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Not until he kills Dumbledore. That is when I write him off too. > Though the voice whispers, I don't see how in the heck Snape can > fully redeem himself in the last book. He can atone for SOME of it, > but not all. Never could make up for killing Dumbledore! > There's that dang voice again! I wish it would just shut up! Betsy Hp: Just to add to that little voice... , what if Dumbledore was a horcrux? What if (as has been theorized on this list**) in destroying the ring a bit of Voldemort took up residence in Dumbledore's dead hand? As twisted as it might seem, I honestly think that killing Dumbledore is *part* of Snape's atonement; an important step on Snape's path to redemption. The question for me is, will Snape ever forgive Dumbledore for making him go through with it? Betsy Hp (echoing Carol in joy that Snape is back on this list ) ** see this thread for details on that theory: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/156547 From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 00:44:49 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:44:49 -0000 Subject: A couple of little theories! - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > > So, I was mistaken in that Snape didn't say it TO Harry. Harry > heard it/saw it all in the pensieve. But, he does call her a > Mudblood. > Notice Lily's reaction. She's stunned! Here she is defending the > jerk and he trashes her! That is hitting below the belt, IMO. zanooda: Hi, Jenni! You know, somehow I never blamed Snape for insulting Lily in this scene. I mean, the word itself is horrible, of course, but I kind of understand why Teen!Snape would lash out at her like that. I don't think I can explain it well, though, because it's complicated, and my English is just not good enough for that :-). I only want to say that it must feel horrible to be humiliated like this in front of the girl you like (I do believe Snape liked Lily). It's even more humiliating to be "rescued" by her, IMO. Well, maybe not for everyone, but Snape seems to be the type. I'm not sure, like some others on this list, that Lily only used Teen!Snape as a prop for her flirting with James in the Pensieve scene. I think that it's possible she was sincere, but, in either case, Snape's reaction seems logical to me, you know, to push someone away out of pride? Sorry that I can't explain it better, it's just the feeling I get from this scene. > Jenni from Alabama: > I mainly feel that Snape showed his true colors on that tower and > really is a bad guy, a death eater and evil. zanooda: Yeah, I agree that at this point it's more about "a feeling" than about canon evidence. I myself feel that Snape is on our side. Besides, if he is evil, as you say, why would he save Harry in the last book as you suggest (sorry, I snipped this part of your post by mistake)? > Jenni from Alabama - in response to some other posts: > Yes, Snape has saved Harry in the past. But - as he says to the > Death Eaters at the end of HBP when they try to hurt Harry > (page 603, Am. Edition): > > "No!" roared Snape's voice and the pain stopped as suddenly as it > had started; Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand > and panting; somewhere overhead Snape was shouting, "Have you > forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord - we are to > leave him! Go! Go!" zanooda: Well, this is not a very good example of Snape serving LV, because, if LV wanted to kill Harry personally, all Snape needed to do at that moment was to stun him and take him from Hogwarts with the help of other DEs. Snape could have taken Harry to LV that night, but he didn't. > Jenni from Alabama (wishing the voice would just shut up!) zanooda: Haha, I wish I had a voice in my head telling me that Snape is ESE! In this case, if it turns out to be true, I could at least say that I had my doubts :-). But no, I don't have any doubts about Snape's loyalties. I have doubts about many things in the books, but not about this. Take care, Jenni! From random832 at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 00:48:16 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 19:48:16 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50612031648l68f93271y3d68f18962f3fbc1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162326 CV: > Later on in the hospital, Dumbledore says (again, paraphrased) > > "Voldemort cares little for his followers, he left Quirrell to die." > > NEVER does Dumbledore say Quirrell is dead. Only that Voldemort > THINKS Quirrell is dead because he intended it so. Another thing to consider is that, traditionally in literature when one says "left for dead" or "left to die", the implication is often of someone who survives to take revenge. -- Random832 From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 00:58:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 00:58:11 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162327 > Carol earlier: > > > I agree that he couldn't save the wandless, weakened Dumbledore, > who would be killed by the DEs if not by the poison if neither Draco > nor Snape killed him, and that Dumbledore wanted Snape to save himself > rather than be killed by the UV or the DEs, as he surely would have > been fighting against four DEs > > > > Quick_Silver: > > I disagree that Snape couldn't have saved Dumbledore on Tower (in > the context of their being to many Des). > Carol responds: > > But my point was that his choice was between dying bravely but > futilely along with Dumbledore and Draco and Harry or killing DD > himself Neri: Snape was alone on the tower against four DEs because he had chosen to be. All his actions show this. He stupefies Flitwick, then he leaves both Hermione and Luna to take care of him, although he knows that they fought DEs in the past and can be useful in a battle. He doesn't even send them to call more reinforcements (say, Hagrid and/or the Aurors in Hogsmeade). After he got rid of Flitwick, Hermione and Luna, he runs upstairs and straight through the cursed barrier, without even trying to nullify it so that the rest of the Order members can follow him up the tower (and it turns out that it's possible to break this barrier simply by reductoing the ceiling above it). All this he does *before* he knows of Dumbledore's grave situation. He doesn't even know for sure that Dumbledore is in the castle at all. But he obviously knows one thing: that he doesn't want any of the good guys around. So if it's DDM!Snape following The Plan, then this hypothetical plan was obviously decided long before, with no regard to Dumbledore's specific situation at the time of execution. Still, it seems strange how Snape is suddenly so sure that this time is *now*. If OTOH it's DDM!Snape just thinking he can take care of all the DEs by himself, then he has worked himself into this "choice" and he comes out really lame (as usual). But to me Snape's actions read simply like those of a desperate man who has just realized that the game is over. Draco is obviously making his final attempt at Dumbledor's life, and if he fails and/or get hurt, Snape is dead. Nothing else matters anymore. Snape must somehow get to Dumbledore, wherever he is, make sure that Draco kills him or kill Dumbledore himself, and then somehow get Draco out of this mess unhurt. There's no plan. There's just staying alive. Neri From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Mon Dec 4 02:15:46 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:15:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco symmetry (was:The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > Betsy Hp: > Also, regarding the ferret scene: When I was a very small child (five > or six) my family toured a place somewhere (Africa? South America? > England?) where there were still dents on the floor made by people > dropped on the floor as a form of torture. I had nightmares for a > while and have never forgotten it (though obviously some details were > lost ). So I have a different take on a scene that involves a > known sadist throwing a child repeatedly against a stone floor > because he's mad at the child's father. > > That Harry and Ron weren't horrified by it is I think only explained > by the fact that it was a ferret squealing in pain rather than a real > boy. Both boys were young and sheltered, so I don't think they > recognized how far Fake!Moody was going. Quick_Silver: I'd say though that said scene (the infamous ferret bounce) is an important milestone (if you will) in the Harry Draco symmetry. In terms of Draco's physical suffering in that scene I'd hesitate to say that it surpasses what Harry has endured at a younger age (the Quirrell incident left Harry unconscious for 3 days?). But I'd also say that it surpass anything that Harry has endured from a teacher (as much as Harry hates Snape). So for Harry that scene kind of foreshadows what he'll endure from Umbridge and for Draco it foreshows the Bathroom incident where he'll endure something on Harry's level of pain and mortality (considering that by 4th year Harry has almost died twice). Quick_Silver From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 4 02:18:58 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:18:58 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162329 Neri: All this he does > *before* he knows of Dumbledore's grave situation. He doesn't even > know for sure that Dumbledore is in the castle at all. >snip> . Draco is obviously making his final attempt at Dumbledor's life and if he fails and/or get hurt, Snape is dead. Pippin: And how would Snape know that Draco is on the tower? He knows that Death Eaters have succeeded in invading the castle and that some of them must be on the tower, but whether Draco is there or not he cannot know. For all Snape knows, Draco is dead already -- he is only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his ability, so if Draco has died despite Snape's best efforts, Snape is off the hook for protecting Draco, and maybe for carrying out the task as well, since it can no longer prove necessary in order to save Draco. But if Snape doesn't know where Draco is, his best effort requires him to find out, and that means he doesn't have time to wait for reinforcements to arrive, nor can he linger to help the contingent fighting at the base of the tower. Obviously whether Snape followed it or not there was a plan, or Dumbledore's 'Severus please' was just a craven plea for mercy, which is ridiculous, IMO. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 02:19:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:19:16 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162330 > >>Neri: > Snape was alone on the tower against four DEs because he had chosen > to be. Betsy Hp: I think you're giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience. Snape had no idea what he was going to find. He just knew there were Death Eaters inside Hogwarts (something I think neither he nor Dumbledore ever imagined happening) and that something big was going down. > >>Neri: > All his actions show this. He stupefies Flitwick, then he leaves > both Hermione and Luna to take care of him, although he knows that > they fought DEs in the past and can be useful in a battle. Betsy Hp: I boggle at this, Neri. You're suggesting Snape should have taken a sixteen year old and a fifteen year old into *battle*?!? Please keep in mind that the older girl barely survived her brush with Death Eaters last year. I can't imagine a more irresponsible move than to bring two children along to "assist" in an Order vs. Death Eater throw-down. > >>Neri: > He doesn't even send them to call more reinforcements (say, Hagrid > and/or the Aurors in Hogsmeade). > > But he obviously knows one thing: that he doesn't want any of the > good guys around. Betsy Hp: I agree. Considering the game both Snape and Dumbledore seem to be playing I think Snape probably felt the less players around, the better. There's a possibility he can talk the Death Eaters out of Hogwarts, but not with a bunch of Aurors or Order members around. And we also have the rather heavily hinted probability that Snape knows he's going to have to kill Dumbledore (or allow him to die) at some point in the near future. That the dreaded time is now is another possibility Snape has to be considering as he races up to the Tower. And finally, there's the Draco situation. Snape is the only other person in on that particular secret. Dumbledore has already risked a great deal to save Draco from Voldemort. And it's yet another reason to keep the good guys away. > >>Neri: > So if it's DDM!Snape following The Plan, then this hypothetical plan > was obviously decided long before, with no regard to Dumbledore's > specific situation at the time of execution. Betsy Hp: Personally, since I think Dumbledore is dying from the start of HBP, I think this "plan" *has* been in place for a long while. As Dumbledore's physician, Snape would realize that Dumbledore's death would come with no regard for the specific situation. Especially as more and more time passed. > >>Neri: > Still, it seems strange how Snape is suddenly so sure that this > time is *now*. > Betsy Hp: Really? There are Death Eaters *inside* Hogwarts. The impossible has just occured. *Something* big is about to happen, and the Death Mark floating above the Tower is fairly indicative that it's going to be ugly. But in either case, even if Dumbledore is safely off on one of his horcrux hunts, Snape has a better chance of doing good while on his own. > >>Neri: > But to me Snape's actions read simply like those of a desperate man > who has just realized that the game is over. Draco is obviously > making his final attempt at Dumbledor's life, and if he fails > and/or get hurt, Snape is dead. Nothing else matters anymore. Snape > must somehow get to Dumbledore, wherever he is, make sure that > Draco kills him or kill Dumbledore himself, and then somehow get > Draco out of this mess unhurt. There's no plan. There's just > staying alive. Betsy Hp: But Snape staying alive is a big part of the plan. So is keeping Draco safe. I agree that Snape is desperate, but not in the sense that he's panicking. I think his emotional breakdown afterwards, the scene where he's compared to a dog being burned to death, speaks to the emotional turmoil Dumbledore's task has put him through. This is the moment Snape has to walk through fire to fully realize his redemption. And the best thing he can do is keep the bystanders and possible innocent victims to a bare minimum. Something he does admirably well, IMO. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 02:29:14 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 02:29:14 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: <00a001c7172d$1c5fdc40$a16c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162331 > Magpie: > I could believe that Harry might have been moved a bit (though he's > conscious of being so)--Harry doesn't do anything bad to Malfoy in the > scene, I agree. I just think it's going to far to assume that Harry would > have his heart melted by just the sight of Draco's crying. Alla: Right, no. Not heart melted of course and why would he be suddenly sympathetic to his plight after all crap Malfoy did to him and his friends after all? But judging by the fact that at the end Harry is talking about having tiny bit of pity for Malfoy I think he is getting there. > Magpie: > I don't think I would. Because while obviously Harry hasn't done anything > to Draco while Bellatrix just killed Sirius I think both boys are throwing > the curse out of desperation and their own feelings. The distinction I'm making isn't in the circumstances--there I agree that > someone having just murdered a loved one is totally different from someone > just walking in on you crying. Alla: Mmmmm. I have to think about it to decide what I think. I will probably agree with you, especially since we agree about circumstances. > Magpie: >They are > certainly being provoking, but nobody's attacked physically except > themselves. Alla: My point is whether Trio was justified to attack them. I consider what Draco and his goons did to be more than enough to justify the response. Harry had just been tortured and come here and threaten his Muggleborn friend? Heeee, I had just decided that I don't hate Malfoy anymore, but every time I think of this scene, my hatred is here again. Yes, I checked the book, no mention of the wands, you are right, but narrator also describes them as looking more menacing ( Draco and Co) than he ever saw them, so I would argue that the possibility of deducing the physical threat was also there. IMO of course. But whether it was there or not, what I saw happened made me think of Trio's response as justified. > Magpie: > I think even Harry recognizes that Draco is not just starting things in the > bathroom. He's a teenaged boy come upon by his worst peer enemy while he's > crying like a baby. Harry's unfortunately done something like accidentally > cornering a wounded animal and it strikes at him. Harry has not actually > done anything wrong himself, and Draco doesn't have any justification for > hurting Harry--but I can't believe that as another teenaged boy Harry > wouldn't find Draco's attack in that scene inevitable, which is why Harry > isn't really angry when he's fighting Malfoy the way he usually is. Draco is > in a twisted way acting in response to Harry. It's not literal self-defense > at all, but I do think he's acting out of a sense of defending himself. Alla: I do understand what you are saying about Draco's twisted ways and why he would think that he is acting defending himself. In short I get and accept that this is what Draco may be thinking. But let's talk about what we had seen happened in this scene. Draco may think that he is defending himself, but the one who truly does it is Harry. Harry does not throw curse at Draco first. It is the opposite. I am just puzzled as to how scene of Harry defending himself suddenly gets transformed in **Draco** defending himself. Harry not only does not do anything wrong, he defends himself against Unforgivable. Blinks. > Alla: > > And people are wondering why Snape did not press charges against > > Harry here. Um, maybe because Draco dearest would have landed in > > Azkaban first? > > Magpie: > I have to say--I doubt it since Draco didn't actually cast the Unforgivable. > Not that I have a big problem with Snape not pressing charges--I think > pressing charges is rarely something that's going to happen in canon, and > anyway it wasn't something I wanted Snape to do either. But of all the > reasons he had for not doing so, I don't think Malfoy going to prison was > really a danger (for that at least). Alla: He started though - we don't know for sure if wand does not register the attempt - it may or it may not IMO. I mentioned Snape not pressing charges because it is often mentioned as something awfully noble on Snape's part and the best I can come up with is Snape protecting little ferret against Azkaban, not protecting Harry against being expelled. > > Jenni from Alabama: > > > I mainly feel that Snape showed his true colors on that tower and > > really is a bad guy, a death eater and evil. > > zanooda: > > Yeah, I agree that at this point it's more about "a feeling" than > about canon evidence. I myself feel that Snape is on our side. > Besides, if he is evil, as you say, why would he save Harry in the > last book as you suggest (sorry, I snipped this part of your post by > mistake)? Alla: Um, I agree that it can go either way of course, but no my feelings of Snape being evil are based on some canon facts - one of them is Snape killing Dumbledore. Which can be interpreted as DD!M Snape, but it is so not the first thought that comes to my mind. As to why Snape may save Harry at the end if he is evil, well that would be his redemption then - as in he sees Harry's eyes, Lily in them, blah, blah. :) >> zanooda: > > Well, this is not a very good example of Snape serving LV, because, > if LV wanted to kill Harry personally, all Snape needed to do at that > moment was to stun him and take him from Hogwarts with the help of > other DEs. Snape could have taken Harry to LV that night, but he > didn't. Alla: Maybe Snape believes the Prophecy and wants to see who wins at the end Harry or Voldemort? I mean one can sure interpet Snape's ( Potter is for the Lord - paraphrase) as Snape saving him, OR one can do straightforward interpretation - as in Snape follows the orders and reserves Potter for Dark Lord to play with. > > > Jenni from Alabama (wishing the voice would just shut up!) > > zanooda: > > Haha, I wish I had a voice in my head telling me that Snape is ESE! > In this case, if it turns out to be true, I could at least say that I > had my doubts :-). But no, I don't have any doubts about Snape's > loyalties. I have doubts about many things in the books, but not > about this. Alla: That is a good analogy. I believe that Snape only cares for himself and would not hesitate to do an evil deed if it will help him or that he is acting under Life debt premise, but I always have this voice, hehe - as I mentioned , it will help me to not be too dissapointed if Snape is DD!M :) IMO Alla, counts to five and dissappears. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 4 04:24:54 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2006 23:24:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape References: Message-ID: <00f701c7175c$298f8490$a16c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162332 > Alla: > > Right, no. Not heart melted of course and why would he be suddenly > sympathetic to his plight after all crap Malfoy did to him and his > friends after all? But judging by the fact that at the end Harry is > talking about having tiny bit of pity for Malfoy I think he is > getting there. Magpie: He definitely could be. It's just, as you say here, he's got this history with Malfoy and he, unlike most people, has an idea of what Malfoy's up to this year. So it's not like seeing him cry over working for Voldemort would make Harry suddenly change that much. There's only so much sympathy Harry would have that it's stressful working for Voldemort.:-) [snipping} > Alla: > Yes, I checked the book, no mention of the wands, you are right, but > narrator also describes them as looking more menacing ( Draco and > Co) than he ever saw them, so I would argue that the possibility of > deducing the physical threat was also there. IMO of course. > > But whether it was there or not, what I saw happened made me think > of Trio's response as justified. Magpie: Heh--I know you do! I was just trying to draw the distinction between being attacked first and feeling or being justified for attacking first, which I assume everyone did in this scene. > Alla: > > I do understand what you are saying about Draco's twisted ways and > why he would think that he is acting defending himself. In short I > get and accept that this is what Draco may be thinking. Magpie: LOL! I just love the phrase "Draco's twisted ways." Though in this case I can imagine a lot of characters responding this way--at least the boys. Alla: > > But let's talk about what we had seen happened in this scene. Draco > may think that > he is defending himself, but the one who truly does it is Harry. > Harry does not throw curse at Draco first. It is the opposite. I am > just puzzled as to how scene of Harry defending himself suddenly > gets transformed in **Draco** defending himself. > > Harry not only does not do anything wrong, he defends himself > against Unforgivable. Blinks. Magpie: Harry is absolutely defending himself--from actual hexes. I think that's one of the reasons the whole thing is so shocking from his pov, that he's not really ever feeling angry at Malfoy in the bathroom. He really never loses control. He just reaches for the spell he thinks will take care of things and he's not expecting what he gets. He does feel twinges of conscience about it, which I hope will be explored later, because he did almost kill someone violently, which went beyond defending himself. >> Magpie: >> I have to say--I doubt it since Draco didn't actually cast the > Unforgivable. >> Not that I have a big problem with Snape not pressing charges--I > think >> pressing charges is rarely something that's going to happen in > canon, and >> anyway it wasn't something I wanted Snape to do either. But of > all the >> reasons he had for not doing so, I don't think Malfoy going to > prison was >> really a danger (for that at least). > > Alla: > > He started though - we don't know for sure if wand does not register > the attempt - it may or it may not IMO. Magpie: I really doubt it does--and regardless I can't imagine the legal machinery of the WW ever being truly helpful that way. It seems to only come in to push someone's agenda. And since Harry's attempted Crucio's as well with nothing much coming of it I just can't imagine that being an interesting way to go. Alla: > I mentioned Snape not pressing charges because it is often mentioned > as something awfully noble on Snape's part and the best I can come > up with is Snape protecting little ferret against Azkaban, not > protecting Harry against being expelled. Magpie: I always figure he's probably protecting a whole lot of things. He's protecting Draco in general so even without the threat of Azkaban for that particular spell I can't imagine Snape would want him in trouble. Also I wonder if he doesn't want his own spell coming out. Not that I think he'd get in trouble for creating the spell at 16 that somebody used later, but I can just imagine him not really wanting that aspect of it known. Anyway, my point is basically that I agree it's not all about protecting Harry from being expelled because again, it just doesn't seem like any sort of enforcing body is at issue. Draco doesn't much seem to figure into much of the equation after he's on his feet either. I feel like if it were really significant that Snape didn't try to get Harry expelled we'd have heard it from someone. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 04:26:56 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 04:26:56 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162333 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 26, The Cave At the start of this chapter, Harry and Dumbledore have arrived on a rugged coastline, near the cave where Tom Riddle took two of his fellow orphans during an outing. Harry and Dumbledore climb down the cliffs into the water, and swim into a fissure in the cliffs leading to a tunnel which is submerged at high tide. At the end of the tunnel are steps leading up to a large cave. In this cave, Dumbledore stands and looks around, before declaring they are in the right spot, but that this cave is just the antechamber. He then makes two complete circuits of the cave, touching as much as he can of the walls and stopping to feel more carefully at certain points, murmuring words in a language Harry does not understand. He then settles on one spot and asserts that it is the way in. As he points his wand at it, an outline of an archway appears, and then fades. After some consideration, Dumbledore determines that the archway must be spattered with blood to be opened and does so. He gets the blood by cutting his forearm open with a silver potions knife and heals himself by passing his wand over the resulting wound. They now enter a vast underground cave containing a lake so large Harry cannot see the other side and a ceiling so high it is lost in darkness. In the lake there is an island from which a greenish glow emanates. Harry asks whether the Horcrux is there, and Dumbledore agrees that it is, but that the right way to get to it is the question. Harry tries to Accio the Horcrux, but this does not work, merely causing a dimly seen shape to breach the surface of the lake. Dumbledore applauds him for the idea and states that it was a good way to ascertain the protections they may face once the Horcrux is removed. Dumbledore finds an invisible chain, which he causes to appear, and pulls up a small boat from the depths. Harry and he barely fit; they get in to the boat and it takes them to the island. During the trip, Harry sees dead bodies floating in the water and learns from Dumbledore that they are Inferi, which fear light and warmth. The island contains nothing but a basin filled with a glowing green potion, which neither Dumbledore nor Harry can touch. Dumbledore proceeds to do some magic over the potion-waving his wand in complicated motions and `murmuring soundlessly.' He concludes that the potion can only be removed by drinking it. Harry is horrified, pointing out that the potion could kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore explains that Voldemort would want a visitor to the Cave to remain alive long enough to be questioned about his intentions, and so the potion will not kill him immediately. Harry gives his word to feed the potion to Dumbledore, if necessary, after Dumbledore reminds Harry of his promise earlier in the evening to follow Dumbledore's orders on the mission. Dumbledore conjures a goblet and begins to drink the potion. It seems to cause him considerable pain, as well as fear and emotional distress caused by some visions/hallucinations/memories. Dumbledore drinks three goblets of the potion by himself, before the effect of the potion causes him to fall forward and nearly spill the potion. Harry takes over, pouring the potion into his mouth and fetching more until it is all consumed. At the end, Dumbledore rolls over onto his face and is still, appearing to be dead. Harry rolls him over and performs two "Rennervate" spells, after which Dumbledore comes to and asks for water. He is described as very weak-sounding, and as pale as the Inferi. Harry's attempts to conjure water into the goblet are unsuccessful; he finally succeeds only in fetching the lake water, which Dumbledore had warned him not to touch. He throws the water into Dumbledore's face as an Inferius clutches his wrist, and others begin to come out of the water onto the island. Harry attempts to ward them off with "Petrificus Totalus," and freezes several, but more are coming. He tries "Sectumsempra," which does not seem to affect them, when Dumbledore creates a lasso of fire around the island. This frightens the Inferi, and they release Harry and allow Dumbledore to retrieve the locket and return to the boat. Dumbledore maintains the ring of fire throughout the trip back to the shore. Dumbledore is so exhausted that Harry must nearly carry him out of the cave. Harry reopens the archway with his own blood, from a scratch he sustained, and helps Dumbledore back into the crevice. He tells Dumbledore he will Apparate them both back, and the chapter ends with Dumbledore's words, "I am not worried, Harry, I am with you." DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? 2) In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not understand. Any ideas on this language and how Dumbledore came to know it? 3) Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood is worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? 4) Dumbledore heals the cut he has made by passing his wand once over it, and Harry is reminded of Snape's sung/chanted spell with which he healed Draco. Is this the nonverbal version, or something else? Why does Rowling choose to mention this similarity explicitly by having Harry note it? 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains the boat would only hold one adult wizard. Is there any special significance to these words? 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must be drunk? Why or why not? 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both as he gets into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do you think he does this? 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* use the water?Do you believe the lake water had any effect on Dumbledore? 11) What did you think of Harry's attempts to fight the Inferi? 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and asserts one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you think he meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the protection? 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to take up the fight? 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as well). A big thank you to Siriusly Snapey Susan, for her helpful corrections and suggestions about this post. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 05:00:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:00:30 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: <00f701c7175c$298f8490$a16c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162335 > Magpie: > Harry is absolutely defending himself--from actual hexes. I think that's > one of the reasons the whole thing is so shocking from his pov, that he's > not really ever feeling angry at Malfoy in the bathroom. He really never > loses control. He just reaches for the spell he thinks will take care of > things and he's not expecting what he gets. He does feel twinges of > conscience about it, which I hope will be explored later, because he did > almost kill someone violently, which went beyond defending himself. Alla: Okay, can post again before go to bed. I am responding to one point I strongly disagree with ( funny how disagreements often dissappear when we go from extreme positions and meet somewhere in the middle), because it seems to me that "Harry never losing control in this scene" is not what happened. He indeed almost killed someone violently, but I absolutely do not think that he went one ounce beyond defending himself in this scene. He almost killed someone because he used the spell that he did not know the meaning of. Stupid is as stupid does, no argument from me. But I completely disagree that it was just reaching for the spell that takes care of things. I think tripping and wet on the floor counts pretty good for "losing control" But I let Amiable Dorsai speak for me here :) "When Harry slipped and fell on the now-flooded floor, Draco attempted to use the Cruciatus curse on a downed opponent. It was only then, on the floor, soaking wet and desperate, that Harry used the Sectumsempra curse. Up until then, he had tried to defend himself with fairly benign magic. "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. And wouldn't have been even if Draco had bled to death." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155354? threaded=1&l=1 This is also makes me think again that maybe subsconsciously Harry felt something for Malfoy crying ( not much of course, but tiny something, maybe) - because only several pages ago he wanted to try Sectusemptra oh ever so badly and when he starts fighting with Malfoy, defending himself, this is still not the first curse that he fires, only the act of desperation (IMO of course, but I absolutely do not see that Sectusemptra is a calculated move on Harry's behalf to take care of things). JMO, Alla. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Dec 4 07:41:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:41:52 -0000 Subject: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > > Quirrel is absolutely dead. While we aren't given the > > details, there is no reason to think that Dumbledore > > didn't find Quirrel's body in the last chamber when he > > found Harry there. > CV: Actually, the only thing we know for sure is that Dumbledore > found Quirrell ALIVE in the chamber. I'm at work and don't have my > books, but he says something like: > > "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you." > > Quirrell had to have been putting up a fight to have to be "pulled" > off of Harry. > > Later on in the hospital, Dumbledore says (again, paraphrased) > > "Voldemort cares little for his followers, he left Quirrell to die." > > NEVER does Dumbledore say Quirrell is dead. Only that Voldemort > THINKS Quirrell is dead because he intended it so. Geoff: An interesting couple of side thoughts on this, if the elves will forgive a reference to "the medium that dare not speak its name". In the DVD of "The Philosopher's Stone", Quirrell quite definitely pops his clogs (in a way curiously reminiscent of the scene in "Star Trek: Nemesis"). In additional material included with either the first or second DVDs, there is an interview involving Jo Rowling and Steve Kloves in which the latter says that there had been times when he put something into the screenplay but JKR pointed out that it would not fit the later part of the story. So, if Quirrell was intended to play a part again, would that scene have been included? Also, is he is still around, where has he been for the last five years? And is he likely to seek to be used again by Voldemort when he had been so ruthlessly abandoned? From scarah at gmail.com Mon Dec 4 11:27:41 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 03:27:41 -0800 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way Message-ID: <3202590612040327x15af85afj771b1e9af9ad6c01@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162337 Sarah: I know these aren't strictly new ideas, but I thought I would give old OFH a little airplay since he's been so upstaged lately by his two more popular counterparts. :) Also, I'm not sure anyone has pointed out how these three ideas work together (sorry if they have). I think that in the end, Snape will be more helpful to the whitehats than the blackhats. I think he will have his own reasons for doing so. I think that Dumbledore is taking a little license when he says he trusts Snape, and he really means that he knows Snape's true motivations and therefore can predict and "trust" that Snape's behavior will ultimately be more helpful to the good guys. (Just to get this out of the way, I totally think Dumbledore was planning to die before HBP even began. Snape acted the way Dumbledore "trusted" that he would, because Snape had to for his own reasons, which existed long before the UV. I think that Snape used a combination of Legilimency and/or good old fashioned BS on the Black sisters, and then had no problem making the UV since he knew it was nothing he didn't already have to do anyway, for strategic advancement of the Order.) Dumbledore says that Snape owed James a debt ever since the prank. A lot of people latch on to the fact that he never calls it a "Life Debt [tm]," but he calls it a debt which is good enough for me. What happens if a wizard owes another wizard a life debt, and takes action (like passing on the prophecy) that leads to their death? We don't know, but since the introduction of the UV and its consequences, I'm willing to believe it is something bad. 'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realised how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned -' -Dumbledore, HBP I'll bet it was. I submit that it was the impending consequences of the life debt that sent him back to Dumbledore. Voldemort would be no help, as the life debt magic would be concerned with concepts like honor and reciprocation, which Voldemort doesn't understand. Snape went back to the only wizard he thought might be able to somehow subvert his contract. This was successful, but of course Dumbledore couldn't dissipate the life debt completely, he either stalled the consequences or more likely somehow transferred the debt to Harry's account, rather than James. Since Dumbledore knows that a) Harry is the anti-Voldemort device and b) Snape can't let anything happen to Harry or face dire consequences, Dumbledore can trust what Snape will do. This completely negates any need for Snape/Lily, which I've never understood anyway for several reasons. The main support for it seems to be that Snape and Lily both did well in Potions class. By that standard, Draco and Hermione should be getting engaged any day now. The second most common support is that it is Snape's "Worst" memory because he was mean to Lily, which seems to me a pretty big leap of faith. A lot of bad things happened to Snape in that scene, and we didn't even get to watch the whole thing. It seemed like it was only about to get worse at the end there. The only question left is why tell Lily to stand aside? Killing her may have risked screwing up Voldemort's Horcrux plans, but that's immaterial since if that were the case he would have already pre-planned sparing Lily. If a Death Eater indeed attempted to bargain for Lily, Peter has got my vote. He appears to have been even more obsessed with James than Snape was, why not want to carry off his wife as a spoil of war? Also, I've only seen one Death Eater finish a job for Voldemort and actually manage to receive a reward as promised, and that was Peter with his silver hand. (Sure I'm probably on my own here, but maybe there'll be a very small role call :) ) Sarah From jamie.sommers at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 05:23:08 2006 From: jamie.sommers at yahoo.com (jamie.sommers) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:23:08 -0000 Subject: Fidelius revisited (was Fidelity - a Condition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162338 > > Jamie Sommers: > > DD and Hagrid and company all knew that the Potters were > > *going* to hide out at Godric's Hollow, but that as soon as > > the Fidelius Charm was in place they all magically forgot > > the details. > > Then when the Charm was broken (by whatever means), they all > > suddenly remembered where the Potters were hiding... > Cyril here: > My understanding of the way Fidelius works is that it does not > allow you to find something, because it becomes unplottable - > but that does not imply in any was that it makes you forget > anything. Now Jamie again: Cyril, I think I agree with your interpretation. I'd have to go through my books to see if there was any indication of there being more to the Fidelius Charm, but at this point, I don't disagree. :) I was writing a theory off the top of my head and chose the wrong aspect (forgetting) to focus on. I should have made it clear that my interpretation of "forgetting" was more of forgetting the details of where (or more specifically - HOW to find the "where"). Your description of "unplottable" makes that "can't find it" aspect clearer. My main point originally was more to explain HOW DD and company knew after the fact that the Potters were at Godric's Hollow (without knowing that PP was the SK) and how they knew that there was trouble at Godric's Hollow and that they needed to go check it out (as had been part of the discussion in the old thread). If you assume that they had the knowledge prior to the Charm being performed and that the Charm *was* broken, then the additional knowledge that they suddenly had again in their memory could have been their trigger. Thanks for helping with the vocabulary, :) Jamie Sommers From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 06:47:54 2006 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:47:54 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's love protection Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162339 How does Dumbledore's charm work, the one he invoked when he left Harry with his only living relative? Is it an absolute protection up to his 17th birthday, or is it just a protection within the house that is subject to change? Rduran1216 From nmangle at cox.net Mon Dec 4 12:07:03 2006 From: nmangle at cox.net (Nicole M. Angle) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 06:07:03 -0600 Subject: LV's Wand question Message-ID: <065001c7179c$b5f6dce0$0a01a8c0@MaggieAngle> No: HPFGUIDX 162340 I have read & re-read all the books, and I am having trouble finding where it says LV kept his wand. How did Wormail have his wand? Did he carry it around when he was just a head & a cape? Obviously he has HIS exact wand or the prior incatatem (sp?) wouldn't have produced the past murders. I have tried to find it, anyone find what I have missed? Or are we to assume he was just carrying it around. Thanks, nicole [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 14:28:21 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:28:21 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162341 > > Magpie: > > Harry is absolutely defending himself--from actual hexes. I think > that's > > one of the reasons the whole thing is so shocking from his pov, > that > he's > > not really ever feeling angry at Malfoy in the bathroom. He really > never > > loses control. He just reaches for the spell he thinks will take > care of > > things and he's not expecting what he gets. He does feel twinges of > > conscience about it, which I hope will be explored later, because > he > did > > almost kill someone violently, which went beyond defending himself. > > > Alla: > > He indeed almost killed someone violently, but I absolutely do not > think that he went one ounce beyond defending himself in this scene. > > He almost killed someone because he used the spell that he did not > know the meaning of. Stupid is as stupid does, no argument from me. > > But I completely disagree that it was just reaching for the spell > that > takes care of things. I think tripping and wet on the floor counts > pretty good for "losing control" > > But I let Amiable Dorsai speak for me here :) > > "When Harry slipped and fell on the now-flooded floor, Draco > attempted > to use the Cruciatus curse on a downed opponent. > > It was only then, on the floor, soaking wet and desperate, that Harry > used the Sectumsempra curse. Up until then, he had tried to defend > himself with fairly benign magic. > > "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. > a_svirn: But who says anything about murder? Magpie said Harry "almost killed someone violently" and that it "went beyond defending himself". That's perfectly true. Of course, it wasn't Harry's intention to kill Draco, much less cut him to pieces, but that's what he almost did. It wouldn't have been a murder whichever way you slice it, and no one really says otherwise. At worst it could have been classified as manslaughter. But it's not a pure case of self-defence either, because one can hardly call the curse Harry used "defensive" or a "counter-curse". Draco almost died brutal and torturous death. He was being methodically butchered. Methodical inflicting multiple and fatal wounds can hardly be called self-defence. Granted, Harry didn't know what the curse does, but I, for one, am not sure that his ignorance could have been a sufficient excuse had he indeed killed Draco. It could have been a consideration, but I'd say the principle "ignorance is no excuse" should apply for the offensive magic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 14:49:44 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:49:44 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162342 > a_svirn: > But who says anything about murder? Magpie said Harry "almost killed > someone violently" and that it "went beyond defending himself". That's > perfectly true. Alla: Yes, first part I agree with. If you mean that the results of the curse went beyond defending himself, I would probably agree too, but the use of the curse itself - no I disagree that it went beyond self defense. I consider Harry being stupid because he wanted to try the curse in the first place. That should have never entered his head - to dream of trying the curse marked for enemies at that and the meaning of what he has no idea about. But when faced with the dangerous situation and defending against unforgivable - I consider it to be perfectly logical to fire the curse that marked as **for enemies**. Am I making sense? This curse should have never entered Harry's brain in the first place, he should have stopped thinking about it, period, but as long as it is there, I do think it was a self defense to use it. a_svirn: Draco almost died brutal and torturous death. He was > being methodically butchered. Methodical inflicting multiple and fatal > wounds can hardly be called self-defence. Alla: The word which I am taking a disagreement with here is **methodical**. I consider the circumstances under which Harry used the curse to be anything but methodical, more like very stressful ones. IMO of course. a_svirn: Granted, Harry didn't know > what the curse does, but I, for one, am not sure that his ignorance > could have been a sufficient excuse had he indeed killed Draco. It > could have been a consideration, but I'd say the principle "ignorance > is no excuse" should apply for the offensive magic. > Alla: Yes, of course. Harry would have suffered for his stupidity. Nevertheless, I would still say that the use of the curse itself was a self-defense. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Dec 4 14:30:36 2006 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 07:30:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's Wand question References: <065001c7179c$b5f6dce0$0a01a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: <003b01c717b0$c3eb2900$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 162343 > nicole said: >I have read & re-read all the books, and I am having trouble finding where >it says LV kept his wand. How did Wormail have his wand? Did he carry it >around when he was just a head & a cape? Obviously he has HIS exact wand or >the prior incatatem (sp?) wouldn't have produced the past murders. > I have tried to find it, anyone find what I have missed? Or are we to > assume he was just carrying it around. Shelley replies: You haven't missed those details, as JKR just hasn't provided them in the books. It's the one area that I think has caused the most speculation for another person being present (presumably, another DE) at the time of Lilly and James's murders, for the wand had to have moved from where he used it (at Godric's Hollow) to get to where LV was hiding. We all are assuming that he didn't have any power or physical strength left to carry it himself, but maybe Rowling forgot to say that he was at least strong enough to drag his sorry butt and his wand out of there. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 14:50:29 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 14:50:29 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162344 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > > Once the protective measures were in place and the desperation > measures (necklace, mead, etc.) were stopped, the only thing left was > to watch Draco and, after the Sectumsempra incident, keep Harry away > from him, accomplished in part through the Saturday detentions. To do > anything else would be to kill Draco or force his hand or to activate > the UV and kill Snape, the one man at Hogwarts who could keep the Dark > magic at bay. > The ONLY man? All hail the great savior Snape! All bow down before his might and wisdom. All turn their eyes away as he abuses children and the "epitome of goodness" displays the reprehensible idiocy to allow him to continue! Really, Dumbledore is, I think, an absolute contemptible incompetent idiot throughout his dealings with Harry and his evident approval of Harry being abused. HBP only caps the problem. And that "epitome of goodness" remark really is where JKR put both feet solidly in her mouth. Along with the "very wise man" comment. I mean, it is all so absurd as inspire nothing but derision. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 15:31:33 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:31:33 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162345 Alla: > > I do understand what you are saying about Draco's twisted ways and > why he would think that he is acting defending himself. In short I > get and accept that this is what Draco may be thinking. > > But let's talk about what we had seen happened in this scene. Draco > may think that > he is defending himself, but the one who truly does it is Harry. > Harry does not throw curse at Draco first. It is the opposite. I am > just puzzled as to how scene of Harry defending himself suddenly > gets transformed in **Draco** defending himself. > > Harry not only does not do anything wrong, he defends himself > against Unforgivable. Blinks. > Carol responds: Granted, Draco started it. Having been caught crying by his worst student enemy, and still being full of fear and self-doubt over what will happen if he fails to fix the cabinet, he is not thinking clearly, and perhaps pulling your wand on an enemy who catches you off-guard is an instinctive reaction. I think Harry would have done the same in a similar situation. He views Draco as dangerous and the opposite is probably true. At any rate, once the fighting began, both boys would have seen their own actions as self-defense. I'm not defending Draco's incomplete Crucio, which he's clearly using to punish Harry (not exactly righteous wrath), but Harry later does the same with Snape (and is foiled by Snape's Legilimency). You're right that Harry is defending himself against an Unforgiveable Curse, but a known spell that hit Draco at the right time would have had the same deterrent effect. ("Stupefy" would have been both effective and fully warranted. Instead, Harry apparently felt, rather than thought, that the time had come to test the curse labeled "for enemies." After all, Draco was his enemy and was threatening him with an illegal curse. I don't think that Harry's decision was justified; it was wholly irrational (as was Draco's), but it's understandable. Both boys were playing with fire, one with a curse he knew to be illegal (but he was desperate), the other with an unknown curse he had to suspect was dangerous (but he, too, was desperate). Alla: > He [Draco] started [the Crucio] though - we don't know for sure if wand does not register the attempt - it may or it may not IMO. > > I mentioned Snape not pressing charges because it is often mentioned > as something awfully noble on Snape's part and the best I can come > up with is Snape protecting little ferret against Azkaban, not > protecting Harry against being expelled. Carol responds: Draco didn't finish saying the spell. Consequently, no light shot out of his wand and Harry felt nothing. I'd say it's a safe bet that the spell didn't register. Nor did Snape know about it because Harry didn't say, "But, sir, he was trying to Crucio me." He merely said that he didn't know what Sectumsempra did, which was true (but not a good excuse for using it). As for Snape not pressing charges against Harry, I don't think the possibility was even raised. Sectumsempra is Snape's invented spell; the MoM may not even know that it exists, or, if it did register, what it does. (I'm beginning to think that no spells register at Hogwarts, anyway, because so many are being cast all the time in the classes. How could the MoM keep track?) That aside, it's McGonagall who raises the possibility that Harry could have been expelled (not charged with a crime). Although she's his Head of House and responsible for expelling him, she might well have gone along with Snape if he had suggested it. The fact of the matter is that he didn't. He just told the staff what happened and arranged detentions for the rest of the semester, oddly basing them on Harry's lying about the source of the spell (and cheating in Potions using his book) rather than on his use of an illegal spell. Now granted, there may be an element of self-protection here. At this point, Snape wouldn't want anyone else to know that Sectumsempra is his spell, which is no doubt why he wanted to confiscate the Potions book. And yet he told the staff "precisely what happened," so he was probably able to mention Sectumsempra as a Dark spell whose existence he was aware of (and which he knew how to cure) without anyone's suspecting he was the author of the spell. And, of course, he was protecting Draco, who would be in grave danger from Voldemort and his DEs if he were expelled. But Harry would have faced exactly the same danger if *he* were expelled, and Snape chooses not to expel him, and to place him under his own eye on Saturday mornings, at least. He can't watch either boy all the time, but he can at least keep them apart for as much of the weekend as is feasible. Alla: > > Um, I agree that it can go either way of course, but no my feelings > of Snape being evil are based on some canon facts - one of them is > Snape killing Dumbledore. Which can be interpreted as DD!M Snape, > but it is so not the first thought that comes to my mind. > > As to why Snape may save Harry at the end if he is evil, well that > would be his redemption then - as in he sees Harry's eyes, Lily in > them, blah, blah. :) Carol: But you can't judge Snape's earlier actions based on an action he hasn't committed yet. At the time we're considering, Dumbledore is alive (but perhaps dying from the ring Horcrux and in more danger than either he or Snape is aware of from Draco's plot succeeding). Snape is acting on Dumbledore's orders, as well as his own inclinations and his vow to Narcissa, to protect Draco. But he is protecting Harry, too, making sure he stays in school and as far as possible from budding DE!Draco. I doubt that Snape's redemption will have anything to do with Lily's eyes. He's looked into Harry's eyes dozens if not hundreds of times by now. If he hasn't seen Lily there by now, he won't see her at all. No, I think Snape and Harry are already on the same side, much as Snape hates that fact, and Harry will come to see it, either because Snape helps him with the Horcruxes or because Snape saves him or one of his friends. I don't know what it will take to convince Harry--something huge, I'm sure--but it won't be Snape gazing into his eyes and being sorry for what he did to Lily. He's already suffering remorse from the eavesdropping. That's what DDM!Snape is all about. And now he has remorse from what he had to do to Dumbledore to contend with, too. Carol, noting that Harry, Ron, and Draco would all be dead if it weren't for Snape From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 15:40:50 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:40:50 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162346 > a_svirn: > > Draco almost died brutal and torturous death. He was > > being methodically butchered. Methodical inflicting multiple and > fatal > > wounds can hardly be called self-defence. > > > Alla: > > The word which I am taking a disagreement with here is > **methodical**. I consider the circumstances under which Harry used > the curse to be anything but methodical, more like very stressful > ones. IMO of course. a_svirn: That's what the curse does. This is a curse for ripping a body into pieces. Methodically. That wasn't Harry's intention, but it was a result of his actions. And it did go beyond self-defence. Because it wasn't his intention it wouldn't have been a murder. On the other hand, systematic butchering of your opponent ? however unintentional ? means going beyond self-defence. I'd say it would have been a case of manslaughter if Draco had died. > a_svirn: > Granted, Harry didn't know > > what the curse does, but I, for one, am not sure that his ignorance > > could have been a sufficient excuse had he indeed killed Draco. It > > could have been a consideration, but I'd say the > principle "ignorance > > is no excuse" should apply for the offensive magic. > > > > Alla: > > Yes, of course. Harry would have suffered for his stupidity. > Nevertheless, I would still say that the use of the curse itself was > a self-defense. > a_svirn: No one disputes the fact that Harry used the curse in self-defence. But he did ? unintentionally ? go father than that. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 15:57:10 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:57:10 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162347 > Carol: > Draco didn't finish saying the spell. Consequently, no light shot out > of his wand and Harry felt nothing. I'd say it's a safe bet that the > spell didn't register. a_svirn: Legally it wouldn't leave Draco off the hook. And priori incarnatium isn't the only way to establish the truth. > Carol: Nor did Snape know about it because Harry > didn't say, "But, sir, he was trying to Crucio me." He merely said > that he didn't know what Sectumsempra did, which was true (but not a > good excuse for using it). a_svirn: Presumably, he wouldn't have to make a decision before he had a chance to talk with Draco. > Carol: > That aside, it's McGonagall who raises the possibility that Harry > could have been expelled (not charged with a crime). Although she's > his Head of House and responsible for expelling him, she might well > have gone along with Snape if he had suggested it. a_svirn: And when did she ever go along with Snape's suggestions? From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 4 16:05:22 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:05:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162348 zgirnius: > 1)Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand > during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much > younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Jen: Hmm, I haven't thought much about it before, maybe this signifies that Dumbledore is still very spry when he enters the cave in contrast with how he exits? Another thought springs to mind: This is the fulfillment of months searching for this particular Horcrux and Dumbledore finds reserves of energy to complete the quest. > 2) In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, > Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not understand. > Any ideas on this language and how Dumbledore came to know it? Jen: Given the mystery of how he is 'seeing' magic and touching magic around him, my guess is it's an ancient toungue and another instance of Dumbledore knowing and understanding magic at a deeper level than most wizards. Harry mentions wondering if his 'shivers' are feeling enchantements and that might be an early awareness of what Dumbledore has perfected. > 3)Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden > archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood > is worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? Jen: One short-term chapter answer and one longer series thought on this one. 1) Perhaps Voldemort has some way of knowing by the blood who exactly was in the cave. He would expect DD to be there but not Harry and knowing that could cause him to collect his Horcruxes or move them. Because once Dumbledore is dead there would be no threat in Voldemort's mind, he wouldn't expect him to share the Horcrux information with anyone because it's not something he himself would do. I think by the time of the cave DD knows he is going to die sooner rather than later, the deck is finally stacked in a way he can't defeat, so he would rather use his own blood. 2) Dumbledore knows something about blood that hasn't been revealed fully yet, imo. (Well, I guess that's obvious with the gleam, right? ) Right before that comment he mentions Voldemort presuming the shedding of blood 'weakens' a person and scoffs at that as much as Dumbledore ever scoffs at things. LV does have this pattern and it's connected to his downfall: he 'shed' Lily's blood figuratively and look where that led him. And then he ordered Harry's blood to be shed in the graveyard, once again presumably to his detriment. So with those two instances, Harry's blood IS worth more in the fight against Voldemort, he and Lily and even Petunia have done more to defeat Voldemort than anyone else, even Dumbledore. > 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " > Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains the boat would only > hold one adult wizard. Is there any special significance to these > words? Jen: That Dumbledore and Voldemort have something in common and both make the same mistake? Dumbledore's fate has been tied with Voldemort since the moment he met Tom Riddle. He knows him more intimately than anyone else and has made it his business to understand the way he operates and Voldemort attempts to do the same with him. And while they are polar opposites in the way they understand magic and the world, they are similar in their isolation and as leaders of their respective movements. This is seen most clearly in the DOM, they are equal yet opposite. It's inevitable they will make the same mistakes with different intentions for that reason. > 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must be drunk? > Why or why not? Jen: I figured he knew pretty quickly what was called for. JKR had better things to get on with and needed to speed that part up . > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? Jen: One of the ingredients may be a slow-acting poison and DD is counting on getting back for Snape to save him in time. The comment about the potion 'not killing immediately' indicates the probability of some agent that can kill eventually. > 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us > about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? Jen: He does seem reckless to me, or different from the Dumbledore we've known in the past who was more cautious. Whether he's dying from the ring Horcrux injury or knows the clock is ticking due to the UV and the fact that Voldemort is targeting him, I'm not sure. He does seem obsessed with learning as much as possible about the Horcruxes and destroying as many as possible before he goes. > 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both as he gets > into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do you think he does this? AND > 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* use the > water? Do you believe the lake water had any effect on Dumbledore? Jen: He fears for Harry is my impression, not himself. Don't know if the water is what ultimately killed Dumbledore in the end, but there's something wrong with it. Once again he didn't give Harry enough information to make a real choice. When the time came, Harry chose to fill the goblet with the water from the lake because "Voldemort planned it so'. Of course, what other choice can Harry really make even if he had more information? He thinks Dumbledore is dying and that's what Harry does best, try to save people. > 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the > lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and > asserts one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you > think he meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to > defeat the protection? Jen: I'm curious to hear other responses here. The theory that Regulus and Kreacher made the journey together is my favorite theory so far, whether they did so to place the actual locket and therefore didn't have to go through all the protections, or if the combination of Regulus understanding dark magic and Kreacher's house-elf magic were able to defeat the protections. > 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a > passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry > in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about > being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or > suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared > to take up the fight? Jen: Wah, yes, it's so clear his end is coming. Harry is ready, more ready than Dumbledore could ever be because once again, "Voldemort [made] it so" and because Harry will call on others to help unlike Dumbledore who does everything alone. > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special > significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events > at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, > as well). Jen: Good question. With all the dead bodies it's like a tomb and is in marked contrast to the tallest tower Dumbledore dies on shortly after and his own above-ground tomb in the sunlight. Not sure past that, though. Thanks zgirnius, this is a great summary and questions (my favorite chapter of the series, too!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 4 16:14:27 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:14:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162349 A thankyou to Zgirnius for the questions and chapter summary! > > 1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand > during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much > younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Pippin: I think it shows that the damage is limited to the hand, and isn't spreading to Dumbledore's whole body as some have speculated. > > 3) Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden > archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood is > worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? Pippin: It might hark back to the famous gleam in GoF. There's some hint that Voldemort blundered by using Harry's blood in his rebirth and perhaps Dumbledore would prefer not to see Harry's blood shed in this place lest Voldemort's attention be drawn to it. But I think it also lets us know that Dumbledore puts Harry's life above his own. > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? Pippin: Anything will make you sick, poison you, if you ingest enough of it. Dumbledore obviously was made gravely ill by the potion. What we don't know is if the dose was sufficient to kill him, or whether he could have been saved even so if help had reached him in time. But poisoned he surely was. > > 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the > lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and asserts > one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you think he > meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the > protection? Pippin: It's not clear that RAB defeated the protection. The locket could have been swapped before it was hidden. It would take only a little magic to transfigure one locket to the likeness of another, and that might go unnoticed, especially if it wasn't Voldemort himself who hid the locket in the cave. He might have arranged the protections and then ordered Bella to hide the locket, which she could have done unaware that the original had been stolen from her and a substitute left in its place by cousin Regulus. > > 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a > passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry > in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about > being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or > suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to > take up the fight? Pippin: I think Dumbledore is satisfied that there is nothing more he could tell Harry to help him understand Voldemort's ways. That, not magic, is the key to the battle to come. > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special > significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events > at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as > well). Pippin: The battle in the Ministry in OOP also takes place underground. If Dumbledore was actually killed by the poison rather than by Snape's spell, it would fit the pattern of significant events taking place underground rather than above it. It would also make Trelawney's prediction of disastrous events on the tower false. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Dec 4 16:22:55 2006 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 09:22:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls) References: Message-ID: <005001c717c0$74885580$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 162350 > Betsy Hp: > I blame JKR. Realistically, you're correct. A girl with no interest > in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no help > whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione. > > But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion that > older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother) helped > Hermione in anyway. JKR also has Hermione poo-poo the whole effort > as far too much time wasted on a rather silly goal. So we have a > girl who, as you put it, radically changes her normal behavior while > maintaining that it was all no big deal. Do I smell shenanigans? > Damn straight. Personally, I think JKR sacrificed character for > a "think of the children!" moment. Sorry if I am late rejoining this conversation, but at this point, I have to even wonder if you are reading the same books that I am. There is one scene that shows Ron getting excited about something, and says "Let's go tell/show Hermione". They step onto the stairs leading up to the girl's dormitory, and suddenly the stairs turn into a slide. There are magical barriers to the boys being in the girl's dormitory! Hence, Rowling has already told you, IN CANON, why the boys never see the other helping Hermione "transform" from this plain creature to this stunning swan for the ball. You can't say just because Harry hadn't seen it personally that it didn't happen in the books. In fact, we know that Hermione had been making her plans for the ball long before the boys even found their dates, and as such, you bet the girls would have all talked in private (read into that "in the girls dormitory/shower/bathroom areas") about how they were doing their hair, the best magical products to use to get their hair to stick the way they wanted it to, how to hide freckles or zits, make their skin glow, and so forth. They wouldn't have shared those plans in the main common room, where some of their dates could have overheard them, otherwise, it would spoil some of the surprise. I hardly doubt that Hermione found about her hairdo stuff all on her own. We just aren't privlidged to see into the girl's dormitory or girl's bathrooms to see those conversations. We do find out afterward that Ginny and Hermione talked a lot during that time, isn't that proof of girl-girl relationships for Hermione? And what about the fact that Hermione knows about another girl student crying a lot over the death of her boyfriend? That's something that would mainly stay in an all-girl support network. Or does Rowling have to spell out everything in detail for you to believe it? What gives here? Frankly, this book is about Harry, from Harry's eyes. He hears about the girls' lives second-hand, and that is as it should be, considering the restriction of boys from the girl's dormitory. Rowling tells of girls moving around in "packs", and Hermione couldn't have been with Ron and Harry for every waking second. Reread all the times she went up to bed early, because she was mad at Ron or something. I hardly think she didn't bother to talk to any other girl during those times- that's just unrealistic. Again, just because we aren't privledged to see those conversations didn't mean they didn't happen. Even when Ginny and the Diary are vital to the plot points, Harry isn't privlidged to see Ginny actually writing in it, as she's doing that in private, up in the girl's dormitory. He just sees her mood changes and attributes it to the other events affecting all the other students. It seems to me that we have another piece of Canon to say that Hermione networks well- and that is the whole DA organization. Harry was shocked at the number of people Hermione had talked to and that showed up at the Leaky Cauldron. You can't do that if you aren't talking to people. Seems to me that she is quite socially well-adjusted, and just because she isn't a goppipy-busy-body who flounts makeup and the latest styles, you can't assume that she doesn't have other girls as friends, or that she's a frump when it comes to taking care of herself, so that it would be unbelievable when she suddenly turns up looking nice at a ball. Shelley From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 16:48:45 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:48:45 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: <065001c7179c$b5f6dce0$0a01a8c0@MaggieAngle> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162351 Nicole wondered: > I have read & re-read all the books, and I am having trouble finding where it says LV kept his wand. How did Wormail have his wand? Did he carry it around when he was just a head & a cape? Obviously he has HIS exact wand or the prior incatatem (sp?) wouldn't have produced the past murders. > I have tried to find it, anyone find what I have missed? Or are we to assume he was just carrying it around. Annemehr: I'm not sure who you mean as having been "just a head & a cape," but neither Voldemort nor Wormtail ever were. At Godric's Hollow, LV was "ripped from his body" [GoF ch. 33] and existed, as we now know, as a somewhat frayed soul bound to Earth by several Horcruxes. JKR has always refused to answer who else may have been at GH that night, so naturally we can't resist speculating. I like to think Wormtail was there, and LV intended to force him to help kill the Potters just as he later forced him to help use Harry to get his body back in GoF. (And I think he will end up forcing him to try to help kill Harry in the next book, too. With interesting results, I expect.) Anyway, there's no knowing for sure, but I think the simplest solution to the wand question is that Wormtail was there, and picked up the wand and stowed it in his own robes. It's possible he then stashed it somewhere, but I doubt it. We know that when an animagus transforms, their clothes and anything on their person (e.g. eyeglasses) transform with them. Sirius stashed a Daily Prophet picture in his robes and then swam from Azkaban to the mainland in dog form, and emerged on the shore with the clipping unharmed to show to Harry months later. So, I figure, Wormtail had LV's wand hidden in his robes when he staged his own death and framed Sirius (I mean the robes he was wearing, not the bloodied ones he left at the scene along with his finger for the Ministry to find). Then the wand was safely on his person all the years he spent in rat form with the Weasleys, until the day he met up with LV in Albania. Safest place for it, really. Annemehr From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 4 17:24:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:24:42 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: <005001c717c0$74885580$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162352 Shelley: > It seems to me that we have another piece of Canon to say that Hermione > networks well- and that is the whole DA organization. Harry was shocked at > the number of people Hermione had talked to and that showed up at the Leaky > Cauldron. You can't do that if you aren't talking to people. Seems to me > that she is quite socially well-adjusted, and just because she isn't a > goppipy-busy-body who flounts makeup and the latest styles, you can't assume > that she doesn't have other girls as friends, or that she's a frump when it > comes to taking care of herself, so that it would be unbelievable when she > suddenly turns up looking nice at a ball. Magpie: I don't think we should at all assume Hermione has other girls as friends. We see her having Ginny as a friend (though she's not part of the Trio group), and we know Hermione listens in the girls bathrooms and elsewhere, but I'm not seeing this big girl support network you're suggesting. Harry may be clueless but I'm not going to believe there's all that much going on with Hermione that we don't see. Hermione pays attention to what's going on. She listens in the girl's bathroom. She thinks about other peoples' motivations and certainly can network. That's different from Hermione having lots of girlfriends. I think the book makes that distinction. We've gotten a basic idea of what she does with herself when she's not with Harry, and hanging with girls isn't part of it. I could never assume that Hermione's got other girls as friends besides Ginny based on what I see of her in canon--just her being a girl doesn't automatically guarantee her girlfriends. She's friends with Harry and Ron, and also with Ginny. She sometimes exchanges words with Lavender and Parvati, but they're not close. As to her being a frump, I don't think that's what Betsy implied. Her point was that Hermione shows up at the ball far surpassing the other young girls' abilities in these areas and that that strikes her as a Mary Sue moment. I tend to agree with her. Hermione sounds like a chaperone to me at the Yule Ball. I've no doubt she'd look nice in a dress but yes, I think there's a little author magic turning her allegedly ordinary looking heroine into somebody who seems to show all the other girls up--other girls who actually are interested in fashion. It's the classic double-win where Hermione's better than tiresome girls who care about looks but is also a master at dolling herself up. (While Ginny, who also doesn't care about looks, is blessed with natural beauty.) -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 17:43:51 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:43:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162353 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 26, The Cave Carol responds: Hooray! I'm the first to respond and don't have to worry about duplicating anybody! (At any rate, no one has answered at this point; but given the usual length of my answers, I expect three or four responses to be completed before mine.) > 1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand > during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much > younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Carol: Climbing requires gripping the stones and would be painful to his injured hand. Swimming is more a matter of strength in the arms. Still, it's a very odd reference and has given rise to speculations about Polyjuice, etc. I think that DD's personality in this chapter, and especially his wisdom and knowledge, should put those sepculations to rest. The sudden strength when he's swimming is probably a burst of energy, comparable to and foreshadowing the burst of energy when they're flying to the Astronomy Tower. Possibly, he has less energy during the cave scene than he would have had if the climb and the swim weren't so strenuous, yet he doesn't show any exhaustion when he's examining the cave wall--quite a feat for an old man, wizard or no. I guess the burst of energy is magical, more proof of Dumbledore's power, but it could just be a surge of adrenaline, which can have seemingly magical results even for us Muggles. (Carol resists the impulse to tell her Ford Galaxie story again.) > 2) In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not understand. Any ideas on this language and how Dumbledore came to know it? Carol responds: The strange language could be anything from Latin to Egyptian to Persian to Celtic, probably an ancient language rather than a modern one as no modern languages seem to be particularly associated with magic and even Harry, limited as his experience of Muggle life has been in some ways, would recognize French or Spanish or German if he heard it. Similarly, he'd recognize a language like Mermish as eerie and nonhuman sounding. Certainly, it isn't Parseltongue, which Harry can understand and I don't think DD can speak. It must be a human language, if only because it's being used for a complicated spell, and it has to be a language or a spell that Voldemort picked up during his travels or taught himself at Hogwarts, assuming that the counterspell has to be in the same language as the original spell. Unlike Dumbledore (or Barty Crouch Sr.), Voldemort hasn't had the time or the incentive to learn a lot of languages. He learns only what's useful to him in his goals of domination and immortality. I'm guessing that the language is the same language as that of Snape's healing incantation, probably Latin, which Harry doesn't understand or he'd have guessed what Sectumsempra and Levicorpus did before trying them. It could also be an incantation in a language different from that of the original spell, a language Dumbledore knows but Voldemort doesn't, but it seems more likely that it's a knowledge that they share. DD knows how Voldemort thinks and what language he's likely to use (other than Parseltongue, which may not be useful for casting spells). So I'm going for Latin, with Celtic as my second choice. Nice and esoteric, associated with runes and so forth. But chances are, we'll never know. > > 3) Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden > archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood is > worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? Carol: On the surface, the answer sounds easy. Harry is the Chosen One; DD is "only" the old mentor. Harry has to live; Dumbledore can be sacrificed if necessary. So Harry's life, and therefore his blood, is worth more than DD's. But, almost certainly, the significance goes deeper and relates to blood magic. Voldemort specifically wanted Harry's blood in the restoration spell even though the blood of any enemy Wizard would have worked. Magic leaves traces, and I think that DD is afraid that LV will recognize Harry's blood, perhaps through the ancient magic of his mother's blood protection, and know that Harry has been here and knows about his Horcruxes. Better that he somehow recognizes Dumbledore's blood. LV is already afraid of Dumbledore (and determined to kill him). He, Voldemort, must not know his real danger. > > 4) Dumbledore heals the cut he has made by passing his wand once > over it, and Harry is reminded of Snape's sung/chanted spell with > which he healed Draco. Is this the nonverbal version, or something > else? Why does Rowling choose to mention this similarity explicitly > by having Harry note it? Carol: It's clearly not the same spell or it would have taken much longer even in its nonverbal version, if it's even possible to sing/chant such an incantation nonverbally. Also, Dumbledore's injury is an ordinary cut from a potions knife, an injury that Madam Pomfrey, for example, could easily heal, not a potentially fatal injury from a Dark and deadly curse. I think that the counterincantation to Sectumsempra is specific to that curse and is Snape's own invention, possibly not known to Dumbledore for that reason, but even if it isn't, there's no need for a complex countercurse in this instance. It's a minor injury that can be healed with a simple wave of the wand. Nevertheless, JKR has Harry remember Snape's healing incantation here and again when he sees Bill Weasley's horrible injuries. She's impressing the image of Snape the Healer into our minds. And it's in Harry's, too, whether he likes it or not. He, and we, will encounter Snape the Healer again in Book 7, I predict. > 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains the boat would only hold one adult wizard. Is there any special significance to these words? Carol responds: They echo his own description of himself in OoP when he explains that he's forgotten how younger people (both Harry and Snape) feel. But I think he's also predicting that Voldemort's underestimation of Harry (despite previous experience with him) will lead to his doom. (And, though DD doesn't know it, LV has also underestimated another young wizard, Regulus Black, whose presence would not have registered on the boat if he was still underage, and who has stolen a Horcrux whether he was of age or not.) > > 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must be drunk? > Why or why not? Carol: I don't thinks so. there seems to be no other way to get to the (supposed) Horcrux. I'm sure that LV has made sure that it can't just be poured on the ground. He seems to have taken every other precaution (it can't be Transfigured or Vanished, for example.) That would be a significant oversight, one that Dumbledore would surely figure out. > > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? Carol: Considering that it inflicts both physical agony and mental anguish and seems to relate to remorse of some kind, I think it's a poisoned memory, maybe one he extracted from his father (who wants to protect his parents from sharing his fate) before his death, or one that Regulus left behind if he's the one who drank the potion. At any rate, the noxious green is connected in JKR's imagery with poison and death (cf. the "poisonous green" Basilisk and the AK, which flashes briefly with a similar green light) and the debilitating effects, including a burning thirst, suggest poison, though the thirst also serves another purpose--stirring up the water to arouse the Inferi. (I *don't* think that LV wanted the victim to survive long enough to be interrogated. The zombies aren't going to summon Voldemort and hold the victim there at knifepoint or wandpoint till he arrives. They're going to kill him or turn him into a zombie like themselves.) But the effects on the mind and the Pensievelike shape of the bowl suggest that the poison also contains a memory or affects the memory of the drinker. (IMO, it's the first. I don't think that DD is reliving his own memories. I doubt that he's ever begged for mercy in his life--and that includes a certain future incident on the tower.) > > 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us > about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? Carol: I've partially answered that question. I think he's reliving a memory that isn't his own. But the specific meaning, the identity of the person whose memory is being relived and the specific circumstances are still open to speculation. And he's clearly very weak and suffering physical as well as mental anguish, which match the suffering of the speaker in the memory. If he wasn't dying from the ring curse before he drank that potion, he's dying now: "That potion was no health drink," he says with typical British understatement in the next chapter. The sprinkled water (which he doesn't drink) and two Rennervate spells restore him temporarily, but if it weren't for his own powerful magic and his strong will, not to mention Harry's presence, he'd be dead. > > 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both as he gets > into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do you think he does this? Carol: Because doing so will arouse the Inferi. > > 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* use the > water? Do you believe the lake water had any effect on Dumbledore? Carol: The water itself does not appear to be dangerous as it helped to revive Dumbledore after he drank the potion. And oddly, the burning thirst seems to be quenched just by the touch of the water on his face. I think that DD's later extreme weakness and stoic suffering are the result of the potion, which is a slow and painful poison that continues to destroy the body even after it stops affecting the mind. I don't think that the water, which DD didn't drink, affected him in any way. > > 11) What did you think of Harry's attempts to fight the Inferi? Carol: Do I dare say that they're pathetic? He's using anti-DE tactics on dead people. He's ignoring or forgetting whatever Snape told him in DADA class, not to mention Dumbledore's words about their fearing light and fire. Harry, who generally keeps his head in a crisis, should have thought of fire. Besides, fire is associated with Gryffindor (the Gryffindor colors, Fawkes, etc.) Maybe next time he'll remember. We haven't seen the last of the Inferi, I'm sure. > > 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the > lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and asserts > one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you think he > meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the > protection? Carol: Dumbledore would not have drunk all the potion if Harry had not forcefed it to him and would not have been able to retrieve the (fake) locket, not to mention sprinkle himself with water to get back into the boat and fight off the Inferi. DD alone could have gotten as far as the island and started drinking the potion, but without Harry, he would have died there of weakness, thirst, starvation, and despair, combined with the effects of the poison, before he finished drinking it. If he found the strength to crawl to the water's edge to ease his thirst, he would have aroused the Inferi. And if he fought them off, he'd have to return to drinking the poison, which he could not do without someone to forcefeed it to him. RAB must have had a companion as well, one whose presence the magic boat would not sense even if RAB himself was of age. So, like most people on this list, I think that RAB was Regulus and he had Kreacher with him. Just possibly, the poison is what addled Kreacher's brains. (Not that Kreacher isn't still cunning and deceitful, but he's eccentric and unnaturally filthy for a house-elf.) > > 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a > passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry > in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about > being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or > suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to take up the fight? Carol: The words are sad and beautiful to the reader, who understands their significance and senses that DD is going to die (though I don't think any of us anticipated the exact circumstances). Harry is oblivious to their significance, but I think Dumbledore knows that, one way or another, he's going to die that night. He's been acting oddly all year, making preparations for his own absence--and Snape's--from the third chapter to the end of the book. His impatience with Harry over the Slughorn memory indicates his awareness that his time is short, and he knows about the DADA curse and Draco's intention to kill him, as well as at least part (and I think all) of the UV. He has the Order at the school. He must sense that tonight is the night. As for Harry, he's certainly not prepared at this point. He doesn't anticipate the events on the tower or understand what he has witnessed. He knows how to Apparate. He knows a lot of spells (but not how to "shut his mouth and close his mind"). He knows what a Horcrux is and how many to look for. He knows he has to fight Nagini whether or not she's a Horcrux. He'll certainly figure out who RAB is and that the locket he's already seen is the real Horcrux. And he "has power the Dark Lord knows not." What he doesn't know is where to find or how to destroy the remaining Horcruxes and how to vanquish Voldemort once he does that. He'll need the help of others, and most of all (IMO), he'll need to understand, forgive, and accept the help of Severus Snape. He has a whole year and a whole book to learn those final lessons. He hasn't learned them yet. > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special > significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events > at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as > well). Carol: I think that they all symbolize the hero's journey to, and return from, the Underworld, and foreshadow Harry's passing through the Veil to see his beloved dead before returning alive to the WW. The only way he can do that, IMO, is by possessing Voldemort and using Sirius Black's body to return. Compare Bilbo's journey through Gollum's cave and Frodo's through Moria and Shelob's cave. There and Back Again. Harry, unlike those two, will visit the real land of the Dead, whose entrance is in the DoM, and return, having defeated Voldemort without using an Unforgiveable Curse. Or so I anticipate. Thanks for an excellent discussion and great questions! Carol, who was also sure that Mark Evans was Harry's Muggleborn cousin, so it's more than possible that she's wrong in some of her predictions From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Dec 4 18:25:06 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:25:06 -0000 Subject: The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!(was:Re: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162354 > > > >>Jenni from Alabama responds: > > Really? Show me where any of the Trio are the first to start up > > things with any of the Slytherins! They always are defending > > themselves (or others). They even try to avoid confrontations with > > Draco and his bullies. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Good lord, the amount of times Draco gets hit from behind and in > greater numbers!. There's the train scene in GoF. There's the > quidditch pitch scene in OotP. There's the laughing over the ferret > scene in GoF. There's the infamous near murder of Montague in OotP. > I do agree that Draco does *say* mean things, but it's Harry and > friends doing the physical attacks. And never (that I can recall) in > honest to goodness self-defense. (Except the bathroom scene in HBP.) > > Honestly, that Gryffindor is hailed as the house of chilvary is yet > more proof that chilvary is dead. (Except for maybe Neville; I love > Neville. ) > > > >>Jenni from Alabama: > > And they don't condone cruelty, especially Hermione. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Oh dear... Hermione... I think she's one of the cruelist characters > in the Potterverse. Heading down a path to become the next > Umbridge. Um... I'm quite sure tons of you will disagree. But there > it is. (My opinion only here.) > > Also, regarding the ferret scene: When I was a very small child (five > or six) my family toured a place somewhere (Africa? South America? > England?) where there were still dents on the floor made by people > dropped on the floor as a form of torture. I had nightmares for a > while and have never forgotten it (though obviously some details were > lost ). So I have a different take on a scene that involves a > known sadist throwing a child repeatedly against a stone floor > because he's mad at the child's father. > > That Harry and Ron weren't horrified by it is I think only explained > by the fact that it was a ferret squealing in pain rather than a real > boy. Both boys were young and sheltered, so I don't think they > recognized how far Fake!Moody was going. > Sorry, but this is one of the reasons that I don't often engage on this list. It would be helpful to pay a little bit more close attention to the books, and to the comments of the author. Draco Malfoy tried to kill Albus Dumbledore. He did so by smuggling in poison that almost killed Ron in error; and by smuggling in a necklace that almost killed Katie Bell. He lets Death Eaters into the castle who almost kill Bill Weasley. This is not the work of a nice kid. The train scene in the Goblet of Fire? Draco has just threatened Harry's life -- and referenced how delighted he was that Cedric Diggory was murdered. It's part of Draco's pattern - he says vile things to people when he is flanked by toady/thugs Crabbe and Goyle - he calls Hermione a mudblood... You can't recall a case of self-defense? Well, what about the fact that at the end of the Order of the Phoenix "Firstly, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, who had clearly been waiting all week for the opportunity to strike without teacher witnesses, attempted to ambush Harry halfway down the train as he made his way back from the toilet. The attack might have succeeded....." In regards to the ferret scene, Harry, Ron and Hermione are minding their own business when Malfoy initiates the whole scene, attacks Ron's father, then insults Ron's mother (twice), and then attacks Harry from behind...? This wouldn't be a case of "real" self-defense? Obviously Barty Crouch, Junior is trying to establish himself as the friend of Harry and the enemy of Death Eaters/Malfoys....I think turning Malfoy into a ferret was poetic justice! As for him being seriously hurt, we don't even hear about him having to go to the hospital wing..And as for Hermione being cruel, if one read the books, one would be familiar with the fact that it was Hermione who approved Professor McGonagall's actions in rescuing Malfoy from Crouch/Moody. ("he could have really hurt Malfoy, though. It was good, really, that Professor McGonagall stopped it---." In the next incident, Malfoy and Harry attack each other simultaneously, and when Hermione's teeth grow, Snape shows up, insults Hermione (a true Slytherin), punishes the Gryffindors but not the Slytherins. It is to JKR's credit that she shows that even Draco Malfoy is redeemable. Susan McGee (want to join Harry Potter for Grownups over 40? email me at SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 4 18:37:04 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:37:04 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162355 Magpie: > As to her being a frump, I don't think that's what Betsy implied. > Her point was that Hermione shows up at the ball far surpassing the > other young girls' abilities in these areas and that that strikes > her as a Mary Sue moment. I tend to agree with her. Hermione > sounds like a chaperone to me at the Yule Ball. I've no doubt she'd > look nice in a dress but yes, I think there's a little author magic > turning her allegedly ordinary looking heroine into somebody who > seems to show all the other girls up--other girls who actually are > interested in fashion. Pippin: Who, exactly, did Hermione surpass, aside from her usual unadorned self? This seems to be one of those instances where popular myth hijacks the readers' imagination and substitutes another narrative for what Rowling actually wrote. The Mary Sue moment is mostly in the eyes of the beholder, IMO. There's nothing on the page to say that Hermione has a nicer dress, lovelier makeup, or a more elegant hairdo than any other girl at the ball. She may look better than Pansy Parkinson, but that's nothing new, at least in Harry's eyes. IIRC, he thinks Pansy has a nose like a pug. Certainly Roger Davies' attention isn't diverted from Fleur for a moment. Yes, Draco is speechless, but he could hardly be otherwise when a student from Durmstrang, the school which, according to Draco, doesn't admit 'that sort of riff-raff' shows up with that sort of riff-raff for a date. Harry, OTOH, thinks his own date is "very pretty indeed" whereas the unrecognized Hermione rates only a "pretty" in his eyes. Pippin who also can't find any canon that Ginny is blessed with natural beauty beyond what is normal for a healthy sixteen year old girl From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Dec 4 18:40:56 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:40:56 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <3202590612040327x15af85afj771b1e9af9ad6c01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > Sarah: > > I know these aren't strictly new ideas, but I thought I would give old > OFH a little airplay since he's been so upstaged lately by his two > more popular counterparts. :) Also, I'm not sure anyone has pointed > out how these three ideas work together (sorry if they have). > > I think that in the end, Snape will be more helpful to the whitehats > than the blackhats. I think he will have his own reasons for doing > so. I think that Dumbledore is taking a little license when he says > he trusts Snape, and he really means that he knows Snape's true > motivations and therefore can predict and "trust" that Snape's > behavior will ultimately be more helpful to the good guys. > > (Just to get this out of the way, I totally think Dumbledore was > planning to die before HBP even began. Snape acted the way Dumbledore > "trusted" that he would, because Snape had to for his own reasons, > which existed long before the UV. I think that Snape used a > combination of Legilimency and/or good old fashioned BS on the Black > sisters, and then had no problem making the UV since he knew it was > nothing he didn't already have to do anyway, for strategic advancement > of the Order.) > > Dumbledore says that Snape owed James a debt ever since the prank. A > lot of people latch on to the fact that he never calls it a "Life Debt > [tm]," but he calls it a debt which is good enough for me. What > happens if a wizard owes another wizard a life debt, and takes action > (like passing on the prophecy) that leads to their death? We don't > know, but since the introduction of the UV and its consequences, I'm > willing to believe it is something bad. > > 'You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realised > how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it > to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned > -' -Dumbledore, HBP > > I'll bet it was. I submit that it was the impending consequences of > the life debt that sent him back to Dumbledore. Voldemort would be no > help, as the life debt magic would be concerned with concepts like > honor and reciprocation, which Voldemort doesn't understand. Snape > went back to the only wizard he thought might be able to somehow > subvert his contract. This was successful, but of course Dumbledore > couldn't dissipate the life debt completely, he either stalled the > consequences or more likely somehow transferred the debt to Harry's > account, rather than James. Since Dumbledore knows that a) Harry is > the anti-Voldemort device and b) Snape can't let anything happen to > Harry or face dire consequences, Dumbledore can trust what Snape will > do. > > This completely negates any need for Snape/Lily, which I've never > understood anyway for several reasons. The main support for it seems > to be that Snape and Lily both did well in Potions class. By that > standard, Draco and Hermione should be getting engaged any day now. > The second most common support is that it is Snape's "Worst" memory > because he was mean to Lily, which seems to me a pretty big leap of > faith. A lot of bad things happened to Snape in that scene, and we > didn't even get to watch the whole thing. It seemed like it was only > about to get worse at the end there. > > The only question left is why tell Lily to stand aside? Killing her > may have risked screwing up Voldemort's Horcrux plans, but that's > immaterial since if that were the case he would have already > pre-planned sparing Lily. If a Death Eater indeed attempted to > bargain for Lily, Peter has got my vote. He appears to have been even > more obsessed with James than Snape was, why not want to carry off his > wife as a spoil of war? Also, I've only seen one Death Eater finish a > job for Voldemort and actually manage to receive a reward as promised, > and that was Peter with his silver hand. > > (Sure I'm probably on my own here, but maybe there'll be a very small > role call :) ) > Sarah > Sarah, you're not on your own..I agree with much of what you say... The whole idea that Snape had a hopeless passion for Lily is made up out of whole cloth. JKR shudders at the idea of Snape being married or having a partner. It's a big stretch for which there is no real evidence. I think that the question -- why did Voldemort spare Lily is an incredibly important one. She didn't need to die? When has LV ever cared who "needed" to die or who didn't? "Kill the spare", and so much for Cedric Diggory. Why kill James and Harry but not Lily? Is he sexist - -believing that Lily as a woman would not be much of a threat? That's possible, given his contempt for his own mother. (Interesting, sons of mothers who are mistreated by their fathers either end up as really bad batterers (in my experience as a professional in the field of domestic violence), OR they go the other way and become heros -- it's interesting that both Snape and Riddle had fathers who mistreated their mothers. Yes, Voldemort's dad was the victim of a love potion, but he could have been decent, provided for mom and his son, and then had nothing more to do with her.) But I don't think that was the deal. There's something about Lily and Petunia that we don't know about yet that will be significant. I also believe that Dumbledore had told Snape that Snape would have to kill him -- Dumbledore was dying anyway, and in this way Snape is established without question in Voldemort's good graces. Snape stops whomever put the Cruciatus Curse on Harry at the end of the Half Blood Prince, and tells them to leave Harry alone -- that they have orders from the Dark Lord. But given that Snape hates Harry, and oh yes, he hates him, why not ignore those orders? After all, Snape has been ignoring orders when he kills Dumbledore. It's Draco who is supposed to do it, but Snape, unlike the other DE, does not even give Draco a moment to try. However, I do not think that even IF Snape was acting on Dumbledore's orders, that that means he's on the side of the OoP..or that he's a good guy. He's a double agent. You never really know until the end about double agents, and they've been known to change sides whenever it looks as if one side is going to win. Snape is a sophisticated Peter Pettigrew, perhaps. He took the job at Hogwarts to secure the protection of Albus Dumbledore when the other DEs were going to Azkaban - a truly horrific place where most go insane and die. He returns to Voldemort (perhaps) when it looks as if Voldemort is once again regaining power. We may not know until the last where his true loyalty lies -- or he may be the type of person who does not have true loyalty, just expediency. The most compelling argument to me about Snape being basically self centered and nasty come from JKR herself, who is surprised that there are those amongst us who still think Snape might be a good guy. He is vile, cruel and abusive. His verbal abuse of Harry, Neville and Hermione, his total unfairness as a teacher, his abuse of authority, his hatred of Sirius and his willingness to give ANYONE up to have their soul sucked out is pretty awful. I believe in Albus Dumbledore, so I want to believe he had a good reason to trust Snape, and that Snape will redeem himself. Perhaps he will inadvertantly save Harry, or do something that results in Lord Voldemort's demise...clearly, he will have a major role to come yet. Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 18:57:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 18:57:03 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162357 Carol arlier: > > Once the protective measures were in place and the desperation measures (necklace, mead, etc.) were stopped, the only thing left was to watch Draco and, after the Sectumsempra incident, keep Harry away from him, accomplished in part through the Saturday detentions. To do anything else would be to kill Draco or force his hand or to activate the UV and kill Snape, the one man at Hogwarts who could keep the Dark magic at bay. > > Lupinlore responded: > The ONLY man? All hail the great savior Snape! All bow down before his might and wisdom. All turn their eyes away as he abuses children and the "epitome of goodness" displays the reprehensible idiocy to allow him to continue! > > Really, Dumbledore is, I think, an absolute contemptible incompetent idiot throughout his dealings with Harry and his evident approval of Harry being abused. HBP only caps the problem. > > And that "epitome of goodness" remark really is where JKR put both feet solidly in her mouth. Along with the "very wise man" comment. I mean, it is all so absurd as inspire nothing but derision. > Carol responds: Come on, now, Lupinlore. We all know how you feel about Snape and Dumbledore, but there's no need to resort to sarcasm or to revile JKR because she doesn't share your views. As for my post, which you're responding to, I don't regard Snape as "the great savior" or even necessarily a hero, certainly not the hero of the book, but he has surprising skill as a Healer that we see for the first time in HBP, and I think that skill will be significant in Book 7 as well as Book 6 or JKR would not have made it so conspicuous. Snape saves Dumbledore from the ring Horcrux and Katie Bell from the cursed necklace and Draco from Sectumsempra. It seems unlikely that anyone else could have saved them. When Harry asks "Why him?" instead of Madam Pomfrey, Dumbledore responds that Professor Snape knows much more than Madam Pomfrey about the Dark Arts, which is certainly true. And there must be a reason why Dumbledore repeatedly says "I want Severus" near the end of the book. Whether Snape is loyal to him or not (and I'm not arguing that now), he and he alone has the ability to do what Dumbledore wants done at that moment. And even Ron would be dead if it weren't for Snape's passing on his knowledge of bezoars to Harry, both in SS/PS and in the HBP's Potions book, which jogs Harry's memory of that early lesson. We also see that he really does know DADA, both in class and in the duel with Harry, and IMO, the duty to deal with any Dark magic that gets past the protections at Hogwarts is the job of the DADA professor, which is why McGonagall has Filch take the cursed necklace to Snape. She must also have some inkling of the extent of his DADA skills though not Dumbledore's in-depth awareness of how much Snape knows. (On a side note, I think Snape must have removed the curse from the opal necklace as well as saving Katie since we don't hear any more about it.) Instead of of expressing your derision, which I fear is shared by very few people on this list, how about examining the evidence relating to Snape and Dumbledore's reasons for relying on him so heavily in HBP? Misplaced trust, maybe? Yet, surely, Snape has skills and knowledge possessed by no one else at Hogwarts, including Dumbledore himself. If Dumbledore didn't need him and his DADA skills this year in particular, why place him in that cursed position? Surely wanting Slughorn's memory is not sufficient reason to give him Snape's teaching post and shift Snape to DADA, a post he has denied him for fifteen years. DD must really need him there this year when DADA teachers of any caliber are scarce and none with knowledge comparable to Snape's to be found anywhere. Or he must think the time is ripe to send Snape back to Voldemort via the DADA curse. Or both. And why allow Snape to treat Katie Bell rather than having Madam Pomfrey do it or doing it himself if either of them has the ability? Why not save himself from the ring Horcrux without involving Snape if he could do it? Let's try to get past the issue of child abuse, which you and I will never agree on, and look objectively at what Snape has to offer as a DADA teacher, including out-of-classroom duties such as healing Dark curses, and why Dumbledore might depend on him, especially in HBP. It isn't just a matter of trusting Snape's loyalty. He's also relying on his abilities--skills and knowledge that no one else at Hogwarts has, whatever his failings as a teacher. Or that's how I read it. Carol, acknowledging that Dumbledore could be mistaken about Snape's loyalties or insufficiently concerned about the effects of sarcasm on students' egos but not discussing either at the moment From dmccomb1958 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 17:27:26 2006 From: dmccomb1958 at yahoo.com (Dorothy McComb) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:27:26 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: <003b01c717b0$c3eb2900$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > Shelley replies: > You haven't missed those details, as JKR just hasn't provided them > in the books. It's the one area that I think has caused the most > speculation for another person being present (presumably, another > DE) at the time of Lilly and James's murders, for the wand had to > have moved from where he used it (at Godric's Hollow) to get to > where LV was hiding. We all are assuming that he didn't have any > power or physical strength left to carry it himself, but maybe > Rowling forgot to say that he was at least strong enough to drag his > sorry butt and his wand out of there. > A quote from Goblet of Fire, Chapter 33: "I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost ..." This indicates to me that he was not able to "drag his sorry butt" or anything else out of the house at Godric's Hollow. Therefore there must have been someone else there, who grabbed his fallen master's wand and then perhaps fled in panic. I believe this was Wormtail. Wormtail alone knew where the Potters were hiding, and it may have been easier for him to take Voldemort there by Side-Along Apparition, especially if the house, like many houses, had protection against unwanted Apparators, than for Voldemort to try to get there by himself. Wormtail, then, witnessed the fall of his Master, grabbed the wand, and fled. The wand was hidden by the very simple method of Peter keeping it on him when he turned into a rat. Perhaps it was this wand that enabled Peter to find its owner so easily after the events of PoA; less than two months later, he had found Voldemort's spirit in Albania, given it some sort of physical form, and returned with it to England. Snape knew of the first part of the prophecy, and even knew who was indicated by it, but did not know Wormtail was the traitor, since years later he still thought it was Sirius. Therefore Snape could not have been there, and I doubt Voldemort would have let any other Death Eater in on the secret, since it is always a bad idea to have one's underlings aware of one's weaknesses, no matter how remote the possibility that those weaknesses may be important. Reduction of unnecessary entities thus leads me to the conclusion that Voldemort was accompanied by Peter, and only by Peter, that night. Dorothy From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 4 19:29:19 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:29:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way Message-ID: <6092529.1165260559237.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162359 Sarah: >which existed long before the UV. I think that Snape used a >combination of Legilimency and/or good old fashioned BS on the Black >sisters, Bart: I have pointed out before (and do not believe it was answered) that what is notable about the coversation with the Black sisters was not what was said, but what WASN'T said. Out of all the actions we know that Snape performed against Voldemort, the most direct and (if Snape is Voldemort's man) inexplicable was Snape alerting the Order in time to save Harry & crew from the DE attack in the Ministry. Which means that it is a very reasonable bet that the Death Eaters (and, by extension, Tommy Riddle) do not know Snape's role in their defeat. To me, this, plus (as I have also pointed out a number of times), Snape's last "digs" at Harry, which make more sense as instructions on how to defeat Voldemort than as either angry or mocking remarks, make me sure that he is still on the side of the Order. The "red herring" in this is that, regardless of everything else, Snape is NOT a good man, nor was he ever. So let's go to another major clue: Snape attempted (with partial success) to betray Lupin in POA, yet Dumbledore and Lupin STILL TRUST HIM in regard to the Order. Which leads one to conclude that there is a VERY strong motivation, overpowering others, for Snape to stop the self-centered Mr. Riddle. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 19:22:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:22:47 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162360 Annemehr wrote: > I'm not sure who you mean as having been "just a head & a cape," but > neither Voldemort nor Wormtail ever were. At Godric's Hollow, LV > was "ripped from his body" [GoF ch. 33] and existed, as we now know, > as a somewhat frayed soul bound to Earth by several Horcruxes. > > JKR has always refused to answer who else may have been at GH that > night, so naturally we can't resist speculating. I like to think > Wormtail was there, and LV intended to force him to help kill the > Potters just as he later forced him to help use Harry to get his body > back in GoF. (And I think he will end up forcing him to try to help > kill Harry in the next book, too. With interesting results, I > expect.) > > Anyway, there's no knowing for sure, but I think the simplest > solution to the wand question is that Wormtail was there, and picked > up the wand and stowed it in his own robes. It's possible he then > stashed it somewhere, but I doubt it. > > We know that when an animagus transforms, their clothes and anything > on their person (e.g. eyeglasses) transform with them. Sirius > stashed a Daily Prophet picture in his robes and then swam from > Azkaban to the mainland in dog form, and emerged on the shore with > the clipping unharmed to show to Harry months later. > > So, I figure, Wormtail had LV's wand hidden in his robes when he > staged his own death and framed Sirius (I mean the robes he was > wearing, not the bloodied ones he left at the scene along with his > finger for the Ministry to find). Then the wand was safely on his > person all the years he spent in rat form with the Weasleys, until > the day he met up with LV in Albania. Safest place for it, really. Carol responds: I almost agree with you but not quite. The one detail we know for sure is that Wormtail used Voldemort's wand to kill Cedric, so it must have been Wormtail who returned Voldemort's wand to him. Vapor!mort could not have carried it around himself when he had no body or was possessing the bodies of animals. Since there's no evidence that James saw anyone except Voldemort at Godric's Hollow ("He's here! Take Harry and run!) I conjecture that Wormtail was present in rat form so James and Lily couldn't see him. After they were dead, he could have transformed back, grabbed the wand, and Disapparated. I don't think, however, that he had a wand with him, either his own or Voldemort's, when he transformed into a rat and disappeared after killing the twelve Muggles. Otherwise, he would have had a wand with him and been able to defend himself in the Shrieking Shack. I conjecture that he hid Voldemort's wand and used his own to blow up the street, then left it behind, along with his finger and a fragment of bloody cloak, as "evidence" of his death. (No one would have bothered to examine it using Priori Incantatem; he was the "victim.") Voldemort's wand he must have found later and placed in his pocket, taking it with him when he transformed into a rat again. (In this instance, the wand would have been transfigured along with the clothes as you suggest.) Carol, who can't otherwise explain the absence of a wand for Peter in the Shrieking Shack scene From jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk Mon Dec 4 19:33:44 2006 From: jsummerill at summerillj.freeserve.co.uk (jotwo2003) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:33:44 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162361 This is a light-hearted post, but it's something I would dearly love to see happen. As 2006 is nearly over it's coming up to that time when people start making predictions for the new year. I bought a magazine with horoscopes and predictions for a bit of fun, not taking it too seriously. In Spirit and Destiny magazine, January 2007 issue, published UK and currently available, self-styled fortune-tellers made forecasts for 2007. One of them, called Carol Stirling (no, I haven't heard of her, either) makes this prediction for 2007. "J K Rowling She will announce a new book in November, to great delight from the public. She will use a character from the Harry Potter novels to create a new series." Now, this is one prophecy I really hope comes true. Let's hope Ms Stirling is better than Trelawney is most of the time. Imagining that it does happen, which character would you like to get their own spin off? Assuming he's a) good and b) survives I'd like to read the further adventures of Severus Snape. I think he's one of the few characters ripe for further development. Other characters are too fixed in stone and have a well-defined place in the WW and are part of a solid relationship. I think the character arcs of Harry, Hermione, Ron will definitely be over in book 7. I think the same goes for other secondary characters e.g. the Weasleys, Remus, Tonks. Then there are the characters that are too minor for the general non-fan reader to particularly want to continue reading about e.g. Kingsley Shacklebolt, Viktor Krum. And I can't see JKR writing a book about a baddie so this rules out Bella, Lucius etc. If Snape lives then for the first time in his life he will be able to please himself about what he does, rather than being involved in the struggle against Voldemort. I can't see him returning to Hogwarts either as he won't become head because Minerva fills that role. Also going back to Hogwarts would be Snape continuing to live in the past, something he can finally stop doing. So I think JKR could continue to write about him in a different situation. The other character I envisage that JKR could carry on with is Luna. Again, this is because Luna isn't tied down to a specific place in the WW and I don't think she will be paired off with anyone. She too is free to do whatever she wants, go wherever she wants. Who would you like to get their own spin off series and why? Maybe if enough people want a spin off series and JKR got to hear about it then this prediction would become a prophecy that fulfils itself simply because it was heard. JoTwo From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 4 19:37:23 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:37:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] LV's Wand question Message-ID: <3882453.1165261043449.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162362 Shelley replies: >(at Godric's Hollow) to get to where LV was hiding. We all are assuming that >he didn't have any power or physical strength left to carry it himself, but >maybe Rowling forgot to say that he was at least strong enough to drag his >sorry butt and his wand out of there. Bart: Maybe his sorry butt was all that was left, originally, and, as to how he carried away his wand, well, we can certainly leave THAT to the imagination. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Mon Dec 4 19:52:26 2006 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:52:26 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR and the boys (and girls) References: Message-ID: <01b101c717dd$b96b0b80$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 162363 >> Magpie: >> I've no doubt she'd >> look nice in a dress but yes, I think there's a little author magic >> turning her allegedly ordinary looking heroine into somebody who >> seems to show all the other girls up--other girls who actually are >> interested in fashion. > > Pippin: > Who, exactly, did Hermione surpass, aside from her usual unadorned > self? > > This seems to be one of those instances where popular myth hijacks > the readers' imagination and substitutes another narrative for what > Rowling actually wrote. The Mary Sue moment is mostly in the eyes > of the beholder, IMO. There's nothing on the page to say > that Hermione has a nicer dress, lovelier makeup, or a more elegant > hairdo than any other girl at the ball. This is along my point. I think people are polarizing Hermione. On one end to say that she's got "no girl friends", and even to marginalize the one that clearly IS in Canon (between Hermione and Ginny), and on the other end to suddenly make Hermione to be "one hottie" at the Ball. If you take those two extremes, then indeed you have a point to lose faith in JKR as a writer. My point was, I don't see this "polarization" or "extremes" in the books at all, not even slightly or stereotypically. Harry just isn't privileged to see what goes on in the girl's bathroom; he can't see into the girl's common room. That's all. It doesn't mean it "didn't happen". And besides, we have young Harry's prospective of not even really looking at girls until suddenly there's this ball, and he's awakened to the fact "hey, there are girls all around me!" He doesn't think of Hermione as a girl potential for a date, and I think that is Rowling planning that on purpose, to show that Harry is growing up, so that Hermione's beauty is a slight shock to our two boys (Harry and Ron), who have been taking her for granted all along as the book worm. She's been there all along, I believe every bit as pretty as she was at the ball, but once you dress someone up, the transformation can be quite an experience in itself, as other guys have mentioned in this thread. She didn't change- the boy's prospective of her changed. That's the canon that Rowling wrote. In the other post, one person mentioned a writer who said "I am not responsible for what the characters do between chapters" is exactly the point here- Rowling doesn't have to show every move Hermione makes when she's not with Harry. In the same way that we can reasonably assume Harry is reading books, we can assume Hermione is talking to girls. The organizing of DA is something that was solely Hermione's doing. You don't suddenly go from "no friends" to organizing a large group in one shot, any more than you take a frump and make her a beauty queen. Rowling didn't write those extremes, and I think I fully agree with you that there is a lot of "popular myth hijacking the readers' imagination and substituting another narrative for what the author actually wrote". All too often in fan fiction, I see a lot of Hermione coming into her own with regard to sex, assuming that she was just frigid (even with Krum!) or some inept social creature before, or way too busy getting all her PhD's in various subjects to even consider boys. It may work to create a emotionally charged (or sexual scene charged) short story, but it's just not the Hermione as Rowling wrote her. Shelley From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 4 20:19:30 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:19:30 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162364 > Pippin > who also can't find any canon that Ginny is blessed with natural > beauty beyond what is normal for a healthy sixteen year > old girl Magpie: Okay, I'm willing to go with the idea that Hermione's entrance isn't supposed to be as stunning as it comes across to me (the whole storyline including Hermione's appearance still reads like wish- fulfillment to me), but you really don't think Ginny is supposed to be blessed with natural beauty beyond just being 16 and healthy? Ginny's beauty is referenced by characters with no reason to want to admit she's pretty (by your own claims Harry can find Pansy ugly at the ball because he finds her personally repulsive, yet Pansy and Blaise can't do the same for blood-traitor Ginny, just as Draco can't do the same for Hermione in GoF). If I'm not supposed to think Ginny is exceptionally pretty with her popularity, the discussions about her looks and boyfriends, and the number of times the word is used to describe her by others I don't know what I'm supposed to think about her. Harry Potter does not live in a universe where being a 16-year-old girl and healthy endows you with good looks (nor do I). Girls who are pretty are described as being so. Ginny, like Lily, is popular for her many charms (not just beauty) which may be invisible to me but are not a product of the Harry-filter. Shelley: This is along my point. I think people are polarizing Hermione. On one end to say that she's got "no girl friends", and even to marginalize the one that clearly IS in Canon (between Hermione and Ginny), and on the other end to suddenly make Hermione to be "one hottie" at the Ball. If you take those two extremes, then indeed you have a point to lose faith in JKR as a writer. My point was, I don't see this "polarization" or "extremes" in the books at all, not even slightly or stereotypically. Magpie: I didn't mean to be that extreme, though my language was so that was my fault. I didn't mean Hermione was the one hottie at the ball. I do think she came across as more smooth than just a girl who cleaned up well--though at least with Hermione I can accept that perhaps that's partly due to Harry's previous relationship with her. I have not gotten rid of Hermione's one girl friendship with Ginny, but I stand by her not having girlfriends. I think JKR happily writes in stereotypes and polarizations plenty of times in the books, and see no hints I ought to be imagining a life with girlfriends for Hermione just because I think that's more normal for a girl. It's not normal for plenty of girls, and everything about Hermione in canon indicates that besides Ginny (who reads almost like a sister- in-law to me) Hermione does not have girlfriends. That even seems to come into play in the plot. Shelley: In the other post, one person mentioned a writer who said "I am not responsible for what the characters do between chapters" is exactly the point here- Rowling doesn't have to show every move Hermione makes when she's not with Harry. In the same way that we can reasonably assume Harry is reading books, we can assume Hermione is talking to girls. Magpie: I don't agree that we can and I don't. We use what we see and extrapolate from that what's going on where we don't see. Since Harry is shown being not particularly interested in books in his spare time (and we see a lot of his daily life) it does not become equally plausible canon that he's reading for pleasure when we don't see him just because we can't prove he doesn't do it. Just the same, Hermione is characterized as having two friends who are boys and also as having a friendship with her friend Ron's sister. We see/hear plenty of stuff about her downtime apart from that and she does not have other girlfriends. We *do* get information about this sort of thing. How Hermione spends her freetime is kind of a running joke in canon. We get that Hermione keeps up to date on what's going on in school. She's socially savvy in a lot of ways. That's doesn't give her friendships we don't see. SM: > Sorry, but this is one of the reasons that I don't often engage on > this list. It would be helpful to pay a little bit more close > attention to the books, and to the comments of the author. Magpie: Well, gee, that's a nice way to start a post. You don't like to engage on the list because everyone doesn't share your opinions about the characters, and you've decided to preemptively assume that that means they haven't read the books or can't listen to the author. SM: Draco Malfoy tried to kill Albus Dumbledore. He did so by smuggling in poison that almost killed Ron in error; and by smuggling in a necklace that almost killed Katie Bell. He lets Death Eaters into the castle who almost kill Bill Weasley. This is not the work of a nice kid. Magpie: I don't quite understand this tack. It seems like you're just telling us that Draco's a jerk as if this is the only thing that matters if you're looking at who does what in a scene. What would Draco being nice change with regards to that? SM: The train scene in the Goblet of Fire? Draco has just threatened Harry's life -- and referenced how delighted he was that Cedric Diggory was murdered. It's part of Draco's pattern - he says vile things to people when he is flanked by toady/thugs Crabbe and Goyle - he calls Hermione a mudblood... Magpie: Well, I have actually read the books and I still don't get this death threat Draco's supposedly making. What Draco does is to say that the Dark Lord's back and predict that he will be after Harry and his friends--having already killed Cedric. I don't actually think he's expressing simple delight in the scene based on canon, but I can allow that your interpretation is different there. I also think that calling Crabbe and Goyle "thugs and toadies" is editorializing. Draco does have a pattern of saying vile things to people, but that's what Betsy referenced. In this scene his saying vile things gets him attacked physically, which isn't self-defense. Draco's awful in the scene, but it seems like the death threat only pops into existance as an attempt to find a way the other kids are defending their lives by hexing the Slytherins intead of just hexing them out of anger and dislike. SM: You can't recall a case of self-defense? Well, what about the fact that at the end of the Order of the Phoenix "Firstly, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle, who had clearly been waiting all week for the opportunity to strike without teacher witnesses, attempted to ambush Harry halfway down the train as he made his way back from the toilet. The attack might have succeeded....."In regards to the ferret scene, Harry, Ron and Hermione are minding their own business when Malfoy initiates the whole scene, attacks Ron's father, then insults Ron's mother (twice), and then attacks Harry from behind...? This wouldn't be a case of "real" self-defense? Magpie: She couldn't recall a scene of self-defense and you provided two, though it's actually Fake!Moody who attacks Draco after he throws a hex at Harry. Draco is hexing first in that scene. Elsewhere other kids hex first. SM: Obviously Barty Crouch, Junior is trying to establish himself as the friend of Harry and the enemy of Death Eaters/Malfoys....I think turning Malfoy into a ferret was poetic justice! As for him being seriously hurt, we don't even hear about him having to go to the hospital wing. Magpie: Actually, you're playing down another main aspect of what Barty's doing there, imo. He's not just establishing himself as a friend of Harry and an enemy of the DEs/Malfoys by administering poetic justice and not seriously hurting the poor tyke at all. He's imo letting loose his true sadistic nature by hurting Draco to punish him for his father's disloyalty to Voldemort. He's acting like the real fanatical DE that he is there, and yet one might almost be tempted to defend the main villain of the book if one enjoys this bout of tormenting. Malfoy does not suffer longterm damage, but the wording indicates pain, even allowing for the way Rowling's being a little unrealistic about the effect this would have on an actual ferret. It's a great hint to the real villain in the book and not only does it go easily by because it's Malfoy, it's probably the only action of a DE that's staunchly defended in all of canon even while other characters' actions are encouraged to be viewed based on whether they're good or bad. If Crouch had bounced Neville in a scene I think his cover would have been blown for the reader then and there. SM: And as for Hermione being cruel, if one read the books, one would be familiar with the fact that it was Hermione who approved Professor McGonagall's actions in rescuing Malfoy from Crouch/Moody. ("he could have really hurt Malfoy, though. It was good, really, that Professor McGonagall stopped it---." Magpie: I assume Betsy was referring to other actions of Hermione's, not her approval of McGonagall's stopping the ferret bounce when she said she thought Hermione was cruel--actions one would also be familiar with after having read the book. SM: In the next incident, Malfoy and Harry attack each other simultaneously, and when Hermione's teeth grow, Snape shows up, insults Hermione (a true Slytherin), punishes the Gryffindors but not the Slytherins. Magpie: Not sure what Snape exactly has to do with self-defense here. Harry takes out his wand first in response to Draco's calling Hermione a Mudblood (and he's also stressed out at other things). They throw their hexes at the same time. SM: It is to JKR's credit that she shows that even Draco Malfoy is redeemable. Magpie: In his universe, Draco's not even exceptionally bad. Pre-HBP it wasn't uncommon for people to claim anyone who thought he was redeemable (or would be important) wasn't listening closely to the author. (I also don't think that any of JKR's words about Snape indicate that he can't DDM or have loved Lily.) The author's words can be ambiguous--just as canon often begs for multiple viewpoints on scenes. > Alla: > He indeed almost killed someone violently, but I absolutely do not > think that he went one ounce beyond defending himself in this scene. > > He almost killed someone because he used the spell that he did not > know the meaning of. Stupid is as stupid does, no argument from me. > > But I completely disagree that it was just reaching for the spell > that > takes care of things. I think tripping and wet on the floor counts > pretty good for "losing control" Magpie: I meant losing control emotionally. I didn't mean he always had the upper hand in the fight. Meaning, Harry doesn't lose it and intentionally hurt Malfoy through his own anger or rage. He just chooses this spell to stop Malfoy's--and suddenly the bathroom's covered in blood. I think when Harry loses more control in that direction he's the one throwing Crucios, as he does at Snape. In this scene, to me, it seems like Malfoy's the one emotionally undone. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 21:05:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:05:16 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162366 > Magpie: > Well, I have actually read the books and I still don't get this > death threat Draco's supposedly making. What Draco does is to say > that the Dark Lord's back and predict that he will be after Harry > and his friends--having already killed Cedric. Alla: Yes, that is the death threat I am interpreting as such. Magpie: In this scene his saying > vile things gets him attacked physically, which isn't self-defense. > Draco's awful in the scene, but it seems like the death threat only > pops into existance as an attempt to find a way the other kids are > defending their lives by hexing the Slytherins intead of just hexing > them out of anger and dislike. Alla: By the same token I can say that Draco making a death threat is getting downplayed to get him off the hook. I interpret this scene as sooo much more than just hexing Draco and his goons out of anger and dislike. Yes, there are no wands yet as we discussed earlier, but narrator describes them as more menacing than ever - I can totally see Harry after being tortured, his ears ringling intepreting this as threat as well. I mean, this is of course speculation, but what **else** Malfoy and his goons came to their appartment but to start a fight? When Malfoy is alone he barely does that, but when there are three of them - that usually means that he is feeling braver, no? >> Magpie: > In his universe, Draco's not even exceptionally bad. Alla: Really? I am sorry, but I do not remember another kid in school actively participating in assasination. That to me counts as pretty bad one, worse than a great deal of Hogwarts students. Magpie: Pre-HBP it > wasn't uncommon for people to claim anyone who thought he was > redeemable (or would be important) wasn't listening closely to the > author. (I also don't think that any of JKR's words about Snape > indicate that he can't DDM or have loved Lily.) The author's words > can be ambiguous--just as canon often begs for multiple viewpoints > on scenes. Alla: Very true that is. I was one of them and could not imagine Draco's redemption in my wildest dreams. > Magpie: > I meant losing control emotionally. I didn't mean he always had the > upper hand in the fight. Meaning, Harry doesn't lose it and > intentionally hurt Malfoy through his own anger or rage. He just > chooses this spell to stop Malfoy's--and suddenly the bathroom's > covered in blood. I think when Harry loses more control in that > direction he's the one throwing Crucios, as he does at Snape. In > this scene, to me, it seems like Malfoy's the one emotionally undone. Alla: Thanks for clarifying - I still don't think that we can separate clearly whether Harry lost emotional control or just physical one. JMO, Alla who knows that Magpie read the books and loves talking to her about them. :) From annemehr at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 21:35:42 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 21:35:42 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <3202590612040327x15af85afj771b1e9af9ad6c01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162367 Sarah wrote: > Dumbledore says that Snape owed James a debt ever since the prank. > I submit that it was the impending consequences of > the life debt that sent him back to Dumbledore. Voldemort would be no > help, as the life debt magic would be concerned with concepts like > honor and reciprocation, which Voldemort doesn't understand. Snape > went back to the only wizard he thought might be able to somehow > subvert his contract. This was successful, but of course Dumbledore > couldn't dissipate the life debt completely, he either stalled the > consequences or more likely somehow transferred the debt to Harry's > account, rather than James. Since Dumbledore knows that a) Harry is > the anti-Voldemort device and b) Snape can't let anything happen to > Harry or face dire consequences, Dumbledore can trust what Snape will > do. Annemehr: This fits together nicely, and provides a handy use of that pesky life-debt besides. I'm still going DDM!Snape all the way, though. ;) I won't do a long canon support for my preference here, but just a tidbit: I really like Snape's little intro to his first DADA class (remeniscent of Harry's first Potions class, as well): "The Dark Arts," said Snape, "are many, varied, ever-changing, and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before. You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructible." [HBP ch. 9; p. 177US] Of course, Harry misinterprets, and thinks Snape speaks of the Dark Arts with a "loving caress in his voice." Hermione understands better, and says Snape's words remind her of Harry's descriptions, from the year before, of fighting Voldemort. I say, Snape knows so very well what fighting the Dark Arts is like, because he is *really* fighting them. He's not just fighting for his life, or for his own advantage, and he's had long experience with those severed heads. Sarah: > This completely negates any need for Snape/Lily, which I've never > understood anyway for several reasons. The main support for it seems > to be that Snape and Lily both did well in Potions class. By that > standard, Draco and Hermione should be getting engaged any day now. > The second most common support is that it is Snape's "Worst" memory > because he was mean to Lily, which seems to me a pretty big leap of > faith. A lot of bad things happened to Snape in that scene, and we > didn't even get to watch the whole thing. It seemed like it was only > about to get worse at the end there. Annemehr: I'm still agnostic on the Snape/Lily question, but I think it's a better bet than you give it credit for, and it's much older than either of the arguments from HBP or OoP. As far as Draco and Hermione in Potions class, I don't see what you mean. Actually, I think it's striking that Slughorn passes so quickly over Hermione's potions. She is, after all, a member of the Slug Club, so he's not ignoring Hermione as a person; yet in class he barely notices her once she's answered his questions at the beginning. We know she's "the best in her year." We know that in previous years her potions are consistently far better than anyone else's. Yet, this year her attempts are eclipsed by the Half-Blood Prince's (via Harry). If Hermione is an exceptional student, then Lily and Snape must have been beyond exceptional. Hermione goes by the book - the Borage book, which she rattles off word for word in class [ch. 18; p. 374 & 376US] - while Snape and Lily apparently used insight and intuition [ch.15; p. 319US]. Slughorn attributes Harry's success to inheriting Lily's talent, and once tries to credit Snape's teaching also (at the Christmas party)[ibid]. Doesn't it make you wonder, though? Harry is using Snape's book, but Slughorn sees Lily. That tells me that their talents were so similar, that Sluggy could mistake one for the other. I'm guessing that they *combined* them to achieve a sum greater than its parts - just like Golpalott's Law. I *have* to believe, as many others do, that those two worked together at school. Whose talent was the greater, or whether there was any romance involved, I couldn't say, but it seems that together they achieved a unique proficiency. The other compelling proof of Snape's regard for Lily, for me, is that he never talks about her to Harry. (This has been noted by the Snape/Lily faithful for years.) Snape is continually engaged in building Harry's enmity to himself, and to that end he never hesitates to denigrate James. I don't think he can bring himself to speak of Lily in that way, but neither can he praise her - to say what he really thinks of her - to Harry because it would work against his purpose. So, he keeps his silence. Hmmm. I suppose I do accept Snape/Lily, even if I can't decide whether there were erotic feelings or not. Love is love, after all, isn't it? Annemehr with thanks to Talisman for drawing my attention more closely to the relative abilities of everyone in Potions From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 22:34:33 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:34:33 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162368 --- "zgirnius" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: > Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, > Chapter 26, The Cave > > ...edited... > > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his > injured hand during the climb down, and is described > as swimming like a much younger man, shortly thereafter. > Thoughts? > bboyminn: Well, swimming is actually a very safe slow stress sport, especially for people with handicaps. Of course, that assumes a basic level of fitness. Now, regarding fitness, keep in mind Hogwart's many staircases and sloping lawns. Anyone living at Hogwart is going to be reasonably fit. Also, it may simply be that Dumbledore is a good swimmer. People who are skilled trained swimmers make swimming look unnaturally easy. What I'm saying here is that I don't think there is any significants to Dumbledores agility in the water, beyond it needing to set a contrast between when Dumbledore enters the cave and when he leaves. > 2)In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, > Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not > understand. Any ideas on this language and how > Dumbledore came to know it? > bboyminn: Others have speculated that this is certainly human language, though I'm not convinced of that. It could be Gnomish, Gobblygook, some fairy/elfin, or some other non-human magical language. That said, I will point out that most magical language is in some ancient, and probably dead, language. But what people seem to forget is that Latin is not the only ancient language in the world. In South Asia Sanskrit is probably the magical language. In the Middle East, perhaps Aramaic is the magical language. Certainly China and Africa have their own individual ancient languages that act as the foundation of their magic. Dumbledore seems to have traveled the world. For example, I doubt the Dumbledore found Fawkes the Phoenix in a pet store. He probably traveled to the area of the world where Phoenix are found and he and Fawkes struck up a friendship. So, my point is a genius +150 year old wizard who has dedicated his life to education, has most likely taken the time to study magical language and spells from other parts of the world. I suspect the magic, associated spells, and language of each area of the world has its advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps, Dumbledore is using a foriegn language that is more suited to this type of magic. > 3)Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open > the hidden archway, though Harry offers his own instead, > because "your blood is worth more than mine." What does > he mean by this? > bboyminn: Hummm... I find this question difficult. Others have speculated that perhaps Dumbledore did not want Harry to reveal himself to Voldemort by leaving blood on the scene. I guess that's possible and even logical, but still I'm not completely convinced. It could be that Dumbledore is dropping a subtle clue. Other have speculated that 'blood' in some form rather than magic, is the key to defeating Voldemort. In this case, Dumbledore may have just been dropping a reminder of the importance of Harry's blood. It is also possible that he didn't want Harry distracted by the trama of having to give his own blood. Indeed as they exit, Harry does not have to suffer any new trama to give blood; he uses blood from and existing injury. For now, that's the idea I'm sticking with, Dumbledore simply want to spare Harry the trama, distraction, and mental grief of having to give his own blood. > 4)Dumbledore heals the cut he has made by passing his > wand once over it, and Harry is reminded of Snape's > sung/chanted spell with which he healed Draco. Is this > the nonverbal version, or something else? Why does > Rowling choose to mention this similarity explicitly > by having Harry note it? > bboyminn: I don't think there is any actual connection between Snape's healing spell and Dumbledore's beyond that fact that they are both healing spells. But this does represents something that has always bothered me about Hogwarts curriculum, no First Aid classes in a world where basic healing charms would certainly come in very usefull. Lupin splints Ron damaged leg so he can use it again. Snape heals deep cuts. Dumbledore heals his own wounds. Now to some extent, I can see it not being introduced too early. Madame Pomphrey wouldn't want kids attempting to heal themselves and avoiding coming to her for help. But on the other hand, considering the wild woolly and dangerous world they live in, a few healing spells would go a long way. So, this could be the implanting in Harry's mind that if he is going to survive, along with curse breaking and dueling, it might be helpful to learn a few healing spells. Beyond that, I'm not sure. > 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates > youth " Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains > the boat would only hold one adult wizard. Is there any > special significance to these words? > bboyminn: I think it is just good general philosophy. On a superfical level, it ingraciates JKR to her readers, and reminds them that they, the younger readers, should be taken seriously, and that older readers should remember that children are deeper than adults give them credit for. On another level, powerful wizard that Dumbledore is, I think it is a somewhat melancholy reminder to him self that he is past his prime. The great adventures and achievements fall to the young and the brave, not to the old and the wise. On a completely different level, I think it is a reflection of Voldemort's arogance. He can't imagine that a young uneducated unqualified wizard could or would possibly get past his enchantments. He can't conceive of being seriously challenged by a child. That certainly has lead to a lot of problems in Voldie's life. > 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must > be drunk? Why or why not? > bboyminn: Thing is Dumbledore is likely a master of nonverbal magic, and he is also very old, wise, and experienced in the various ways that magicians hide and protect things. Look at the enchantments that protect the Socerer's Stone; classic wizard's protection, riddles and puzzles and games. It seems that this is an ancient game that wizards play. They want to protect something, but at the same time, rather than make the protection iron-clad, they make it a game, a challenge. In a sense, they want the opposing wizard to have a chance of achieving his goal if he is wiser, more clever, and more powerful than the wizard doing the protecting. It's not so much about protecting what needs protecting, but a contest between wizards to see who is more clever. Voldemort certainly put some clever protections in place, and only the most outstanding wizard could possible stand a chance of by-passing it. Each completed challenge seems to trigger a new far more difficult obstical. Minus a bunch of rambling on my part, I think Dumbledore understands how the /game/ is played, and he tried all the standard methods of vanishing, summoning, etc... and was left with one fairly reasonable conclusion. > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? > bboyminn: I think it's /poison-ish/. Though it is not clear what the intended /normal/ course was for the poison. Persumable it was slow acting since Dumbledore lasted so long, and based on Dumbledore's conclusion that Voldemort would want to question who ever managed to get past it. Yet it is unclear whether is was a disabling potion or a slow acting deadly poison. Though there is an element that confuses me. The potion, once the basic mission is completed, makes you want water, yet prevents you from getting water by any means other than disturbing the lake. Disturbing the lake causes the Inferi to rise. If Dumbledore is right is his thought that Voldemort would want to keep any intruder alive, then exactly what were the Inferi going to do? Were they going to hold the intruder captive indefinitely until Voldemort decided to look in? Do they have some way of alerting Voldemort that intruders are in the Cave? Dumbledore manages to thwart them so we don't get to see what Voldemort envisioned as 'normal' cirumstances, yet I can't help wondering what the overal game plan was? > 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion > tell us about him? What is the meaning of his words > and actions? > bboyminn: I'm not sure there are any hidden or secret meanings to the things Dumbledore is saying. I think his statements are simply meant by the author to set the mood of the event. They are simply 'illustrations' of the extent to which Dumbledore is affected by and is struggling against the potion. > 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both > as he gets into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do > you think he does this? > bboyminn: Once he knows that Inferi are about, I think he quickly realizes that any disturbance of the water will cause them to rise and attack. I really don't think it is any more complicated than that. > 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* > use the water? Do you believe the lake water had any > effect on Dumbledore? > bboyminn: I think using lake water was part of Voldemort's plan. If you get past all the other enchantments, and if you manage to get to the island, and if you manage to survive drinking the potion, and if you can still function, then you have a powerful thirst for water yet no means of getting it. I think the Lake water revives you slightly but it also invokes the Inferi. Each successfully complete obstical triggers the next obstical. I don't think the lake water compounded the existing poison, in fact it seemed to revive Dumbledore, but it also triggered the Inferi. > 11) What did you think of Harry's attempts to fight > the Inferi? > bboyminn: Pretty sad, especially after Dumbledore told him what to do if the Inferi should rise. All his attempts to attack them forgets one crucial point, Inferi are aleady dead. Cuts, pain, and other assorted actions have no meaning to them. The Petrificus Totalis was somewhat effective, but there seem to be lots of Inferi, and the goal was not to disable a few, but to hold them all back. It was understandable though. Harry was in a panic, worried about Dumbldore, and that lead him to forget Dumbledore's instruction. It also probably shows that Harry wasn't paying attention in Snape's class when Inferi were discussed. > 12)Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along > the lakeshore, "The protection was after all well > designed," and asserts one person could not have > defeated it alone. What do you think he meant? How do > you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the > protection? > bboyminn: I think a lot of things are happening here. On one hand, he is acknowledging that Voldemort does indeed know how to play the /game/. Damn few wizards could have walked away for that place. As others have hinted, I think it is a subtle reminder to Harry that he can't do it all alone. At some point, he has to decide who he trusts, and he has to rely on them for help. And, of course, I think it was the setup, the first clue as to how R.A.B. managed to overcome the enchantments. Even if RAB is Regulus, as many of us suspect, and even if he had inside information on how to get past the enchantments, he still needed an accomplice. Many suspect that accomplice was Kreacher, and if Harry somehow discovers this, it may lead him to the Locket. > 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly > a passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his > words to Harry in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells > Harry he need not worry about being attacked because > "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or suspect what > he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to > take up the fight? > bboyminn: Yes, a clear symbolic passing of the torch. But I think it has more too do with what I said before, powerful and clever wizard that he is, Dumbledore knows his days are gone. That the great adventures, great battles, and great accomplishments are for the young. His role has faded from doer of great deeds to adviser to the doer of great deeds. That's a natural progression in life. I don't think it is an indication of what specifically he will find back at Hogwarts, but more an indication that he is acknowledged the change in his role in life. In a sense, he is acknowleding that Harry is the great hero of the modern day. Is Harry prepared to take on that role? Yes and No. I've said before that it is easy for we the readers to a acknowledge that Harry's greatest weapon is 'Love' and that in the end, it will be 'love' that saves him, not knowledge of magic. Yet, I repeat once again, from Harry's perspective, how can he use that? What is he suppose to do, louge around eating pasties waiting for the final battle then run up to Voldie and give him a hug and a kiss? That, from Harry's perspective would be a doomed strategy, even if ultimately it did work. There is so much that Harry needs to know; curse breaking, dueling, Occlumency/Legilimency, nonverbal spells and LOTS OF THEM, plus tons of knowledge about how and where to find the Horcruxes and what to do with them once he finds them. Even if Harry has the /potential/ to defeat Voldemort, that potential is useless unless it is cultivated and refined to a practical level. Again, look at this from Harry's perspective, not the prespective of a reader. Harry needs to gain a lot of ground in the next books. He needs to work incredably hard if he has any chance of facing Voldemort and surviving. > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special > significance? Is its setting in a cave important? > (Important events at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA > involve subterranean settings, as well). > bboyminn: I don't think there is any significants to this being in a cave other than underground locations have a generally creepy eery feeling to them. They are good locations for mysterious happenings. But I don't see any hidden meaning in them. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From lesliemommystamps at msn.com Mon Dec 4 15:02:08 2006 From: lesliemommystamps at msn.com (Leslie Boyer) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 15:02:08 +0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162369 "DobbyCat.com --- Helping Pets" dobbycat at gmail.com: So its very likely that a British parent weight the odds of danger vs school Also, were I a Muggle parent and knowing about the dangers of Voldemort which crosses over into the 'Real' world, I would have to consider that my child would be safer staying in school and learning the thinks needed to keep himself or herself safe. Leaving reality aside, being that this is a work of fiction anything goes to make the plot. I have yet to see magic happening around California, but that doesn't mean I will stop looking for it :) Leslie Boyer: In this context I have always believed that the school was safer. I mean the kids are not allowed to do magic outisde of school. How are they to protect themselves? At Hogwarts they are surrounded by magic and those who can protect them in ways that parents cannot. As a parent, I would want my kids with me, but, in another way I would want them to be where they are most protected and if that would be at school/Hogwarts, then so be it. ~Leslie Boyer~ Stampin' UP! Demo http://www.lesliemommystamps.stampinup.net http://inkyhugs.blogspot.com/ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 22:57:53 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 22:57:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's love protection In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162370 --- "rduran1216" wrote: > > How does Dumbledore's charm work, the one he invoked > when he left Harry with his only living relative? Is it > an absolute protection up to his 17th birthday, or is > it just a protection within the house that is subject > to change? > > Rduran1216 > bboyminn: Well, we have discussed this in the past but the only real conclusion we could ever reach was 'we don't know'. But there are some basic facts we do know. I seems the charm was placed on Harry, but it is tied to the Dursley's house. It is when Harry is at the place where his mother blood dwells, there he can not be harmed, or words to that effect. But only so long as he can call that place 'home'; more on that later. So, it seems the protection is strongest within the Dursley house. I believe that also included the yard. Form that central location, I speculate that it fades as Harry moves father away. As mentioned above, the key to maintaining the protection is that Harry must call the place where his mother's blood dwell 'home'. That is way Dumbledore wants Harry to return one last time to the Dursleys, because by agreeing to do so, he extends the protection for one more year. If Harry had said he was never returning to the Dursley's again, then he could no longer call it home, and the spell would have been broken. I believe that the protection extends to the Dursley's house even when Harry isn't there. So, in a sense, since Harry will be gone from that point on, Dumbledore is really extending the protection of the Dursleys, but also insuring that the protection will be there should emergency circumstance arise in which Harry needs absolute protection. In that case, he could be returned to the Durley's and would have that absolute protection. So, it pays for Dumbledore to extend the protection for another year. >From what the books tell us, the protection will expire when Harry turns 17, this is, becomes an adult in the wizard world. I think the reason for that is the concept of 'home' changes when you become an adult. Even if as an adult, Harry were to live at the Dursley's, it wouldn't so much be as a family member, but more as a boarder or guest. It is subtle, but none the less, I assert that the concept of 'home' changes when you become an adult; sort of the difference between their home and my home. As an adult, Harry will create a home of his own. So, the spell is continually renewed as long as Harry returns to the Dursleys, that is, calls it home, but when he becomes an adult the spell expires regardless of where Harry lives. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboymin From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Dec 4 23:16:47 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:16:47 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: <005001c717c0$74885580$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > Betsy Hp: > > I blame JKR. Realistically, you're correct. A girl with no interest > > in hair, make-up, and fashion does not suddenly, with no help > > whatsoever, turn out as poised and pressed as JKR has Hermione. > > > > But JKR wrote the belle of the ball scene without any suggestion that > > older Gryffindors girls (or other sort of fairy godmother) helped > > Hermione in anyway. JKR also has Hermione poo-poo the whole effort > > as far too much time wasted on a rather silly goal. So we have a > > girl who, as you put it, radically changes her normal behavior while > > maintaining that it was all no big deal. Do I smell shenanigans? > > Damn straight. Personally, I think JKR sacrificed character for > > a "think of the children!" moment. > > I think you are forgetting who the character is who J.K. Rowling identifies with..... J.K. Rowling is smart, a book worm, and obviously can be very glamorous at times. She is writing about a young woman who can "have it all"..who doesn't have to pretend to be stupid to get dates, who doesn't have to travel in packs and giggle, and still be feminine, who is smart and gutsy and practical, but still can be glamorous..but who doesn't take glamour very seriously. Remember J.K. Rowling's comments about anorexic models... Susan McGee From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 23:23:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:23:18 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162372 > >>Magpie: > > In this scene his saying vile things gets him attacked > > physically, which isn't self-defense. Draco's awful in the scene, > > but it seems like the death threat only pops into existance as an > > attempt to find a way the other kids are defending their lives by > > hexing the Slytherins intead of just hexing them out of anger and > > dislike. > >>Alla: > By the same token I can say that Draco making a death threat is > getting downplayed to get him off the hook. I interpret this scene > as sooo much more than just hexing Draco and his goons out of anger > and dislike. Yes, there are no wands yet as we discussed earlier, > but narrator describes them as more menacing than ever - I can > totally see Harry after being tortured, his ears ringling > intepreting this as threat as well. Betsy Hp: Hmm... For me, even if Draco is honestly threatening everyone there, if he's honestly telling them like it is (and actually, I do think Draco sees himself as giving Harry a bit of wisdom wrapped up in a "told you so" package), I *still* see nothing honorable or noble in the Trio and the twins attacking Draco, Crabbe and Goyle like that. There was nothing to suggest, IMO, that Draco meant that the killing was going to start right there and then. Sure, *Harry* had just gone through something pretty terrible and frightening. But what's Ron and Herminoe's excuse? Or the twins for that matter? If just witnessing their friend's trauma is enough would this mean Pansy would have been justified hexing Harry from behind after the bathroom incident in HBP? This is a situation where I know I won't change any minds, but in this scene the Trio and the twins acted like brutes. They physically attacked someone's words. (And poor Crabbe and Goyle hadn't even said anything.) And then they cold-bloodedly stepped on and showed no care for the bodies they left behind. (So much for Gryffindor chivalry.) > >>Alla: > I mean, this is of course speculation, but what **else** Malfoy and > his goons came to their appartment but to start a fight? When Malfoy > is alone he barely does that, but when there are three of them - > that usually means that he is feeling braver, no? Betsy Hp: Well first of all, a brave Draco is still just a verbal Draco. But I also don't really care if Draco was looking for a fight or not. It's one of those basic laws of behavior that used to be taught to children, you don't need to lower yourself to the other guy's level. It's okay and in fact more mature to walk away. Harry and friends seem to be of the thinking, if the other guy pulls a knife, you pull a gun. Which is an entirely different sort of philosophy. > >> Magpie: > > In his universe, Draco's not even exceptionally bad. > >>Alla: > Really? I am sorry, but I do not remember another kid in school > actively participating in assasination. > Betsy Hp: Ginny Weasley. She sent more children to the hospital wing than Draco. And it was just luck (and some effort on Harry's part) that kept her from killing her fellow students. But, I think Magpie might have been refering to Draco's threat level. Do you honestly think any member of the Trio or the twins felt that Draco was really a viable threat to their lives? After realizing that Draco wasn't the Heir in CoS, I think he became much more of an annoyance to their minds than an actual threat. > Alla who knows that Magpie read the books and loves talking to her > about them. :) Betsy Hp: Me too, Miss! I read them too! Betsy Hp From Schlobin at aol.com Mon Dec 4 23:20:46 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:20:46 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: <01b101c717dd$b96b0b80$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > besides, we have > young Harry's prospective of not even really looking at girls until suddenly > there's this ball, and he's awakened to the fact "hey, there are girls all > around me!" He doesn't think of Hermione as a girl potential for a date, and > I think that is Rowling planning that on purpose, to show that Harry is > growing up, so that Hermione's beauty is a slight shock to our two boys > (Harry and Ron), who have been taking her for granted all along as the book > worm. She's been there all along, I believe every bit as pretty as she was > at the ball, but once you dress someone up, the transformation can be quite > an experience in itself, as other guys have mentioned in this thread. She > didn't change- the boy's prospective of her changed. That's the canon that > Rowling wrote. My response: I agree with you that it's the boys' perspective that changes. Remember that Harry didn't even notice that Hermione got rid of her very unattractive long molars, but Harry didn't notice until much later. Susan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 23:32:22 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:32:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco symmetry (was:The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162374 > >>Quick_Silver: > I'd say though that said scene (the infamous ferret bounce) is an > important milestone (if you will) in the Harry Draco symmetry. In > terms of Draco's physical suffering in that scene I'd hesitate to say > that it surpasses what Harry has endured at a younger age (the > Quirrell incident left Harry unconscious for 3 days?). But I'd also > say that it surpass anything that Harry has endured from a teacher > (as much as Harry hates Snape). So for Harry that scene kind of > foreshadows what he'll endure from Umbridge and for Draco it > foreshows the Bathroom incident where he'll endure something on > Harry's level of pain and mortality (considering that by 4th year > Harry has almost died twice). Betsy Hp: I have to say, I think this is a fascinating way of looking at the scene. I've read elsewhere about HBP being Draco's moment to really come face to face with death. I think it's very interesting to look at GoF as a time when Draco comes face to face with pain. (I had been about to say unfairness, but as a Slytherin, the outsider status and the unfairness that goes with it is a bit of a given, I think.) I'm still not sure that I'd put Draco and Harry on an equal level. For so many of the books Draco is just a sort of annoying knat in Harry's life. HBP is when he really hits anything close to equal status. But I do think it's interesting that after Harry, it's Draco who seems to suffer the most from Voldemort and his minions. As far as the students go, anyway. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 23:39:15 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 23:39:15 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162375 > Betsy Hp: > Sure, *Harry* had just gone through something pretty terrible and > frightening. But what's Ron and Herminoe's excuse? Or the twins for > that matter? If just witnessing their friend's trauma is enough > would this mean Pansy would have been justified hexing Harry from > behind after the bathroom incident in HBP? Alla: What is their excuse? If Harry being traumatised is not sufficient excuse, then the fact that Hermione is the one who is being threatened with her life and Ron loves her ( we do agree on that, yes? Even if Ron cannot quite figure that out yet) and twins I think figured that out even if Ron did not. So that would be their excuse IMO. And if Harry was the one who started the fight in the bathroom, then yes, I would understand Pancy feelings. Of course as you said we won't change each other minds on that scene. I am convinced that Draco was making a death threat and evaluate the scene accordingly. Betsy: > This is a situation where I know I won't change any minds, but in > this scene the Trio and the twins acted like brutes. They physically > attacked someone's words. (And poor Crabbe and Goyle hadn't even > said anything.) And then they cold-bloodedly stepped on and showed > no care for the bodies they left behind. (So much for Gryffindor > chivalry.) > Betsy Hp: > Well first of all, a brave Draco is still just a verbal Draco. But I > also don't really care if Draco was looking for a fight or not. It's > one of those basic laws of behavior that used to be taught to > children, you don't need to lower yourself to the other guy's level. > It's okay and in fact more mature to walk away. Harry and friends > seem to be of the thinking, if the other guy pulls a knife, you pull > a gun. Which is an entirely different sort of philosophy. Alla: Yes, it is Okay to walk away. It is not always possible to walk away, when you went through such trauma so recently and now the son of one of those who witnessed your torture comes by and starts issuing threats to your best friend ( as I see it of course). > > >> Magpie: > > > In his universe, Draco's not even exceptionally bad. > > > >>Alla: > > Really? I am sorry, but I do not remember another kid in school > > actively participating in assasination. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Ginny Weasley. She sent more children to the hospital wing than > Draco. And it was just luck (and some effort on Harry's part) that > kept her from killing her fellow students. > > But, I think Magpie might have been refering to Draco's threat > level. Do you honestly think any member of the Trio or the twins > felt that Draco was really a viable threat to their lives? After > realizing that Draco wasn't the Heir in CoS, I think he became much > more of an annoyance to their minds than an actual threat. Alla: I am not sure what Magpie was referring to. I was referring to " not exceptionally bad" comment. When is Ginny Weasley of her own free will plans assasination attempts? ( when she is not under the influence of Tom Riddle?) I am happy to report that I am fully recovered from the brief state of having something like pity towards Malfoy dearest. :) I must have thinking too much of HBP, so thank you guys for reminding me of Malfoy's disgusting deeds throughout the books. Now if I am again in that strange state of pitying him, I will go and reread Malfoy enjoying Buckbeack being sentenced too death or this scene. JMO, Alla. From knorte1 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 4 20:36:40 2006 From: knorte1 at yahoo.com (knorte1) Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:36:40 -0000 Subject: Lily's Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162376 I was watching the "Prisoner of Azkaban" movie last evening and was struck by one of the lines from Prof. Lupin. After noting, as have so many others, that Harry has his mother's eyes, he told Harry that Lily had a special gift of being able to "see" the good in others. I'm wondering whether anyone has discussed the theory that what makes Lily's eyes so special and so important to the conclusion of the story is their ability to see (or feel really) the goodness in others? knorte From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 00:01:41 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:01:41 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <3202590612040327x15af85afj771b1e9af9ad6c01@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162377 > Sarah: > > I know these aren't strictly new ideas, but I thought I would give old > OFH a little airplay since he's been so upstaged lately by his two > more popular counterparts. :) Also, I'm not sure anyone has pointed > out how these three ideas work together (sorry if they have). > Neri: This is basically a forbidden "me too" response. But I do snip a bit. > Sarah: > (Just to get this out of the way, I totally think Dumbledore was > planning to die before HBP even began. Snape acted the way Dumbledore > "trusted" that he would, because Snape had to for his own reasons, > which existed long before the UV. I think that Snape used a > combination of Legilimency and/or good old fashioned BS on the Black > sisters, and then had no problem making the UV since he knew it was > nothing he didn't already have to do anyway, for strategic advancement > of the Order.) > Neri: Second that, except for the part about Dumbledore planning to die, which I'm not sure how is a part of the theory. Also, I believe Shape was in on Voldemort's plan for Draco from the beginning, but I agree he was probably legilimening Narcissa in Spinner's End, only for more personal reasons . > Sarah: > Dumbledore says that Snape owed James a debt ever since the prank. Neri: Me too. > Sarah: > This completely negates any need for Snape/Lily, which I've never > understood anyway for several reasons. The main support for it seems > to be that Snape and Lily both did well in Potions class. By that > standard, Draco and Hermione should be getting engaged any day now. Neri; LOL. Couldn't snip that. Now please notice my heroic refrain from specifying exactly what, by this standard, Snape and Narcissa should be doing now. > Sarah: > If a Death Eater indeed attempted to > bargain for Lily, Peter has got my vote. Neri: Mine too. > Sarah: > (Sure I'm probably on my own here, but maybe there'll be a very small > role call :) ) Neri: You're not on your own. The Post-HBP Snape poll (see the polls on the HPfGU site) shows that about half the members aren't sure or reserve judgment about Snape's loyalties. Granted, the other half writes more posts, but that may be because they have many more holes to plug in their theories. Besides, it's not the number of posts that counts. It's whether you're still afloat after Book 7. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 5 00:13:50 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:13:50 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162378 Carol: > > I don't think, however, that he had a wand with him, either his own or > Voldemort's, when he transformed into a rat and disappeared after > killing the twelve Muggles. Otherwise, he would have had a wand with > him and been able to defend himself in the Shrieking Shack. I > conjecture that he hid Voldemort's wand Pippin: I agree with the conjecture that Pettigrew didn't have Voldemort's wand with him in the Shrieking Shack. He had to use Lupin's dropped wand to stun Ron. But did he have time to retrieve Voldemort's wand afterwards? If he was so frightened his old friends would find him that he had to scurry to powerless,bodiless Voldemort for protection, would he have dared to turn aside and get the wand first? If he'd been found with Voldemort's wand and robes on him, it would scarcely have mattered that Sirius wasn't around to explain about the secret keeper switch. Also, I wonder about "It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off!" which Harry overhears in the dementor memory. Whoever 'him' is, it can't have been Pettigrew, because surely James and Lily weren't expecting an attack from him. It could have been Voldemort. But would James really have said he could hold Voldemort off?" Pippin From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 00:32:55 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:32:55 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162379 > Betsy Hp: > I think you're giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience. > Snape had no idea what he was going to find. He just knew there were > Death Eaters inside Hogwarts (something I think neither he nor > Dumbledore ever imagined happening) and that something big was going > down. > Pippin: > And how would Snape know that Draco is on the tower? Neri: Umm, this was precisely my point. Snape only knows there are DEs in the castle, and there's a battle going on. So how come all his actions include of neutralizing and/or leaving behind all his comrades? > Pippin: > He knows that Death Eaters have succeeded in invading the > castle and that some of them must be on the tower, Neri: Actually it's not even certain he knows they are in the tower. It depends on whether McGonagall sends Flitwick *after* the DEs ran up the tower, and if so, whether Flitwick includes this detail in his report to Snape. More probably Snape only knows that the DEs are in the seventh floor. > Pippin: but whether Draco > is there or not he cannot know. For all Snape knows, Draco is dead > already -- he is only vowed to protect Draco to the best of his > ability, so if Draco has died despite Snape's best efforts, Snape is > off the hook for protecting Draco, and maybe for carrying out > the task as well, since it can no longer prove necessary in order to > save Draco. > Neri: This depends on your interpretation of the Vow. My point (see below) is that Snape's actions from the moment Flitwick bursts into his office only make sense if his goal is to save his life from the terms of the Vow at any cost, or at least that The Plan was to save him from dying because of the Vow. > Pippin: > But if Snape doesn't know where Draco is, his > best effort requires him to find out, and that means he doesn't > have time to wait for reinforcements to arrive, nor can he linger > to help the contingent fighting at the base of the tower. > Neri: He doesn't have to wait or linger for anything. On the contrary, it would have taken him *less* time not to Stupefy Flitwick, and then not telling Hermione and Luna to take care of him. If instead he had just started running to the seventh floor without saying anything, Flitwick would have decided what to do with Hermione and Luna, and then joined the battle again. Regarding the magical barrier, all he has to do is reducto the ceiling after he passes through, and then the rest could follow him. Still takes less time than telling Luna and Hermione to take care of Flitwick. > Pippin: > Obviously whether Snape followed it or not there was a plan, or > Dumbledore's 'Severus please' was just a craven plea for mercy, > which is ridiculous, IMO. Neri: Rather weak evidence for a plan, IMO. It could also mean "Severus, please don't rip your soul" or "Severus, please remember your Debt" > Betsy Hp: > I boggle at this, Neri. You're suggesting Snape should have taken a > sixteen year old and a fifteen year old into *battle*?!? Please keep > in mind that the older girl barely survived her brush with Death > Eaters last year. I can't imagine a more irresponsible move than to > bring two children along to "assist" in an Order vs. Death Eater > throw-down. Neri: Yes, yes, we all know how responsible and caring is our dear Snapy deep in his heart , while the cruel and irresponsible Lupin, McGonagall, Flitwick, Tonks and Bill allow three poor kids, which had barely survived that same incident last year, fight at their side. (BTW, you are incorrect about the age. Hermione is seventeen, a witch of age, and also a prefect and very good at DADA. Luna is sixteen or nearly that). But even so, why doesn't our responsible Snapy say something like: "run and call Hagrid" or "shoot a red flare out of the window. The aurors at Hogsmeade will see it" or "use the fire in my office to contact the Ministry" or "inform Madam Pomfrey in the Hospital Wing" or even just "make sure the students don't leave their dormitories". None of these would have taken him more than ten seconds. > Betsy Hp: > I agree. Considering the game both Snape and Dumbledore seem to be > playing I think Snape probably felt the less players around, the > better. There's a possibility he can talk the Death Eaters out of > Hogwarts, but not with a bunch of Aurors or Order members around. > Neri: Well, he runs past one bunch of DEs shooting AKs in all directions without trying to talk them out of Hogwarts, arrives alone at the second bunch, and as a result he has to make this terrible choice. But hey, at least he saved his own life from the Unbreakable Vow. Yes, the Aurors might have interfered with that. > Betsy Hp: > And we also have the rather heavily hinted probability that Snape > knows he's going to have to kill Dumbledore (or allow him to die) at > some point in the near future. That the dreaded time is now is > another possibility Snape has to be considering as he races up to the > Tower. > Neri: Err sorry, *are* we giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience, or aren't we? > Betsy Hp: > Personally, since I think Dumbledore is dying from the start of HBP, > I think this "plan" *has* been in place for a long while. As > Dumbledore's physician, Snape would realize that Dumbledore's death > would come with no regard for the specific situation. Especially as > more and more time passed. > Neri: OK, it seems we *are* giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience . So does this mean we can at least agree to dispense with that ridiculous "Snape was alone against four DEs so he didn't have choice but to kill Dumbledore"? He was alone because he wanted to be alone. > > >>Neri: > > Still, it seems strange how Snape is suddenly so sure that this > > time is *now*. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Really? There are Death Eaters *inside* Hogwarts. The impossible has > just occured. *Something* big is about to happen, and the Death Mark > floating above the Tower is fairly indicative that it's going to be > ugly. > Neri: Yes, we are definitely giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience. He doesn't know yet that there's a Dark Mark over the tower, remember? He actually doesn't even know if Dumbledore is in the castle at all. *Something* is definitely happening. There are DEs lose inside a castle with several hundreds oblivious children, the defenders seem to be in a bad condition, it doesn't sound like the Headmaster is handling the situation, and Snape begins by neutralizing three valuable defenders before he even leaves the dungeons. > Betsy Hp: > But in either case, even if Dumbledore is safely off on one of his > horcrux hunts, Snape has a better chance of doing good while on his > own. > Neri: He has? According to what? The end result? OK, it doesn't look like I managed to convey my point in the previous post, so let me try again. Put yourself in Snape's shoes at the moment Flitwick comes bursting into his office. What does he know at this moment? He's sitting there apparently oblivious even to the fact that the Order members are guarding the corridors (Dumbledore actually thought he'd be asleep, since he tells Harry to wake him up). He doesn't know yet that Draco has Dumbledore at wand point, he doesn't know that Dumbledore can't fight back because he was weakened, he doesn't know that Dumbledore can or cannot be saved from the potion because he doesn't even know about the potion. He doesn't even know if Dumbledore is in the castle at all. It isn't obvious from the canon what exactly Flitwick tells him, but Flitwick can't tell him any of the above because he doesn't know it himself. On the contrary -- to Flitwick's knowledge Dumbledore *isn't* in the castle. Flitwick was stationed to guard the castle in Dumbledore's *absence*, remember? He doesn't know that Gibbon set a Dark Mark over the school. All he can tell Snape is that a bunch of DEs broke in, and there's a battle right now in the corridor in the seventh floor. Perhaps he also mentions something about Draco. Or not. Now, Snape obviously realizes that Draco has finally made his big move, but he still doesn't know any of the above. He can't even be sure if the DEs that Flitwick reports are the only DE squad loose in the castle right now. And yet he suddenly bursts into decisive action, which mostly includes of neutralizing and/or leaving behind all his comrades *while a battle rages on* and so arriving alone at the place where, lo and behold, Dumbledore, Draco and four DEs all stand ready for the execution of The Plan. Isn't it amazing? So I see two alternative options for DDM!Snape here. On the one hand, if there *wasn't* a plan for DDM!Snape to kill Dumbledore, then Snape doesn't require all this prescience. He's just acting heroic, taking on the DEs all by himself. But in this case he can hardly complain about being left alone against four DEs and forced to make terrible choices. He took care to leave everybody behind himself. Considering the result, this comes out more lame than heroic. But if, on the other hand, there *was* a plan, then how come DDM!Snape acts with such prescience when he knows so little? When Dumbledore and Snape had decided in advance on that hypothetical plan, what was to be the cue for execution? When (and how) would both of them know that *now* is the time? The only possible cue that seems to work here is "when Draco makes an irrevocable move". But this suggests again that this whole Plan was to save Snape's life, at the price of Dumbledore's life, from the terms of the Unbreakable Vow. The Unbreakable Vow that Snape himself had made to begin with. IOW, the plan was for Dumbledore to pay with his life for DDM!Snape's mistake. So any way I look at it, again and again I arrive at the same conclusion: DDM!Snape is Ever So Lame. Neri From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Tue Dec 5 00:47:46 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:47:46 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco symmetry (was:The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I have to say, I think this is a fascinating way of looking at the > scene. I've read elsewhere about HBP being Draco's moment to really > come face to face with death. I think it's very interesting to look at > GoF as a time when Draco comes face to face with pain. (I had been > about to say unfairness, but as a Slytherin, the outsider status and > the unfairness that goes with it is a bit of a given, I think.) Quick_Silver: Actually it was idea that HBP showed Death to Malfoy that got me thinking about other times in the series where Malfoy experienced something not unknown to Harry. >Betsy Hp: > I'm still not sure that I'd put Draco and Harry on an equal level. For > so many of the books Draco is just a sort of annoying knat in Harry's > life. HBP is when he really hits anything close to equal status. But > I do think it's interesting that after Harry, it's Draco who seems to > suffer the most from Voldemort and his minions. As far as the students > go, anyway. > > Betsy Hp Quick_Silver: That's a good point about Malfoy suffering from Voldemort and his minions. It's interesting to note that the first time Harry encounters something semi-recognizable as Voldemort in the wizarding world he's with Malfoy and Fang in the Forbidden Forest (foreshadowing perhaps). I think that the fact Malfoy stays an "annoying knat" throughout a large part of the series shows that he hasn't lost interest in equaling Harry though. If Malfoy had given up on rivaling Harry I think there would have been a decrease in their friction (which would no doubt alarm Harry). Quick_Silver From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 00:55:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:55:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162381 zgirnius: > > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? bboyminn wrote: > > I think it's /poison-ish/. Though it is not clear what the intended /normal/ course was for the poison. Persumable it was slow acting since Dumbledore lasted so long, and based on Dumbledore's conclusion that Voldemort would want to question who ever managed to get past it. Yet it is unclear whether is was a disabling potion or a slow acting deadly poison. > If Dumbledore is right is his thought that Voldemort would want to keep any intruder alive, then exactly what were the Inferi going to do? Were they going to hold the intruder captive indefinitely until Voldemort decided to look in? Do they have some way of alerting Voldemort that intruders are in the Cave? Carol responds: I'm also puzzled by Dumbledore's words here. As I wrote upthread in message 162353, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162353 "I *don't* think that LV wanted the victim to survive long enough to be interrogated. The zombies [okay, I meant Inferi!] aren't going to summon Voldemort and hold the victim there at knifepoint or wandpoint till he arrives. They're going to kill him or turn him into a zombie [Inferius] like themselves." I think that the potion was intended first to debilitate and punish any thief who drank a gobletful or two, deterring him from drinking any more through mental and physical torture, and second as a means of forcing the drinker to stir up the Inferi by giving him a burning thirst. In the unlikely event that the weakened potion drinker fought off the Inferi, the slow poison in the potion would kill him. Based on Dumbledore's reaction to the potion, it seems clear to me that not even he could have survived the ordeal in the cave if Harry hadn't been with him. Certainly, he could not have retrieve the locket without him. (Cf. DD's words about the protections being "after all well designed.") It also seems clear that Voldemort doesn't know they've been to the cave, that he doesn't know that RAB was there fifteen years before them, and that he doesn't know that the ring Horcrux has been found and destroyed--just as he didn't know that the diary had been destroyed until he forced the truth out of Lucius Malfoy (probably after asking him where it was and whether it was safe). Surely, Voldemort wouldn't put a theft/ destruction alarm on one Horcrux and not on the others. Dumbledore must have known there was no such protection on the ring and the diary. Why would he expect it on the locket? I don't think he did. I think he was telling Harry a half-truth, that the poison wouldn't kill the drinker immediately, but giving a false reason for the delay. How did he know it wouldn't kill immediately? Because Vldemort likes to torture his victims. Why would he give a false reason for the delay? To reassure Harry that he would be okay and to make sure he kept forcefeeding the poison. So not a lie because the poison *didn't* kill right away; not a mistake because even though he didn't know exactly what would happen, he knew he had to drink all of the poison and had a pretty good idea why it was unwise to touch the water; but not the whole truth because he knew the other Horcruxes weren't similarly protected and it was unlikely that this one was any different. I can think of no reason for this "mistake"/white lie than to make sure Harry followed orders and made him keep drinking the poison, no matter what. Carol, who keeps getting interrupted and hopes this post is remotely coherent Carol, From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 01:03:04 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:03:04 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162382 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Amiable Dorsai: > > > > Can you imagine Hermione (Hermione, now, not some other girl--I'm > > talking about the girl who figured out that one her teachers was a > > *werewolf* and didn't spill.) telling anybody who was not a close > > friend these things? > > > > Betsy Hp: > If it got her something she wanted? Yeah. Hermione wanted > (apparently) for Ginny and Harry to get together. And to achieve > that goal she had to get close enough to Ginny to give her dating > advice. So yeah, I do see her sharing something not all that > important to her, that would *seem* important and thereby get Ginny > sharing in return. (Cold? Calculating? Cruel? Sounds like our girl.) Amiable Dorsai: So you're saying that it was all part of an Ever So Evil (TM) plot to make sure her friends are loved and happy? A cold, cruel, calculating bitch indeed. Amiable Dorsai From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Dec 5 01:41:40 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:41:40 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162383 Neri: > So I see two alternative options for DDM!Snape here. On the one > hand, if there *wasn't* a plan for DDM!Snape to kill Dumbledore, > then Snape doesn't require all this prescience. He's just acting > heroic, taking on the DEs all by himself. But in this case he can > hardly complain about being left alone against four DEs and forced > to make terrible choices. He took care to leave everybody behind > himself. Considering the result, this comes out more lame than > heroic. Jen: What purpose does DDM serve if not for Snape to continue his spy role though? I'm willing to believe in DDM regardless of my general animosity for Snape because I hold on to the belief that Snape is going to help Harry from the inside of Voldemort's circle. To do so, Snape cannot be dragging Order members and Harry's friends with him to the party (wherever that party happens to be). Snape has always acted alone, that's why no one trusts him and what makes him a useful double agent. He's only useful to Dumbledore and by extension, Harry, if he maintains his cover. We generally talk about Snape using Dumbledore but to me it's a mutual using going on and both have agreed to the terms. > But if, on the other hand, there *was* a plan, then how come DDM! > Snape acts with such prescience when he knows so little? When > Dumbledore and Snape had decided in advance on that hypothetical > plan, what was to be the cue for execution? When (and how) would > both of them know that *now* is the time? The only possible cue > that seems to work here is "when Draco makes an irrevocable move". > But this suggests again that this whole Plan was to save Snape's > life, at the price of Dumbledore's life, from the terms of the > Unbreakable Vow. The Unbreakable Vow that Snape himself had made to > begin with. IOW, the plan was for Dumbledore to pay with his life > for DDM!Snape's mistake. Jen: The Unbreakable Vow was lame to me. And Dumbledore the great contingency planner always works with what he gets instead of what he wishes could be true. Once the deed was done he had a decision to make and I think it was Dumbledore's to make as the chess master he is: Who will be sacrificed should it come to that? He's not an overly sentimental person when it comes to military strategy. However, if you are implying that by taking the UV it's an oxymoron to say Snape is DDM, now *that* I would agree wholeheartedly with. I'm liking my own Grey!Snape version more and more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142891 ShamelessPlug!Jen From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 02:04:51 2006 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:04:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162384 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jotwo2003" wrote: << Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162385 knorte wrote: > After noting, as have so > many others, that Harry has his mother's eyes, he told Harry that Lily > had a special gift of being able to "see" the good in others. I'm > wondering whether anyone has discussed the theory that what makes > Lily's eyes so special and so important to the conclusion of the story > is their ability to see (or feel really) the goodness in others? Abergoart writes: I'm not without hope that Lily was another Dumbledore - Dumbledore can see worthwhile things in Hagrid, Snape, Mundungus and others that society sometimes rejects. But I do think her eyes are a bit more than that. JKR foreshadows with comments by Fake Moody that Lily may have been resistant to Imperius (Moody says 'watch the eyes, that's where you see it' when Harry proves to be somewhat resistant. And Fake Moody says it takes real strength of character which Snape's worst memory showed she seemed to have. As for 'seeing' the goodness in others, I'm also hoping Lily was a Legilimens...that Snape talked in to using to learn Occlumency. As you see, we can really go places with Lily's eyes. Abergoat From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 03:03:35 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:03:35 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162386 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Sure, *Harry* had just gone through something pretty terrible and > > frightening. But what's Ron and Herminoe's excuse? Or the twins > > for that matter? > > > >>Alla: > What is their excuse? If Harry being traumatised is not sufficient > excuse, then the fact that Hermione is the one who is being > threatened with her life and Ron loves her ( we do agree on that, > yes? Even if Ron cannot quite figure that out yet) and twins I > think figured that out even if Ron did not. So that would be their > excuse IMO. > Betsy Hp: The interesting thing to me, is that the thing that immediately sprang to mind reading your reply is that this is exactly how the blood-purists feel. They're acting in self-defense against the influx of muggleborns threatening their way of life and their loved ones. Sure, the muggleborns haven't attacked *yet*, but their attachment to their muggle families suggests that they would betray the pure bloods to the stake. So they pure-bloods, out of love, hit first. I guess I just feel like the Trio and the twins took their response too far. Why did they act? Why not just threaten? By acting they became the very thing they say they're fighting against. > >>Alla: > Yes, it is Okay to walk away. It is not always possible to walk > away, when you went through such trauma so recently and now the son > of one of those who witnessed your torture comes by and starts > issuing threats to your best friend ( as I see it of course). Betsy Hp: Sometimes it *is* hard to walk away. And children don't always manage to do so. But shouldn't the instinct be to help them learn *how* to make the right choice? Not the easy, smear the guy, choice? I mean, it's not like I don't understand the reactions of Harry and Ron and Hermione. I just don't like the dismissal of it, or even worse, the praise of it. They don't act correctly in this scene. I just feel like that should be recognized. > >>Alla: > > When is Ginny Weasley of her own free will plans assasination > attempts? ( when she is not under the influence of Tom Riddle?) > Betsy Hp: Oh, Ginny is in the same boat Draco is. She's fully under the influence and control of Tom Riddle or Voldemort. It's just, Voldemort relies on manipulating Draco's love with Draco rather than out and out mind control as he does with Ginny. (Though there are still the moments where Ginny could have told someone and didn't. So I don't think the control was complete. Just as Draco had his breakdown moments in the bathroom.) Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 5 03:11:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:11:41 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162387 > Alla: > By the same token I can say that Draco making a death threat is > getting downplayed to get him off the hook. I interpret this scene as> sooo much more than just hexing Draco and his goons out of anger and> dislike. Yes, there are no wands yet as we discussed earlier, but > narrator describes them as more menacing than ever - I can totally > see Harry after being tortured, his ears ringling intepreting this as> threat as well. Magpie: I think Harry is definitely reacting to the greater threat he feels after what he's been through, but that even he doesn't think of himself as defending himself from an imminant attack. Even if you take of what Malfoy is saying as a death threat, they're not stopping whatever he's referring to by hexing him, Crabbe and Goyle here now. Voldemort's still coming for them. I think the menace is truly about what Harry's experienced rather than a real change in the Slytherins. So even if Harry feels more threatened because he connects these three directly to Voldemort, it's still a general threat, not a specific attack at that moment. I don't mean to play down what the Slytherins are doing as if there's not provocation in the scene. Harry and his friends aren't just acting out of irritation. I think you can acknowledge the seriousness of what they are reacting to while still acknowledging that they're not neutralizing any immediate physical threat. I don't want to deny the threatening aspect to what Malfoy is saying, just say that it's not literally self-defense. Alla: > I mean, this is of course speculation, but what **else** Malfoy and > his goons came to their appartment but to start a fight? When Malfoy > is alone he barely does that, but when there are three of them - that> usually means that he is feeling braver, no? Magpie: Whatever Malfoy might have done all he does do is make vile remarks. If he had actually attacked somebody, or Crabbe and Goyle had, they could pull out theirs in self-defense, but they're not. They didn't go looking for the Slytherins to hex them, but the only wands drawn were the Gryffindors. > >> Magpie: > > In his universe, Draco's not even exceptionally bad. > Alla: > Really? I am sorry, but I do not remember another kid in school > actively participating in assasination. That to me counts as pretty > bad one, worse than a great deal of Hogwarts students. Magpie: I wasn't only thinking of the assassination plot. I was just thinking in general as a personality, along with other kids in school who have caused lasting harm to others, I was also considering adults. There are a lot of ways in which Draco is worse than most other kids and people we see in canon, but not in all ways, imo. Alla: > Alla who knows that Magpie read the books and loves talking to her > about them. :) Magpie: Right back atcha! -m From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 03:32:51 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:32:51 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" wrote: Alla (Quoting me): > > "Near-murder"? No, it wasn't anywhere near murder. > a_svirn: > But who says anything about murder? Marion Ros did, in the post I was originally replying to. > a_svirn: > Magpie said Harry "almost killed someone violently" and that it > "went beyond defending himself". That's perfectly true. Amiable Dorsai: After Draco made his unprovoked attack, Harry tried to defend himself with relatively benign magic right up until Draco started to utter an Unforgivable Curse. At that point, Harry had no assurance that he'd leave that bathroom either sane or alive, if he let Draco finish that incantation. In justice, if not in law, Harry was justified in doing pretty much anything he could to avoid Draco's Cruciatus. That he backed Harry into such a desperate corner is Draco's own doing. Amiable Dorsai From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 03:35:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:35:22 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ role of words in Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162389 > Betsy Hp: > The interesting thing to me, is that the thing that immediately > sprang to mind reading your reply is that this is exactly how the > blood-purists feel. They're acting in self-defense against the > influx of muggleborns threatening their way of life and their loved > ones. Sure, the muggleborns haven't attacked *yet*, but their > attachment to their muggle families suggests that they would betray > the pure bloods to the stake. So they pure-bloods, out of love, hit > first. Alla: I find this truly amasing. Refer me to some canon for muggle borns threatening the lifes of pure bloods, please? Not what they **think** but what muggle borns tell to them. Hermione threatening Draco or something like that? Because I remember quite the opposite happening so far. > Betsy Hp: > I mean, it's not like I don't understand the reactions of Harry and > Ron and Hermione. I just don't like the dismissal of it, or even > worse, the praise of it. They don't act correctly in this scene. I > just feel like that should be recognized. Alla: And I don't like the dismissal of Draco's actions, I do not like dismissal of him threatening Hermione, I do not like the dismissal of him coming up to Gryffs appartment uninvited, all three of them and starting talking the crap he did. I do not like the dismissal of that. Do I praise Gryffs actions? I do not know. I most certainly do not reprimand them though. I think that they acted in response to provocation, I think that under circumstances that was the only possible way they could have react. Maybe if their friend was not just being through such terrifying ordeal and they were calmer, maybe they would have been calmer too. And it is not like they decided to attack Draco all together, they fired independently of each other. > Betsy Hp: > Oh, Ginny is in the same boat Draco is. She's fully under the > influence and control of Tom Riddle or Voldemort. It's just, > Voldemort relies on manipulating Draco's love with Draco rather than > out and out mind control as he does with Ginny. (Though there are > still the moments where Ginny could have told someone and didn't. So > I don't think the control was complete. Just as Draco had his > breakdown moments in the bathroom.) Alla: Not in my opinion. Draco started his service to Voldemort voluntarily, bursting with joy on the train. Ginny AFAIK did not. Even if you think that Ginny stole the diary on her own ( which I disagree with), there is no support IMO that Ginny voluntarily went under Tom Riddle control in the beginning. > Magpie: > So even if Harry feels more threatened because he connects these > three directly to Voldemort, it's still a general threat, not a > specific attack at that moment. > > I don't mean to play down what the Slytherins are doing as if there's > not provocation in the scene. Harry and his friends aren't just > acting out of irritation. I think you can acknowledge the > seriousness of what they are reacting to while still acknowledging > that they're not neutralizing any immediate physical threat. I don't > want to deny the threatening aspect to what Malfoy is saying, just > say that it's not literally self-defense. Alla: Literally - probably not. In their minds, especially in Harry's mind I honestly think that the aspect of self defense is there. He had **just seen** what those who support Voldemort can do and now, Draco, who is the son of one of his torturers ( or those who watched ) comes in to remind himself. I do think that it is significant that narrator finds Draco and Co to be menacing. But hey, as always I feel that I can very often meet you in the middle - I am happy as long as you acknowledge the seriousness of what Draco does here, not just dismiss it. As I said - I honestly believe that Harry may have felt that he was protecting himself here, after had been through the Graveyard and son of Lucius Malfoy showed up to say what he did, but of course - there was no immediate physical attack here. Cannot say that this is a hundred percent guarantee though. > Magpie: > Whatever Malfoy might have done all he does do is make vile remarks. > If he had actually attacked somebody, or Crabbe and Goyle had, they > could pull out theirs in self-defense, but they're not. They didn't > go looking for the Slytherins to hex them, but the only wands drawn > were the Gryffindors. Alla: You know - I just had an aside thought or sort of aside thought ( probably not a novel one). I do think that JKR advances the idea that the words can hurt and kill pretty strongly in the books. I suppose that for me goes to Draco and Co remarks here, which under circumstances I consider pretty deadly, but not just that. I think that it also goes to Snape running his mouth and metaphor of him hurting Neville as being Neville's boggart, but even that is not the strongest proof. I think the strongest proof of this metaphore is Riddle's diary. The words that are literally deadly to Ginny and Harry and so many kids. And of course Harry kills it. So, I would not dismiss the words in the books as just words, sometimes IMO they are the deadliest weapons. I must go and find out Dicentra's amasing post about the writing in the series. > Magpie: > I wasn't only thinking of the assassination plot. I was just > thinking in general as a personality, along with other kids in school > who have caused lasting harm to others, I was also considering > adults. There are a lot of ways in which Draco is worse than most > other kids and people we see in canon, but not in all ways, imo. Alla: Oh, but I was. But I will grant you that there are many adults who are worse than Draco :), cannot say so about the kids. I mean assasination attempt is the practical repercussion of his personality of what he believes in, no? JMO, Alla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 5 03:46:36 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:46:36 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162390 > Neri: > Actually it's not even certain he knows they are in the tower. It > depends on whether McGonagall sends Flitwick *after* the DEs ran up > the tower, and if so, whether Flitwick includes this detail in his > report to Snape. More probably Snape only knows that the DEs are in > the seventh floor. Pippin: If he can detect the barrier, then he knows that DE's are on the tower. If he can't detect the barrier, then he can hardly be blamed for not dissolving it. But the way the story is told Snape arrives just after Neville charges the barrier and gets thrown into the air. So let's say he knows the barrier is there because he sees Neville bouncing off it. However, if the barrier is protecting Draco, not least from the wild aim of the loose cannon DE who is firing AK's at random, Snape can't dissolve it without violating his vow. Neri: or at least that The Plan was to save him from dying because of the Vow. Pippin: I'll concede that. Dumbledore doesn't want any of his men to die needlessly. But the Plan far predates the Vow, IMO. The Plan, which we saw Snape agree to in GoF, was to reinstate himself as a Death Eater, to what end we do not know, but I'm sure there was more to it than getting information from the DE camp. > Pippin: > > But if Snape doesn't know where Draco is, his > > best effort requires him to find out, and that means he doesn't > > have time to wait for reinforcements to arrive, nor can he linger > > to help the contingent fighting at the base of the tower. > > > > Neri: > He doesn't have to wait or linger for anything. On the contrary, it > would have taken him *less* time not to Stupefy Flitwick, Pippin: When did it become canon that Flitwick was Stupefied? That's Hermione's assumption, based on ESE!Snape. It's possible that Flitwick collapsed exactly as Snape reported, in which case tasking the two girls to go to his aid was the right thing to do and makes perfect sense. Flitwick could have been suffering a stroke or a coronary, and Snape could not stay to help him. > > > Pippin: > > Obviously whether Snape followed it or not there was a plan, or > > Dumbledore's 'Severus please' was just a craven plea for mercy, > > which is ridiculous, IMO. > > Neri: > Rather weak evidence for a plan, IMO. It could also mean "Severus, > please don't rip your soul" or "Severus, please remember your Debt" Pippin: But someone eventually has to explain to us what "Severus, please!" meant. Since Snape is the only one who is likely to know that, he has to have understood, either through legilimency or because Dumbledore was asking Snape to do something as planned. > Neri: ". None of these would have taken him more than ten seconds. > Pippin: And if because of those ten seconds Draco dies, Snape is toast. Snape has vowed to watch over Draco as he attempts to carry out his task, and protect him to the best of his ability. I agree with you, it would be clear to Snape that Draco must be attempting to carry out his task, so Snape had no choice except to die or to go at once to Draco and protect him. Snape's mistake, I suppose, was to care about Draco too much. He was trapped when he said that he might be able to help him. If he had refused to take the vow after saying that, then Narcissa would have concluded that he never meant to help her, that he was trying to take advantage of her desperation for some purpose of his own, and who knows what she would have done. I wouldn't underestimate the power of a witch who can dominate Bella. Pippin From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 04:07:54 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:07:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612042007n3469ac96p1c7e04b6ace647c3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162391 Neri wrote: OK, it seems we *are* giving Snape the benefit of too much prescience . So does this mean we can at least agree to dispense with that ridiculous "Snape was alone against four DEs so he didn't have choice but to kill Dumbledore"? He was alone because he wanted to be alone. Debbie: Snape needed no prescience that night. He and Dumbledore had been planning all year for the contingency that Draco would pull off some kind of elaborate plan. Also, Dumbledore probably never put Snape on Order duty when he went off on Horcrux-hunting expeditions, just in case he needed a good curse-breaker. When Flitwick showed up with the news that there were DEs in the castle, Snape put two and two together as only Snape can. Draco was on the move, and Snape needed to find Dumbledore. And without any Order wannabes who might have different ideas as to what Snape *should* be doing. Neri again: The only possible cue that seems to work here is "when Draco makes an irrevocable move". But this suggests again that this whole Plan was to save Snape's life, at the price of Dumbledore's life, from the terms of the Unbreakable Vow. The Unbreakable Vow that Snape himself had made to begin with. IOW, the plan was for Dumbledore to pay with his life for DDM!Snape's mistake. Debbie: Snape appears to be in a bind at Spinner's End only because he had been (ostensibly) working for Dumbledore. Though Cissy entrapped Snape into making the vow, it was the right move at that time. Every double agent knows he may be backed into a corner someday despite his best efforts to prevent it, and it is not always a *mistake* when that happens. As for the Plan, though Snape's continued credibility with the DEs was important -- much more important, IMO, than retaining his credibility with the Order -- I would argue that the objectives included saving Draco's life, too. And to take the Malfoys out of the equation if at all possible. In any event, if Dumbledore was already weakening, and poisoned to boot, Snape's actions, or acting, on the Tower sacrificed very little on the Order's side, except whatever respect Snape had among his fellow Order members. Jen wrote: The Unbreakable Vow was lame to me. And Dumbledore the great contingency planner always works with what he gets instead of what he wishes could be true. Once the deed was done he had a decision to make and I think it was Dumbledore's to make as the chess master he is: Who will be sacrificed should it come to that? He's not an overly sentimental person when it comes to military strategy. However, if you are implying that by taking the UV it's an oxymoron to say Snape is DDM, now *that* I would agree wholeheartedly with. I'm liking my own Grey!Snape version more and more: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142891 Debbie: I've never really bought into DDM!Snape either, much preferring the angsty variety of Snape who has yet to make his final decision. But the UV works for me as a trap for Snape under any scenario except ESE!Snape, which is the one version that does nothing for the plot. Even a DDM!Snape had to make the vow, because if he refused to enter into the vow, the game was up right then and there. Snape bought many months just by agreeing to the vow. Of course, I agree with Jen that Snape is too complex for black-and-white pigeonholes like DDM! or ESE! Debbie making her own shameless plug http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142005 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 5 04:11:25 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:11:25 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162392 > Amiable Dorsai: > After Draco made his unprovoked attack, Harry tried to defend himself > with relatively benign magic right up until Draco started to utter an > Unforgivable Curse. At that point, Harry had no assurance that he'd > leave that bathroom either sane or alive, if he let Draco finish that > incantation. In justice, if not in law, Harry was justified in doing > pretty much anything he could to avoid Draco's Cruciatus. > Pippin: That's not the way the good side looks at things, or Sirius would have seen nothing wrong with using the Unforgivable Curses against Death Eaters. Harry had any number of tried and true spells at his disposal, including expelliarmus which he once boasted of using against Voldemort himself. Instead he chose to experiment which was both wrong and stupid. Suppose the spell hadn't worked at all? What Harry did could be compared to using an illegal handgun against an attacker. The shooting might be self-defense, but violating the gun laws would still be a crime. Pippin From phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net Tue Dec 5 03:18:06 2006 From: phyllisdbarnes at comcast.net (Phyllis D. (P. D.) Barnes) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 03:18:06 -0000 Subject: Snape's allegiance (Was: A couple of little theories!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162393 Carol: >> At any rate, those are some of the reasons that I believe Snape is > Dumbledore's man through and through, regardless of the curves that > HBP throws at us. I could cite other evidence from other books, but > you get the picture. I agree the Foe-Glass is strong proof that Snape is DDM; but I still believe the incontrovertable proof is Dumbledore himself. Dumbledore trusted Snape. I do not believe that a wizard of Dumbledore's power and wisdome could have been fooled if Snape wasn't genuine. I believe that Book 7 will prove that Dumbledore's trust was justified. But outside of being on the right-side in the fight against Voldy; Snape is not a good guy. He's cruel to the students that are not in his house. Phyllis. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 5 04:23:19 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:23:19 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_Change_=91Em_to_Rock_?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162394 Change `Em to Rock to the tune of Jingle Bell Rock A You-Tube performance ? ignore the visual! ? here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS_I4Yd3CJM Here's my first 2006 HP Xmas Carol - if you post an Xmas song here between now and 12-25, I will immediately upload it to the Very Harry Christmas page (with your permission, of course): http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm THE SCENE: Hogwarts' plumbing. THE BASILISK takes a page from Mary Poppins' robin ("He knows a song/Will move the job along"), and sings a merry tune to itself as it goes about its sinister doings .. BASILISK: Change `em all, change `em all, change `em to rock How they will shine when adamantine Smelling and yelling for rivers of blood For the Chamber op'd with a thud! Give em a, give `em a, give `em a shock Basilisk eyes will cats paralyze Scaring and tearing in the Entrance Hall Making flesh to crawl. What a dark time, it's a stark crime To knock off Headless Nick Turned into smoke, he will soon croak As will Justin and that Granger chick Giddy-up basilisk, death we will eat Riddle will not be mocked Hiss and a-slither to a Slytherin beat As I change `em to As I change `em to As I change `em to rock! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From saundradj at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 02:16:02 2006 From: saundradj at hotmail.com (Saundra) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:16:02 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162395 Inge: > What would be just as cool, would be a one-shot-book, holding, say > 10 long chapters - each concentrating on the most remarkable > characters (besides the trio), telling their story and seeing > things from their points of view. Rowling surely has enough > background information on her characters to write such a book. > Which 10 characters should get their own chapters? > Let's see, - I'd go for: > > 1) Dumbledore > 2) Snape > 3) Lily > 4) Sirius Black > 5) Lupin > 6) The Black-sisters > 7) Lucius Malfoy > 8) Tom Riddle > 9) James Potter > 10)one of the older Weasley's Saundra: In addition to listed characters, I'd like her to flush out Dean Thomas' story. She already has the backstory idea. From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 04:53:42 2006 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 04:53:42 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162396 > Annemehr wrote: > > So, I figure, Wormtail had LV's wand hidden in his robes when he > > staged his own death and framed Sirius (I mean the robes he was > > wearing, not the bloodied ones he left at the scene along with his > > finger for the Ministry to find). Then the wand was safely on his > > person all the years he spent in rat form with the Weasleys, until > > the day he met up with LV in Albania. Safest place for it, really. > Carol responded: > I don't think, however, that he had a wand with him, either his own or > Voldemort's, when he transformed into a rat and disappeared after > killing the twelve Muggles. Otherwise, he would have had a wand with > him and been able to defend himself in the Shrieking Shack. Annemehr: Well... I agree with your guess (snipped) that Wormatail left his own wand behind in the blasted street. But I don't think it's impossible to believe that he had LV's wand with him in the Shrieking Shack. After all, he was facing five armed people at the time (Sirius having taken Snape's wand from the bed), and I bet he didn't like his chances in a duel. Instead, he took a calculated risk and went with the begging. Besides, it makes him such a grotesque parody of Lily, facing death, declining to draw a wand, and pleading for a life to be spared. I love it. Annemehr who does have odd tastes From juli17 at aol.com Tue Dec 5 04:40:12 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:40:12 EST Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162397 Neri: You're not on your own. The Post-HBP Snape poll (see the polls on the HPfGU site) shows that about half the members aren't sure or reserve judgment about Snape's loyalties. Granted, the other half writes more posts, but that may be because they have many more holes to plug in their theories. Besides, it's not the number of posts that counts. It's whether you're still afloat after Book 7. Neri Julie: Huh? Being unsure and reserving judgment about Snape's loyalties does NOT mean supporting OFH. Those who believe in OFH *are* certain of Snape's loyalties, which are to himself and his own best interests. Though I do agree the unsure half doesn't write as many posts as those who feel affinity to a Snape of a particular color, be it DDM, ESE, *or* OFH. Which makes sense, as they don't have a definite opinion to support. Julie, sighing at some of the "straightforward" points supporting OFH, such as Dumbledore's "I trust Snape completely" meaning trusting Snape to be himself and protect his own interests, which is about a straight- forward as a switchback mountain road (as opposed to simply trusting Snape, well, *completely*). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From juli17 at aol.com Tue Dec 5 05:00:48 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:00:48 EST Subject: Unbreakable Vow (Re: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162398 Neri wrote: The Unbreakable Vow that Snape himself had made to > begin with. IOW, the plan was for Dumbledore to pay with his life > for DDM!Snape's mistake. Jen: The Unbreakable Vow was lame to me. And Dumbledore the great contingency planner always works with what he gets instead of what he wishes could be true. Once the deed was done he had a decision to make and I think it was Dumbledore's to make as the chess master he is: Who will be sacrificed should it come to that? He's not an overly sentimental person when it comes to military strategy. However, if you are implying that by taking the UV it's an oxymoron to say Snape is DDM, now *that* I would agree wholeheartedly with. I'm liking my own Grey!Snape version more and more: _http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142891_ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142891) Julie: I don't know that the Unbreakable Vow was Snape's mistake. I think Dumbledore may consider it his mistake more than Snape's. He is the one who sent Snape to Voldemort at the end of GOF. Presumably he wanted Snape to get in as deep as possible while gaining as much useful information as possible. Snape can't do that without taking risks, and Dumbledore knows that very well. Dumbledore may well have told Snape to jump at any chance to get further information, even if it leads down a blind alley. You have to take a big chance to get a big payoff. And this is all about the fate of the WW after all. IMO, Snape told Dumbledore about the Unbreakable Vow, and Dumbledore blamed himself more than Snape, but mostly he probably just accepted it as the price for playing such a risky game. That price was his life, not Snape's, by his own choice, a price he was willing to pay because he was as complicit in the game as Snape. And because he expects the gain will be the eventual salvation of the WW, of course. Julie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kking0731 at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 05:48:54 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 05:48:54 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162399 Snipped summary of Chap. 26 by Zgirnius: (1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Snow: I would have to say, don't underestimate the old man's abilities; just when you think he's too old for the job, he up and proves you wrong. 2) In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not understand. Any ideas on this language and how Dumbledore came to know it? Snow: Dumbledore knows some 400 languages, where would he have learned that many even at 150? His age and knowledge never seemed to be consistent, to me. Dumbledore is a colleague of Flammel and yet Flammel is 600 +/- years at the time, why would Flammel need or want Dumbledore's help? Lots of questions as to how Dumbledore knows as much as he does or did according to Marchbanks when he was just a youngster. 3) Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood is worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? Snow: One of those hidden meanings, I surmise, that even though Dumbledore is as old as he is, or as wise as he is, or as feared by Voldemort as he is, only Harry can defeat Voldemort; Harry is worth much more than all that Dumbledore has to offer because Harry is the only one that can defeat Voldemort. 4) Dumbledore heals the cut he has made by passing his wand once over it, and Harry is reminded of Snape's sung/chanted spell with which he healed Draco. Is this the nonverbal version, or something else? Why does Rowling choose to mention this similarity explicitly by having Harry note it? Snow: I guess it could be a connection that Harry needs to make between the song and Dumbledore and maybe even Fawkes. (It's the only time I ever connected the Phoenix song with Snape) 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains the boat would only hold one adult wizard. Is there any special significance to these words? Snow: I had to laugh when I read this because the first thing I thought of in this same scene was Harry's accio of the Horcrux and Dumbledore's reaction to such a simple but quite useful response. Sometimes it's best not to over-think what you need to do and simply react with your first inclination (like the young). Harry told the DA the very same when he gave examples of what he had used when confronted by Voldemort You don't always need fancy footwork or extreme knowledge; you just need gut response. 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must be drunk? Why or why not? Snow: I didn't feel it was a quick response on Dumbledore's part at all. I think Dumbledore gave the potion a good once over and concluded that the result was inevitable by deduction. 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? Snow: Yes! I believe all the Horcruxes have protection against intruders! 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? Snow: I believe the memories that Dumbledore experienced were not his own but I also believe Dumbledore had to relive those memories as if they were his and feel the full feelings of the person(s) they belonged to. I also feel that Dumbledore had his suspicions of who those memories may have belonged to but didn't live long enough to share this information due to his declining health and limited time in how much should be told to Harry without confusion. 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both as he gets into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do you think he does this? Snow: Voldemort may have lost his connection or concern with his Horcruxes due to his protective measures that have been born with or placed with them, but Voldemort may be alerted to the movement of the Inferei like the movement of the Dementors of the Giants. 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* use the water?Do you believe the lake water had any effect on Dumbledore? Snow: The lake water was the seemingly cure but with the price of an Inferei revolt, which should have taken care of whomever got to such a level of intrusion. If by chance it did not, the potion or protection of the Horcrux would return in full measure. 11) What did you think of Harry's attempts to fight the Inferi? Snow: Panic! Harry was forewarned of the measure that was to be taken if this event occurred and he totally lost control then again he wasn't in control of the expedition to begin with. When Harry went after the SS, he was the chief; when Harry went into the Chamber, again Harry was the leader; when Harry went to the DOM, Harry was the general in this instance, however, Harry was the follower to Dumbledore the magnificent leader. Control was taken out of Harry's hands and his instructions blurred by his new position as follower, helper. It's not easy to change positions in midstream even when you were told the instructions to do so beforehand. 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and asserts one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you think he meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the protection? Snow: I very much doubt that RAB whether it is Regulus or a well- accomplished wizard, (no one could have been more accomplished than Dumbledore and Harry as a team) would have ever survived this encounter with or without the necklace let alone exchanging it. This isn't to suggest that RAB was not Regulus; simply that he did not perform the same feet as Dumbledore and Harry. If Regulus stole the necklace it was under different circumstances. 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to take up the fight? Snow: I'm not sure the two are related. First, I don't think Dumbledore expected or was prepared to face the Dark Mark over the Castle; Dumbledore seemed to be taken by surprise that ultimately gave him strength that he did not possess. Second, Harry isn't `prepared' to take up the fight but he has been chosen to do so and he appears to except that position. Lastly, the sentimental statement from Dumbledore, "You are with me" is the ultimate power booster from Dumbledore that Harry does have the ability to go it alone without him. I feel that Harry tapped into this unconsciously when he spoke to the Minister of Magic in the last scene of book six. Dumbledore gave Harry the courage to transport them both (side-along apparition) back to Hogsmeade when he hadn't even passed the apparition test alone yet, which gave me insight that Harry became confident with these words to do whatever needs to be done alone. 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as well). Snow: Very, very good question! I never connected all the books in such a way but quite some time ago I felt that the ending would have been under Gringott's because of the ravine over a lake that was only mentioned in passing. JKR likes that type of setup where you only hear mention once and then it is brought back in full-blown detail. I liked this because it was over a lake and there are so many references to a lake, the obvious being the one near the Castle. Durmstrang entered the Castle in the lake. Gringott's has said to be protected by dragons, which brings in Charlie Weasley and maybe Norbert. Moaning Myrtle has access to the lake (as we have seen in GOF) via the pipes. The Basilisk traveled the pipes around Hogsworth, which may mean that it had access to the lake. The Ministry's lower level has no windows, which could mean that it is of the level of the lake. The first-years must enter Hogsworth via the lake. Now that you bring up the connection between the cave (and the water [lake] they had to swim to it) and the other books' high-peak-moments being of underground nature, the more I like my scenario from years ago about Gringott's. It would bring those feisty little goblins into light that we were sooo bored over in History class. Thanks for the great questions Zgirnius! Snow- with apologies to Carol for not replying to the last post we were discussing (I do that a lot and feel very bad that I don't have the time to look up the link to reply to because its been so long and can't find it; you can't imagine how many I have deleted because its been too long for a response when I finally do find it) From Schlobin at aol.com Tue Dec 5 06:28:05 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (susanmcgee48176) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 06:28:05 -0000 Subject: JKR and the boys and the girls In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162400 The problem I have with all of these posts is that they assume that "girls" are one way and "boys" are another...and ignore the fact that once teenagers escape from the clique-driven "you must be one way"..many of them (in the U.S.) are off to universities or the armed forces or the work force where they get to choose their friends, choose their interests, and act the way they want. They get to ignore rigid gender stereotyping if they so choose. Yes, JKR has a hard time with girls. She casts Hermione as the exception to the rule -- most girls (Ginny, Cho, fleur are probably the exceptions because -- due to their roles in the book -- JKR has to THINK about them -- and therefore does a better job with them with other girls) are giggly, travel in packs, spend their time scheming to ensnare the boys (Romilda Vane, Pansy Parkinson), or who else? The fact is that Hermione is brilliant. She's a genius. And I don't mean her facility at her studies. (Which these days seems to be what girls are supposed to do, read and study, while the boys play sports! And so, here in the United States, more girls are qualified to be admitted into universities than boys. What a disaster for our sons - who are being pressured into being brawny no-nothings. I'm a mother of a nine year old son!) Hermione is trashed on fan sites and these list serves. I think it's pure sexism. Girls/women are supposed to be lesser. Let's face it. Hermione, as a teenager, masterminds telling the truth about Lord Voldemort's return to the entire wizarding world! She manages a major shift in public opinion. Within Hogwarts, she organizes Dumbledore's Army -- she thinks through the idea that her friends must be equipped to fight against Lord Voldemort and the Death Eaters - convinces Harry to be the leader, and recruits a ton of participants. She creates solidarity and resistance among them. She helps the group forge its bond -- and punishes the traitor amongst them by a spell that Delores Umbrage cannot break. She unmasks and restrains Rita Skeeter - who was causing Hagrid, Ron, herself, Harry, DD, etc. a ton of grief. I wish that Harry had listened to her before he went to the Ministry of Magic to rescue Sirius. And JKR pokes fun at her (through Ron, and through Hagrid who explains that it is in the nature of the House Elves to be slaves)as she is outraged at the plight of the house elves. But I hear little outrage at the use of slaves to do housework, cooking, cleaning, etc. This is a horrible part of the wizarding world. Hermione is obviously far ahead of her time. Obviously, she is far beyond Harry and Ron in her brilliance and abilities. Susan (who is very, very nervous at the fact that she is organizing a major Harry Potter festival in Humboldt County, California this weekend.) From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 08:27:03 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:27:03 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162401 > > Amiable Dorsai: > >...In justice, if not in law, Harry was justified in doing > > pretty much anything he could to avoid Draco's Cruciatus. > Pippin: > That's not the way the good side looks at things, or Sirius would > have seen nothing wrong with using the Unforgivable Curses > against Death Eaters. > > Harry had any number of tried and true spells at his disposal, > including expelliarmus which he once boasted of using against > Voldemort himself. Amiable Dorsai: So you're thinking that in the time available to him, roughly the interval between "Cru..." and "...io", Harry should have given his choice of spells a little more thought, debated the pros and cons of all the spells in his repertoire and chosen accordingly? I dunno, Pippin, this sounds like the Hermione Granger school of dueling, and, dearly as I love her, it doesn't seem to work out very well. Pippin: > Instead he chose to experiment which was > both wrong and stupid. Suppose the spell hadn't worked at all? Amiable Dorsai: Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would be hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. Harry didn't "experiment", he fired off the first spell that came to mind. If it was hard on Draco, well, Draco was one who decided to fight, Draco was the one who decided to use an Unforgivable, Draco was the one who decided that someone in that bathroom was going to suffer. Pippin > What Harry did could be compared to using an illegal handgun > against an attacker. The shooting might be self-defense, but > violating the gun laws would still be a crime. Amiable Dorsai: We don't know if Harry's action was a crime, we don't know the relevant law. What we do know about Wizard law is that it is a fickle, capricious thing--that's been a running theme of the books from the beginning. Likely, the worst thing that would happen if the Chosen One killed a Death Eater in self-defense is that Scrimgeour might finally have a handle on Harry. Amiable Dorsai From scarah at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 08:34:12 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 00:34:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612050034t15803ba7sad6ae7b459134595@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162402 Susan: The most compelling argument to me about Snape being basically self centered and nasty come from JKR herself, who is surprised that there are those amongst us who still think Snape might be a good guy. He is vile, cruel and abusive. His verbal abuse of Harry, Neville and Hermione, his total unfairness as a teacher, his abuse of authority, his hatred of Sirius and his willingness to give ANYONE up to have their soul sucked out is pretty awful. Sarah: The other nice thing about Life Debt Snape is that it provides a clear motive why Snape would so readily resent both Harry and Neville from day one. Harry's the epicenter of all the complications in Snape's life, and what if Voldemort had just picked Neville instead? None of this would be happening. Perhaps Neville would have rolled over and died, and the first war would have been won for the bad guys. And maybe that's what Snape would have preferred. Hermione is a tougher pickle, but that's explained easily enough if we a) take Snape at face value and think that he doesn't like her because she's a know-it-all or b) speculate he's still got something against mudbloods, though he can't very well go throwing that language around as a professor. Susan: However, I do not think that even IF Snape was acting on Dumbledore's orders, that that means he's on the side of the OoP..or that he's a good guy. He's a double agent. You never really know until the end about double agents, and they've been known to change sides whenever it looks as if one side is going to win. Sarah: Oh, me neither. I think he's compelled to act in the best interests of the Order, because their goals happen to coincide with his own. I think it'll be sort of a waste of build-up if it turns out that Snape is just going with the biggest bully on the playground, the way Peter is said to. Snape is one character that has got to have a solid motive in the end. Bart: I have pointed out before (and do not believe it was answered) that what is notable about the coversation with the Black sisters was not what was said, but what WASN'T said. Out of all the actions we know that Snape performed against Voldemort, the most direct and (if Snape is Voldemort's man) inexplicable was Snape alerting the Order in time to save Harry & crew from the DE attack in the Ministry. Which means that it is a very reasonable bet that the Death Eaters (and, by extension, Tommy Riddle) do not know Snape's role in their defeat. Sarah: In Spinner's End, Snape "spins" this so as to take credit for delivering Sirius Black so that Bellatrix could finish him. Seems pretty thin, but she appears to buy it. He does the same thing for Emmeline Vance, whose story we know less about. It could be he was appearing to the Order to deploy her to prevent some larger catastrophe, then told the Death Eaters isn't it great that I sent her there so that you guys could get her? Annemehr: I'm still agnostic on the Snape/Lily question, but I think it's a better bet than you give it credit for, and it's much older than either of the arguments from HBP or OoP. Sarah: I know the idea is old, I just don't know how well supported it is. Before OOTP it seems like the main support was that he never mentioned her which, I just figured he couldn't be arsed because she wasn't that consequential to him. James was the bee in his bonnet. And, a way to explain "stand aside," which I think there are plenty of other equally plausible explanations for. Annemehr: As far as Draco and Hermione in Potions class, I don't see what you mean. Actually, I think it's striking that Slughorn passes so quickly over Hermione's potions. She is, after all, a member of the Slug Club, so he's not ignoring Hermione as a person; yet in class he barely notices her once she's answered his questions at the beginning. Sarah: I was going on more the first five books when Snape was teaching, and simply meant that Draco and Hermione did well in that class. Snape and Lily did well in that class. Neither fact speaks to a romance (one-sided or otherwise), to me. As far as Slughorn and his preferences go, he seems clearly biased. He is shunning Draco for some reason, the simplest explanation for which is Slughorn trying not to forge ties with Death Eater families at this time. Zabini's mother is associated with some questionable activity, but no Death Eating that I know of. Let me put it this way, I see a lot more evidence that Slughorn loved Lily, than that Snape did. ;) Annemehr: Doesn't it make you wonder, though? Harry is using Snape's book, but Slughorn sees Lily. That tells me that their talents were so similar, that Sluggy could mistake one for the other. I'm guessing that they *combined* them to achieve a sum greater than its parts - just like Golpalott's Law. I *have* to believe, as many others do, that those two worked together at school. Whose talent was the greater, or whether there was any romance involved, I couldn't say, but it seems that together they achieved a unique proficiency. Sarah: I have a handy bit of speculation (and only speculation) that might explain this, if it turns out to be true. I agree it's strange that Harry goes off Snape's notes, and reminds Slughorn of Lily while doing it. But why assume this is the result of synergy between Snape and Lily? I see several possibilities. After all, Harry is using the notes and getting the results and it is not as a result of him working closely with Snape. So... wouldn't it be something if Lily was the one that really had the potions chops all along, and Snape watched what she did and wrote it down in his book? :D Alternatively, it seems like someone may have got hold of Snape's book during the MWPP era, since people found out his Levicorpus spell. So Lily may have read Snape's book at some point. I prefer the first idea though. Neri: Second that, except for the part about Dumbledore planning to die, which I'm not sure how is a part of the theory. Sarah: It's not really, but I thought I would lay it out there before it became a big can of worms. The rest of the post remains the same even if you think Snape made that decision on top of the tower. Neri; LOL. Couldn't snip that. Now please notice my heroic refrain from specifying exactly what, by this standard, Snape and Narcissa should be doing now. Sarah: Ha ha, was Narcissa good in Potions? Maybe you mean they are both good at kinda sorta following the Dark Lord's orders, in a way. ;) Julie, sighing at some of the "straightforward" points supporting OFH, such as Dumbledore's "I trust Snape completely" meaning trusting Snape to be himself and protect his own interests, which is about a straight- forward as a switchback mountain road (as opposed to simply trusting Snape, well, *completely*). Sarah: I don't know that it is straightforward at all. I don't know that anything about Snape is straightforward. What I do know is this: Harry sucks at Occlumency. According to the TLC/Mugglenet interview, he will always suck at Occlumency. Dumbledore knows this, and has given up trying to teach him. Therefore, anything Dumbledore allows Harry to witness must point to double agent Snape, because Dumbledore has to assume that anything in Harry's mind could be accessed by Voldemort at any time. If Voldemort decides to give Harry's brain a shuffle, and sees Dumbledore saying he totally trusts Snape, then Voldemort will think, "Ha ha, my double agent is such an awesome actor, this is great." And Snape's position with Voldemort will be secure. If on the other hand, he managed to glimpse some convincing testimony of why Snape will act in the Order's best interests in the end, things could start to break down in a hurry. Here's the entire paragraph you quoted from: "Dumbledore did not speak for a moment; he looked as though he was trying to make up his mind about something. At last he said, 'I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.'" Simplest reading to me is that Dumbledore wants to tell Harry more, but he can't. He has to continue treating him like a mushroom. Simplest reason: Harry fails at Occlumency and Dumbledore can't risk the real reason existing in Harry's head. Sarah From scarah at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 11:42:53 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 03:42:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Lily's Eyes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612050342j5042d48cv1c9832c797d84fbb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162403 Abergoart writes: But I do think her eyes are a bit more than that. JKR foreshadows with comments by Fake Moody that Lily may have been resistant to Imperius (Moody says 'watch the eyes, that's where you see it' when Harry proves to be somewhat resistant. And Fake Moody says it takes real strength of character which Snape's worst memory showed she seemed to have. Sarah: I'll take Imperius resistance for 400. We don't know why Voldemort ordered Lily to stand aside, but we do know she disobeyed a direct order from him. He wasn't heard to utter the incantation, but it seems he doesn't need one seeing by the number of times Harry has felt himself magically compelled to obey a spoken order from Voldemort. I'd even venture that Tom was developing his own version of the Imperius curse before learning he was a wizard (Amy Benson and Dennis Bishop, and "TELL THE TRUTH!" to Dumbledore). Abergoat: As for 'seeing' the goodness in others, I'm also hoping Lily was a Legilimens...that Snape talked in to using to learn Occlumency. Sarah: I don't know. Whatever is important about Lily's eyes, is something she presumably shares with Harry. Harry is crap at Occlumency and always will be because his personality just isn't suited for it. (See TLC/Mugglenet interview.) If Lily had a "gift" (could also be seen as a weakness) for seeing the potential in others, like Dumbledore, I'm not sure what plot purpose it would serve. Sirius thought Lupin was the spy, and the Potters must have agreed with him or they wouldn't have chosen Peter as the Secret-Keeper. I know what the movie says, but I think it's in conflict with the book. If Lily saw some super secret specialness in Lupin, why go along with a plan that pretty much presumes Lupin is the spy? (Still hating the Lupin bridge scene which is purely a Kloves invention) Sarah From Aixoise at snet.net Tue Dec 5 13:54:45 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 08:54:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <048e01c71874$ec1a7ba0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162404 Inge wrote: A new series on one of the Potter-characters.... That's been a huge wish of mine for the longest time. Sort of. I'd love for Rowling to write Snape's Story - not as a follow-up from where Harry's Story ends - but simply from Snape's Beginning and onwards. While Snape sure gets my vote for most interesting story, I have to say I'm intrigued by the idea of the continuing story of Bill and Fleur. I imagine it wouldn't be as dark and insightful as Snape's story but I'd be interested in seeing how the complex romance plays out (self-centered beauty and good mannered- but disfigured-wizard, French and English, and just a more serious study of wizard love relationships). Stacey (who just ordered the two HP books missing from her French collection and can't wait to start them once her Grad classes are done this month!!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 5 15:12:38 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:12:38 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162405 > Amiable Dorsai: > So you're thinking that in the time available to him, roughly the > interval between "Cru..." and "...io", Harry should have given his > choice of spells a little more thought, debated the pros and cons of > all the spells in his repertoire and chosen accordingly? I dunno, > Pippin, this sounds like the Hermione Granger school of dueling, and, > dearly as I love her, it doesn't seem to work out very well. Magpie: I think Pippin's just saying that Harry has responsibility for the spell he did choose with all the others at his disposal (which he's used in the past just as quickly). Even if you're defending yourself, if your defense seriously injures the other person you might be called on it. Or you might feel you went too far. > Pippin: > > Instead he chose to experiment which was > > both wrong and stupid. Suppose the spell hadn't worked at all? > > Amiable Dorsai: > Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would be > hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. Magpie: Being hit by a Crucio doesn't make you either. The Longbottoms are a special case, having been put under longterm Crucio by two experts at the spell. If Harry's spell hadn't worked and Draco's had (which in itself isn't a given) the more likely result would be that Harry would have been hit with a lot of pain that would then stop. That's the more common result of a successful Crucio that we've seen. I think that's what Harry was avoiding in his mind. Amiable Dorsai: > > Harry didn't "experiment", he fired off the first spell that came to > mind. If it was hard on Draco, well, Draco was one who decided to > fight, Draco was the one who decided to use an Unforgivable, Draco was > the one who decided that someone in that bathroom was going to suffer. Magpie: Right. But just as Draco has responsibility for everything he did in the bathroom, so does Harry. The fact that he was the one on the defensive doesn't mean anything he does is the same as anything else, which presumably is why he continues to feel unusual twinges of guilt that he doesn't want. > Pippin > > What Harry did could be compared to using an illegal handgun > > against an attacker. The shooting might be self-defense, but > > violating the gun laws would still be a crime. > > Amiable Dorsai: > We don't know if Harry's action was a crime, we don't know the > relevant law. What we do know about Wizard law is that it is a > fickle, capricious thing--that's been a running theme of the books > from the beginning. Likely, the worst thing that would happen if the > Chosen One killed a Death Eater in self-defense is that Scrimgeour > might finally have a handle on Harry. Magpie: I agree. Wizarding Law doesn't seem to be a solution to anything. If there's meaning in the scene, imo, it's in the way it's written and the characters' reactions to it. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 15:44:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:44:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco symmetry (was:The DDM or ESE Snape debate Continues!!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162406 Betsy Hp: > > I'm still not sure that I'd put Draco and Harry on an equal level. For so many of the books Draco is just a sort of annoying knat in Harry's life. HBP is when he really hits anything close to equal status. But I do think it's interesting that after Harry, it's Draco who seems to suffer the most from Voldemort and his minions. As far as the students go, anyway. Carol responds: I'd say that Draco starts out ahead of Harry in terms of his familiarity with the WW but his status soon changes. As soon as he finds out who Harry is, he approaches him on terms of equality, offering what passes for his friendship so that Harry can get to know "the right sort" of people. Quite possibly Draco is under the delusion that Snape attributes to some of the DEs: Harry must be a powerful Dark Wizard in the making or he could not have vanquished LV as an infant. Nevertheless, Draco realizes that Harry is something of an outsider who doesn't even play Quidditch whereas he, Draco, is a member of an influential Wizarding family. If Draco can't be as famous as Harry Potter, he can at least be chief hanger-on and adviser (rather like his father's role before Voldemort's fall as Draco probably visualizes it). Harry rejects this offer, recognizing Draco's values from his treatment of Ron (and forming his unfavorable view of Slytherin in the process). Until CoS, as you say, Harry views Draco as a real threat, perhaps a Voldemort in the making, and both he and Ron suspect Draco as being the Heir of Slytherin. After their discovery that he knows little more than they do about it (though he supports the Heir's goal of ridding the school of "Mudbloods"), he becomes less of a threat--just a bigot who bullies with words rather than actions and always has two large, silent bodyguards who crack their knuckles threateningly but only occasionally take action. (IIRC, it's Ron and Neville(!) who initiate the fight at the Quidditch match in SS/PS.) >From that point onward, Draco operates differently, still knowing more than Harry in certain respects ("I'd want revenge if I were you" suggests that he knows that Sirius Black is Harry's godfather) but using his father's influence to try to get Hagrid fired and Buckbeak executed or making "Potter Stinks" badges or writing song lyrics to make fun of Ron's lack of confidence at Quidditch. The ferret incident, humiliating and painful as it is for him, has no effect on his methods or personality that I can see. Nor, as far as I can see, does the return of Voldemort--except to make him cockier: he's now sure that he's on the winning side and HRH are doomed as, respectively, the Boy who Lived, a blood traitor, and a "Mudblood." Draco's methods demonstrate some ingenuity and some skill at Charms (the badges and, late, the coins to communicate with Rosmerta), some skill at psychological manipulation (though he also resorts to simple bullying on occasion), and a penchant for eavesdropping not unlike Harry's. But once Harry begins to see him not as a threat in himself but as a Death Eater's son who uses his father's influence to make trouble, who has been slapped by Hermione and bounced around by Fake!Moody, only worth fighting when he insults someone's mother (a tactic Harry doesn't hesitate to use himself in retaliation). Draco, it seems to me, is chiefly motivated by a growing envy of Harry's status as a celebrity and Dumbledore's favorite, combined with spite because Harry prefers the company of "Mudbloods" and the (in his view) poverty-stricken "blood traitor" Weasleys to rich purebloods like himself. He has his followers, not only Crabbe and Goyle but Pansy Parkinson and her gang of girls and occasionally other Slytherins. In GoF he's even able to influence non-Slytherins to resent Harry for upstaging Cedric Diggory. And in OoP, he gets a taste of power, first as a prefect and then as a member of the Inquisitorial Squad, but still he's not Harry's equal in his own mind or Harry's--just, as you say, an annoying gnat whom Harry has learned to dismiss (but still hates enough to attack physically when he starts insulting people's mothers). As an aside, I wonder if Harry's respect for Draco, or at least, his view of him as a threat, would have increased if Draco resorted to James-style tactics, hexing anyone who annoyed him. Oddly, Draco's talents (and he assuredly has them) seem to be more intellectual (Potions and poetry and Occlumency among them--hmmm. Who does that remind me of?), but he's probably no slouch at duelling if he hasn't just been caught crying in a bathroom. (He cast Serpensortia in his second year and certainly can use Expelliarmus. He's probably better at nonverbal spells than Harry, too, since he can do rudimentary Occlumency, though by HBP he's not on much better terms with Snape than Harry is and may not be taking his lessons to heart. It's only after Harry and Dumbledore (and Snape, though Draco doesn't know it) have through their combined efforts sent Draco's father to Azkaban that Draco becomes seriously interested in revenge, as we see at the end of OoP. Harry at that point sneeringly dismisses him, and it seems that Ron and Hermione share this view. They continue to dismiss him as a minor troublemaker throughout HBP. (It's unclear whether their view of him changes after the Sectumsempra/attempted Crucio incident or even Dumbledore's death. Harry's focus is on Snape, so he and his friends don't talk about Draco.) But Harry's view of him changes in HBP. For the first time since CoS, he's a serious threat in Harry's view, and this time he's right. Paradoxically, Draco's view of Harry also changes. He's no longer eaten up with envy. He catches Harry spying on him, Petrifies him, breaks his nose, and stomps on his hand. So much for Potter. Draco now has bigger fish to fry. He has a mission: a cabinet to fix, DEs to bring into Hogwarts, and a murder to commit that will earn him eternal glory and the lasting gratitude of the Dark Lord. Of course, Draco's attitude alters drastically as, for the first time, he finds himself and his family in real danger and again on the tower when he finds that murdering an old man isn't quite as easy, or glorious, as he thought. I'm not sure that Draco's character arc parallels Harry's. In fact, it's not so much an arc as a decline, gradual at first and the steep and swift, followed by a plateau, a moment of decision that has yet to be made. Will he, having become more fully human in his new awareness of fear and pain and death, rise and become a reluctant ally of HRH against Voldemort, or will he sink into the depths of ignominy and cruelty by following the Wizard who would have killed him and his family? Or will he simply be killed off, having served his purpose in Harry's story? Each seems as unlikely as the others at this point, at least to me. Carol, who is not presenting any kind of hypothesis but just exploring her thoughts in this post From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 16:32:19 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:32:19 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162407 Pippin wrote: > What Harry did could be compared to > using an illegal handgun against an > attacker. The shooting might be self-defense, > but violating the gun laws would still be a crime. I have seen no evidence that the spell Harry used was illegal, but even if it was nobody would prosecute a man who used an illegal gun to save his life because no jury would convict him. Personally I think Draco got off very lightly, the only injustice was that Harry was punished. And besides wizard law is a bit of a joke, it the Ministry likes you nothing is a crime, if they don't like you then everything is a crime. > Harry had any number of tried and true spells at his disposal, including expelliarmus True, but if somebody is trying to kill or torture me the well being of my attacker is not my primary concern. > which he once boasted of using against > Voldemort himself. It's not boasting if it's true. > Instead he chose to experiment which was > both wrong and stupid. When Harry only has a split second to make a decision he follows his hunches, that is his true skill and the reason he's still alive. But forget that, let me ask a different question: Do you think it would have made a better story if he hadn't used that spell? I don't. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 16:41:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:41:43 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF (was:Re: JKR and the boys (and girls)/Harry, Draco and bath In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162408 Alla: > I am convinced that Draco was making a death threat and evaluate the scene accordingly. Carol responds: But a threat is an expression of intent to inflict damage, in this case, intent to commit murder or arrange someone's murder (as, say, Voldemort or a Mafia don might do). Draco has no intention of killing any of the Trio himself, nor does he have the authority to order their deaths. He's saying that Voldemort will want all of them dead, which, however unpleasant and however much pleasure Draco takes in it, is the simple truth, along the lines of "You'll be next, Mudbloods!" after Mrs. Norris is found Petrified--a prediction that comes true when four(?) Muggleborns including Hermione are Petrified. (I'm not counting NHN since he's a ghost and we don't know whether he was a Muggle-born or not.) So nasty as Draco's conduct in this scene is, particularly, his reference to Cedric Diggory's murder (even though it's really an aside, correcting his assertion that the "Mudbloods" will be first), he's not *threatening* to harm or kill HRH. He's not yet ready to become a DE himself since his father is still "walking free" and influencing Fudge with his gold while secretly working for Voldemort. Draco is simply sure that he's been right all along, that the pureblood agenda will triumph, with Voldemort's enemies destroyed and his supporters rewarded. Draco actually says: "You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this! Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well--second--Diggory was the f--" (GoF Am. ed. 729). Provoking as these words are, I would characterize them, not as a death threat or a threat of any kind, but as a warning or a taunt in the form of a sneering prediction of doom for Harry's friends and perhaps Harry himself as a "Muggle-lover." (I wonder, BTW, if he has Dumbledore in mind here.) He is antagonizing his opponents, not harming or threatening to harm them (much less to kill them) but predicting that they, like Cedric Diggory, will fall victim to the Dark Lord. Again, it's exactly comparable to "You'll be next, Mudbloods!" in CoS, where Draco is predicting what will happen to people he holds in contempt and taking pleasure in the prospect without having either the intention of helping the perpetrator or the ability to help him. At any rate, we have not yet reached the point where DE!Draco is ready to serve the Dark Lord himself, much less commit murder. At this point, he's a bullying, loudmouthed kid with the wrong values, but he is posing no threat to HRH. In fact, his provocation is more dangerous to himself and his friends than it is to HRH, as the aftermath clearly demonstrates. If he and his companions had entered the compartment with drawn wands and threatened to harm HRH themselves, it would indeed have been self-defense to attack them. But no wands were drawn and no threats to commit harm were made--only a warning and a prediction that "Mudbloods" and Muggle-lovers were in danger--a perfectly true statement, however sneeringly delivered. His words have their intended effect: they make the hearers angry--a little too angry because HRH and the eavesdropping Twins retort with hexes instead of retaliatory words. Might it be that there are no words to answer with because, just as he was in CoS, Draco is right? Not about picking the losing side, of course, but about the murders of "riffraff" (Muggleborns and Mugglelovers and other nonsupporters of the Dark Lord) that will soon follow and which we begin to see in HBP? Harry and friends have no answer for these words so they react *as if* the words constituted an attack. Carol, who is not excusing Draco's support for violence and oppression, just pointing out that Harry and friends accepted the bait by becoming angry and attacking when a more suitable response would have been to send him back to his compartment with feigned indifference to his intimidation tactics From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 17:02:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 17:02:12 -0000 Subject: LV's Wand question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162409 Carol earlier: > > > > I don't think, however, that he had a wand with him, either his own or Voldemort's, when he transformed into a rat and disappeared after killing the twelve Muggles. Otherwise, he would have had a wand with him and been able to defend himself in the Shrieking Shack. I conjecture that he hid Voldemort's wand > > Pippin: > I agree with the conjecture that Pettigrew didn't have Voldemort's wand with him in the Shrieking Shack. He had to use Lupin's dropped wand to stun Ron. But did he have time to retrieve Voldemort's wand > afterwards? > > If he was so frightened his old friends would find him that he had to scurry to powerless, bodiless Voldemort for protection, would he have dared to turn aside and get the wand first? If he'd been found with Voldemort's wand and robes on him, it would scarcely have mattered that Sirius wasn't around to explain about the secret keeper switch. > > Also, I wonder about "It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off!" which > Harry overhears in the dementor memory. Whoever 'him' is, > it can't have been Pettigrew, because surely James and Lily weren't > expecting an attack from him. It could have been Voldemort. > But would James really have said he could hold Voldemort off?" Carol responds: If you go upthread, you'll see that I agree that "him" refers to Voldemort, who appeared to James to be alone. He didn't see Peter because Peter was hiding in rat form. Here's what I actually worte: "Since there's no evidence that James saw anyone except Voldemort at Godric's Hollow ("He's here! Take Harry and run!") I conjecture that Wormtail was present in rat form so James and Lily couldn't see him. After they were dead, he could have transformed back, grabbed the wand, and Disapparated." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162360 "He," of course, refers to Wormtail. And, yes, I think that James (whom we know to have had a high opinion of his duelling skills) did think he could hold Voldemort off long enough for Lily to run oout of the house and Disapparate with Harry, or Disapparate on the spot if there was no anti-disapparation jinx on the house). I don't think even James expected to survive the battle despite having "thrice defied" voldemort, but he certainly expected or at least hoped to delay him. And he succeeded--Voldemort says that he fought bravely. No doubt LV wanted a bit of a challenge before he killed James, if only so that, in his own mind, the death wouldn't qualify as a soul-splitting murder. I also think that, yes, Peter could have Apparated to Godric's Hollow after the Shrieking Shack incident, retrieved the hidden wand, and transformed again to a rat, carrying the transfigured wand with him to wherever he found Vapor!mort. Otherwise, his having Voldemort's wand in GoF is inexplicable. (Unless we resort to ESE!Lupin, but I'm talking about within the context of what currently appears to be canon--one person named Wormtail who happens to be a rat Animagus.) Carol, hoping that this response clears up any misconceptions raised by her earlier post From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 16:59:54 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:59:54 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162410 "lupinlore" wrote: > I have often found JKR's grasp of emotions > and emotional psychology to be so laughably > bad as to inspire nothing but derision. > [ ] Excuse me while I engage in incredulous > laughter at the bad writing. JKR often > confuses detail with completeness. > Her plots, for instance, are incredibly > detailede, but often filled with huge, gaping holes. I know for a fact you have been posting to this list for at least a year and a half, so after reading the above my curiosity got the better of me so I have to ask, WHY? Why would anyone spend all that time discussing a laughably bad writer who wrote crummy books full of huge gaping holes? I just don't get it. Eggplant From antonia31h at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 09:31:43 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:31:43 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <3202590612050034t15803ba7sad6ae7b459134595@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162411 Sorry if my theories are again crazy but regarding Snape and his loyalties I am totally confused because everything points out in the book that he is in fact a spy for Dumbledore and then JKR says in all her interviews that he is a jerk. I mean if Dumbledore trusts him completely then this means for me that he is a good guy. Otherwise Dumbledore is a far less skilled wizard than I thought and than we were made to believe. C'mon he's supposed to be the only one Voldemort has ever feared and he is not capable of recognising if Snape is a traitor? My point is that there is a contradiction between what JKR wrote in the book about Snape and what she's saying in interviews about him. She definetly loathes him but still she makes Dumbledore trust him completely. Like I said I think this discredits Dumbledore as a wizard. Snape is loathsome and yet he has the trust of the best wizard? What am I supposed to make out of this? Again sorry for the rambling. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 5 17:51:17 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 12:51:17 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Draco and bathroom. Message-ID: <13137436.1165341077738.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162412 >From: eggplant107 >I have seen no evidence that the spell Harry used was illegal, but >even if it was nobody would prosecute a man who used an illegal gun to >save his life because no jury would convict him. Bart: Bernard Goetz. Eggplant: >It's not boasting if it's true. Bart: Seems to be nitpicking day for me. It is boasting, even if it's true. On the other hand, boasting is when one uses one's achievements to improve one's reputation; Harry was just trying to give the facts. Eggplant: >When Harry only has a split second to make a decision he follows his >hunches, that is his true skill and the reason he's still alive. But >forget that, let me ask a different question: Do you think it would >have made a better story if he hadn't used that spell? I don't. Bart: It's important to differentiate between a "better" story and a "more interesting" story. Certainly, use of the spell made it a more interesting story. However, it's important that stories logically hold together as well as it should have; that is what's being discussed. Bart From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 17:34:40 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (fair wynn) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 11:34:40 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Draco and bathroom. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162413 Eggplant >When Harry only has a split second to make a decision he follows his >hunches, that is his true skill and the reason he's still alive. But >forget that, let me ask a different question: Do you think it would >have made a better story if he hadn't used that spell? I don't. > wynnleaf This is an interesting question. And it's not just would it be a "better" story, but would the story have taken the same direction? No. If Harry had used expelliarmus, then Draco would simply have been disarmed. Snape would never have come into the room at all. Harry wouldn't have gotten detention. Harry probably wouldn't have reported Draco attempting the crucio -- or even if he had, nothing much would likely have happened given that Harry had already been reported things about Draco to no avail. So why did JKR do this? What did it do for the plot that Harry used Sectumsempra? That he so seriously injured Draco? That Snape rescued Draco? That Snape gave Harry detentions? And that Harry missed out on Quidditch? What was JKR wanting to show Harry? What did she want us to see? I think JKR wanted Harry to use a spell that was really destructive -- his horror at the results of the spell is important. Further, JKR wanted to establish that there was at least one Really Bad spell in the HBP's notes. But at the same moment she reveals that the HBP created a terrible spell, she also had the HBP himself come in, reveal the song-like countercurse, and give his own opinion of the spell - Dark Magic. We see Snape's relatively gentle demeanor with Draco and his reassurance. We see Snape in a healer role. We had already been told about Snape-as-healer due to Dumbledore's injury with the ring horcrux, and Katie Bell's being cursed by the necklace. At this point, we get to "see" Snape as healer. We see that Snape now knows that Harry is using the HBP potions book, but does not push very hard to get it back or confront Harry with his use of the book. (BTW, I see no reason for Snape to keep his having created Sectumsempra secret from Dumbledore -- DD knows lots of worse stuff about Snape already, so it really doesn't make any difference.) We also see Harry's determination to keep the book. I think JKR wanted Harry to get detention. But why? What do we learn from Harry's getting detention? We see that Snape did not request expulsion, even though McGonagall thought it Harry's action warrented it. We learn that the Marauders ganged up on other students, not just Snape. We see in the detentions, none of the altercations between Snape and Marauders and must wonder why? We are told of no detention records for Snape and should wonder why. So JKR achieved many things through having Harry make the mistake of using Sectumsempra. I'm sure there are several more things she achieved that I didn't think of. wynnleaf _________________________________________________________________ Visit MSN Holiday Challenge for your chance to win up to $50,000 in Holiday cash! http://www.msnholidaychallenge.com/default.aspx?ocid=tagline&locale=en-us From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 18:10:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:10:21 -0000 Subject: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162414 Neri wrote: > Actually it's not even certain he knows they are in the tower. It depends on whether McGonagall sends Flitwick *after* the DEs ran up the tower, and if so, whether Flitwick includes this detail in his report to Snape. More probably Snape only knows that the DEs are in the seventh floor. Carol responds: True. We don't know how much Flitwick told Snape, or what Dumbledore had told him previously. If he knew that Draco had been using the RoR, he might have known to go to the seventh floor for that reason. But we do know that Snape didn't kill Flitwick; he stunned him. And he didn't kill the girls; he told them to tend Flitwick. It seems clear that he isn't ESE, or he'd have killed them all. It also seems clear that he didn't want Flitwick to follow him. Why? Maybe he was protecting Flitwick (who could no more have been a duelling champion in is youth than I could given his size) from being killed by the DEs or hit by friendly fire. Equally likely, he didn't want him in the way because of what he might have to do. Maybe both. we just don't know. Neri wrote: > This depends on your interpretation of the Vow. My point (see below) is that Snape's actions from the moment Flitwick bursts into his office only make sense if his goal is to save his life from the terms of the Vow at any cost, or at least that The Plan was to save him from dying because of the Vow. > Carol: Only? I realize you're stating your opinion, but "only" is still a strong word. Other interpretations arre equally valid. Snape's actions make sense if he knew that the Vow was about to be activated, that he would be forced to take drastic action of some sort, and that he must at all costs prevent Draco from either being harmed or killing Dumbledore. There's no need to read in a desire to save his own life. The UV was made at Narcissa's request to protect Draco and that, as far as we can tell from the text of "Spinner's End," is why Snape chose to take it (that and keeping his cover as a DE). I could say that Snape's actions make sense "only" if he's acting to protect Draco, surely on the assumption that Dumbledore is his usual powerful self. Instead, I'll say that they make most sense *to me* if that's his motivation. No "only" about it because I think yours is the (mis)interpretation that JKR expects from many readers. (Some few will think that he's loyal to Voldemort rather than himself or Dumbledore and "explain" his failure to kill Flitwick and the girls as the result of the small dose of Felix Felicis that Hermione, and only Hermione, drank.) > Neri: > Regarding the magical barrier, all he has to do is reducto the ceiling after he passes through, and then the rest could follow him. Still takes less time than telling Luna and Hermione to take care of Flitwick. Carol: Clearly, he does have reasons for not joining the Order and not wanting them to join him on the tower. Whatever they are involves himself, Draco, and Dumbledore, and the Order members will be a hindrance. And if Harry's there, as Snape may well anticipate, he, too, will be in danger--and an even greater hindrance if he tries to fight the DEs. Best if Snape controls the action himself, maintaining his cover as a DE, as he can't do if he Reductos the magical barrier. (Since he can run right through it, he may not even know that it's there. In any case, just as he doesn't want Flitwick to follow him, he doesn't want the Order to follow him, either. Much better that they remain below, fighting the DEs who aren't on the tower and protecting the school while he does whatever is necessary as the UV and the DADA curse and his plans with Dumbledore fall into place. (He still doesn't know exactly who will be there and exactly what he'll have to do, much less that DD is helpless and wandless, but he knows that the time has come to do what he has to do, unhindered by those who can't possibly understand either his actions or his motivations. He no doubt understands that he may have to die, or worse, keep his vow. But that he has to do *something* and he has to do it *now,* without encumbrance, has to be crystal clear in his mind. If there's a way to escape the Vow, for all three of them to live, maybe he and Dumbledore can find it. If not, he'll do what he has to do, including join or seem to join the DEs. Given the Vow, and the DADA curse, there's no other way, or none that I can see.) > > > Pippin: > > Obviously whether Snape followed it or not there was a plan, or Dumbledore's 'Severus please' was just a craven plea for mercy, which is ridiculous, IMO. > > Neri: > Rather weak evidence for a plan, IMO. It could also mean "Severus, > please don't rip your soul" or "Severus, please remember your Debt" Carol: Or, more likely, IMO, "Severus, please keep your Vow." (The UV is a central element of the HBP plot; the life debt to James, which mmay or may not have been transferred to Harry, is not menitoned, and indeed has not been mentioned since SS/PS.) IOW, "Your life, Draco's life, and Harry's life are important. Mine can't be saved. Do what you have to do to save them." I don't know whether there was a plan except a general agreement that Snape would appear to join Voldemort at the end of the year, but I think we all agree that "Severus, please" was not a craven plea for Snape to spare DD's life. Whatever his faults, Dumbledore is not a coward, and his view of death as "the next great adventure" contrasts markedly with Voldemort's obsession with preventing his own death at all costs. > > Neri: Hermione is seventeen, a witch of age, and also a prefect and very good at DADA. Luna is sixteen or nearly that). But even so, why doesn't our responsible Snapy say something like: "run and call Hagrid" or "shoot a red flare out of the window. The aurors at Hogsmeade will see it" or "use the fire in my office to contact the Ministry" or "inform Madam Pomfrey in the Hospital Wing" or even just "make sure the students don't leave their dormitories". None of these would have taken him more than ten seconds. > Carol: Any one of those actions would have revealed his loyalties and undermined his rejoining the Death Eaters, which he must have planned to do if he survived, assuming that he's DDM. Sending the girls with Flitwick to the hospital wing got them all safely out of the way without involving the Order or the MoM and giving the game away. > Neri: > Well, he runs past one bunch of DEs shooting AKs in all directions > without trying to talk them out of Hogwarts, arrives alone at the > second bunch, and as a result he has to make this terrible choice. But hey, at least he saved his own life from the Unbreakable Vow. Yes, the Aurors might have interfered with that. Carol: Actually, he sends DD's body off the tower, which prevents Fenrir Greyback from having it for afters, grabs Draco by the scruff of the neck (how is that possible?) like a mother cat rescuing her kitten, orders the DEs off the tower (does he know that Harry is there?), runs past the skirmish because he has to save Draco and keep his cover, protects Harry from a Crucio, tells Draco to run, again orders the DEs out of Hogwarts, deflects Harry's hexes without hurting him, and finally resorts to one stinging blow that disarms him when Harry calls him a coward. Also, of course, he informs him who the HBP is and advise him to "shut his mouth and close his mind" (nonverbal curses and Occlumency), all the while demonstrating through his use of Legilimency just how practical that advice is. Think about it, Neri. If snape hadn't kept the Vow and had died in battle with the DEs, would Dumbledore be alive? And what about Harry? Who would have kept him from rushing out to fight the DEs on the tower? Or, if he was delayed and followed them, who would have rescued him from the Crucio? Who would have kept the DEs from killing or kidnapping him on the spot? Neri: > The only possible cue that seems to work here is "when Draco makes an irrevocable move". But this suggests again that this whole Plan was to save Snape's life, at the price of Dumbledore's life, from the terms of the Unbreakable Vow. The Unbreakable Vow that Snape himself had made to begin with. IOW, the plan was for Dumbledore to pay with his life for DDM!Snape's mistake. > > So any way I look at it, again and again I arrive at the same > conclusion: DDM!Snape is Ever So Lame. Carol responds: Dumbledore knows from the outset of HBP that Draco is tryng to kill him. The evidence also indicates that he knows about the UV. ("Perhaps I know more about this than you do, Harry.") He certainly knows about the DADA curse and yet has chosen Snape to teach the class at this critical time. The argument in the forest indicates an agreement that Snape has made that he wants to back out of and DD won't let him. All of DD's actions in HBP are those of a man in a hurry whose time is limited. Whether there's a detailed plan or not, he has certainly talked with Snape about Draco, about the UV, about the possible consequences. He also knows, as we see before and after the cave, that his time is ending. It's Harry's time now. Maybe, just maybe, it's also Snape's time. Carol, who thinks OFH!Snape, if he exists, is a lame and boring plot device whereas DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character who will alter Harry's thinking in some profound and unexpected way in Book 7 From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 5 18:08:16 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:08:16 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way Message-ID: <8208917.1165342096668.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162415 From: antonia31h >Sorry if my theories are again crazy but regarding Snape and his >loyalties I am totally confused because everything points out in the >book that he is in fact a spy for Dumbledore and then JKR says in all >her interviews that he is a jerk. I mean if Dumbledore trusts him >completely then this means for me that he is a good guy. Bart: How about a trustworthy jerk? Consider the possibility (certainly hinted at in the books) that Snape became a Death Eater because he agreed with the basic philosophy Tommy Riddle was pushing, but discovered that Riddle himself was only using this philosophy to attract others, who he considered to be useful idiots (which is pretty much how JKR depicts it). Snape still holds the beliefs he had as a Death Eater, but considers Tommy to be a betrayer rather than a leader of that movement. Bart From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 17:35:04 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 09:35:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061205173504.20955.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162416 "lupinlore" wrote: > I have often found JKR's grasp of emotions > and emotional psychology to be so laughably > bad as to inspire nothing but derision. > [ ] Excuse me while I engage in incredulous > laughter at the bad writing. JKR often > confuses detail with completeness. > Her plots, for instance, are incredibly > detailede, but often filled with huge, gaping holes. Eggplant responds: I know for a fact you have been posting to this list for at least a year and a half, so after reading the above my curiosity got the better of me so I have to ask, WHY? Why would anyone spend all that time discussing a laughably bad writer who wrote crummy books full of huge gaping holes? I just don't get it. Eggplant Katie writes: I feel that many people on this list are really only interested in tearing the books apart and deriding JKR. The books are not perfect - no book is. No plot is perfect, no writer without weaknesses. However, I really don't understand devoting time and effort thinking about and writing about a writer/book you don't actually like. I could read Potter books everyday, and I think JKR's plotting is pretty incredible. I admit that her handling of teen romance is fairly awkward, but I would rather talk about the books' strengths than the weaknesses. I would rather discuss plot theories than talk about why JKR's writing is substandard. I guess, in short, I agree with Eggplant, but felt the need to add that lupinlore is NOT the only person on this list who seems to hate the books and think JKR is a hack. Not being one of those people, and loving JKR, Harry and the lot, Katie ._,_.___ . --------------------------------- Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Tue Dec 5 18:55:06 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 10:55:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape on the tower (Was: Cohesion) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612051055s76691e8fq6c81ef12bdbada30@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162417 Carol: Maybe he was protecting Flitwick (who could no more have been a duelling champion in is youth than I could given his size) Sarah: What. Seriously, what? Flitwick is less magically powerful given his size? What on earth is your reasoning for that? It's seriously one of the weirdest arguments I've seen, ever. I don't understand it at all. I think most of the rest of your post holds, whether it is OFH or DDM. Except: Carol, who thinks OFH!Snape, if he exists, is a lame and boring plot device whereas DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character who will alter Harry's thinking in some profound and unexpected way in Book 7 I think the reverse. Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 18:46:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:46:52 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162418 > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would be > > hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. > > Magpie: > Being hit by a Crucio doesn't make you either. The Longbottoms are > a special case, having been put under longterm Crucio by two experts > at the spell. If Harry's spell hadn't worked and Draco's had (which > in itself isn't a given) the more likely result would be that Harry > would have been hit with a lot of pain that would then stop. That's > the more common result of a successful Crucio that we've seen. I > think that's what Harry was avoiding in his mind. Alla: I don't think we know what Harry was avoiding in his mind. I think it is also valid to speculate that he was avoiding precisely that - being dead or insane. Why? Just speculation of course, but despite of more common results of succesful Crucio, Harry had seen the **worst** results of the crucio, and when it is directed against him, I tend to think that he would see in his mind the worst results, not what average Crucio can do. If the gun is directed at me and I am somehow able to do something to prevent the shot, my first thought would be that I am protecting myself from being killed, not from some sort of easier wound. > Magpie: > Right. But just as Draco has responsibility for everything he did > in the bathroom, so does Harry. The fact that he was the one on the > defensive doesn't mean anything he does is the same as anything > else, which presumably is why he continues to feel unusual twinges > of guilt that he doesn't want. Alla: Well, yeah, but how to put it? In my view in the books there is very often a way a characters can have done something better in their actions, but it does not mean to me that because of that the action is always deserving of blame. Like as I said before - the blame that I put on Harry here is wanting to try this spell before the bathroom scene. So, of course the horrific results of the spell he used should make him feel guilty. That is good for him to make him grow, etc. But at the same time, I stand by the idea that despite those horrific results what he did was a self defense, but as a result of his previous stupidity - sure, he should feel guilty IMO. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 19:05:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:05:09 -0000 Subject: The power of words (Was: The Train Scene GoF/ role of words in Potterverse) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162419 Alla wrote: > You know - I just had an aside thought or sort of aside thought ( > probably not a novel one). I do think that JKR advances the idea > that the words can hurt and kill pretty strongly in the books. I > suppose that for me goes to Draco and Co remarks here, which under > circumstances I consider pretty deadly, but not just that. > > I think that it also goes to Snape running his mouth and metaphor of > him hurting Neville as being Neville's boggart, but even that is not > the strongest proof. > > I think the strongest proof of this metaphore is Riddle's diary. The > words that are literally deadly to Ginny and Harry and so many kids. > And of course Harry kills it. > > So, I would not dismiss the words in the books as just words, > sometimes IMO they are the deadliest weapons. carol responds: Having already said all I have to say on the Draco death threat topic, I want to focus on this segment of your post. (I know. People are always reacting to my asides and sign-offs rather than the post as a whole, too. Hope you don't mind. :-) ) I agree that words can be deadly in the Potterverse, but only when they're magical incantations combined with magical ability and, usually, a magic wand. Words spoken by a Muggle, or by a Wizard who isn't reciting an incantation, normally have no such power that I'm aware of. Nor do thoughts. Harry can hate Snape and imagine him being smashed by the pestle he's using to grind his dead beetles, but the thoughts have no effect. And Dumbledore says that people should use the proper name for a thng because fear of the name increases fear of the thing itself. He's speaking of Voldemort, but his words could apply to anything people are afraid of and to the use of euphemisms such as "pass away" for "die." My point is that I don't think words have power in themselves in the Potterverse. "Speak of the devil" won't bring the devil to you, nor will speaking Voldemort's name give him power over you that he didn't already have. It's very different from Middle Earth, where Aragorn tells Frodo not to joke about becoming a wraith ("Do not speak of such things!"). In both places, oaths are magically binding, but Dumbledore disregards Prophecies (the Prophecy is only true because Voldemort chose to believe it and act on it), whereas in LOTR, no one disregards a Prophecy and most of the "High" characters have some degree of foresight. That being the case, I don't think that Snape's words are particularly damaging. (Yes, Snape was Neville's Boggart in his third year, but he's experienced real pain and horror now in the form of Bellatrix, the woman who Crucio'd his parents into insanity, Crucioing him in the DoM. What is being called an "idiot boy" compared to that? Riddle's diary was more than words. It was an interactive memory rather like the one in the Sorting Hat combined with a soul bit that could possess the reader. The words Ginny writes and the responses by Diary!Tom are a means to an end but are not dangerous in themselves. The danger is in the Basilisk and in the power of possession. And if the diary weren't enchanted, if it were just a diary, the words would have no more power than an essay on Transfiguring hedgehogs into pincushions. So it's an interesting idea, but I think that Dumbledore's words to Harry about always calling Voldemort by his proper name disprove the idea that words in the Potterverse have anything beyond the usual power to conjure up mental images and to stir up emotions. You don't need magic to see that power. We see it all the time in the HP books--and, occasionally, on this list. Carol, who thinks that Snape's sarcasm does more harm to him by alienating some of his students, particularly Harry, than it does to the students themselves From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 5 19:07:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:07:09 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <20061205173504.20955.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162420 > Katie writes: I feel that many people on this list are really only interested in tearing the books apart and deriding JKR. The books are not perfect - no book is. No plot is perfect, no writer without weaknesses. However, I really don't understand devoting time and effort thinking about and writing about a writer/book you don't actually like. > > I could read Potter books everyday, and I think JKR's plotting is pretty incredible. I admit that her handling of teen romance is fairly awkward, but I would rather talk about the books' strengths than the weaknesses. I would rather discuss plot theories than talk about why JKR's writing is substandard. I guess, in short, I agree with Eggplant, but felt the need to add that lupinlore is NOT the only person on this list who seems to hate the books and think JKR is a hack. > > Not being one of those people, and loving JKR, Harry and the lot, Katie Magpie: Having come up against this question in every fandom I've ever been in, I'll try to explain. People enjoy different things from fandom, as you just said. You like discussing theories, by which I assume you mean guessing what's going to happen. I sometimes like that, but only if it relates to what's already happened. Usually don't care for it--I'll just wait for what the author tells me. What I like doing with certain books--and not always books I love--is pulling them apart. Pulling or tearing? I assume seeing it as "tearing them apart" means that you see destruction in that activity. To me, it's all the same. Sometimes pulling them apart makes me admire strengths in them. Other times weaknesses. But those weaknesses don't always make me feel any less about the books. In fact--not referring to anything specific here but I've seen it happen--sometimes it's the people who "love" the books who don't seem to be able to appreciate them, since they can't look at the flaws or can't accept that there can be flaws. They must love the books, speak kindly about them and also love the author. Just as you ask why someone would bother talking about books they hate, one might ask why you bother joining a conversation about books if you don't want to hear certain things about them. (I'm not actually asking you that myself!) For me, fandom doesn't always have to be about that. I get into fandoms because I want to talk about the books--sometimes negatively. If I just really like a book sometimes I feel no need to talk about it. I don't agree with all of Lupinlore's feelings about the books. I don't think there's any specific thing that has to happen to keep me from feeding them to the woodchipper. (I admit when I read the word "Snapey-poo" I see red.) Some things he considers bad writing I don't--but I don't have a problem with charges of bad writing in general. I don't think that a person who claims the books suck because X happened is necessarily so far removed from a person who says the books have to be great. Sometimes I get more out of negative reviews of the books--even if I don't happen to agree with the person's position--than I do out of praise of the book. I definitely don't consider it odd to find the most extreme criticism of a canon coming from fandom. That's one of the most basic things about any fandom. It's not about loving the books, it's about caring enough to discuss them for whatever reason. (See that recent hilarious article about how Star Wars Fans Hate Star Wars.) So ironically to me when there's two people talking and one of them is questioning why on earth someone would stay in a fandom or on a list for a book they hate or a creator they don't respect I'm probably more inclined to assume it's the person being questioned who's more of what I think of as a fan. By which I don't mean they're a "better" fan in terms of acting the way fans are "supposed" to act. Just pulling/tearing canons apart is what fans do in my experience. Including me.:-) -m From kjones at telus.net Tue Dec 5 20:22:11 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:22:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4575D4F3.8090602@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162421 sistermagpie wrote: > >> Katie writes: I feel that many people on this list are really > only interested in tearing the books apart and deriding JKR. The > books are not perfect - no book is. No plot is perfect, no writer > without weaknesses. However, I really don't understand devoting time > and effort thinking about and writing about a writer/book you don't > actually like. snip >> Not being one of those people, and loving JKR, Harry and the > lot, Katie > > > Magpie: > Having come up against this question in every fandom I've ever been > in, I'll try to explain. People enjoy different things from fandom, > as you just said. You like discussing theories, by which I assume > you mean guessing what's going to happen. I sometimes like that, > but only if it relates to what's already happened. Usually don't > care for it--I'll just wait for what the author tells me. What I > like doing with certain books--and not always books I love--is > pulling them apart. Pulling or tearing? I assume seeing it > as "tearing them apart" means that you see destruction in that > activity. snip Just pulling/tearing canons apart is what > fans do in my experience. Including me.:-) > > -m KJ writes: I find that I must agree to a large extent with Eggplant and Katie. While no one objects to picking apart plot, or characterization, or style, or anything else, I do object to derision, demeaning remarks, and criticism with no redeeming point. I object to describing anyone's work as garbage, suitable only for burning or wood-chipping. Considering the thoughtful intelligence of 99% of the list, this kind of criticism only appears more pointless. I must defend the right of the others in wondering why the Hell does he a) continue to read the series, and b)continue to post on a list dedicated to the writer and books he hates. At the same time, I have to defend his right to express any opinion he wants to on this list or any other. I have the luxury of a delete button and use it. KJ From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 20:51:41 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:51:41 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162422 "antonia31h" > My point is that there is a contradiction between what JKR wrote in > the book about Snape and what she's saying in interviews about him. > She definetly loathes him but still she makes Dumbledore trust him > completely. Like I said I think this discredits Dumbledore as a wizard. > Snape is loathsome and yet he has the trust of the best wizard? wynnleaf A lot of people like to use a few of JKR's quotes about Snape to "prove" that he must be evil. In reading her remarks I think we have to remember that if JKR is trying to keep a DDM!Snape a secret, she certainly doesn't want to come out with quotes about any of his good qualities. If she wants the reader to think he's either evil or out for himself, she doesn't want to go around saying anything that contradicts that in interviews. Still her interviews are interesting. And one should also take into account which books had been published at the various points when comments were made. For instance, the quote where JKR says, "he's a deeply horrible person," was after PS/SS was published. At that point, readers had little hint that Snape was anything *other* than simply mean and nasty. His saving Harry was a surprise after the character she'd described thus far. Naturally, JKR wouldn't at that point describe Snape as anything other than what she'd presented in her published books. Also in 1999, JKR said that Snape was "a very sadistic teacher," and "not a particularly pleasant person at all." At the same time she also said that there was more to Snape however, and that readers should keep their eyes on him. At that point, still only one book was out, and one wouldn't expect JKR to be revealing the "good" points of Snape -- especially when she knew that much of the mystery of the books would involve a question of his loyalties. In the same interview, JKR said, "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them, that is a very horrible idea." Oddly, this quote is often misconstrued to mean that Snape couldn't have loved anyone, or that no one could have loved Snape (now debunked by JKR). Actually, if you look at the context of this quote, it's classic obfuscation. Just after that in the same interview is the rather famous question about a redemptive pattern to Snape, where in print it appears that JKR was amazed that someone would ask about the redemptive pattern and we'll learn more about it in Book 7. But if you listen to the audio, it sounds like she was actually amazed about someone asking about Snape falling in love, and that was what we'd find out more about in Book 7, and was not actually replying to the redemptive question. The link to the audio is on the Snape page of the Lexicon: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/snape.html We are later told in 2003 that we "shouldn't think him too nice." On her website she said, "I love writing Snape?even though he is not always the nicest person, he is really fun to write." Then she jokingly said to an audience of fans, "You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape?" Amid much laughter, she diverted the focus to Draco and how younger fans seem to like Draco from the films as much or more than Harry in the films. And then her admonition to go for the good guys. Some fans take these quotes of hers to mean that Snape is evil. It really doesn't sound like that to me. I think she'd talk quite differently about Lucius or Voldemort, or other obvious evil characters. As far as I can recall, that's the main quotes that would lead anyone to think JKR loathed Snape's character. I don't think the quotes actually bear that out. In my opinion, the quotes indicate that she considers Snape a "horrible" teacher, abusing his power in the classroom, but not that he's in general an evil person. Further, she seems to enjoy writing his character more than most. And after COS, POA, and GOF, she typical describes him as "not nice" which is a far cry from loathsome, especially if he's also a "gift of a character." Another rather fascinating piece of information is that at least one of the teachers who JKR most likely based Snape on ultimately identified himself (after the press came to him thinking he might be a link to Snape) only to discover that friends and family had thought for years that JKR had based Snape on him (meaning that his teaching style must have been close enough for lots of people to make the connection). Yet the few articles that came out about this person did not appear to reflect some awful, nasty individual, but mostly just a very strict sciences teacher from the "old school." wynnleaf From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 21:46:31 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 21:46:31 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: <13137436.1165341077738.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162423 Me: >It's not boasting if it's true. Bart Lidofsky bartl at ... > It is boasting, even if it's true Harry is world class at Defense Against the Dark Arts (Quidditch too), for Harry to pretend he just hadn't noticed that fact is ridiculous. If I was born with a aptitude that made me the best in the world at something and somebody says "wow, you're good" and I respond "Ah shucks it aint nothing" then one of two things must be true: 1) I am a total fool and just never noticed that other people can't multiply two thirteen digit numbers in their head in 3 seconds like I can. 2) I am a total hypocrite figuring my insincerity will now make people think I'm not only smart but modest too. > boasting is when one uses one's achievements > to improve one's reputation If your reputation is unjustly low there is nothing wrong in giving it a boost; boasting is trying to inflate your reputation beyond which the facts can bear. As you say Harry was just giving the facts. > It's important to differentiate between a > "better" story and a "more interesting" story. The distinction eludes me. For me the more interesting story is the better story is, QED. "dumbledore11214" dumbledore11214 at ... Wrote: > of course the horrific results of the spell > he used should make him feel guilty. No it should not, but Harry did indeed feel guilty and that is a serious character flaw because he had absolutely NOTHING to be guilty about. If this really is a war and he expects to win then Harry's MUST do things one hell of a lot worse than slicing up a worthless scumbag like Draco. This is no time to get squeamish. By the way, when the book makes its transition into the Media Who's Name Must Not Be Mentioned, at least on this list, I keep thinking how Quentin Tarantino would direct that scene. Buckets and buckets of blood! I can only hope. Eggplant From juli17 at aol.com Tue Dec 5 22:17:28 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:17:28 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape the definition (was Re: Snape on the tower) In-Reply-To: <3202590612051055s76691e8fq6c81ef12bdbada30@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162424 > > Carol, who thinks OFH!Snape, if he exists, is a lame and boring plot > device whereas DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character who will > alter Harry's thinking in some profound and unexpected way in Book 7 > I think the reverse. > Sarah Julie: I just want to clarify what I think DDM!Snape means. I suspect it's the way many others also define DDM!Snape, though I don't speak directly for them. At the core DDM!Snape means only one thing, that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and to Dumbledore's goals. It does NOT indicate that Snape is good-natured, kind, selfless, generous, that he provides a home for stray puppies and kittens, or that he is morally right in all--or even most of--his actions. Nor does it indicate that he should be given a free pass for his wrongs, past or present. DDM simply means he has chosen of his own free will to stand with Dumbledore-- and consequently with the Order and Harry--against Voldemort. Whether Snape is motivated by his conscience, by love (for Lily or someone else), by a desire for vengeance, or some combination of the above, that he has CHOSEN to stand by Dumbledore's side (to put his trust in Dumbledore as much as Dumbledore has put his trust in Snape) is what sets DDM apart from OFH!Snape. DDM!Snape is not magically compelled to serve Dumbledore, by life debt, or Unbreakable Vow, or anything else. But DDM!Snape is no hero, at best he's a tragic anti-hero, tarred by his own numerous misdeeds and misjudgments. He is certainly not lily-white nor is he remotely saintly in character. He's plenty grey, as Jen says, and as we have observed clearly in the books. He can be cold, angry, bitter, sarcastic, vindictive and downright mean. He can be haunted by his past, vengeful to those he believes have wronged him, and blinded by his own twisted perceptions of himself and others. He can act out of both noble and malicious impulses, sometimes both at once. He's beset by his own demons that he can't quite vanquish, yet the one constant in his life is that he remains loyal to Dumbledore and devoted to furthering Dumbledore's cause whatever the consequences to himself. At least that's how I see DDM!Snape. And that's why I agree with Carol that DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character. How else can you see someone so complicated and so conflicted? Julie From fairwynn at hotmail.com Tue Dec 5 22:29:13 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:29:13 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162425 Eggplant > > By the way, when the book makes its transition into the Media Who's > Name Must Not Be Mentioned, at least on this list, I keep thinking how > Quentin Tarantino would direct that scene. Buckets and buckets of > blood! I can only hope. > wynnleaf, A number of years back, I was visiting a physician friend and spouse when a baby-sitter next door came over carrying a small child in her arms while her (the babysitter's) leg was badly cut. The child had turned over a gallon glass jug of vinegar which had broken and cut the teenage babysitter's leg. The physician took the girl to the hospital to stitch up the wound, while I and the spouse went next door to clean up the mess and take care of the kids. Remember -- one several inch cut on the leg and 1 gallon of clear liquid on the floor. The place looked like a psycho murderer had struck. Blood mixed with 1 gallon of clear vinegar washed *all* over the floor, splashed on cupboards and furniture, etc. I mean it looked *awful.* Now picture Draco with his much larger wounds (including head wounds that bleed like crazy), and much more water pouring over everything. The room would be awash in blood, spattering all over. Pretty horrific. Eggplant, I think JKR intends Harry to feel very guilty about his use of Sectumsempra. While I personally fault him much more for planning to try it on another student just to see what happens, I don't completely blame him for using it on someone firing off a crucio at him. There's also the fact that the last time Draco had fired on Harry, it was to freeze him and then break his nose. So Harry would and should have expected something Bad from Draco. On the other hand, I'm not sure that, with Draco only getting out half the word before Harry fired, Harry actually had time to register "wow, Draco's using crucio, not something mild like the jelly legs jinx!" I think Harry would have used Sectumsempra regardless what spell Draco had used. However, as I pointed out in my other post, I think JKR had numerous reasons for including this scene, not solely to show us and Harry what he was capable of through a combination of acting without thinking and with imperfect knowledge (of the spell he used). wynnleaf From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 5 22:31:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:31:52 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162426 > > Amiable Dorsai: > So you're thinking that in the time available to him, roughly the > interval between "Cru..." and "...io", Harry should have given his > choice of spells a little more thought, debated the pros and cons of > all the spells in his repertoire and chosen accordingly? I dunno, > Pippin, this sounds like the Hermione Granger school of dueling, and, > dearly as I love her, it doesn't seem to work out very well. Pippin: As Hermione recognized when she founded the DA, that's what training and practice are for. You do your thinking in advance, then practice so that mind and body will respond appropriately without deliberation. But in contrast to the three previous years, Harry hadn't been methodically practicing his practical DADA skills outside class, had he? Oops. IMO, Harry lost his edge, panicked, and did something stupid as a result. > Amiable Dorsai: > Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would be > hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. > > Harry didn't "experiment", he fired off the first spell that came to > mind. Pippin: Exactly. Harry let his training deteriorate and spent his time fantasizing about an untried spell instead of practicing to keep his skills up. When he was under stress and panicking, the spells that he knew he could trust and control were not the first thing that came to him. But they should have been. > Pippin > > What Harry did could be compared to using an illegal handgun > > against an attacker. The shooting might be self-defense, but > > violating the gun laws would still be a crime. > > Amiable Dorsai: > We don't know if Harry's action was a crime, we don't know the > relevant law. Pippin: Hermione warns us that the spells in the Prince's book are not likely to be Ministry approved. We know there are consequences for Improper Use of Magic. We know that Sirius did not approve of using certain spells even against Death Eaters. Amiable Dorsai >What we do know about Wizard law is that it is a > fickle, capricious thing--that's been a running theme of the books > from the beginning. Likely, the worst thing that would happen if the > Chosen One killed a Death Eater in self-defense is that Scrimgeour > might finally have a handle on Harry. Pippin: Careful. If wizarding law is irrelevant, then what's wrong with an incomplete, powerless Crucio? Granted that wizarding law may not be much as a mirror of divine justice, (as medieval philosophers thought it should be), it still represents the agreeements that wizards have made about how to live together. To violate those agreements for personal gain is more worthy of Slytherin in its decline than Gryffindor, IMO. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 22:58:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 22:58:58 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ Flitwick as duelling champion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162427 > wynnleaf: > Eggplant, I think JKR intends Harry to feel very guilty about his use > of Sectumsempra. Alla: I agree, but as I said above I believe that she intends him to feel guilty for his own benefits more than anything else, not for what happened in the bathroom but before. Wynnleaf: While I personally fault him much more for planning > to try it on another student just to see what happens, I don't > completely blame him for using it on someone firing off a crucio at > him. There's also the fact that the last time Draco had fired on > Harry, it was to freeze him and then break his nose. So Harry would > and should have expected something Bad from Draco. Alla: Yes. Wynnleaf: On the other hand, > I'm not sure that, with Draco only getting out half the word before > Harry fired, Harry actually had time to register "wow, Draco's using > crucio, not something mild like the jelly legs jinx!" I think Harry > would have used Sectumsempra regardless what spell Draco had used. Alla: On that I must disagree, because Sectusemptra is not the first spell Harry uses. I really believe that he uses spell for enemies as act of desperation. > Pippin: > As Hermione recognized when she founded the DA, that's what training > and practice are for. You do your thinking in advance, then practice > so that mind and body will respond appropriately without deliberation. > But in contrast to the three previous years, Harry hadn't been > methodically practicing his practical DADA skills outside class, had he? > Oops. Alla: Yes, that is true. Harry was not been practicing as much as he should have been. He was too busy trying to investigate assassination plot. Ooops indeed. I am agreeing with you partially, I am just thinking that the reason why Harry did not practice is ironic. >> Pippin: > Careful. If wizarding law is irrelevant, then what's wrong with an > incomplete, powerless Crucio? Granted that wizarding law may not > be much as a mirror of divine justice, (as medieval philosophers > thought it should be), it still represents the agreements that > wizards have made about how to live together. To violate those > agreements for personal gain is more worthy of Slytherin in > its decline than Gryffindor, IMO. Alla: I don't think AD was saying that wizarding law is irrelevant here ( I will let him correct me if he did) I think he was saying that wizarding law is inconsistent and would be unlikely to do anything in that situation, not that it should not be enforced. Or at least that is how I understood him. > Carol: > Maybe he was protecting > Flitwick (who could no more have been a dueling champion in is youth > than I could given his size) > > Sarah: > What. Seriously, what? Flitwick is less magically powerful given his > size? What on earth is your reasoning for that? It's seriously one > of the weirdest arguments I've seen, ever. I don't understand it at > all. > Alla: Me too. Yoda anyone? He seems to manage pretty well, hehe. And since when in the books your size is the sign of your power. House elves anyone? Hagrid on the other hand does not seem to be very magically powerful IMO, although he was not allowed to finish education so maybe his abilities did not develop. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 5 23:03:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:03:41 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162428 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "fair wynn" wrote: > So JKR achieved many things through having Harry make the mistake of using > Sectumsempra. > > I'm sure there are several more things she achieved that I didn't think of. Pippin: She showed there was one positive effect of Snape having taken the vow. If he had not been watching over Draco, Harry might have had Draco's death on his soul, perhaps as a murder but at least as a consequence of his own folly. That Harry might need to kill in the future does not mean he needs to do live ammo exercises on a fellow student. Nor would the invasion of the castle and Dumbledore's subsequent death have been prevented thereby. Draco is surely not the only person who could have repaired the vanishing cabinet and admitted DE's into the castle. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 23:17:29 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:17:29 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162429 > >>Betsy Hp: > > The interesting thing to me, is that the thing that immediately > > sprang to mind reading your reply is that this is exactly how the > > blood-purists feel. They're acting in self-defense against the > > influx of muggleborns threatening their way of life and their > > loved ones. Sure, the muggleborns haven't attacked *yet*, but > > their attachment to their muggle families suggests that they > > would betray the pure bloods to the stake. So they pure-bloods, > > out of love, hit first. > >>Alla: > I find this truly amasing. Refer me to some canon for muggle borns > threatening the lifes of pure bloods, please? Not what they > **think** but what muggle borns tell to them. > Hermione threatening Draco or something like that? Because I > remember quite the opposite happening so far. Betsy Hp: Oh, it's not there of course. But fear is what all bigotry is based on. And the WW is built around fear of Muggles. It seems like most of their laws are based around keeping their very existance hidden. So when Hermione brings her parents right into the heart of the British WW (Diagon Alley) that could be seen as threatening. I'm not arguing that this sort of thinking is *logical*, but I am saying that the hit first mentality is the fear-filled mind set of the bully or the bigot. Which is why I see nothing noble or good in the Trio and the twins acting in such a manner on the train in GoF. Not that it means that the Trio and the twins are doomed to be bullies or bigots. They're children after all, and still learning. But it's the reason I see such behavior as something to be discussed rather than winked at. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > I mean, it's not like I don't understand the reactions of Harry > > and Ron and Hermione. I just don't like the dismissal of it, or > > even worse, the praise of it. > > > >>Alla: > And I don't like the dismissal of Draco's actions, I do not like > dismissal of him threatening Hermione, I do not like the dismissal > of him coming up to Gryffs appartment uninvited, all three of them > and starting talking the crap he did. > I do not like the dismissal of that. > Betsy Hp: I don't feel that I do dismiss Draco's words, or even his actions. If I were a monitor on the train (supposing there were such a thing ) I'd have words, seperately, with both groups. However, I *do* feel that the actions of the Trio and the twins go beyond what Draco's words demanded. If they'd threatened Draco and Co. with wands, if they'd hussled them out of their compartment, I think that would read as more on par with Draco's words. > >>Alla: > Do I praise Gryffs actions? I do not know. I most certainly do not > reprimand them though. I think that they acted in response to > provocation, I think that under circumstances that was the only > possible way they could have react. > Betsy Hp: But that's exactly what I'm talking about. The Trio and the twins did *not* behave correctly. Neither did Draco, but that's not even an issue. (I don't think anyone's trying to say Draco behaved as he should have.) But no matter what Draco said to them, there's no excuse for hexing someone who's not even drawn his wand. Or hexing someone in the back as the twins do. I'm going to pull in a comment Eggplant made in another thread, because I think speaking to it will help me claify my view point (at least for myself ). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162423 > >>Eggplant: > > By the way, when the book makes its transition into the Media Who's > Name Must Not Be Mentioned, at least on this list, I keep thinking > how Quentin Tarantino would direct that scene. Buckets and buckets > of blood! I can only hope. Betsy Hp: I love Quentin Tarantino. I also love that scene in "Unforgiven" where Clint Eastwood's character shoots and kills a man and then he and Gene Hackman's character have this exchange: (from memory so probably not totally accurate) "I hope you're proud of yourself, you just shot an unarmed man!" "Well he should have armed himself..." It's a scene where you totally cheer on Clint's badassedness, even while recognizing he did just cold-bloodedly shoot down someone who wasn't trying to shoot him. But here's the thing, Clint in "Unforgiven" plays an anti-hero. Quentin Tarantino is pretty committed to telling stories about the anti-hero as well. And Harry? Even on his bad days, Harry is a pure hero. Nothing "anti" about him. That's why he's no good at throwing a Crucio; that's probably why he's not all that good at Occlumency. So that's why it doesn't sit right with me that Harry and Ron and Hermione and Fred and George shoot Draco and Crabbe and Goyle, while those three haven't drawn their weapons, haven't even started to draw their weapons, and don't even realize that two of their attackers (the attackers that are two years older than them, of course) are sneaking up behind them. It's beneath "hero" behavior. And, as per the Sorting Hat anyway, it's not very Gryffindor-ish of them. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Oh, Ginny is in the same boat Draco is. She's fully under the > > influence and control of Tom Riddle or Voldemort. > > > >>Alla: > Not in my opinion. Draco started his service to Voldemort > voluntarily, bursting with joy on the train. Ginny AFAIK did not. > Even if you think that Ginny stole the diary on her own ( which I > disagree with), there is no support IMO that Ginny voluntarily went > under Tom Riddle control in the beginning. Betsy Hp: Just as Draco was eager to be of use to the great Dark Lord, Ginny eagerly poured her heart out to dear Tom. Both Ginny and Draco were mistaken in their trust of Voldemort, both Ginny and Draco tried to get around him, both failed to seek out help, and both nearly brought about the death of fellow students. I really do think there's a parallel there. (Though it seems to me JKR is using Draco's experience as a chance to explore Draco's character and show some growth on his part. Too bad she didn't do something similar on page with Ginny.) Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 23:50:24 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:50:24 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162430 > > >>Alla: > > I find this truly amasing. Refer me to some canon for muggle borns > > threatening the lifes of pure bloods, please? Not what they > > **think** but what muggle borns tell to them. > > Hermione threatening Draco or something like that? Because I > > remember quite the opposite happening so far. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, it's not there of course. But fear is what all bigotry is based > on. And the WW is built around fear of Muggles. It seems like most > of their laws are based around keeping their very existance hidden. > So when Hermione brings her parents right into the heart of the > British WW (Diagon Alley) that could be seen as threatening. Alla: I thought you were comparing Draco's actions to what muggleborns supposedly do or what purebloodists think? When Hermione brings her parents to Diagon Alley, she does not say that "purebloods will be next to go" and if she did say that, I would honestly understand the response similar to what Trio did. I mean the parallel is a bit removed IMO or I would say a lot removed. > Betsy Hp: > But here's the thing, Clint in "Unforgiven" plays an anti- hero. > Quentin Tarantino is pretty committed to telling stories about the > anti-hero as well. And Harry? Even on his bad days, Harry is a pure > hero. Nothing "anti" about him. That's why he's no good at throwing > a Crucio; that's probably why he's not all that good at Occlumency. > > So that's why it doesn't sit right with me that Harry and Ron and > Hermione and Fred and George shoot Draco and Crabbe and Goyle, while > those three haven't drawn their weapons, haven't even started to draw > their weapons, and don't even realize that two of their attackers > (the attackers that are two years older than them, of course) are > sneaking up behind them. It's beneath "hero" behavior. And, as per > the Sorting Hat anyway, it's not very Gryffindor-ish of them. Alla: I am going to try to remove myself from this thread ( cannot promise, but will honestly try), because I am starting to feel, well as I always start to feel when I discuss that scene :) and I do not like when I feel that way. but I just want to say it again - they did not attack in concert, it just so happened that the spells were fired off together. They did not conspired all to attack poor Draco - it is just all of them thought about it simultaneously. That again to me just strengthens the thought that they all felt threatened. I do not consider fear for their friend and especially being threatened by the son of those who watched your torture to be beneath hero behaviour. That is just me of course. > Betsy Hp: > Just as Draco was eager to be of use to the great Dark Lord, Ginny > eagerly poured her heart out to dear Tom. Both Ginny and Draco were > mistaken in their trust of Voldemort, both Ginny and Draco tried to > get around him, both failed to seek out help, and both nearly brought > about the death of fellow students. > > I really do think there's a parallel there. (Though it seems to me > JKR is using Draco's experience as a chance to explore Draco's > character and show some growth on his part. Too bad she didn't do > something similar on page with Ginny.) Alla: Yes, they both poured their hearts, true. The only difference is that Ginny was pouring her heart to the unknown boy in the diary, and Draco was eager to serve the Lord Voldemort. To me the difference is huge. Ginny was seeking friendship from the penpal and Draco was ready to serve the maniac. Alla, who at the moment would be doing a happy dance if Draco drops dead on the first pages of book 7, but who knows that this is not going to happen unfortunately. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 5 23:46:46 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 23:46:46 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape the definition (was Re: Snape on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162431 > >>Julie: > I just want to clarify what I think DDM!Snape means. > > Whether Snape is motivated by his conscience, by love (for > Lily or someone else), by a desire for vengeance, or some > combination of the above, that he has CHOSEN to stand by > Dumbledore's side... > > But DDM!Snape is no hero, at best he's a tragic anti-hero, > tarred by his own numerous misdeeds and misjudgments. > > He can be cold, angry, bitter, sarcastic, vindictive and downright > mean. He can be haunted by his past, vengeful to those he believes > have wronged him, and blinded by his own twisted perceptions of > himself and others. He can act out of both noble and malicious > impulses, sometimes both at once. He's beset by his own demons that > he can't quite vanquish, yet the one constant in his life is > that he remains loyal to Dumbledore and devoted to furthering > Dumbledore's cause whatever the consequences to himself. > > At least that's how I see DDM!Snape. And that's why I agree > with Carol that DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character. > How else can you see someone so complicated and so conflicted? Betsy Hp: And OMG, I love him soo much!! Seriously, the only thing Snape is lacking is a scene where he goes tramping about the moors, his hair blowing artfully in the wind. (Viva Jogging!Snape?) And I do agree that DDM!Snape offers a much more dynamic and fascinating character than the dry and mechanical OFH!Snape or the sooo boooring ESE!Snape. To keep this from being completely "me too", my sense of what drives Snape is a dreadful feeling of remorse. I feel like Snape, even as a child, had a high sense of right and wrong. I think he was probably a lot like young!Harry in seeing the world in a pretty firm black and white. I think Snape is a man who really tries to live by a firm set of rules or guiding principles. Only, for some reason, those principles were either manipulated or tainted by his emotion (hatred of James, his father or Uncle or whomever), and Snape "fell". I think Snape has been climbing back from his big mistake, ever since. I think that rather than preparing for a great scene of redemption, Snape has been trying to redeem himself for many, many years. And honestly, I'm betting Dumbledore has long thought Snape's made up for his past sins, but that Snape, hard (or harder, more likely) on himself as he is on others, doesn't believe that at all. I fear that the only thing that will satisfy Snape is giving his life to the cause. I hope that it won't come to that. I think that Harry will finally see the true Snape, and I think it'll be more powerful if he has that revelation in front of a living, breathing Snape (with his malicious snark) than an easier to step around noble corpse. But I firmly believe that Snape's story is one of redemption. And I think it's a story that's been going on from the very first scene in the very first book. Betsy Hp From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Dec 6 02:01:44 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 18:01:44 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162432 antonia31h wrote: Sorry if my theories are again crazy but regarding Snape and his loyalties I am totally confused because everything points out in the book that he is in fact a spy for Dumbledore and then JKR says in all her interviews that he is a jerk. I mean if Dumbledore trusts him completely then this means for me that he is a good guy. Otherwise Dumbledore is a far less skilled wizard than I thought and than we were made to believe. C'mon he's supposed to be the only one Voldemort has ever feared and he is not capable of recognising if Snape is a traitor? My point is that there is a contradiction between what JKR wrote in the book about Snape and what she's saying in interviews about him. She definetly loathes him but still she makes Dumbledore trust him completely. Like I said I think this discredits Dumbledore as a wizard. Snape is loathsome and yet he has the trust of the best wizard? What am I supposed to make out of this? Again sorry for the rambling. Sherry now: You are not alone in feeling the way you do. I'd say the majority of people who post regularly on the list believe in Snape's devotion to Dumbledore. I, however, do not. I will answer your question the best way I can. Yes, Dumbledore is a great and wise wizard, but he is also human. Humans make mistakes in trust and love, and in my opinion, Dumbledore made his greatest mistake of that kind in trusting Snape. Dumbledore, himself, says that his mistakes are greater than anyone else's precisely because of his great age and wisdom. If not his mistake in trusting Snape, what mistake is it? I think the lesson to learn here, in terms of the wizarding world and Dumbledore's staff and the members of the Order, is that it is dangerous to trust completely in someone else's trust and not to think for yourself and make up your own mind. It seemed at the end of HBP, that people were shocked by Snape's murder of Dumbledore and that they had trusted Snape, solely on Dumbledore's word. I cannot speak for the author, but what it tells me personally is that no matter how good, noble and wise a beloved leader might be, it is foolish to take their word for any other person. Harry potter is the hero, and I think the torch must pass, and Harry's judgment must be the correct one in the end. It is the twist. We've been led to believe he was wrong about Snape in the previous books. Now, I think we have to realize that Harry was always right about Snape. Whether he's totally on Voldemort's side, or out to do whatever is best for himself, murdering Dumbledore was not the act of a man who is loyal to his leader. This is all, of course, just my opinion. Sherry From random832 at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 02:08:45 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 21:08:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50612051808y65e61d5kd2afa4776745400e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162433 Alla: > If the gun is directed at me and I am somehow able to do something to > prevent the shot, my first thought would be that I am protecting > myself from being killed, not from some sort of easier wound. Yeah but I'd find it suspect if you argued that someone could have beaten you to death if they'd kept at it if you used deadly force against an unarmed attacker. To render someone insane requires that they be held under the Cruciatus for a prolonged period. It's not a matter of chance or aim. -- Random832 From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 03:23:57 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:23:57 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162434 > Magpie: > Even if you're defending > yourself, if your defense seriously injures the other person you > might be called on it. Or you might feel you went too far. Amiable Dorsai: Oh, I'm not surprised Harry feels bad about it--Harry's a decent guy, and what happened to Draco was horrific. Doesn't change things, though--Draco forced a split-second decision on Harry, if Harry chose poorly, that's Draco's fault, not Harry's. > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would > be hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. > > Magpie: > Being hit by a Crucio doesn't make you either. The Longbottoms are > a special case, having been put under longterm Crucio by two experts > at the spell. If Harry's spell hadn't worked and Draco's had (which > in itself isn't a given) the more likely result would be that Harry > would have been hit with a lot of pain that would then stop. Amiable Dorsai: Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off a Cruciatus on Harry, Draco's life essentially ends at that point. He will have committed an Unforgivable in front of a witness he can neither bribe nor silence (Myrtle), and has thus failed at the task Voldemort has set him. Either Voldemort or the Ministry will get him, and the best he can hope for is life in Azkaban. And there before him him lies the author of his misery: The Boy Who Spurned His Friendship, The Boy Who Humilated Him at Quidditch, The Boy Who Put His Father In Jail, The Boy Who Should have Died, Dammit! I think it quite likely that Draco would either have held Harry under Cruciatus until Snape stopped him, or, as the Ministry can't punish him any more for two Unforgivables than one, fired off an AK. Amiable Dorsai From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 03:45:35 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:45:35 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162435 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Jenni from Alabama (wishing the voice would just shut up!) > > zanooda: > > Haha, I wish I had a voice in my head telling me that Snape is > > ESE! In this case, if it turns out to be true, I could at least > > say that I had my doubts :-). > Alla: > That is a good analogy. I believe that Snape only cares for himself > and would not hesitate to do an evil deed if it will help him or > that he is acting under Life debt premise, but I always have this > voice, hehe - as I mentioned , it will help me to not be too > dissapointed if Snape is DD!M :) zanooda: Yeah, it's wise to have doubts and voices in our heads, they will save us from huge disappointments when the last book is out. I have many doubts myself, for example about Harry being a Horcrux, or about the whole Snape/Lily thing. I have my preferences, but I'm ready to accept whatever JKR will throw at us. It's different with Snape though. I would be really, really disappointed if Snape turned out to be ESE. OFH!Snape would be OK, I guess, but ESE!Snape? It would be just not interesting enough for me. Snape would become boring and insignificant, and that would be a shame, because I think he is brilliantly written and has so much potential as a character (which doesn't make him a more pleasant person, of course). We have a whole long (hopefully) book ahead of us, and what would ESE! Snape do there, without a mystery, without a twist? Bo-ring! We would hardly see him anymore, I guess (yeah, I know, I know, you'll be only too happy not to see him anymore, Alla :-)). Or, maybe we would see him, if LV puts him in charge of "Harry-hunting", but, again, even this would be not as exciting as Snape turning out to be DDM at the end. zanooda, who is not quite sure if this post is off-topic or not, and who apologizes if it is. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 6 04:44:33 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 04:44:33 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162436 > Amiable Dorsai: > Oh, I'm not surprised Harry feels bad about it--Harry's a decent guy, > and what happened to Draco was horrific. Magpie: A lot of decent guys would have felt even worse. Amiable Dorsai: Doesn't change things, > though--Draco forced a split-second decision on Harry, if Harry chose > poorly, that's Draco's fault, not Harry's. Magpie: Just as it's not Draco's fault if Harry chose poorly. I think the fact that it was actually written as horrific means it's not something Harry should respond by strutting out confident that that's just what happens when you mess with him. As a regular human being he should be affected by it, not just enough to convince himself that he's a decent guy. I think that's normal--particularly in a book that seems to put so much focus on the act of taking another life. > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > Then Harry would, like as not, be dead or insane and Draco would > > be hoping Azkaban would keep him safe from Voldemort. > > > > Magpie: > > Being hit by a Crucio doesn't make you either. The Longbottoms are > > a special case, having been put under longterm Crucio by two experts > > at the spell. If Harry's spell hadn't worked and Draco's had (which > > in itself isn't a given) the more likely result would be that Harry > > would have been hit with a lot of pain that would then stop. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off a Cruciatus on Harry, > Draco's life essentially ends at that point. Magpie: I don't think it does. Especially given that Harry opened up Draco on the bathroom floor and got detention. Amiable Dorsai: He will have committed > an Unforgivable in front of a witness he can neither bribe nor silence > (Myrtle), and has thus failed at the task Voldemort has set him. > Either Voldemort or the Ministry will get him, and the best he can > hope for is life in Azkaban. > > And there before him him lies the author of his misery: The Boy Who > Spurned His Friendship, The Boy Who Humilated Him at Quidditch, The > Boy Who Put His Father In Jail, The Boy Who Should have Died, Dammit!> > I think it quite likely that Draco would either have held Harry under > Cruciatus until Snape stopped him, or, as the Ministry can't punish > him any more for two Unforgivables than one, fired off an AK. Magpie: Draco's entire storyline in HBP is about not being a killer even when he wants to be and has to be. Not unable to stop himself offing a peer in the bathroom after reaching champion sadist ability with torture spells that seem to require even more nerve to manage (Harry himself couldn't sustain one). I don't think there's anything in the scene that indicates for a second that Harry would be facing that kind of longterm fate or that it ever enters Harry mind before or after. If Harry had been facing that monster described there he probably wouldn't feel any more guilty about his Sectumsempra than he does when he uses it against the Inferi. I think he feels lingering twinges not only because he almost violently killed another person, but because he did it in a moment when he felt something besides righteous rage and a drive to survive. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 6 07:41:14 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:41:14 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162437 "amiabledorsai" wrote: > Oh, I'm not surprised Harry feels bad about > it--Harry's a decent guy, and what happened > to Draco was horrific. Doesn't change things, > though--Draco forced a split-second decision > on Harry, if Harry chose poorly, that's Draco's > fault, not Harry's. [...] > Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off > a Cruciatus on Harry, Draco's life essentially > ends at that point. He will have committed > an Unforgivable in front of a witness he can > neither bribe nor silence (Myrtle), and has > thus failed at the task Voldemort has set him. > Either Voldemort or the Ministry will get him, > and the best he can hope for is life in Azkaban. > And there before him him lies the author of his > misery: The Boy Who Spurned His Friendship, > The Boy Who Humilated Him at Quidditch, > The Boy Who Put His Father In Jail, The Boy Who > Should have Died, Dammit! I think it quite > likely that Draco would either have held Harry > under Cruciatus until Snape stopped him, or, > as the Ministry can't punish him any more for > two Unforgivables than one, fired off an AK. There is one very great flaw to your post, the fact that I had not written it first. Congratulations, that was absolutely first rate! Eggplant From cassy_ferris at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 08:05:38 2006 From: cassy_ferris at yahoo.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:05:38 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <279200.88239.qm@web38310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162438 --- jotwo2003 wrote: > Who would you like to get their own spin off series > and why? Cassy: Dumbledore! And Grindewald, naturally. I think that events of that war would be very interesting to see. I'd love to see a Snape spin-off as well, but I have a feeling he won't survive book 7. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 10:31:56 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 10:31:56 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162439 > Magpie: > A lot of decent guys would have felt even worse. Amiable Dorsai: About successfully, if hamhandedly, defending himself against someone he is sure has colluded in at least two murder attempts? Someone who has threatened to kill him? Someone whose allies are out there right now murdering people? You don't think any of that should mitigate Harry's feelings of guilt? I mean, yeah, if an altercation with, say, Justin Finch-Fletchley had gotten out of hand that way, Harry should certainly feel ashamed of himself, but this isn't a casual acquaintance, this is a wannabe murderer who has promised Harry death more than once. > Magpie: > Just as it's not Draco's fault if Harry chose poorly... Amiable Dorsai: Why is it not Draco's fault? Draco is the aggressor here, Draco is the one who has given Harry the choice of reacting or of being subjected to Cruciatus by someone who has taken summer lessons from Bellatrix Lestrange, Draco is the one who decided to escalate things to the Unforgivable level. How do you so easily absolve him? > Magpie >... I think the fact that it was actually written as horrific > means it's not something Harry should respond by strutting out > confident that that's just what happens when you mess with him. Amiable Dorsai: I missed the strutting scene, could you point it out for me? > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off a Cruciatus on > > Harry, Draco's life essentially ends at that point. > > Magpie: > I don't think it does. Especially given that Harry opened up > Draco on the bathroom floor and got detention. Amiable Dorsai: For acting in self-defense without using an Unforgivable. Suppose you're right though, suppose Draco would have somehow gotten away with using an Unforgivable, how is Draco to know that? > Magpie: > Draco's entire storyline in HBP is about not being a killer > even when he wants to be and has to be. Amiable Dorsai: Not being able, in cold blood, to kill a helpless old man who is only a theoretical enemy is quite different from not being able to kill a hated real enemy in the heat of battle. > Magpie: > Not unable to stop himself offing a > peer in the bathroom after reaching champion sadist ability with > torture spells that seem to require even more nerve to manage (Harry > himself couldn't sustain one). Amiable Dorsai: Harry hasn't taken summer lessons from Bellatrix Lestrange. Harry does not, as Draco most certainly does, take pleasure from other people's pain. > Magpie: > I don't think there's anything in the > scene that indicates for a second that Harry would be facing that > kind of longterm fate or that it ever enters Harry mind before or > after. Amiable Dorsai: Because Harry has, of course, forgotten that he's facing a two-time attempted murderer who has threatened to kill him. Amiable Dorsai From annie3x20 at aol.com Wed Dec 6 07:05:37 2006 From: annie3x20 at aol.com (Annie) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 07:05:37 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162440 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Inge" wrote: > Which 10 characters should get their own chapters? > Let's see, - I'd go for: > > 1) Dumbledore > 2) Snape > 3) Lily > 4) Sirius Black > 5) Lupin > 6) The Black-sisters > 7) Lucius Malfoy > 8) Tom Riddle > 9) James Potter > 10)one of the older Weasley's > > Are you listening out there, Rowling? > Who would anyone else chose for the 10 ?? > All good choices. I would add: 1) Neville (and his parents) 2) Professor McGonagall 3) Mad-Eye Moody Annie From antonia31h at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 08:37:14 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:37:14 -0000 Subject: DDM!Snape the definition (was Re: Snape on the tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162441 -Redemption yes death no please! If Severus dies I will be very dissapointed. He is the best character in the books. But I have a feeling too that she might kill him....let's not linger with this idea because I don't want to get depressed! Antonia31h From antonia31h at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 08:30:26 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:30:26 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <8208917.1165342096668.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162442 Yeah I think it's a possibility that Snape fell for Voldemort's ideas at the beginning and then realised that he was just manipulating people and killing them if they diddn't obey his orders so he switched sides. But going back to what JKR said about Snape being loved by someone who do you think it could be? Lily?(my speculation) Or she might be refering to another kind of love like mother & son? Antonia31h From jamess at climaxgroup.com Wed Dec 6 12:41:09 2006 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:41:09 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter spin-off predicted Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39D04@mimas> No: HPFGUIDX 162443 Cassy: Dumbledore! And Grindewald, naturally. I think that events of that war would be very interesting to see. I'd love to see a Snape spin-off as well, but I have a feeling he won't survive book 7. James: " but I have a feeling he won't survive book 7" Light blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance.... From antonia31h at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 08:59:44 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:59:44 -0000 Subject: Prejudice in WW Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162444 I think that the wizarding world is full of prejudices not only regarding pure blood (which is a form of racism) but also regarding muggles. I mean even the most loving and nice characters (like Mrs.Weasley for example) consider the muggles and their world as being, I don't know if this is the right word, inferior to WW. I don't actually think this is fair considering that if wizards would loose their powers they would end up in being simple human beings like the muggles. An even with their powers they still remain human beings like the muggles. My point is that there is no big difference between the muggles and wizards except their use of magic. The live just like them, they love and hate, they sleep and eat etc. Then why are the wizards being so full of themselves in front of the muggles? And let's not forget that not all muggles are stupid and mean like the Dursleys. I as a muggle feel a little bit offended. Antonia31h From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 13:51:26 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 08:51:26 -0500 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612060551n35bdb554i6caf885513c17abf@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162445 Carol: who thinks OFH!Snape, if he exists, is a lame and boring plot > device whereas DDM!Snape is an exciting, dynamic character who will > alter Harry's thinking in some profound and unexpected way in Book 7 Sarah: I think the reverse. Betsy Hp: And I do agree that DDM!Snape offers a much more dynamic and fascinating character than the dry and mechanical OFH!Snape or the sooo boooring ESE!Snape. Sherry: Harry potter is the hero, and I think the torch must pass, and Harry's judgment must be the correct one in the end. It is the twist. We've been led to believe he was wrong about Snape in the previous books. Now, I think we have to realize that Harry was always right about Snape. Debbie: So many choices, so many opinions. However, everyone has left out my favorite option, what Jen calls Grey!Snape (her title is so much more catchy than mine was, but I think the theories are essentially the same). Here's how I sort out the options: As the surface reading of HBP, ESE!Snape is not only Ever So Boring, it all but turns him into another Voldemort, but without Horcruxes. There's nothing left but for to kill him. What a waste of a character! DDM!Snape is better, but only his backstory is dynamic. The double agent game keeps him hopping, but if his mind is made up these past sixteen years, he's just playing out his hand. OFH!Snape (which I found initially attractive after first reading HBP) maintains the mystery about the meaing of his *current* actions, but at the expense of the passion barely under control that is so much a part of his character. He cares too much to be OFH! And that's why I have settled on what Jen calls Grey!Snape. In my book, DDM!Snape doesn't account for Snape's volatility, his passion, his anger. Even though I believe Snape and Dumbledore had a plan and that Snape was merely executing the plan when he killed Dumbledore, he's seething with anger at how things have played out, and his soul is hanging in the balance. He's got more choices to make, and we can't be sure he'll make the ones Dumbledore would have wanted him to make. Actually, we've made these points long ago, so I'll just quote them here: Jen, in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/142891: I do lean toward DDM still, but can conceive of a more multi-faceted character, one who does truly switch sides, gives in to temptation again, and finally finds the strength inside through his *own* belief, not just Dumbledore believing in him when he didn't believe in himself (i.e. the forest argument). Debbie, in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143025 I never liked plain-vanilla DDM!Snape because there's no element of choice. This is why I picture Snape out there somewhere in his own private hell, trying to make up his mind whether to carry out Dumbledore's plan to save Draco or whether to go over to Voldemort and save himself. What would really justify Dumbledore's faith would be for Snape to emerge from this crucible and do the right thing. It's easy to be faithful while ensconced in a safe job at Hogwarts; to really justify Dumbledore's faith he must face a final test. Debbie, now: I suppose Grey!Snape could be considered a variant of DDM!Snape, but if you asked me if Snape was loyal to Dumbledore *at this moment* (i.e., after HBP but before the start of Book 7), my answer would have to be no, because Snape himself doesn't know where he stands. So Grey! today, DDM! tomorrow. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Dec 6 14:21:09 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:21:09 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B5308E39D04@mimas> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162446 Cassy: Dumbledore! And Grindewald, naturally. I think that events of that war would be very interesting to see. I'd love to see a Snape spin-off as well, but I have a feeling he won't survive book 7. Sherry, joining in on the fun: I'd really love to read the marauders Story, but only if it had a different ending. Well, we don't know the ending yet, because we don't know what will happen to Remus. But theirs is the story that interests me most, partly because I love Sirius so much, but also because I feel the seeds of Harry's story lie with his parents and their friends. I wouldn't care to read books with Snape as a main character, as I've had my fill of him and hope he's reduced to a bit player in the last book. but the Marauders ... yeah, I'd read that one. And, Hogwarts, A history! Sherry From scarah at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 14:33:01 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 06:33:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612060551n35bdb554i6caf885513c17abf@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0612060551n35bdb554i6caf885513c17abf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590612060633hd09154m595266ed38623cdc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162447 Debbie: And that's why I have settled on what Jen calls Grey!Snape. In my book, DDM!Snape doesn't account for Snape's volatility, his passion, his anger. Even though I believe Snape and Dumbledore had a plan and that Snape was merely executing the plan when he killed Dumbledore, he's seething with anger at how things have played out, and his soul is hanging in the balance. He's got more choices to make, and we can't be sure he'll make the ones Dumbledore would have wanted him to make. Sarah: I guess I'm not seeing the difference between that and OFH. Any Snape that would help Dumbledore's side for unselfish reasons wouldn't give serious consideration to really being on Voldemort's side, and vice versa. I still think if his motives don't get completely cleared up, then book seven isn't done yet. It just doesn't seem likely to me that we'll get to see Snape's epic internal battle for good vs. evil, since the story is told from Harry's point of view. So the shortest road is OFH. Sarah From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 6 15:43:50 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:43:50 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162448 > Sherry now: > > You are not alone in feeling the way you do. I'd say the majority of people > who post regularly on the list believe in Snape's devotion to Dumbledore. > I, however, do not. I will answer your question the best way I can. > > Yes, Dumbledore is a great and wise wizard, but he is also human. Humans > make mistakes in trust and love, and in my opinion, Dumbledore made his > greatest mistake of that kind in trusting Snape. Dumbledore, himself, says > that his mistakes are greater than anyone else's precisely because of his > great age and wisdom. If not his mistake in trusting Snape, what mistake is > it? Pippin: How about trusting someone that Harry trusts too? Someone who always gets the benefit of the doubt because a betrayal would be so painful that the good characters, not to mention the readers, don't want to think about it? Even Dumbledore doesn't have any problem getting his head around the idea that "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater." He's sure of Snape's faith for some reason, but we can't say he doesn't recognize what Snape is capable of. But nobody wants to think poor, ickle Remus is a baddie, oh no, because what would that say about werewolves? Only that even if they've got a Hogwarts education and the friendship of Albus Dumbledore, they still have just as much right to make bad choices as Snape does. Otherwise, equality for werewolves is equality at a discount -- the only way they can be recognized as being just as good as anyone else is if they are better. Sherrie: It seemed at the end of HBP, that people were > shocked by Snape's murder of Dumbledore and that they had trusted Snape, > solely on Dumbledore's word. Pippin: They trusted Dumbledore's word that he had sufficient reason to think Snape was no longer a Death Eater, after Snape admitted that he'd been one in a vain attempt to convince Fudge that Harry was telling the truth. That is, they took Dumbledore's word about something they couldn't possibly have judged for themselves without a trip through Dumbledore's pensieve, because they didn't experience it. But no one seems to have suspected Snape of being a Death Eater on account of anything he'd done to them. The worst that the staff seems to have suspected him of was trying to make sure that Harry's team lost at Quidditch and hating Harry Potter on account of his father was such a jerk. That's a shame, but it's not Death Eating. We never hear a word against him from anyone but Sirius, and much as I love him, his judgement of others is not first rate. He's the one who picked Pettigrew for a Secret Keeper. Sherrie: I cannot speak for the author, but what it > tells me personally is that no matter how good, noble and wise a beloved > leader might be, it is foolish to take their word for any other person. > Harry potter is the hero, and I think the torch must pass, and Harry's > judgment must be the correct one in the end. It is the twist. Pippin: But we're not at the end yet. We're in the middle of the end, and if Harry is right about Snape then all that's in front of us is a video game without the graphics "Collect all horcruxes, kill the bad guy, then kill the bad guys some more." All through HPB, we're told how easy it is to finger the wrong person for a murder, we're reminded that even Dumbledore was capable of such an error, and you think Harry is exempt? Part of accepting the torch is realizing that you, the torch bearer, can still be wrong. If it's foolish to take the word of another person on whether someone can be trusted, then civilization as we know it collapses. My life depends daily on thousands of people whom I don't know personally, from the farmers growing my food to the policeman on the corner. Unless you're living in a self-sufficient compound somewhere, you're doing the same. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 15:46:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 15:46:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's trust of Snape (Was: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162449 Sherry wrote: > > I'd say the majority of people who post regularly on the list believe in Snape's devotion to Dumbledore. Carol responds: Well, not devotion, perhaps. But loyalty, yes. I, for one, think that the evidence, beginning with Snape's saving Harry's life and talking to Quirrell about where his loyalties lie in SS/Ps and continuing throughout the books *even to the end of HBP*, points to Snape as Dumbledore's man, with the UV and the killing of Dumbledore as stumbling blocks but not insurmountable obstacles to that theory. Snape's personality and teaching methods make some readers, not all, by any means, dislike him intensely, but they're a side issue with regard to where Snape's own loyalties lie. (I've already talked about the evidence in GoF, PoA, and OoP as to Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore despite his dislike of Harry, so I won't repeat those arguments here. And I agree with wynnleaf (upthread) that JKR's comments in interviews can't be taken as an indication of Snape's loyalties because he's her mystery man: she can't givee too much away about him (she her refusal to divulge his boggart and Patronus) because he's crucial to the plot of Book 7. I do think, however, that if he were really loyal to Voldemort that she would have ended HBP as she did, with Snape killing DD and Harry intensely hating him. Nope. She's building toward a reversal in Book 7, and she's using her usual misdirection here. Remember Harry's first encounter with Snape, when he thinks that Snape's intense gaze into his eyes, which we now know to be Legilimency, caused his scar to hurt (we now know it was Voldemort looking out from the back of Quirrell's head that caused the pain). Snape was the red herring suspect in SS/PS. Many readers have yet to jettison the suspicions aroused by that book. Me, I'm firmly in the DDM!Snape camp, which means we believe that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore for reasons we don't yet know and that Dumbledore is right to trust him *completely* (i.e, thoroughly and absolutely, on all counts, to do what must be done to defeat Voldemort, even if that means splitting his own soul and killing his own mentor. If there's a God in the Potterverse, He will understand the burden placed on Snape and have mercy on his soul, in contrast to Voldemort, who murders often and without remorse for personal gain and takes pleasure in Crucioing everyone from Harry to his own Death Eaters. IMO only, of course.) As others have said, DDM!Snape does not mean that Snape is a nice person (he's cold and sarcastic to most people, the exceptions being Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Narcissa) or that his teaching methods are effective for all students (though they seem to work for Hermione, Draco, Theo Nott, and Ernie Macmillan, among others) or that he's always fair (obvously, he isn't). He does favor the Slytherins, even more than McGonagall favors the Gryffindors, and he sometimes deducts points unfairly. But we can't judge his loyalties by his sarcasm (he doesn't like dunderheads) or by his teaching methods (which reflect those of the RW in an earlier time) or by his prolonged and self-destructive hatred of James or by his having once called Lily a "Mudblood," an epithet we never hear him use at any other time. Something else is at work that makes him loyal to Dumbledore (IMO) despite his natural inclinations and his Slytherin background (Slughorn is proof that Slytherin doesn't equal Voldemort supporter) and his cold, domineering personality and his black, glittering eyes. Something causes him to risk his life spying for Dumbledore before Godric's Hollow and again after the TWT. I just want to know what that something is, and I want Harry to know it, too. Sherry wrote: I, however, do not. > Yes, Dumbledore is a great and wise wizard, but he is also human. Humans make mistakes in trust and love, and in my opinion, Dumbledore made his greatest mistake of that kind in trusting Snape. Dumbledore, himself, says that his mistakes are greater than anyone else's precisely because of his great age and wisdom. If not his mistake in trusting Snape, what mistake is it? Carol responds: Harry says that he's Dumbledore's man through and through, but he isn't really. Not yet. He still thinks that Dumbledore was wrong about Snape. I think we'll find that the old mentor was wise after all, and that the boy hero will learn that crucial lesson (among others) on his journey toward manhood and the overthrow of the enemy. Nevertheless, I think you've raised an important question: If Dumbledore's mistake isn't trusting Snape, what is it? I'll attempt to answer that question, hoping that others will follow up. First, Dumbledore says "mistakes," plural. He's admitted to several: thinking that Snape could overcome his hatred of James (was that really a mistake? Was that really the reason the Occlumency lessons ailed? I don't think so, but DD couldn't tell an angry and grieving Harry that it was his own fault for not practicing and wanting to have a dream that was really Voldemort's), keeping Sirius Black safe in a house he hated (but Sirius surely would have died even sooner if he'd had his own way), not telling Harry what was going on in OoP (but surely Voldemort would have found out; we saw the snake rising up in Harry every time he faced Dumbledore until the scar link was sealed through Voldemort's Occlumency). What else? I don't think that placing Harry with the Dursleys was a mistake (it was necessary because of the blood protection(, but perhaps he could have kept better tabs on the Dursleys (I think DD kenw that the Dursleys couldn't hurt him; we saw what happened when Uncle Vernon tried to throttle him. I also think that being with the Dursleys gave Harry training in self-defense and endurance that DD did not intend but which nevertheless has proved to be an advantage. Certainly, he's not afraid of spiders!). Second, he was referring to mistakes that he knows about, not necessarily those he mentioned but those he's aware of as he speaks to Harry. Maybe the mistakes include keeping too much information from the Order members and the general public, particularly with regard to Tom Riddle. And yet, as he says to Snape in CoS, "innocent until proven guilty." He strongly suspects that Tom Riddle released the monster that killed Myrtle, but he can't prove it. Even in CoS, when he *knows* who did it but not how, he keeps his mouth shut, perhaps because not even McGonagall will believe him. (Snape did, I think, but I won't go there in this post.) DD knows that Voldemort is Tom Riddle and that he's a Halfblood, not a Pureblood. Maybe he sould have revealed that information, which might have deterred pureblood fanatics from joining him to promote their own agenda. Other mistakes might include not recognizing Fake!Moody as Barty Jr. until it was almost too late (though, as I've said elsewhere, I think he had his suspicions that "Moody" was an imposter) and allowing the Ministry to appoint Umbridge as DADA teacher (but the alternative would have been to hire Snape prematurely, at a point when DD couldn't give Harry Horcrux lessons and otherwise prepare him for the confrontation with Voldemort because of the highly active scar connection, and a point when, IMO, he was not yet ready to lose Snape's services to the Order and the school). Maybe he thinks that he could have prevented the Potters' deaths but failed. Almost certainly, he regrets letting Sirius Black sit in Azkaban for twelve years. But I don't think he regrets trusting Snape, and that can't be the mistake he was referring to because he was defending Snape's actions at that point. Nor can he mean hiring Snape to teach DADA, which hadn't happened yet. Carol, who thinks that Dumbledore is far wiser than any character who claims to have trusted Snape only because Dumbledore did and that DD will be proven correct in his judgment of Snape in Book 7 From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 6 16:11:18 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:11:18 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162450 > > Magpie: > > A lot of decent guys would have felt even worse. > > Amiable Dorsai: > About successfully, if hamhandedly, defending himself against someone > he is sure has colluded in at least two murder attempts? Someone who > has threatened to kill him? Someone whose allies are out there right > now murdering people? > > You don't think any of that should mitigate Harry's feelings of guilt? > I mean, yeah, if an altercation with, say, Justin Finch-Fletchley had > gotten out of hand that way, Harry should certainly feel ashamed of > himself, but this isn't a casual acquaintance, this is a wannabe > murderer who has promised Harry death more than once. Magpie: And you and Eggplant have made clear that that's your view on it, that injuring this person is fundamentally more different than injuring a better person in ways that I don't agree. I think it's serious to almost take the life of another person, no matter who they are, and that this is becoming more clear to Harry and not less in this book so his niggling conscience is important beyond just his being great for caring at all about something that he doesn't owe it to anyone to think about. Besides having a different reaction to the scene as written personally, I think the book is indicating a completely opposite approach. If the author's going to write something about killing, I can see why she chose to use characters that make everything harder, raising the bar a little higher than not killing people who are nice to you. I'd hope a bildungsroman of this length would go beyond just justifying the right people. > > Magpie: > > Just as it's not Draco's fault if Harry chose poorly... > > Amiable Dorsai: > Why is it not Draco's fault? Draco is the aggressor here, Draco is > the one who has given Harry the choice of reacting or of being > subjected to Cruciatus by someone who has taken summer lessons from > Bellatrix Lestrange, Draco is the one who decided to escalate things > to the Unforgivable level. > > How do you so easily absolve him? Magpie: I didn't absolve him--I think that's creating a false dilemma. > > Magpie > >... I think the fact that it was actually written as horrific > > means it's not something Harry should respond by strutting out > > confident that that's just what happens when you mess with him. > > Amiable Dorsai: > I missed the strutting scene, could you point it out for me? Magpie: It's not in the books, is my point. It's not Harry's response and it shouldn't be. > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off a Cruciatus on > > > Harry, Draco's life essentially ends at that point. > > > > Magpie: > > I don't think it does. Especially given that Harry opened up > > Draco on the bathroom floor and got detention. > > Amiable Dorsai: > For acting in self-defense without using an Unforgivable. Magpie: Actually, he gets detention for being a cheat according to Snape. But regardless, Harry's detention with Snape has no bearing on this question. I only brought up Harry's detention to show that Harry's life wasn't over when Snape (pre-disposed to be unfair to Harry and punish him harshly) comes upon him after he uses a violent curse that's almost killed someone. > Amiable Dorsai: > > Suppose you're right though, suppose Draco would have somehow gotten > away with using an Unforgivable, how is Draco to know that? Magpie: Because in canon Harry himself uses Crucio regardless of what he's learned about the law, and doesn't even afterwards think of that risk, so I don't take this attitude towards Unforgivables as a given in canon. Even if Draco did think throwing a Crucio was so serious, it doesn't follow that therefore he would have Crucio'd Harry into insanity and killed him. > > Magpie: > > Draco's entire storyline in HBP is about not being a killer > > even when he wants to be and has to be. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Not being able, in cold blood, to kill a helpless old man who is only > a theoretical enemy is quite different from not being able to kill a > hated real enemy in the heat of battle. Magpie: A familiar idea, but since Draco didn't kill anybody in the heat of the battle (few people in canon ever have) and never has it doesn't prove that this was the inevitable outcome of the fight in the bathroom had Harry not been the one to almost kill his hated enemy in the heat of battle. That brings us back to the same issue again-- you see killing another person as a much easier and less big of a deal in canon than I do. > > Magpie: > > Not unable to stop himself offing a > > peer in the bathroom after reaching champion sadist ability with > > torture spells that seem to require even more nerve to manage (Harry > > himself couldn't sustain one). > > Amiable Dorsai: > Harry hasn't taken summer lessons from Bellatrix Lestrange. Harry > does not, as Draco most certainly does, take pleasure from other > people's pain. Magpie: All we know about any lessons from Bellatrix is that she's been teaching Draco Occlumency. I don't think you can use that as proof that Draco has become a master at Crucio. Harry takes pleasure from other peoples' pain too. He does it a particular lot in OotP, yet still can't sustain a Crucio, because there is an established difference between his impulse and Bellatrix's more advanced sadism. Ironically Draco often seems to me depicted as more squeamish than Harry, not less. > > Magpie: > > I don't think there's anything in the > > scene that indicates for a second that Harry would be facing that > > kind of longterm fate or that it ever enters Harry mind before or > > after. > > Amiable Dorsai: > Because Harry has, of course, forgotten that he's facing a two-time > attempted murderer who has threatened to kill him. Magpie: I don't think he's forgotten that he didn't consider Draco's threat to kill him realistic. He does think (correctly) that Draco is behind the long-distance murder attempts but I don't recall any hints that Draco has become personally frightening to Harry in this way. The stakes are raised in this fight, and that's clear, but I think if I'm supposed to think that Harry thought he barely got out with his life in the way you describe it would be there in the text instead of what is there, which is, "And then he was going to hit me with a Crucio, so I zapped him!" -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 16:23:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:23:47 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50612051808y65e61d5kd2afa4776745400e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162451 Alla wrote: > > If the gun is directed at me and I am somehow able to do something to prevent the shot, my first thought would be that I am protecting myself from being killed, not from some sort of easier wound. > Random832 responded: > Yeah but I'd find it suspect if you argued that someone could have > beaten you to death if they'd kept at it if you used deadly force > against an unarmed attacker. To render someone insane requires that > they be held under the Cruciatus for a prolonged period. It's not a > matter of chance or aim. Carol adds: Also, Harry knows quite well that a Cruciatus curse doesn't kill; it can cause excruciating torture if cast by an expert, but the victim generally recovers. He has felt it himself. He knows exactly what he's protecting himself from. He also knows, but probably doesn't make the connection at that moment, that the curse doesn't work well unless the person casting it enjoys causing pain. No doubt he forgets his own experience and attributes more sadism to Draco than he really possesses. (Anger and a desire to inflict pain in retaliation for injury or insult apparently are not sufficient motivators for the caster.) So Harry isn't protecting himself from death or insanity. He's protecting himself from pain, possibly more pain than Draco is actually capable of causing, but Harry doesn't realize that. The weapon in Draco's hand is more like a whip than a gun. A person being whipped would certainly be justified in removing the whip from his attacker''s hand but not for using it against him or shooting him with a gun in retribution. To his credit, Harry doesn't cast his own Crucio, but he does cast a spell he must know will cause pain considering that it was labeled "for enemies"--a move which, though understandable, is neither wise nor commendable. His motive, if he can be said to have one under such circumstances, appears to be as much retribution ("How dare you cast a Crucio! I can cause pain, too!") as self-defense against torture. If his motive were purely self-defense, he could have used Expelliarmus, Stupefy, or Petrificus Totalus, any one of which would have disarmed or disabled Draco and protected him from the Crucio without causing pain or serious harm to Draco. Harry has mastered all of those spells. They served him well against Death Eaters in the DoM. They would work even better against a single opponent of his own age. (I would suggest Protego, deflecting the curse onto the caster, but I don't think it would work on an Unforgiveable. If it did, though, it would teach Draco what a Crucio feels like as an unknown curse clearly intended as retribution for injuries would not. Yes, that would hurt, unlike the other defensive curses I suggested, but it would teach Draco a lesson. Then again, Harry hasn't learned that lesson, has he? So I'm back to my other suggestions--disarm your opponent or render him incapable of casting an Unforgiveable or anything else.) Carol, who thinks that Harry should have remembered what DADA is and used a spell intended as Defense against the Dark Arts rather than a spell labeled "For Enemies," which is clearly intended to inflict pain rather than protect against it From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 6 16:51:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:51:43 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162452 Alla:> > but I just want to say it again - they did not attack in concert, it > just so happened that the spells were fired off together. They did > not conspired all to attack poor Draco - it is just all of them > thought about it simultaneously. That again to me just strengthens > the thought that they all felt threatened. Pippin: Right. Two adult wizards were stalking three teenagers and attacked them from behind because they, the adults, felt threatened. The Trio, who took down a mountain troll at the age of eleven and Severus Snape at the age of thirteen, including Harry Potter who stood, straight-backed and proud against Voldemort, felt intimidated by a menacing look? What they felt was insulted, IMO, and the hexes they use show that. Furnunculus, Jelly Legs? When our heroes are fighting for their lives, they use Stupefy, Impedimenta, Expelliarmus or Petrificus Totalus, spells that disarm and immobilize, not spells that make people look ridiculous or act like fools. (It's clear from the way Harry contemplated using it on McClaggan that Harry thought Sectum Sempra was a hex of the same sort, one which would insult an opponent rather than kill him.) Our heroes had every right to be insulted, and Draco was wrong and foolish to provoke them, but let's not pretend they thought this was a serious attempt by the Death Eaters to do them in. As Dumbledore would tell Draco later, if he really wanted to kill someone he would do it, instead of having a pleasant chat about ways and means. That goes for the Twins, too, of course. If they really thought they needed to protect the Trio, they would have stopped Draco as soon as he tried to enter the compartment. They were just looking for trouble, as usual, IMO. > Alla: > > Yes, they both poured their hearts, true. The only difference is that > Ginny was pouring her heart to the unknown boy in the diary, and > Draco was eager to serve the Lord Voldemort. To me the difference is > huge. Ginny was seeking friendship from the penpal and Draco was > ready to serve the maniac. Pippin: But Draco wasn't raised to think that Voldemort was a maniac, any more than Ginny was raised to think that a polite boy with a prefect's badge was someone who might harm her. Pippin: Who thinks it would be boring if Draco died on the first pages of book seven. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 17:18:45 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:18:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's trust of Snape (Was: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162453 > Carol: > Nevertheless, I think you've raised an important question: If > Dumbledore's mistake isn't trusting Snape, what is it? I'll attempt to > answer that question, hoping that others will follow up. zgirnius: I like your (snipped) list of Dumbledore's past mistakes. Of course, the readers who bring up Dumbledore's mistake comment in HBP to suggest it is a foreshadowing of Dumbledore's huge mistake regarding Snape would say those were all in the past. I think Dumbledore made a big mistake in HBP as well. In his own words, (Chap. 26, "The Cave") "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " We see in the next chpater that it is a type of mistake to which Dumbledore was not immune. He was correct in his judgment of Draco's character (not a killer, Draco would not have killed him on the Tower), but underestimated the danger Draco posed (he was able to get Death Eaters into the school). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 17:33:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:33:03 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612060551n35bdb554i6caf885513c17abf@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162454 Debbie wrote: > > So many choices, so many opinions. However, everyone has left out my favorite option, what Jen calls Grey!Snape (her title is so much more catchy than mine was, but I think the theories are essentially the same). > > Here's how I sort out the options: > > As the surface reading of HBP, ESE!Snape is not only Ever So Boring, it all but turns him into another Voldemort, but without Horcruxes. There's nothing left but for to kill him. What a waste of a character! Carol responds: Agreed on all counts. Besides, there's no evidence to support this reading and a great deal of evidence against it. He clearly despises the ultimate Voldemort loyalist, Bellatrix Lestrange. If they support the same goals, I'm Delores Umbridge. (I'm not. Really, I'm not.) > Debbie: > DDM!Snape is better, but only his backstory is dynamic. The double agent game keeps him hopping, but if his mind is made up these past sixteen years, he's just playing out his hand. Carol: Yes, his backstory is dynamic, and I think most of us are eager to read it. But his hand is not necessarily played out. See below. > Debbie: > OFH!Snape (which I found initially attractive after first reading HBP) maintains the mystery about the meaing of his *current* actions, but at the expense of the passion barely under control that is so much a part of his character. He cares too much to be OFH! Carol: I never found OFH!Snape attractive, not only because of the passion (which is controlled much of the time but explodes out of control on two or three occasions) but because OFH!Snape wouldn't spy for Dumbledore "at great personal risk" or show his Dark Mark to Fudge or take an Unbreakable Vow that could result in his own death. Whatever motivates Snape to take such risks, it's not self-interest. Besides, we already have a character who's the epitiome of Out-for-Himselfness: Peter Pettigrew. Snape, passionate, angry, courageous, sarcastic Snape, must be something else altogether. > Debbie: > And that's why I have settled on what Jen calls Grey!Snape. In my book, DDM!Snape doesn't account for Snape's volatility, his passion, his anger. Carol: Why not? DDM!Snape hates James, whom he failed to save. He feels remorse for the eavesdropping and Godric's Hollow yet hates Harry (because he's a living reminder of that failure?). He continually watches over and protects Harry but gets angry when Harry (like James) gets away with rule-breaking or stealing from his supply cabinet or invading his privacy by entering the Pensieve or using his own spells against him. His loyalty is to Dumbledore, not to Harry, who is nevertheless important to him as the One who will defeat Voldemort, which is why Harry's "mediocrity" is so irritating to him and why he tries to suppress any dangerous tendency toward arrogance in Harry, who cannot afford to underestimate Voldemort, and why he even sometimes places himself in the position of Harry's enemy to give him some idea what he's up against and force him to defend himself against the Legilimens spell or use a nonverbal defensive spell in DADA class. It's why he saves Harry from a Crucio, deflects his hexes, and yells at him to close him mouth and his mind. It's why Harry's charge that killing DD was an act of cowardice causes him so much pain. Debbie: > Even though I believe Snape and Dumbledore had a plan and that Snape was merely executing the plan when he killed Dumbledore, he's seething with anger at how things have played out, and his soul is hanging in the balance. He's got more choices to make, and we can't be sure he'll make the ones Dumbledore would have wanted him to make. Carol: I agree that he's seething with anger at Dumbledore for forcing him to keep his vow, but he's also in a hell of his own making because of the Unbreakable Vow. He feels a self-hatred comparable to what Harry felt when he was force-feeding DD poison but longer lasting and inescapable because Dumbledore, his mentior, the only person who trusted him, is dead by his hand. Much as I would like to believe that DD died from the poison and Snape cast some other spell disguised as an AK (I do think there was an additional nonverbal spell that sent him over the battlements, but that's beside the point), his agony is only explicable if he really killed Dumbledore against his will, for the cause, at the expense of his own soul and everything he had before--a comfortable job, the respect of the WW, the trust of the Order members, the freedom to go anywhere without fear of Azkaban. Now his only way out is to undermine Voldemort and secretly help Harry, who sees him as a murderer and his personal enemy. What will he do? How will he keep Voldemort from suspecting his intentions? How can he slither out of action now, when he's placed so close to Voldemort? He's in a terrifying position, much worse in its way than Harry's. I only hope there's a way out of this hell other than death. > Debbie, in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/143025 > I never liked plain-vanilla DDM!Snape because there's no > element of choice. This is why I picture Snape out there somewhere in his own private hell, trying to make up his mind whether to carry out Dumbledore's plan to save Draco or whether to go over to Voldemort and save himself. What would really justify Dumbledore's faith would be for Snape to emerge from this crucible and do the right thing. It's easy to be faithful while ensconced in a safe job at Hogwarts; to really justify Dumbledore's faith he must face a final test. > Debbie again: > I suppose Grey!Snape could be considered a variant of DDM!Snape, but if you asked me if Snape was loyal to Dumbledore *at this moment* (i.e., after HBP but before the start of Book 7), my answer would have to be no, because Snape himself doesn't know where he stands. So Grey! today, DDM! tomorrow. > Carol: "Plain-vanilla DDM!Snape"? There ain't no such animal. He's already faced the ultimate test of loyalty to Dumbledore, killing him against his (Snape's) will. And now he faces more challenges, how to help Harry and the Order when all of them believe he's Voldemort's man. And even though his loyalty to Dumbledore redeems him ten times over, IMO, for revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort, he now must redeem himself in his own eyes and the eyes of the WW and the eyes of the reader and above all, in Harry's eyes, for the story to play out. Irony, tragedy, conflict, and hope all in one character. He'll face a final test, all right, but not a test of loyalty. It's a test of courage and resourcefulness, fighting a battle that no one knows he's fighting. He'll confront Harry and he'll confront Voldemort. I have no doubt that he will contribute in some way to Voldemort's fall and that he'll be redeemed and that Harry will forgive and in some measure understand him, all of which will pave the way to Harry's ultimate victory over Voldemort. My only doubt is whether Snape will survive into the epilogue. Please, JKR. Don't kill off DDM!Snape, by far your most interesting character. Carol, who thinks that Snape knows exactly where he stands but not how best to act on those convictions and help those who think he's their enemy From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 18:37:16 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:37:16 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162455 > > wynnleaf > > In the same interview, JKR said, "Who on earth would want Snape in > love with them, that is a very horrible idea." Oddly, this quote is > often misconstrued to mean that Snape couldn't have loved anyone, or > that no one could have loved Snape (now debunked by JKR). Actually, > if you look at the context of this quote, it's classic obfuscation. > Neri: Thanks for the link to the audio, which I enjoyed listening to (and took three ACID POPS right after...). BTW, does anybody know if there's an audio of the three-part Leaky/Mugglenet interview around? Anyway, regarding JKR "debunking" Snape never been loved, this one is usually quoted out of context and not in full. Here is the full version: ****************************************************** http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm Melissa Anelli: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. ****************************************************** IMO this is actually the worst of the many anti-Snape quotations by JKR. Note that she brought up the comparison with Voldemort herself, not as a result of some prompting by Anelli. I suspect that JKR, as usual, has been underestimating the fandom's capabilities of subverting her story, especially in regard to Snape. She probably imagined that she put enough nails into the DDM!Snape coffin in the end of HBP for anyone but a few "delusionals". She has learned better since, but she's still underestimating us by far, I suspect. My point is that, if JKR goes for LID!Snape as I think, then Snape finally repaying his Debt and saving Harry's life should come as a big surprise in the climax of book 7 (at least surprise to anyone who hasn't read the Life Debt theories). If at this point most readers still believe in DDM!Snape, then there's no surprise, only disappointment (when it turns out he's only LID and not DDM). So I predict that during the first half of Book 7 we will get much more compelling evidence that Snape isn't Dumbledore's Man. This may include several of the following options: 1. We might learn that Snape was indeed in love with Narcissa for a long time, and that this was his reason to make the UV to her. 2. We might learn some unpleasant things about Snape's schooldays, especially regarding his part in "The Prank", his dabbling with the Dark Arts and his connections with Lucius, Narcissa and "the Slytherin gang". 3. Similarly, we might learn new unpleasant things about Snape's Death Eating days and/or his period of spying after Dumbledore during VW1. 4. We might find out that during OotP Snape told Voldemort about the Occlumency lessons, and that during these lessons Snape was in fact attempting to achieve some mission for Voldemort (my guess: he was trying to find Voldemort's lost soul part inside Harry, and failed). 5. We might find that Snape lied to Dumbledore about his part in the MoM battle. For example, that he actually knew in advance about Kreacher betraying the Order, that he knew in advance about the planned operation, that he did not warn the Order about what had happened in Umbridge's office the first time around, and that he stalled for several hours before warning them the "second" time. 6. We might receive more evidence that Snape's information was indeed instrumental in the murder of Emmaline Vance. 7. We might find out that Snape was instrumental in arresting Mundungus and sending him to Azkaban during HBP. 8. We might see Snape asking Voldemort for some foul deed in repay for his good services. Prime candidate: assassinating Lupin. 9. We might see Lucius agreeing to cooperate with the Order or with the Ministry against Voldemort, and then Snape involved in killing Lucius. 10. If JKR opts for the BANGy solution (which she often does with Snape) we might actually see Snape on page killing, or takes part in killing, an Order member or one of Harry's friends. Prime candidates: Moody, Mundungus, Luna. Some of the above we might learn by watching on page a conversation between Voldemort and Snape (note how Snape is the only important DE we've never seen together with Voldemort at least once, probably because it would have been much too revealing). Any of the above would be calculated to ensure that by the climax of HBP most readers will be certain that Snape isn't DDM (but I predict that JKR will still be underestimating the fandom, so many readers might still believe it despite all the evidence). However, even *before* Book 7 is out, I would not be surprised at all if we get more debunking of DDM!Snape theories from JKR. Note how JKR didn't care in the beginning about the Dumbledore-Is-Alive theories. Even in that very reading in which she finally told us Dumbledore is "definitely dead", one question before that she said only to "not expect him to do a Gandalf". But when, following Rushdie's question, she realized that Dumbledore-Is-Alive is on its way to turn into a mainstream DDM!Snape theory, she changed her strategy on the spot and very decisively debunked it. So, if in the near future JKR gets the impression that the next mainstream DDM!Snape theory is Dumbledore-Told-Snape-To-Kill-Him, I won't be surprised at all if we get from her something along the line of "How dare you. Dumbledore would never order a friend to kill him". Not that it would make much impression on the fandom, probably, but I'm anticipating my Told You So post . Neri From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 6 19:26:17 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:26:17 -0500 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: <1165416918.1135.18546.m20@yahoogroups.com> References: <1165416918.1135.18546.m20@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <8C8E783898A2F4B-8C0-FA@WEBMAIL-MC15.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162456 Amiable Dorsai: Why would it stop? If Draco manages to get off a Cruciatus on Harry, Draco's life essentially ends at that point. He will have committed an Unforgivable in front of a witness he can neither bribe nor silence (Myrtle), and has thus failed at the task Voldemort has set him. Either Voldemort or the Ministry will get him, and the best he can hope for is life in Azkaban. Julie: Can someone point me to where it says Draco would get life in Azkaban for Crucioing Harry? I know Fake!Moody (?) said that was the punishment for performing an Unforgivable, but Draco is still a minor. Are we aware of any children being held in Azkaban? I don't recall any. Additionally, just because one person said it's a lifetime sentence doesn't mean that's always the case. Most people in our society would say murder would be a lifetime sentence in prison, but all kinds of extenuating circumstances can come into play before a sentence is actually handed down. So I don't think it's a foregone conclusion at all the Draco would have ended up in Azkaban if he'd managed that Crucio. Julie ________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From shmantzel at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 17:18:24 2006 From: shmantzel at yahoo.com (shmantzel) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 17:18:24 -0000 Subject: Professor Snape- Master of This School! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162457 When listening to Prisoner of Azkaban, I just picked up how incredibly arrogant Snape is in one particular scene. After Harry's head is seen by Draco and he gets pulled into Snape's office for questioning, Snape finds the Maurader's Map and tries to find out what it is. He says, "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal!" Does this strike anyone else as rather arrogant and perhaps power hungry? We see throughout the books his desire to have more power over others (especially the Spinner's End chapter for a more recent example). Does this have any other implications for the future? Perhaps this is evidence for OFH!Snape or even ESE!Snape? Anyone? Anyone? Dantzel From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 19:53:30 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:53:30 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162458 > Magpie: > And you and Eggplant have made clear that that's your view on it, > that injuring this person is fundamentally more different than > injuring a better person in ways that I don't agree. Alla: Better person in a sense that that person did not start Crucioing you? Yes, in that sense I agree. If Harry indeed tried a curse out of curiosity on one of his classmates, I would have been furious with him. Magpie: If the author's going to write > something about killing, I can see why she chose to use characters > that make everything harder, raising the bar a little higher than > not killing people who are nice to you. I'd hope a bildungsroman of > this length would go beyond just justifying the right people. Alla: Not killing people who are throwing Crucio at you. That is so much higher in my opinion than not nice to you. But again, even though I agree that this is where JKR is going it is still IMO has nothing to do with evaluation of Harry's actions here, or more precisely with evaluation of how guilty he should feel. I believe that JKR is taking him on the journey where he figures that even bastards like Draco ( in my view of course) should not be killed, BUT I see no indication that this is how Harry **should feel**, except feeling guilty of his stupidity IMO. > > > Magpie: > > > Just as it's not Draco's fault if Harry chose poorly... > > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > Why is it not Draco's fault? Draco is the aggressor here, Draco is > > the one who has given Harry the choice of reacting or of being > > subjected to Cruciatus by someone who has taken summer lessons from > > Bellatrix Lestrange, Draco is the one who decided to escalate > things > > to the Unforgivable level. > > > > How do you so easily absolve him? > > Magpie: > I didn't absolve him--I think that's creating a false dilemma. Alla: It does? You said "It is not Draco's fault that Harry chose poorly". Considering the fact that **but for** Draco starting the fight Harry did not have to make this choice **at all** IMO, what is it, if not absolving Draco? JMO, Alla. From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 20:05:14 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:05:14 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: <3202590612060633hd09154m595266ed38623cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162459 Sarah: It just doesn't seem likely to me > that we'll get to see Snape's epic internal battle for good vs. evil, > since the story is told from Harry's point of view. So the shortest > road is OFH. Sydney: I have to disagree with this. The shortest road is either DDM! or ESE!-- for precisely that reason, that it's both difficult and weak to have a non-POV character making all sorts of off-screen choices with complicated and conflicting motivations. It would be like having a plot where Sirius is going back and forth on whether to revenge himself on Peter throughout PoA, or a plot where Barty Crouch Jr. isn't totally committed to Voldemort in GoF. The revelation of the 'true motivation' at the end should account for everything, without leaving a window for, 'oh, in that bit where Barty takes Neville off, what's that really about?'. I think Debbie nails the reason why OFH!Snape also feels out of character-- he's given scenes where he's passionate, emotional, self-destructive, vindictive, childish, and dutiful. He's given a couple of scenes where he goes into danger without showing any sign of hesitation. JKR's gone out her way to show a guy who is unusually decisive, from taking a split second to head Quirrel off at the pass in PS, to immediately saying he's ready to spy at the end of GoF. I mean, surely if she was painting a portrait of a guy who was weighing the odds, JKR would have used this opportunity, or indeed *any* opportunity, to lay in a hint of that colour here? He certainly doesn't get a single scene where we can say, 'ah, JKR's trying to show us that this character is about self-preservation', which would be easy enough to do and essential if that's how we were supposed to understand the character. He also doesn't get any scene that would establish a goal or motive that he's be out for himself *for*. There are only a few things we see him wanting in canon. The DADA job, which is famous being so cursed it's almost impossible for Dumbledore to find someone who'll take it. Vengeance on Sirius-- so long as he thought he was a Death Eater. And for his students to pass their exams! There's a whiff of his being pleased to be offered the Order of Merlin, but that's not exactly consistent with him simply being interested in which side will win. Don't get me wrong, I love OFH characters in fiction- Long John Silver for example is one of my favorites! But he's an example of exactly how one *would* present an amoral, self-centered character. He's plausible and charming, playing up to everyone in case they might be helpful, as nearly all intelligent amoral people are in my experience. It's clear what his vision of what he's out for is-- a big freakin' pile of gold-- and he's moving consistently toward that goal throughout the story. Steerpike in Gormenghast is another fun OFH character-- also plausible and manipulative, also clear what his goal is, and all his actions further that goal until he gets there. I mean, if Snape is Out For Himself, what the heck's he been *doing* for the last sixteen years? He gets himself a job teaching grade school and then he grinds to a halt. If Voldemort hadn't been resurrected there's no indication that he wouldn't be there still, teaching the first years how to cure boils. That's a mighty modest goal for a charcter painted otherwise as being proactive and intelligent. So, IMHO, OFH!Snape isn't in the book, ESE!Snape isn't narratively possible, and grey!Snape is DDM!Snape with added water where I like my characters neat (still not clear on the difference between grey! and OFH!Snape, except that Grey Snape seems to reserve some mind-changing for the final book where at least we can see it, but where it wouldn't have been set up by all the books before). A note about the Lifedebt: I've beaten this subject to death a few months ago and have no wish to get back in that caucus race, but for interest here's my life-debt theory: I think the Life Debt magic operates like the DADA curse magic or (possibly) the Prophecy magic. It's 'cooincidence' magic, or what you might call 'plot-magic'. It doesn't actually *do* anything. We haven't seen a single effect we can pin directly on the operation of the DADA curse. It just seems to take on an authorial role, arranging cooincidences of circumstance that interact with the afflicted character's personality to producer a certain effect. So, the DADA curse wants a person out of Hogwarts in a year, and it just so happens that Lockhart winds up casting a memory-charm with a wand he doesn't know is broken. Did it CAUSE him to act that way? I don't think so-- he would have tried to memory-wipe the kids curse or no curse. Ditto Umbridge with the centaurs, she acted perfectly in character. Lupin just happens to miss taking his potion because he has to run off and see if a guy he thought was dead twelve years ago turns up on the very worst possible hour. The curse acts exactly like someone writing a story-- how curses often act in our muggle world and what we mean by being 'cursed'. My theory is the "deep and mysterious" Life Debt magic works the same way. A person saves another person's life, and somewhere, somehow, the savee is going to be invested in saving the saver's life back. Not through an electric shock or a magical compulsion or even a theoretical debt, but by the magic of storytelling. In Snape's case, I would say the Life Debt got called in when James was endangered, by endangering along with him the only thing Snape cared about--- Lily. So saving a guy Snape couldn't give a rat's ass about suddenly becomes the most important thing in the world. Sort of a finely-targeted brotherhood-of-man thing. With Pettigrew, he doesn't seem to give a, uh, rat's ass about anything but his own little rat's ass! So I assume in the last book he'll act like a proper OFH! character and save Harry's life simply because it might increase his own chances of survival, and not because he suddenly gets a personality transplant. Rather like Gollum destroying the Ring. I think this is what Dumbledore meant by Harry possibly being glad someday that he'd save Pettigrew's life... doesn't Gandalf say exactly the same thing to Frodo? Not that Peter's now under some kind of magical enslavement, but that what goes around comes around. -- Sydney, always remembering to control-C her message before hitting send... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 20:03:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:03:38 -0000 Subject: Professor Snape- Master of This School! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162460 Dantzel: > When listening to Prisoner of Azkaban, I just picked up how incredibly > arrogant Snape is in one particular scene. After Harry's head is seen > by Draco and he gets pulled into Snape's office for questioning, Snape > finds the Maurader's Map and tries to find out what it is. He > says, "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to > yield the information you conceal!" > > Does this strike anyone else as rather arrogant and perhaps power > hungry? We see throughout the books his desire to have more power over > others (especially the Spinner's End chapter for a more recent > example). Does this have any other implications for the future? Perhaps > this is evidence for OFH!Snape or even ESE!Snape? > Alla: HAHA. I do not know about the implications for the future, although I would dearly love it to be true of course :) But sure I agree that Snape calling himself Potions Master shows his arrogance. I remember the arguments made that Snape as Potion Master shows his extra education or something, basically that it is somehow special. There is a quote in HBP or OOP, which I cannot check now (posting from work), where narrator ( I think) casually says that tiny Charms Master comes through or something. Do we **ever** hear Flitwick calling himself that? I think it was JKR poking fun at Snape again. JMO, Alla From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 16:52:57 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:52:57 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <20061205173504.20955.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162461 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > I could read Potter books everyday, and I think JKR's plotting is pretty incredible. I admit that her handling of teen romance is fairly awkward, but I would rather talk about the books' strengths than the weaknesses. I would rather discuss plot theories than talk about why JKR's writing is substandard. I guess, in short, I agree with Eggplant, but felt the need to add that lupinlore is NOT the only person on this list who seems to hate the books and think JKR is a hack. > Not a hack, perhaps. But she is certainly trying to sell certain messages, and her sales pitch is often dismal. Dumbledore is the character where this is most readily apparent. She has built the entire moral thrust of the series around the character of Dumbledore - i.e. the "epitome of goodness." Fair enough. But when you call somebody an epitome of goodness you are making an extreme statement, and you shouldn't be surprised when it explodes on you. "Trying very hard" wouldn't be difficult to swallow. "Well- meaning" would cover most people, except for the Puppetmaster!DD folks. But "epitome of goodness" opens up extraordinarily disturbing questions -- especially when said epitome of goodness behaves in reprehensible ways in order to make the plot go the way JKR wants it to go. As phoenixgod has pointed out, plot rules over character in the Potter series -- DD is the epitome of goodness but behaves in contemptible ways in order to present challenges for Harry but remains an epitome of goodness -- why? Because JKR says so? And there is where the derision comes in. As for mulching the books -- absolutely. My hard-earned money plopped down for them gives me the absolute right to do anything I want to with them if I find them to be garbage and decide they are worthy of it -- including using them for toilet paper if I so desire (although that would be an expensive bout of diarrhea). And yes, if she continues on the reprehensible course of approving of the abuse of children -- by having her epitome of goodness stand around approvingly while it happens -- then they will be worthy of mulching. If JKR decides her feelings are hurt -- which she won't because I suspect she could have no more respect for my views than I have for hers -- then she can comfort herself by counting the zeros in her checking account. But DD is of course not the only example. For others, it's Hermione and Marietta. Not my issue, but the basic principles are the same. Same with the twins. Same with Remus Lupin. Same with Memory Charms. Same with House Elves and SPEW. Same with the House System. You simply can't make sweeping moral claims (and that IS what JKR is doing, for all her protests about not liking to preach) without inviting sweeping moral claims in return. And when you make statements about "epitome of goodness" and "very wise man" and "nothing wrong with X except Y" then you elevate those characters to moral avatars -- i.e. you engage in preaching and sweeping moral statements -- whether you itended to or not. As for JKR as a person -- well, as someone has pointed out you are dealing with JKR the public person, which may or may not bear any relation to JKR the private person. Nonetheless, when you have a high-profile public persona, people will make such judgments, whether you want them to or not, and you are well advised to find what comfort you can in your bank account and your party invitations, because it will never stop. And so some will say "JKR is a lovely person and I think she's a wonderful writer and it's great her giving money to charity." However, others will say "I don't like you very much, JKR. You have an ice cold heart and a death neurosis, and it's silly beyond belief." Writers and artists are in an unenviable position, as they tend to be sensitive souls who, if successful, are pressed into a harsh limelight. But I have no pity or sympathy for them at all. It is the life they have chosen, and they are free to retire from the field anytime they wish. If they want to have their cake and eat it too -- as Stephen King has tried in recent years, acting like a little boy who wants to pick up his toys and go home because people actually have the temerity to say that some of most recent work has been flawed and not up to his earlier standards -- then they are asking for further trouble. Lupinlore From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 20:19:23 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:19:23 -0000 Subject: Professor Snape- Master of This School! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162462 Dantzel wrote: > > He > says, "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to > yield the information you conceal!" > > Does this strike anyone else as rather arrogant and perhaps power > hungry? Sydney: "Master" means the same as "teacher" in England-- it's a little old-fashioned, but it's used for Snape a lot, as he's always called the "Potions Master" as someone might have been called the "Chemistry Master" or the "Latin Master" a couple of decades ago. So "Master of this School" means nothing more than "Teacher at this school", as one is 'Master of', rather than 'Master at'. I suppose he's simply evoking what little bit of authority he has over the object as he would over a student. I've been reading "Tom Brown's Schooldays", from which the HP series borrows a lot, and that's the word used for the teachers: "The Masters of the lower school walked up and down the great school together during this three-quarters of an hour, or sat in their desks reading or looking over copies, and keeping such order as was possible." Actually, I just did a search on the etext and the word 'teacher' only appears twice and never in the context of what we would now call a teacher! Snape does use 'Master' more than the other teachers, but I think it's first because he does like to scrape up a bit of grandeur when he can, but also because his language in general is a little more old-fashioned and formal than most. Persumably because he's trying to his his Yorkshire accent! -- Sydney From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 20:21:10 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:21:10 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162463 Neri wrote: > My point is that, if JKR goes for LID!Snape as I think, then Snape > finally repaying his Debt and saving Harry's life should come as a > big surprise in the climax of book 7 (at least surprise to anyone who hasn't read the Life Debt theories). If at this point most readers > still believe in DDM!Snape, then there's no surprise, only > disappointment (when it turns out he's only LID and not DDM). So I > predict that during the first half of Book 7 we will get much more > compelling evidence that Snape isn't Dumbledore's Man. This may > include several of the following options: > > 1. We might learn that Snape was indeed in love with Narcissa for a > long time, and that this was his reason to make the UV to her. Carol responds: Not likely. We've already been through this, but the only "evidence" for an attraction between Narcissa and Snape is in "Spinner's End Surely, if it were important, we'd have had more clues by now. And the only evidence for a life debt as *partial* motive for Snape is in SS/PS).(I do think that the life debt is the only reason Snape might have for regretting and trying to save *James's* life, but it doesn't explain his regret for endangering Lily, which he felt before Godric's Hollow, or his remorse for her death afterwards. But DD deals in partial information, and we don't have the real, or primary, motive for Snape's return to Dumbledore yet. If it were the life debt, which DD mentioned to Harry in his first year, DD would not have hesitated to bring it up again in HBP. Nope. Something more complex is involved in which the life debt may be a component, but Narcissa is not. We know why she asked Snape for help: he was the only person who could do so. And we know why he agreed to take the UV: he wanted to save Draco from killing or being killed. Love for Narcissa, requited or otherwise, need not enter in. > Neri: > 2. We might learn some unpleasant things about Snape's schooldays, > especially regarding his part in "The Prank", his dabbling with the > Dark Arts and his connections with Lucius, Narcissa and "the > Slytherin gang". > > 3. Similarly, we might learn new unpleasant things about Snape's > Death Eating days and/or his period of spying after Dumbledore during > VW1. Carol: Indeed we may and probably will. After all, JKR has promised us more information on the Prank--primarily James's motives, I think. Sirius won't look very good, either, I suspect. But regardless of what we see of Severus's school days, all that will be revealed there is his motives for becoming a Death Eater, which we already know he did. And he must have done other things besides eavesdropping while he was a DE, however good he was at "slithering out of action." More deeds to regret, more reasons for turning against Voldemort when he found out what he really stood for. None of this works against DDM!Snape. It relates to the time before he turned to Dumbledore and his reasons for turning. > Neri: > 4. We might find out that during OotP Snape told Voldemort about the > Occlumency lessons, and that during these lessons Snape was in fact > attempting to achieve some mission for Voldemort (my guess: he was > trying to find Voldemort's lost soul part inside Harry, and failed). Carol: And we might not. I think he was doing what canon says he was doing, trying to help Harry block Voldemort's entry into his mind, particularly after he realized what Harry was seeing. Note his anger when he realizes that Harry has been dreaming about the DoM and that he wants to continue that dream. IMO, he'd be dead if he'd told LV about the Occlumency lessons. His own skill at undetectable Occlumency is the only reason he's alive. And he's going to let Voldemort in on that secret? I think not. (As for Voldemort's lost soul part, we don't even know that such a thing exists. Snape *might* know that the diary was a Horcrux at this point and suspect the existence of others, but I don't think either he or Dumbledore expects to find a soul piece in Harry. Certainly not using the Legilimens spell, which merely makes *memories* visible (and audible?) to the caster. Neri: > 5. We might find that Snape lied to Dumbledore about his part in the > MoM battle. For example, that he actually knew in advance about > Kreacher betraying the Order, that he knew in advance about the > planned operation, that he did not warn the Order about what had > happened in Umbridge's office the first time around, and that he > stalled for several hours before warning them the "second" time. Carol: Sigh. The "missing five hours" idea again. JKR simply needed events to fit into a certain time frame, and we can use our imaginations to construct Snape's actions during that time frame in any way we please. Among other things, he almost certainly had to sort out the mess the Slytherins found themselves in and hear their side of the story. Dumbledore didn't think that Snape had taken more time than necessary, nor is the question even raised in OoP or HBP. I'm not sure why "second" is in quotation marks. We know that he ascertained that Sirius Black was safely at Order HQ and we know that he contacted him a second time when quite a few Order members were present to tell them that Harry had probably gone to the MoM (but he intended to check the Forbidden Forest to make sure). Kreacher's treachery involved getting Harry to the MoM by pretending that Sirius Black was there. It has nothing to do with Snape. If it weren't for Snape, HRH, Neville, and Luna would all be dead at the hands of the DEs. > > 6. We might receive more evidence that Snape's information was indeed instrumental in the murder of Emmaline Vance. Carol: Or that he was instrumental in faking her death using the Draught of Living Death. He claimed a greater share in Sirius Black's death than he could possibly have earned since the only information he could have given that LV wouldn't already know from Wormtail was that Black was back in England. And Lucius Malfoy would have told LV that he saw a black dog with Harry and the Weasleys at Platform 9 3/4. Hm. Who could that be? As for Harry's fondness for Black, we know exactly who was responsible for passing on that information: Kreacher. The same person, erm, house-elf who injured Buckbeak so Black would appear to be at the MoM being held hostage when Harry tried to contact him. > > 7. We might find out that Snape was instrumental in arresting > Mundungus and sending him to Azkaban during HBP. Carol: That's a new one. Do you have any evidence of a Snape/Mundungus connection other than Snape's sneering reference to him as "a smelly sneak thief" (unkind but accurate)? It seems to me that Mundungus is pretty good at shady dealing on his own. If anyone else is involved, it's Aberforth. And we've already seen Mundungus impersonating a witch, so it's not too surprising that he'd impersonate an Inferius. Not very bright of him, though, unless he was trying to get into Azkaban deliberately. > > 8. We might see Snape asking Voldemort for some foul deed in repay > for his good services. Prime candidate: assassinating Lupin. Carol: I don't know about assassinating Lupin (I think that may be Wormtail's job), but I do fear that Voldemort will assign Snape to do some foul deed and he'll be forced to do it to keep his cover. It will be harder to "slither out of action now," which IMO is one reason Snape was arguing with DD in the forest. He didn't want to go back to LV because of what he might be forced to do. (It does make Dumbledore look like a manipulator and I don't like it, but I don't see any way around it. Well, Snape is cunning, so maybe he'll find a way, but it will be difficult.) What I hope we'll see is Snape as Draco's mentor/trainer and/or Snape working with Bellatrix to get the DEs out of Azkaban, all the time working to subvert the Malfoys to rebel against LV. But we'll see. Frankly, I'm afraid for Snape and for his soul, but I trust that his loyalties remain with Dumbledore and he'll do what he has to do, at whatever cost to himself. > Neri: > 9. We might see Lucius agreeing to cooperate with the Order or with > the Ministry against Voldemort, and then Snape involved in killing > Lucius. Carol: If anyone convinces Lucius to cooperate with the Order, it will be his old friend, Severus Snape. Why else emphasize their friendship in "Spinner's End"? > Neri: > 10. If JKR opts for the BANGy solution (which she often does with > Snape) we might actually see Snape on page killing, or takes part in > killing, an Order member or one of Harry's friends. Prime candidates: Moody, Mundungus, Luna. > Carol: Extremely unlikely. Snape will need to maintain a low profile considering that he's the second most wanted man in the WW. Mundungus is not Harry's friend, nor would his death be bangy, and he's already in Azkaban. Moody can take care of himself. It would be interesting to see a duel between them in which Snape somehow manages *not* to kill Moody and yet conceals his loyalties. As for Luna, I do fear that she'll die, but more likely at the hands of Bellatrix, whom we know to be both cruel and evil. Or maybe Luna will be seriously injured and Snape will heal her, revealing once and for all where his loyalties lie. Why all the emphasis on Healer!Snape in HBP if we're not going to see him again? Neri: > Some of the above we might learn by watching on page a conversation > between Voldemort and Snape (note how Snape is the only important DE > we've never seen together with Voldemort at least once, probably > because it would have been much too revealing). Any of the above > would be calculated to ensure that by the climax of HBP most readers > will be certain that Snape isn't DDM (but I predict that JKR will > still be underestimating the fandom, so many readers might still > believe it despite all the evidence). Carol: I would love to overhear such a conversation--the great Occlumencer pulling one over on the great Legilimencer with his undetected half-truths and even maybe a spun tale or two. JKR loves to use such conversations as misdirection, and I'm sure she wants to make Snape look as Dark as possible before her revelation/reversal--but of course, there will be little hints in the other direction, too. What's the point of a "climax" revealing that Snape is evil after we've seen him kill Dumbledore? What could be more climactic than that as far as Dark deeds go? The revelation has to be that he isn't evil. (Don't underestimate those of us who disagree with you. I'm betting that we're right and you're wrong.) > Neri: > However, even *before* Book 7 is out, I would not be surprised at all if we get more debunking of DDM!Snape theories from JKR. Note how JKR didn't care in the beginning about the Dumbledore-Is-Alive theories. Even in that very reading in which she finally told us Dumbledore is "definitely dead", one question before that she said only to "not expect him to do a Gandalf". But when, following Rushdie's question, she realized that Dumbledore-Is-Alive is on its way to turn into a mainstream DDM!Snape theory, she changed her strategy on the spot and very decisively debunked it. Carol: She very seriously debunked the idea that DDM!Snape theories depend on DD being alive. She didn't debunk the idea that DD may have wanted Snape to keep his vow. In fact, she steered clear of that idea, quite likely because she didn't want the question to be raised. Neri: > So, if in the near future JKR gets the impression that the next mainstream DDM!Snape theory is Dumbledore-Told-Snape-To-Kill-Him, I won't be surprised at all if we get from her something along the line of "How dare you. Dumbledore would never order a friend to kill him". Carol: I'm quite sure that she already knows about that theory and I very much doubt that she'll debunk it whether it's close to the truth or not. She likes to keep profitable lines of discussion going, and unlike, say, Snape is a Vampire or Dumbledore is alive or (sigh!) Mark Evans is Harry's Muggleborn second cousin, interpretations of "Severus, please" are profitable, as are DDM!Snape theories, even if they don't lead us to the exact solution to the mystery that she has in mind. And mark my words, she hasn't given us the Snape solution yet. Neri: > Not that it would make much impression on the fandom, probably, but > I'm anticipating my Told You So post . Carol: I wonder how you'll like writing your "Huh! Fancy that! I was wrong after all" post. (I know I'll hate writing mine if that turns out to be the case!) Carol, hoping that the line of inquiry JKR decides to smash to smithereens is Harry!Horcrux From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 6 20:30:54 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:30:54 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162464 > Carol: . Much as I would like to believe that DD died from > the poison and Snape cast some other spell disguised as an AK (I do > think there was an additional nonverbal spell that sent him over the > battlements, but that's beside the point), his agony is only > explicable if he really killed Dumbledore against his will, for the > cause, at the expense of his own soul and everything he had before--a > comfortable job, the respect of the WW, the trust of the Order > members, the freedom to go anywhere without fear of Azkaban. Pippin: His agony is over what happened to *James*, the person they had been discussing just before Harry said "Kill me like you killed him, you coward. " I believe the break between "DON'T" and "CALL ME A COWARD" is significant. Like Myrtle's "Don't", Snape's is meant to stand alone; the "CALL ME A COWARD" is play-acting for the DE's, IMO. How are we going to understand that Snape was truly so remorseful over James's murder that he not only returned to the good side to forestall it but took up the dangerous life of a double agent, putting everything at risk as you said above, if the real issue becomes whether or not he's truly remorseful that he killed Dumbledore? There's plenty of dynamic in this version, because this Snape has never felt that his atonement was sufficient, and Harry is the only one who can make him see that it is, or tell him what he needs to do to complete it. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 6 21:00:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:00:16 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162466 > > Magpie: > > And you and Eggplant have made clear that that's your view on it, > > that injuring this person is fundamentally more different than > > injuring a better person in ways that I don't agree. > > > Alla: > > Better person in a sense that that person did not start Crucioing you? > > Yes, in that sense I agree. If Harry indeed tried a curse out of > curiosity on one of his classmates, I would have been furious with > him. Magpie: Sure in terms of the context of why you're killing them that makes a difference. (Though presumably in the hypothetical altercation with Justin Finch-Fetchley he, too, might have pulled out a Crucio.) But in a book so concerned with killing another person as something soul- splitting I can't imagine the author's going for the idea that killing someone who was, after all, trying to hurt you is just fine-- not at all like the killing that's damaging to you as a person. And I think she sets up this particular scene with that in mind. > Alla: > > Not killing people who are throwing Crucio at you. That is so much > higher in my opinion than not nice to you. But again, even though I > agree that this is where JKR is going it is still IMO has nothing to > do with evaluation of Harry's actions here, or more precisely with > evaluation of how guilty he should feel. Magpie: The reasons given for why it's totally different to kill Malfoy have gone beyond his throwing a Crucio in that scene, but regardless my point is that JKR is imo trying to humanize some of her worst characters here to reveal the moral points she's making. I also think that "guilt" is a misleading word. I don't even recall that that's exactly the word used to describe what Harry feels, and it's a word I've been trying to avoid because "guilt" sounds like Harry is worried about doing something mundanely naughty or something and I don't think that's the point. The niggling of conscience he feels, imo, is not that he feels that he wronged Malfoy or broke a rule or a law but a bigger issue. Harry's I think annoyed by people berating him for doing the "wrong" thing in superficial ways. His private misgivings are I think more about not wanting to think about actually ending the life of another boy in his class he's known since he was 11 and who maybe isn't as alien from him as he always thought. If he were just worried about who started it or whether he was on the defensive I don't think there'd be any problem--he's faced similar situations with Malfoy before without looking back. Alla: > I believe that JKR is taking him on the journey where he figures that > even bastards like Draco ( in my view of course) should not be > killed, BUT I see no indication that this is how Harry **should > feel**, except feeling guilty of his stupidity IMO. Magpie: So you don't think he should feel that even bastards like Malfoy shouldn't be killed? Because I do think that JKR is making that point strongly through Dumbledore especially. Or more accurately that there's more to bastards like Malfoy than just being a bastard like Malfoy. On this I agree with her. I think Harry should feel more than just stupid--as should Malfoy himself for almost killing Katie and Ron. > > > > Magpie: > > > > Just as it's not Draco's fault if Harry chose poorly... > > > > > > Amiable Dorsai: > > > Why is it not Draco's fault? Draco is the aggressor here, Draco > is > > > the one who has given Harry the choice of reacting or of being > > > subjected to Cruciatus by someone who has taken summer lessons > from > > > Bellatrix Lestrange, Draco is the one who decided to escalate > > things > > > to the Unforgivable level. > > > > > > How do you so easily absolve him? > > > > Magpie: > > I didn't absolve him--I think that's creating a false dilemma. > > Alla: > > It does? You said "It is not Draco's fault that Harry chose poorly". > Considering the fact that **but for** Draco starting the fight Harry > did not have to make this choice **at all** IMO, what is it, if not > absolving Draco? Magpie: It's not not using Draco to absolve Harry. Draco's got plenty of things to be held accountable in the scene without writing Harry a blank cheque imo. I think Sectumsempra adds something beyond that to the scene. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 21:20:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:20:20 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162467 Magpie: So you don't think he should feel that even bastards like Malfoy shouldn't be killed? Because I do think that JKR is making that point strongly through Dumbledore especially. Or more accurately that there's more to bastards like Malfoy than just being a bastard like Malfoy. Alla: I must specify that I am talking **only** about self defense situation, so in situation of self-defense if Harry **still* decides that bastard like Malfoy, who threatened to kill him more than once, who did at least some bodily damage to him at least once, should not be killed, well ? great. If Harry would be trained enough, methodical enough to spare Malfoy's life , while in danger of being hurt himself ? great again. What I completely disagree with is that Harry in the situation of self defense has some sort of **obligation** to feel that way, unless he chooses to do so. Magpie: On this I agree with her. I think Harry should feel more than just stupid--as should Malfoy himself for almost killing Katie and Ron. Alla: You are arguing that Harry and Draco should feel the same amount of remorse, while one was defending himself, while another was doing assassination thing? I completely disagree. > Magpie: > It's not not using Draco to absolve Harry. Draco's got plenty of > things to be held accountable in the scene without writing Harry a > blank cheque imo. I think Sectumsempra adds something beyond that to > the scene. > Alla: I guess we have to agree to disagree. I do cut blank check to person who defends himself and if Harry would not have been stupid wanting to try **unknown curse** before hand, I would have cut him that blank check. That is what Sectusemptra added to that scene for me ? that Harry was stupid before to want to try it, nothing more, really. IMO of course. It also makes sense to me what Pippin said about Harry not practicing enough this year, but since the reason IMO he did not practice was investigating Malfoy misdeeds, it is still comes back to Malfoy as the main reason of his own misery in the ironic way IMO. > Magpie: > All we know about any lessons from Bellatrix is that she's been > teaching Draco Occlumency. I don't think you can use that as proof > that Draco has become a master at Crucio. Harry takes pleasure from > other peoples' pain too. He does it a particular lot in OotP, yet > still can't sustain a Crucio, because there is an established > difference between his impulse and Bellatrix's more advanced > sadism. Ironically Draco often seems to me depicted as more > squeamish than Harry, not less. Alla: I am not sure we can **prove** too many things in canon with absolute certainty as to certain characters especially. Do I think that Bella, who is a Crucio expert could have taught Draco that as well? Sure, it is just speculating, but Bella dreams of sacrificing her sons for the cause, why not start preparing Draco? The fact that not anybody else, but Crucio expert was teaching him IMO makes this speculation plausible enough. Oh, and of course I do see that Draco has a potential to be a great sadist in canon. All I have to do is to reread his role in Buckbeak story. He seemed very pleased to me of Hagrid situation and when he learned that innocent animal is going to be executed. > Magpie: > I don't think he's forgotten that he didn't consider Draco's threat > to kill him realistic. He does think (correctly) that Draco is > behind the long-distance murder attempts but I don't recall any > hints that Draco has become personally frightening to Harry in this > way. The stakes are raised in this fight, and that's clear, but I > think if I'm supposed to think that Harry thought he barely got out > with his life in the way you describe it would be there in the text > instead of what is there, which is, "And then he was going to hit me > with a Crucio, so I zapped him!" Alla: Um, that is the possible reaction, but that is not the only reaction Harry can have if he felt threatened by Draco. He already learned that Draco is capable of hurting him, he knows that Draco promised revenge, etc. As I said I do not see the fact that Harry feels twinges of conscience as proof that he was not threatened for his life and sanity. IMO of course. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 6 21:27:33 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:27:33 -0000 Subject: Professor Snape- Master of This School! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > "Master" means the same as "teacher" in England-- it's a little > old-fashioned, but it's used for Snape a lot, as he's always called > the "Potions Master" as someone might have been called the "Chemistry > Master" or the "Latin Master" a couple of decades ago. So "Master of > this School" means nothing more than "Teacher at this school", as one > is 'Master of', rather than 'Master at'. I suppose he's simply evoking > what little bit of authority he has over the object as he would over a > student. Geoff: It's perhaps old-fashioned in an informal context. I always referred to myself as a "schoolteacher'. However, one of the biggest teaching unions in the UK is the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers - a title which r olls very easily off the tongue. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 21:57:28 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:57:28 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Magpie: > > So you don't think he should feel that even bastards like Malfoy > shouldn't be killed? Because I do think that JKR is making that > point strongly through Dumbledore especially. Or more accurately > that there's more to bastards like Malfoy than just being a bastard > like Malfoy. > > Alla: > I must specify that I am talking **only** about self defense > situation, so in situation of self-defense if Harry **still* decides > that bastard like Malfoy, who threatened to kill him more than once, > who did at least some bodily damage to him at least once, should not > be killed, well ? great. a_svirn: But if it is self defence (and I do believe it is) Draco's being a bastard is completely irrelevant. Moreover, once you start to bring up his moral qualities and innumerate Harry's grievances against Draco you instantly make Harry's own motives suspect. If Harry took all the wrongs Draco had committed into consideration the whole thing would look less like self-defence and more like revenge. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 22:20:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:20:42 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162470 > > Alla: > > I must specify that I am talking **only** about self defense > > situation, so in situation of self-defense if Harry **still* > decides > > that bastard like Malfoy, who threatened to kill him more than > once, > > who did at least some bodily damage to him at least once, should > not > > be killed, well ? great. > > a_svirn: > But if it is self defence (and I do believe it is) Draco's being a > bastard is completely irrelevant. Moreover, once you start to bring > up his moral qualities and innumerate Harry's grievances against > Draco you instantly make Harry's own motives suspect. If Harry took > all the wrongs Draco had committed into consideration the whole > thing would look less like self-defence and more like revenge. > Alla: Oh, of course Draco being a bastard is irrelevant. This is how I feel about Malfoy (as bastard that is :)) and the only reason I brought his past wrongdoings is to argue that Harry indeed has a reason to be truly afraid for his life and sanity - not as in 'I want to execute revenge at him", but as in " I know what he did to me in the past and I am afraid that he can do something like that and much worse" Regardless whether Harry said flat out that he was truly afraid for his life or not. I mean Harry does not readily admit when he is scared in canon, didn't he? The only relevant factor that IMO should be taken into consideration is Draco starting to throw Crucio. So, I do not believe that Draco's moral qualities are relevant, but his past encounters with Harry IMO are for the reasons stated above. I suppose than I have to say that no matter who throws crucio at Harry ( hypothetical Justin Flinch , or whoever else), that still be self-defense. BUT the small difference will be that in that instance Harry **may** have a little bit more reason to spare the life, if possible. Not because the other person is better morally than Malfoy, etc, but because that other person never did anything to Harry in the past and Harry may have a reason to suspect Imperio curse or something to that effect. But even here, if his life is threatened, I do not think it is an obligation. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 6 22:24:49 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:24:49 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162471 > Alla: > I must specify that I am talking **only** about self defense > situation, so in situation of self-defense if Harry **still* decides > that bastard like Malfoy, who threatened to kill him more than once, > who did at least some bodily damage to him at least once, should not > be killed, well ? great. > > If Harry would be trained enough, methodical enough to spare Malfoy's > life , while in danger of being hurt himself ? great again. > > What I completely disagree with is that Harry in the situation of > self defense has some sort of **obligation** to feel that way, unless > he chooses to do so. Magpie: That is what I'm disagreeing with, actually. Not that self-defense isn't important to the issue--it is. But beyond that I think that as a human being Harry does have an obligation to feel some connection to Malfoy on that level. Sometimes humans kill each other and sometimes it's the right thing to do. But even if you've decided killing is right you can still respect that you've killed another person who had that worth. Earlier someone brought up battle fatigue and was told that battle trauma had nothing to do with killing other people, only with the fear of being killed and losing loved ones. But I have read killing other people is a big part of the trauma of battle. It doesn't make the soldiers wrong or murderers, but it's not so simple as saying that because they've got reason for killing these other people, or are defending themselves, it's not killing. That's what I think is important for Harry here--particularly since he's supposed to be powered by love. I don't think it's about choosing to feel this, because if he didn't naturally feel something at almost killing someone even with the self-defense element in this situation here, imo, he would be more like Voldemort. > Magpie: > On this I agree with her. I think Harry should feel > more than just stupid--as should Malfoy himself for almost killing > Katie and Ron. > > > Alla: > > You are arguing that Harry and Draco should feel the same amount of > remorse, while one was defending himself, while another was doing > assassination thing? > I completely disagree. Magpie: I'm not saying they should feel the same *amount* of remorse. I'm saying that outside of the entirely different circumstances of their actions there's the basic connection to other people that shouldn't imo be entirely dismissed with "it was self-defense" or in Draco's case "it was an accident." Even if both boys were in a situation where killing was just part of war it would imo mean something. If Harry is the kind of boy who fires off a curse at someone as he did there, splitting them open and almost exsanguinating them and doesn't feel something then I'd worry about him. Relatedly, I don't agree with the assumed Malfoy who'd be able to be equally cold- blooded in torturing or killing Harry. There are things in common in the two situations, even if they're not the same. > Alla: > I guess we have to agree to disagree. I do cut blank check to person > who defends himself and if Harry would not have been stupid wanting > to try **unknown curse** before hand, I would have cut him that blank > check. > > That is what Sectusemptra added to that scene for me ? that Harry was > stupid before to want to try it, nothing more, really. IMO of course. > > > It also makes sense to me what Pippin said about Harry not practicing > enough this year, but since the reason IMO he did not practice was > investigating Malfoy misdeeds, it is still comes back to Malfoy as > the main reason of his own misery in the ironic way IMO. Magpie: I don't know whether I'd chalk up the use of Sectumsempra to Malfoy-- that seems a stretch. To me it seems like the use of it goes not to Harry's obsession with Malfoy but his obsession with the Prince. Harry has been practicing spells--he wants to learn the Prince's. But of course in many other ways Malfoy has brought his misery on himself, absolutely. Even if there are places he hasn't literally done that, you can't avoid the obvious fact that Draco is getting exactly what he always asked for--and that's what's making him miserable, not Harry. But still it's important for Harry to not just figure well, look at all the bad things he's doing--what I do doesn't matter. > > Magpie: > > All we know about any lessons from Bellatrix is that she's been > > teaching Draco Occlumency. I don't think you can use that as proof > > that Draco has become a master at Crucio. Harry takes pleasure > from > > other peoples' pain too. He does it a particular lot in OotP, yet > > still can't sustain a Crucio, because there is an established > > difference between his impulse and Bellatrix's more advanced > > sadism. Ironically Draco often seems to me depicted as more > > squeamish than Harry, not less. > > Alla: > > I am not sure we can **prove** too many things in canon with absolute > certainty as to certain characters especially. > > Do I think that Bella, who is a Crucio expert could have taught Draco > that as well? Sure, it is just speculating, but Bella dreams of > sacrificing her sons for the cause, why not start preparing Draco? > > The fact that not anybody else, but Crucio expert was teaching him > IMO makes this speculation plausible enough. Magpie: It's plausible that she could want to teach it but I think the conclusion drawn from that idea flies in the face of the character as he's being written in HBP. Instead of someone trying out evil for the first time and not being ready to be a DE it makes him farther along already, imo. HBP deals with Draco's trying out his own skills and he does show skill in the bathroom, but nothing beyond Hogwarts level. There's no big moment where he reveals this surprising, awful new skill of Crucio. He's described, imo, just like Harry usually seems described in scenes where he's tried to use it.The Crucio is the end of the big paragraph describing the scuffle. Actually, if you look at the Crucios by true adult sadists in the books they're always cast at points of more calmness. Barty simply points his wand at the spider, Bellatrix raises her wand, Umbridge raises her wand, Voldemort points his wand. It makes sense as a torture spell--it's the cold-blooded, conscious, almost detached desire to inflict pain on someone. As opposed to when both boys try to cast it--their faces are contorted, they're in mid-fight or mid- chase--they're desperate and in pain themselves. Alla: > > Oh, and of course I do see that Draco has a potential to be a great > sadist in canon. All I have to do is to reread his role in Buckbeak > story. He seemed very pleased to me of Hagrid situation and when he > learned that innocent animal is going to be executed. Magpie: He's not doing the executing. He's certainly enjoying making Hagrid suffer as many characters enjoy making others suffer at other times. But there's a difference between being pleased that Hagrid, the teacher you don't like, is going to lose his big animal that hurt you and being a torturer of animals or people. Just as Harry's taking pleasure in Malfoy's suffering when his father is arrested doesn't make him able to torture him. > > Magpie: > > I don't think he's forgotten that he didn't consider Draco's threat > > to kill him realistic. He does think (correctly) that Draco is > > behind the long-distance murder attempts but I don't recall any > > hints that Draco has become personally frightening to Harry in this > > way. The stakes are raised in this fight, and that's clear, but I > > think if I'm supposed to think that Harry thought he barely got out > > with his life in the way you describe it would be there in the text > > instead of what is there, which is, "And then he was going to hit > me > > with a Crucio, so I zapped him!" > > Alla: > > Um, that is the possible reaction, but that is not the only reaction > Harry can have if he felt threatened by Draco. He already learned > that Draco is capable of hurting him, he knows that Draco promised > revenge, etc. > > As I said I do not see the fact that Harry feels twinges of > conscience as proof that he was not threatened for his life and > sanity. Magpie: But books aren't made up of what's not specifically ruled out. The story's made up of what is there. If JKR is writing a scene where Harry is afraid Draco Malfoy is going to kill him and felt threatened for his life and sanity she'd write that. She didn't. She wrote Harry feeling quite fine when Draco actually threatened his life. When he was at Draco's mercy on the train the one adverb used to describe him is "absurdly" with no descriptions of terror. Draco's past are the opposite of reasons for Harry to fear for his life--and though he doesn't admit fears for his life to other people they're always admitted by the narrator. Harry's feared he was about to die more than once in canon and it's described as such a moment. In the bathroom he's fighting with him and we just get...a fight. He's in action, fighting. When Malfoy comes at him with Crucio it's yeah, Harry in trouble, but he bellows his own curse and then goes straight into "No!" at the effects of the spell. As readers we know what Crucio is--Harry's felt it before--so I assumed he was avoiding what he'd experienced. Although Draco's Crucio attempt is obviously serious and wrong, it's ironically Harry who introduces the "WTF was THAT?" element into the fight for both of them. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 22:39:58 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:39:58 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162472 Betsy Hp: A note before we begin: I typed this all up last night; and it was beautiful. And Yahoo ate it. So, weeping, I went to bed. This is version 2.0. Enjoy. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Oh, it's not there of course. But fear is what all bigotry is > > based on. And the WW is built around fear of Muggles. > > > > So when Hermione brings her parents right into the heart of the > > British WW (Diagon Alley) that could be seen as threatening. > > > >>Alla: > I thought you were comparing Draco's actions to what muggleborns > supposedly do or what purebloodists think? > When Hermione brings her parents to Diagon Alley, she does not say > that "purebloods will be next to go" and if she did say that, I > would honestly understand the response similar to what Trio did. > I mean the parallel is a bit removed IMO or I would say a lot > removed. Betsy Hp: It's not really a parallel at all. It was more of an "aha" moment on my part built off of something you wrote earlier, which has since segued into yet another "aha" moment. Here's the beginning: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162375 > >>Alla: > What is their excuse? If Harry being traumatised is not sufficient > excuse, then the fact that Hermione is the one who is being > threatened with her life and Ron loves her ( we do agree on that, > yes? Even if Ron cannot quite figure that out yet) and twins I think > figured that out even if Ron did not. So that would be their excuse > IMO. > Betsy Hp: I finally get that you really do feel the Trio and the twins see Draco and Co. as an honest to goodness actual threat at this moment. (I'm guessing you're giving me the world's biggest "duh" face right now. ) But if that is how the Gryffindors feel, there's no logic to it. Or, on the surface at least, it *seems* illogical. Because Draco is a massive wuss. He's never (up to this point) attacked any of these people physically. None of the Trio have ever hesitated to respond to Draco (even physically) if they thought it necessary, even if Crabbe and Goyle were standing nearby. So the sense of threat cannot come from a real fear of Draco. It must come from an outside source: the Death Eaters Draco is invoking. Am I right about that? That's how you see it? An analogy would be a Hitler Youth threatening a group of Jews in 1930's Germany, or a white boy threatening some black children in 1930's USA. The threat isn't the youth or boy, it's the Nazi party or the Ku Klux Klan looming up behind him. But the thing is, for me, this analogy doesn't play through. Because the Death Eaters just aren't that powerful. And the Gryffindor's know it. The Trio and the twins are not the underdogs or the threatened minority. Heck, *muggles* aren't even the threatened minority: wizards are. Muggles didn't gather up their cows (and elephants and termites) and flee for the hills, that was the wizards. And muggles don't need to worry about the big bad wizards finding their hiding places, it's the wizards who worry and fret and pass laws to keep their hiding places hidden. Hermione didn't even know what Draco was saying when he first called her a mudblood. But Draco knew that muggles were dangerous enough that a story about evading them would make him sound pretty cool to fellow wizards. So, to my mind, the Death Eaters just aren't powerful enough to loom up behind Draco in this scene. They aren't powerful enough to take a wussy little kid with a rather nasty way of speaking and turn his words into an actual threat. I guess what I'd been trying to say earlier is that the only group in these books that I can possibly see playing the role of downtrodden minority (of the humans, anyway) is the pure-bloods. They're the only group that's been hounded enough, even though it was centuries ago. Not, of course, that this makes their bigoty right or noble or anything of the sort. But it does mean that I have a hard time accepting that either the Trio or the twins see Draco as an actual, viable, and therefore frightening, threat. The Death Eaters just aren't powerful enough, and the Gryffindors aren't weak enough. (I'll just add that I quite liked Pippin's observation that the spells thrown were meant to insult rather than stop or disarm.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > It's beneath "hero" behavior. And, as per the Sorting Hat > > anyway, it's not very Gryffindor-ish of them. > >>Alla: > > They did not conspired all to attack poor Draco - it is just all of > them thought about it simultaneously. That again to me just > strengthens the thought that they all felt threatened. > I do not consider fear for their friend and especially being > threatened by the son of those who watched your torture to be > beneath hero behaviour. That is just me of course. Betsy Hp: *Feeling* the fear isn't beneath hero behavior. Being *controlled* by the fear so that one acts in a manner unbecoming, *is* beneath hero behavior. Leaving the twins out of it (because they're worse than the Trio here and therefore only confuse the issue), I really can understand why HRH lash out at Draco. First of all, he's practically begging for a response (he's *really* good at pushing buttons), and second, they've all been under a lot of pressure and Draco makes a lovely scapegoat. The Trio are children and they're still learning how to control themselves. I don't like that not one of them felt the slightest twinge of regret. I don't like that not one of them thought mistreating the downed boys' bodies was less than admirable. This is not how a hero should feel. He shouldn't revel in his enemy's loss. It's too bad that none of these children have a role model to take them aside and explain why such behavior just isn't done. (Gosh, there are so many times I wish someone would take a member of the Trio aside and say "do you really think that was fair/nice/honest, etc.?") Betsy Hp From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Dec 6 23:21:42 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:21:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: References: <20061205173504.20955.qmail@web52705.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0612061521o5600fe61r4a777a99e80e870f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162473 Eggplant: know for a fact you have been posting to this list for at least a year and a half, so after reading the above my curiosity got the better of me so I have to ask, WHY? Why would anyone spend all that time discussing a laughably bad writer who wrote crummy books full of huge gaping holes? I just don't get it. Eggplant Lynda: I ask myself the same question, then continue. I don't know about other people, but I have a lot of things to do on a daily basis. If I pick up a book and start reading and then come to the conclusion that the writing is poor I quit reading the book!! I don't understand why someone would read a book they consider to be poorly written. Much less potentially seven. I just don't get that. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 23:33:45 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:33:45 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162474 --- "jotwo2003" wrote: > > This is a light-hearted post, but it's something I would dearly love > to see happen. > > ... > > In Spirit and Destiny magazine, January 2007 issue, > published UK ... self-styled fortune-tellers made > forecasts for 2007. > > One of them, called Carol Stirling ... makes this > prediction for 2007. > > "J K Rowling > > She will announce a new book in November, to great > delight from the public. She will use a character > from the Harry Potter novels to create a new series." > > Now, this is one prophecy I really hope comes true. > bboyminn: To my way of thinking there are really only two characters who have lead a substantial and substantially long enough life to rate their own series - -Dumbledore -Mad-Eye Moody Keep in mind that most other character are either young, died young, or have lead relatively mundane lives. For example, while Mr. Weasley has lead a long life, he has spent most of it doing relatively mundane task for the ministry, no great adventures there. Lily, James, and Sirius all died young. Remus lives on but so far, he life has been restrained and limited, and will likely continue to be so. I also suspect that, assuming they live, Harry, Ron, Herione, Ginny, and everyone else is going to be content with a quiet normal life in the future. That brings us back to the beginning, the only two who seemed to have lived a long and interesting life are Mad-Eye and Dumbledore. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 6 23:43:08 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:43:08 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162475 Great questions! > > DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: > > 1) Dumbledore is described a `hampered' by his injured hand > during the climb down, and is described as swimming like a much > younger man, shortly thereafter. Thoughts? Could this be Hary's perspective - remember that he can barely swim himself (GoF). I think that swimming also requires different movements that rock climbing. > > 2) In the antechamber as he seeks the hidden entrance, > Dumbledore murmurs in a strange tongue Harry does not understand. Any ideas on this language and how Dumbledore came to know it? Not a clue! Maybe just a way to stress how knowledgable DD is compared to most? > > 3) Dumbledore insists on using his own blood to open the hidden > archway, though Harry offers his own instead, because "your blood is worth more than mine." What does he mean by this? I was intrigued by this as well. I felt that it probably has something to do with the gleam we saw in GoF and Harry's blood protection. But oddly it leads me to another question: why is Harry allowed to make the blood sacrifice on the way out of the cave? > > 4) Dumbledore heals the cut he has made by passing his wand once > over it, and Harry is reminded of Snape's sung/chanted spell with > which he healed Draco. Is this the nonverbal version, or something > else? Why does Rowling choose to mention this similarity explicitly > by having Harry note it? I think that it is indeed connected to Snape and represents two things 1. a body of knowledge that Snape and Dumbledore are acquainted with that Harry does not know. 2. could also signify the connection between Dumbledore and Snape that the author is trying to reinforce. > > 5) "Age is foolish and forgetful when it underestimates youth " > Dumbledore says of Voldemort, as he explains the boat would only hold one adult wizard. Is there any special significance to these words? Perhaps simply a clue about Voldemort, he has underestimated Harry for a long time and it will probably lead to his downfall. > > 6) Is Dumbledore too quick to conclude the potion must be drunk? > Why or why not? Hmmm interesting. I hadn't really thought of it this way. Perhaps, after all, couldn't they have spent more time researching / thinking about ways around the protection and come back? But there is definitely a sense of urgency to Dumbledore throughout this entire novel. I think he knows/ senses that his time is short and that is the impetus here. > > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? I don't think that it is poison or at least one that is very slow to act. My feeling was that it might act like a boggart or a dementor. DD seems to be racked with feelings of guilt at this moment as if he is being forced to relive all of his choices / actions that negatively impacted others. > > 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us > about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? That he has regrets. That he feels responsible for the sufferings / deaths of others, probably not surprising as he has lived for such a long period, been such a champion of goodness, and is a warrior / general. > > 9) Dumbledore warns Harry not to touch the water both as he gets > into the boat and as he disembarks. Why do you think he does this? he probably doesn't want to disturb the inferi. > > 10) What do you think about the fact that Harry *did* use the > water?Do you believe the lake water had any effect on Dumbledore? Harry did what he had to do, or at least felt he had to do at the time. I think it revived him enough for them to get out of there. > > 11) What did you think of Harry's attempts to fight the Inferi? Worrisome. How can he defeat Voldemort if he makes such mistakes? > > 12) Dumbledore tells Harry, once they are walking along the > lakeshore, "The protection was after all well designed," and asserts > one person could not have defeated it alone. What do you think he > meant? How do you suppose the mysterious RAB managed to defeat the > protection? I think that he was acknowledging that he and Harry needed each other to pass these barriers, that Harry may need the help of others in the future to break through LV's other defenses, and it may have been a clue about RAB. Kreacher has certainly been the subject of much finger pointing when it comes to how RAB defeated LV's cave. > > 13) Dumbledore's final words in the chapter are clearly a > passing of the torch, in retrospect, and mirror his words to Harry > in "Horace Slughorn," when he tells Harry he need not worry about > being attacked because "You are with me." Does Dumbledore know or > suspect what he will find back at Hogwarts? And, is Harry prepared to take up the fight? He may know, we will probably find out in book 7. I hope Harry is ready. I fear that he isn't. He seems to have "lost" in the last two novels so I am worried about his fate in the next chapter. > > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special > significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events > at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as well). I suppose that a psychoanaylist would indicate that it is symbolic of a return to the womb, perhaps indicating the damage done to Voldemort's psyche by his mother's refusal to "live" for him. Well, all joking aside, I don't have any real thoughts on this... Again thanks for the great questions! > From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 00:37:32 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:37:32 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162476 bboyminn: > To my way of thinking there are really only two characters who have lead a substantial and substantially long enough life to rate their own series - -Dumbledore -Mad-Eye Moody Keep in mind that most other character are either young, died young, or have lead relatively mundane lives. Ceridwen: While Dean Thomas is not my favorite character, I think that a book about his father's life and eventual death would be interesting. From what I gather, Mr. Thomas's death was heroic. It would be a shame for that to go unwritten, in my opinion. Supposedly Muggle-born Dean was the son of a wizard, but he doesn't know it. Maybe at the end of that book or chapter, he would somehow find out. Ceridwen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 00:52:02 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:52:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP26, The Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162477 zgirnius: *(snip)* > 7) Is the potion a poison? Why or why not? Ceridwen: Yes. It is meant for to keep people away from a valued item. > 8) What do Dumbledore's experiences drinking the potion tell us about him? What is the meaning of his words and actions? Ceridwen: Everyone seems to think that the potion is a memory. I think it is a hallucingenic that will make the drinker live his or her worst fear. In this case, Dumbledore is living the nightmare of his charges, students perhaps, being under attack, tortured, killed. Since it is followed up by the invasion of Hogwarts by Death Eaters, Dumbledore must have had one of those "Oh, rats!" moments when Rosmerta told him that the Dark Mark was above the castle. > 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as well). Ceridwen: Underground is the place of death. Crypts, catacombs, watery graves, the Underworld in many mythologies, all lie underground. Burial mounds are man-made caves, many of which hide the bodies of the dead. So, I would say that every book has its Underground moment toward the end: The seven tasks in SS/PS; the Chamber of Secrets in CoS; the tunnel, and the night setting, in PoA; the graveyard in GoF; the Ministry of Magic, which is mostly underground, in OotP. Come to think of it, weren't all of these places visited at night? Thanks for a good discussion! Ceridwen. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 01:12:38 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:12:38 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162478 > Carol responds: > Not likely. We've already been through this, but the only "evidence" > for an attraction between Narcissa and Snape is in "Spinner's End > Surely, if it were important, we'd have had more clues by now. Neri: The evidence for Snape/Narcissa is stronger than the evidence for Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione, Harry/Cho, Lupin/Tonks, or any other SHIP I can think of at the moment during the first book we see the happy couple together. Any more clues than we already got in Spinner's End would have completely ruined the surprise for Book 7. > Carol: > Indeed we may and probably will. After all, JKR has promised us more > information on the Prank--primarily James's motives, I think. Sirius > won't look very good, either, I suspect. Neri: I suspect differently. James too looked very bad after OotP, and then JKR turned the table in HBP. She can do it again with the Prank if it fits with her goals. Easily. > Carol: > But regardless of what we see > of Severus's school days, all that will be revealed there is his > motives for becoming a Death Eater, which we already know he did. And > he must have done other things besides eavesdropping while he was a > DE, however good he was at "slithering out of action." Neri: Yes, but JKR has been very silent about those "other things" for the whole series. A silence that I personally finds ominous, but it certainly helped the DDM!Snapers in ignoring these deeds. It might turn out less easy to ignore them when we know what they were. > Carol: > I think he was doing what canon says he was doing, > trying to help Harry block Voldemort's entry into his mind, > particularly after he realized what Harry was seeing. Note his anger > when he realizes that Harry has been dreaming about the DoM and that > he wants to continue that dream. Neri: Of course he's angry. This fits exactly with LID!Snape. He doesn't want Harry to go to the DoM and get killed. At least not until Snape clears his Debt. > Carol: > IMO, he'd be dead if he'd told LV > about the Occlumency lessons. His own skill at undetectable Occlumency > is the only reason he's alive. And he's going to let Voldemort in on > that secret? I think not. Neri: So could you please explain to me, how does Voldemort think that Snape has been fooling Dumbledore all this time, if not through Occlumency? > Carol: > Sigh. The "missing five hours" idea again. > Kreacher's treachery involved getting > Harry to the MoM by pretending that Sirius Black was there. It has > nothing to do with Snape. Neri: You are missing my point. I was trying to think how can JKR debunk DDM!Snape in the beginning of Book 7. This would not be an easy thing to do at all, you know, because by now the DDM!Snapers can disregard almost anything as "Snape keeping his cover". But if, in a conversation between Voldemort and Snape, Voldemort mentions that Snape knew about Kreacher before the DoM operation, this would be very difficult to disregard (but I suspect many DDM!Snapers will manage anyway). You may think Snape doesn't have anything to do with Kreacher, but JKR might think differently. Snape knowing about Kreacher would be an elegant way to explain the dilemma of LID!Snape. He wanted to make sure that Harry doesn't go to the MoM and get killed, but he couldn't simply warn the Order because Kreacher might report it. The Missing Five Hours then fit right in. > > Neri: > > 7. We might find out that Snape was instrumental in arresting > > Mundungus and sending him to Azkaban during HBP. > > Carol: > That's a new one. Do you have any evidence of a Snape/Mundungus > connection other than Snape's sneering reference to him as "a smelly > sneak thief" (unkind but accurate)? Neri: I don't have evidence and I don't need any. I was just publishing a list of my personal *predictions*. Since when do you need evidence for a prediction in HPfGU? Mundungus getting caught and shipped to Azkaban is published in the Daily Prophet in HBP. Later Ron wonders aloud why Snape is sneering about it if he and Mundungus are supposed to be on the same side, and then we are immediately distracted from this question by other things. The mystery thus remains unsolved, and this is exactly the kind of questions that JKR likes to drop and then solve in next books. > Carol: > I don't know about assassinating Lupin (I think that may be Wormtail's > job), but I do fear that Voldemort will assign Snape to do some foul > deed and he'll be forced to do it to keep his cover. Neri: Yep, this exactly demonstrates my point. Just any foul deed would not be enough to debunk DDM!Snape, because it will automatically be classified as "Snape is forced to keep his cover". But if we see a conversation in which Snape *asks* Voldemort for Lupin's head, this will go a long way. Especially since it's obvious that Snape personally hates Lupin and that Lupin isn't likely to be in this conspiracy together with with him. > Carol: > If anyone convinces Lucius to cooperate with the Order, it will be his > old friend, Severus Snape. Why else emphasize their friendship in > "Spinner's End"? Neri: Their friendship is empathized in Spinner's End? This is news to me. IIRC, Narcissa mentions their friendship *once*, and then Snape "flatly" trashes Lucius in front of her. > Neri: > > 10. If JKR opts for the BANGy solution (which she often does with > > Snape) we might actually see Snape on page killing, or takes part in > > killing, an Order member or one of Harry's friends. Prime > candidates: Moody, Mundungus, Luna. > > > Carol: > Extremely unlikely. Snape will need to maintain a low profile > considering that he's the second most wanted man in the WW. Neri: Low profile??? It's going to be a *war* in Book 7. The most wanted man in the WW is going to have lots of fun around with all his minions, most probably including the next most wanted. Dumbledore is dead, Hogwarts might close down, and it's not at all certain how long the Ministry will be able to keep even the semblance of control that they now have. > Carol: > Mundungus > is not Harry's friend, nor would his death be bangy, and he's already > in Azkaban. Neri: The shady Mundungus appears to be deeply involved in Dumbledore's and Aberforth's shady businesses. I predict he's going to be pretty central in Book 7. I would not be surprised if he was the one who needed James Invisibility Cloak before GH. And if Snape turns out not to be DDM after all, then a position will be open for the role of a shady Order member that Harry now hates, but will change his mind about with better acquaintance. Munudungus fits right in. > Carol: > As for Luna, I do fear that > she'll die, but more likely at the hands of Bellatrix, whom we know to > be both cruel and evil. Neri: Not very BANGy, IMO. We already know that Bellatrix is cruel and evil. It's hardly worth sacrificing Luna just to demonstrate it all over again. Some readers might actually cheer for Bella . > Carol: > What's > the point of a "climax" revealing that Snape is evil after we've seen > him kill Dumbledore? Neri: Because after you saw him kill Dumbledore you are still convinced that he isn't evil. The point would be to convince you that he is evil beyond doubt, and *then* have him save Harry's life. > Carol: > I'm quite sure that she already knows about that theory and I very > much doubt that she'll debunk it whether it's close to the truth or > not. She likes to keep profitable lines of discussion going, and > unlike, say, Snape is a Vampire or Dumbledore is alive or (sigh!) Mark > Evans is Harry's Muggleborn second cousin, interpretations of > "Severus, please" are profitable, as are DDM!Snape theories, even if > they don't lead us to the exact solution to the mystery that she has > in mind. And mark my words, she hasn't given us the Snape solution yet. > Neri: She didn't outright debunk Alive!Dumbledore for some time, and then she suddenly did. What caused her to change her mind? The interesting thing is that we see her changing her mind right there in live performance, from one question to the next. What made the difference? I think the difference was that in the second question, Dumbledore being alive was very explicitly presented as the result of DDM!Snape, and the presenter was a famous author. If JKR hadn't debunked it on the spot it would have become the mainstream theory, and DDM!Snape would then be considered almost canon. I don't have any idea what forums JKR mainly mines for fandom opinion, and what is the status of the Dumbledore-Told-Snape-To-Kill- Him theory in these forums. But if JKR perceives that this theory is becoming mainstream, I predict she'll debunk it. She won't debunk DDM! Snape itself outside the books, of course, because it does lead in profitable directions (LID!Snape, for example) but I think she might very well debunk the idea that Dumbledore will make Snape kill him. > Carol: > I wonder how you'll like writing your "Huh! Fancy that! I was wrong > after all" post. (I know I'll hate writing mine if that turns out to > be the case!) > Neri: Well, if it's any consolation, it looks like your "I was wrong" post will be lost among hundreds of other such posts from all the rest of the DDM!Snapers, while my "I was wrong" post isn't going to enjoy that advantage . > Carol, hoping that the line of inquiry JKR decides to smash to > smithereens is Harry!Horcrux > Neri: I'd say it's highly unlikely. Even if Horcrux!Harry isn't true, JKR has no interest that I can see in smashing it before Book 7 is out. Neri From davep747 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 6 23:02:25 2006 From: davep747 at yahoo.co.uk (davep747) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:02:25 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162479 > Betsy Hp: >> I finally get that you really do feel the Trio and the twins see Draco and Co. as an honest to goodness actual threat at this moment. (I'm guessing you're giving me the world's biggest "duh" face right now. ) But if that is how the Gryffindors feel, there's no logic to it. Or, on the surface at least, it *seems* illogical. >> Because Draco is a massive wuss. He's never (up to this point) attacked any of these people physically. None of the Trio have ever hesitated to respond to Draco (even physically) if they thought it necessary, even if Crabbe and Goyle were standing nearby. << I don't know Betsy. Draco does get Harry on the train once and in the girls bathroom they are really trying to get each other. Snape was the only reason Draco is alive from that. You also have to remember that Draco is the same age as Harry. BUT... how many times has it been shown that Harry is so much more powerful then other Wizards his age. He's taken more punishment. Remember when HG tells HP at the lake that even Snape said only a Real Powerful wizard could have created the spell that took out all of those Dementors at one time. Look how hard He Who Must Not Be Named was trying to kill HP when their wands connected. Harry will only become more powerful with time and practice. Draco knows this as do many others. Dave From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:26:59 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 21:26:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612061826n5744d56k3b24452f5fefa152@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162480 Sarah: I guess I'm not seeing the difference between that and OFH. Any Snape that would help Dumbledore's side for unselfish reasons wouldn't give serious consideration to really being on Voldemort's side, and vice versa. I still think if his motives don't get completely cleared up, then book seven isn't done yet. It just doesn't seem likely to me that we'll get to see Snape's epic internal battle for good vs. evil, since the story is told from Harry's point of view. So the shortest road is OFH. Debbie: Grey!Snape has weaknesses that cause him to waver, and even change his allegiances over time. He joined the DEs because he wanted to, and his repentance was real. In all the time he was at Hogwarts, staying on Dumbledore's side was relatively easy. Even when he went back to Voldemort at the end of GoF, it wasn't too hard because he could serve Voldemort without betraying Dumbledore, and of course he was at Hogwarts with Dumbledore on a daily basis. Now, he can't go back to Hogwarts or the Order -- who would believe him? If he's weak, he'll go back to Voldemort. If he feels betrayed by him, that's an extra incentive to leave the do-gooders behind (and it's worth pointing out that in my view betrayal (or perceived betrayal) of Snape by his father figures played a big part in his decision to join the DEs and his decision to leave). Now, Dumbledore has asked Snape to split his soul for the greater good. That's a lot to ask of anyone, and even though Snape carried out his task, I'll bet he is feeling mightily ill-used right now, and ready to throw in the towel. If he has to play the part of a reviled murderer, permanently estranged from the team for whom he committed said murder, why not cast his lot with the side who will appreciate that? Debbie: > And that's why I have settled on what Jen calls Grey!Snape. In my book, DDM!Snape doesn't account for Snape's volatility, his passion, his anger. Carol: Why not? DDM!Snape hates James, whom he failed to save. He feels remorse for the eavesdropping and Godric's Hollow yet hates Harry (because he's a living reminder of that failure?). Debbie: You're 100% right; of course DDM!Snape has plenty of volatility, plenty of passion. My reference should have been to OFH!Snape. Sydney: So, IMHO, OFH!Snape isn't in the book, ESE!Snape isn't narratively possible, and grey!Snape is DDM!Snape with added water where I like my characters neat (still not clear on the difference between grey! and OFH!Snape, except that Grey Snape seems to reserve some mind-changing for the final book where at least we can see it, but where it wouldn't have been set up by all the books before). Debbie: There's no doubt that I like Grey! over DDM! because I like my characters spiced rather than neat. However, Grey! is a much closer relative to DDM! than to OFH!Snape. More like DDM! spiked with self-doubt and indecision. Sydney: The shortest road is either DDM! or ESE!-- for precisely that reason, that it's both difficult and weak to have a non-POV character making all sorts of off-screen choices with complicated and conflicting motivations. Debbie: I'll admit this is the biggest obstacle to Grey!Snape. We'll never see Snape's thought processes unless he makes that final decision on-screen, in front of Harry, and he'd probably need a soliloquy to go along with it. In that respect, a DDM! ending would foreclose the possibility of Grey!Snape. And even I'll admit that the finale would Bang equally well (perhaps even more so) if the real Snape revealed himself suddenly (as in HBP) without long-winded explanations of the kind we associate with the Evil Overlord manual. However, we did have Spinner's End, which was not told from Harry's POV, and we might see another such chapter in Book 7. Carol: . Much as I would like to believe that DD died from > the poison and Snape cast some other spell disguised as an AK (I do > think there was an additional nonverbal spell that sent him over the > battlements, but that's beside the point), his agony is only > explicable if he really killed Dumbledore against his will, for the > cause, at the expense of his own soul and everything he had before--a > comfortable job, the respect of the WW, the trust of the Order > members, the freedom to go anywhere without fear of Azkaban. Pippin: His agony is over what happened to *James*, the person they had been discussing just before Harry said "Kill me like you killed him, you coward. " I believe the break between "DON'T" and "CALL ME A COWARD" is significant. Like Myrtle's "Don't", Snape's is meant to stand alone; the "CALL ME A COWARD" is play-acting for the DE's, IMO. Debbie: Though the use of a pronoun in this sentence is more than a little vague, and Snape's revelation of the prophecy did cause James' death (and Lily's), there is nothing in the passage to contradict the reading that his *current* and most immediate agony is over his mentor Dumbledore and what Snape has been made to do for him. Dumbledore may have been poisoned in the Cave, but I agree that the proximate cause of his death was the AK delivered by Snape. Sometimes things are not as they seem, but JKR seldom (if at all) allows that kind of misdirection to span more than one book. Debbie realizing that she appears to have almost talked herself into DDM!Snape [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 02:30:56 2006 From: ConstanceVigilance at gmail.com (Constance Vigilance) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:30:56 -0000 Subject: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162481 > > > CV: Actually, the only thing we know for sure is that Dumbledore > > found Quirrell ALIVE in the chamber. I'm at work and don't have my > > books, but he says something like: > > > > "I arrived just in time to pull Quirrell off you." > > > > Quirrell had to have been putting up a fight to have to be "pulled" > > off of Harry. > > > > Later on in the hospital, Dumbledore says (again, paraphrased) > > > > "Voldemort cares little for his followers, he left Quirrell to die." > > > > NEVER does Dumbledore say Quirrell is dead. Only that Voldemort > > THINKS Quirrell is dead because he intended it so. > > Geoff: > An interesting couple of side thoughts on this, if the elves > will forgive a reference to "the medium that dare not speak its > name". > CV: sigh...mumbles something along the lines of .... canon .... books .... not-canon .... whatever > > In additional material included with either the first or second DVDs, > there is an interview involving Jo Rowling and Steve Kloves in which > the latter says that there had been times when he put something into > the screenplay but JKR pointed out that it would not fit the later > part of the story. > CV: I give you .... horses pulling carriages. Not *invisible* horses as it quite clearly says in the books, but clearly, horses. But we've gone over this a hundred times. The movie is not allowed on this list for a very good reason. It is not canon. In fact, it *violates* canon at times. And JKR's input into the movie, while kindly accepted, is not the final word. She can be overridden whenever the director desires. Like when there is a cool special effect which is already in the can. I'm just saying. > So, if Quirrell was intended to play a part again, would that scene have > been included? CV: um, yes. Cool special effect. Also, is he is still around, where has he been for the > last five years? CV: where is he? I'm glad you asked! He is doing background work for Dumbledore, of course! I have my ideas where he most probably is. I'm betting somewhere in Scandinavia near Durmstrang. And don't point me to the Lexicon. In spite of all the nice research people have done, Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. JKR said so. Why is he there? He is recruiting trolls and Durmstrang students. And working off his unicorn karma. And is he likely to seek to be used again by > Voldemort when he had been so ruthlessly abandoned? CV: I'm sorry? I don't understand this comment. The whole point is that Voldemort thinks he is dead. This is why Dumbledore would send him out as DDM!Quirrell. He would not be much use to Dumbledore if he revealed himself to Voldy. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 02:38:17 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:38:17 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162482 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Because Draco is a massive wuss. He's never (up to this point) > > attacked any of these people physically. None of the Trio have > > ever hesitated to respond to Draco (even physically) if they > > thought it necessary, even if Crabbe and Goyle were standing > > nearby. > > > >>Dave: > I don't know Betsy. Draco does get Harry on the train once and in > the girls bathroom they are really trying to get each other. Snape > was the only reason Draco is alive from that. Betsy Hp: Yes, but that was years later in HBP. Draco changed a lot over that summer. At this point in time though, Draco is not a physically aggressive boy. And since CoS Harry has stopped treating him as a threat. Harry doesn't *like* Draco, but he doesn't fear him. > >>Dave: > You also have to remember that Draco is the same age as Harry. > BUT... how many times has it been shown that Harry is so much more > powerful then other Wizards his age. > > Harry will only become more powerful with time and practice. Draco > knows this as do many others. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure Draco *does* know this. He, more than any other student I think, tends to resist the whole "Boy Who Lived" cult of personality. And he shares classes with Harry where Harry does end up looking a bit less than wonderous. But I'm not sure what your ultimate point is here. Are you saying that Draco has decided to threaten Harry here and now on the train because he thinks he's got more of a chance to take Harry down? Because I really don't think Draco was posing a physical threat at all. Betsy Hp From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 7 03:45:00 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 03:45:00 -0000 Subject: FILK: Fly Quidditch Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162483 Fly Quidditch To the tune of Elvis Presley's Blue Christmas Dedicated to Potioncat A You-Tube performance here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsEUeF1077M THE SCENE: Year Six - GINNY'S room in Gryffindor, as she reacts to the news that Harry has been suspended from Quidditch for the season. GINNY: I'll have to fly Quidditch without you I'll have to snatch the Snitches without you In detention with Snape in a damp dungeon drear You won't be Seeker for the rest of the year. And when those three Chasers start chasing That's when my one pulse will be racing You've been forced to depart, but you're still in my heart But I'll have to fly ? bye, my guy! - Quidditch (Instrumental Break) I will Ravenclaw rip, but will I gain a ship? When I have to fly ? dry my sigh! ? Quidditch . - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 7 04:01:21 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 23:01:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Professor Snape- Master of This School! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45779211.2060000@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162484 Sydney wrote: > I've been reading "Tom Brown's Schooldays", from which the HP series > borrows a lot, and that's the word used for the teachers: Actually, I think that both come from the same basic source; the British "public school" system. It's a common story form for young people to have a group of friends at a British public school get involved in a mystery; even the types of the hero, the fun loving friend, the heavyset clumsy one and the brainy girl are pretty much stereotypes. Bart From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 04:56:29 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 22:56:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Professor Snape- Master of This School! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40612062056j16e4981bs86764cc84bedeffc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162485 > > Dantzel wrote: > > "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to > > yield the information you conceal!" > > > > Does this strike anyone else as rather arrogant and perhaps power > > hungry? > > Sydney: > > "Master" means the same as "teacher" in England-- it's a little > old-fashioned, but it's used for Snape a lot, as he's always called > the "Potions Master" as someone might have been called the "Chemistry > Master" or the "Latin Master" a couple of decades ago. So "Master of > this School" means nothing more than "Teacher at this school", as one > is 'Master of', rather than 'Master at'. I suppose he's simply evoking > what little bit of authority he has over the object as he would over a > student. montims: I agree - I couldn't even see what the OP meant until I saw this response. He isn't using "master" like "Master of the Universe", and he isn't claiming to be the headmaster - he is just identifying himself clearly for the purpose of breaking the parchment code, and "commanding" unseen forces is a very wizard-y thing to do. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 06:03:12 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 06:03:12 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162486 Betsy - I really can understand why > HRH lash out at Draco. First of all, he's practically begging for a > response (he's *really* good at pushing buttons), and second, they've > all been under a lot of pressure and Draco makes a lovely scapegoat. > The Trio are children and they're still learning how to control > themselves. > > I don't like that not one of them felt the slightest twinge of > regret. I don't like that not one of them thought mistreating the > downed boys' bodies was less than admirable. This is not how a hero > should feel. He shouldn't revel in his enemy's loss. It's too bad > that none of these children have a role model to take them aside and > explain why such behavior just isn't done. (Gosh, there are so many > times I wish someone would take a member of the Trio aside and > say "do you really think that was fair/nice/honest, etc.?") > > Betsy Hp wynnleaf First, just for the record, I think it's fairly clear that Draco isn't actually making threats, he's making nasty taunting remarks. The trio don't respond as though they think they're in danger -- no expelliarmus, or other defensive spells, just the hexes and jinxes that insult - the kind of stuff people apparently do in the halls of Hogwarts over various altercations. If they *really* thought they were being threatened, and didn't realize the others were about to fire off spells also, then they were pretty silly to be casting non-defense spells, weren't they? But they weren't threatened. They were insulted. Now, what about the aftermath? JKR is careful to point out that the boys did not drag Draco and Co. out into the hall. They kicked, pushed and rolled them out, and one of the twins was careful to step on one of the unconscious boys. Now while we might be able to excuse this in the heat of the moment, why does JKR so specifically describe their actions? She did, after all, have the choice of the boys dragging the unconscious bodies out the door. But no. She chose to show them kicking unconscious boys. And that's not all. They continue their travels for what is obviously hours. The boys in the hall don't wake up to find themselves incapacitated. They don't wake up at all. When the train stops in London, they are still unconscious. Now any self-respecting 14 year old with a reasonable intelligence should realize that someone unconscious for that long a period probably really needs help. But does the trio care? Oh no. And once again, JKR is careful to let us *know* they don't care, having them all step over the bodies, hauling out their trunks and other belongings. And they go home without alerting anyone to the unconscious bodies in the hall. With all the trouble JKR has gone to in order to show us the trio and twins hexing some taunting boys into unconsciousness, kicking their unconscious bodies, leaving them in a hallway for hours, and then unconcernedly walking over their still unconscious bodies on their way home -- I certainly hope she plans to eventually show us that Harry and Co. really need to learn that the good guys are supposed to actually be considered "good" because they act differently - not just because they support the right side. Remember how terrible Draco was to Harry on the train in HBP? Why, he shouldn't have felt threatened by Harry at all, right? After all, Harry was just hiding in his train compartment eavesdropping -- Harry wasn't really a threat. What had he ever done to Draco?? (hmm) So Draco froze Harry and kicked him (which is worse - to kick someone who's unconscious, or frozen? - I don't know). And then Draco left him there and went on to Hogwarts. And this shows us how mean and evil Draco is, right??? wynnleaf From scarah at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 10:30:43 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 02:30:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: References: <3202590612060633hd09154m595266ed38623cdc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590612070230k34434edft7e23a2ab87239bc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162488 Sarah: It just doesn't seem likely to me > that we'll get to see Snape's epic internal battle for good vs. evil, > since the story is told from Harry's point of view. So the shortest > road is OFH. Sydney: I have to disagree with this. The shortest road is either DDM! or ESE!-- for precisely that reason, that it's both difficult and weak to have a non-POV character making all sorts of off-screen choices with complicated and conflicting motivations. It would be like having a plot where Sirius is going back and forth on whether to revenge himself on Peter throughout PoA, or a plot where Barty Crouch Jr. isn't totally committed to Voldemort in GoF. The revelation of the 'true motivation' at the end should account for everything, without leaving a window for, 'oh, in that bit where Barty takes Neville off, what's that really about?'. Sarah: I think I phrased that wrong. I think that DDM and ESE are both the easy ways out, and a waste of years of build-up. However, practicality is an issue and we do have only 800 or so more pages of story to go. I can't see Flip-Flopper Snape for precisely the reasons you have laid out. How would this information be conveyed to Harry? He finds a diary? We've been there and done that. Snape lies on a couch and tells Harry about his childhood and dreams? I can't see it. So, I think the best compromise and balance between too easy and too hard is to explain it with a previously-hinted-at plot device. Sydney: My theory is the "deep and mysterious" Life Debt magic works the same way. A person saves another person's life, and somewhere, somehow, the savee is going to be invested in saving the saver's life back. Not through an electric shock or a magical compulsion or even a theoretical debt, but by the magic of storytelling. In Snape's case, I would say the Life Debt got called in when James was endangered, by endangering along with him the only thing Snape cared about--- Lily. So saving a guy Snape couldn't give a rat's ass about suddenly becomes the most important thing in the world. Sort of a finely-targeted brotherhood-of-man thing. Sarah: With the exception of Lily, this all still works with what I expect to happen. Maybe Snape didn't fear consequences of the Life Debt, maybe it just suddenly became very important to him. My point is that either way, I think the Life Debt is important enough to be a motive, which negates the need for Snape-loved-Lily which only serves to accomplish the exact same goals as the Life Debt. If Snape loved Lily, and the Life Debt is also important, what would Snape-loved-Lily accomplish? More reason for Harry to want to barf when he thinks about Snape? I think he has enough. Sydney: I mean, if Snape is Out For Himself, what the heck's he been *doing* for the last sixteen years? He gets himself a job teaching grade school and then he grinds to a halt. If Voldemort hadn't been resurrected there's no indication that he wouldn't be there still, teaching the first years how to cure boils. That's a mighty modest goal for a charcter painted otherwise as being proactive and intelligent. Sarah: Well, by his own words he was happy to stay out of Azkaban and be in a cozy castle and have a job. I don't know if he likes his job that much, but it beats prison. It also placed him well to prevent damage to Harry Potter, if in fact the Life Debt has been transferred. It was proactive and intelligent to get the spy gig before the end of the first war, and to hold onto it as long as he did. Sarah From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 11:03:06 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:03:06 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612061826n5744d56k3b24452f5fefa152@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162489 Debbie: >>There's no doubt that I like Grey! over DDM! because I like my >characters >spiced rather than neat. However, Grey! is a much closer relative to DDM! > than to OFH!Snape. More like DDM! spiked with self-doubt and indecision. Sydney: LOL-- mulled Snape, how Christmassy! A much better analogy. I still don't think we see any indecision *scenes* with Snape, as you would sort of need to establish him as a weak and indecisive character. So far he's been Mr. Snap-Judgement Action Man Who Won't Change His Mind About Anything Without Being Dragged Kicking and Screaming. With only one book left it seems a little late in the game to introduce this vital new facet to his character. There's a kind of Grey!Snape would be an awesome character but maybe I just feel he'd need a book of his own...and that book would be "Young Snape", who would be in exactly the mind-making-up position you would love (I'd LOVE to do a comic book on that)! It just seems to me Snape changing his mind about *anything* would be an extremely protracted and involved process! Actually, from that point of view you might well get your Grey!Snape, if we have enough flashback material in Book VII. There's good reason to expect that Snape's *first* descision making will be on-screen, along with whatever Dramatic Scene made Dumbledore trust him so much. Pensive flashbacks that Harry can witness would serve a much better story purpose than expository non-POV chapters, which JKR has used till now to set up suspense more than exposition. > Debbie > realizing that she appears to have almost talked herself into DDM!Snape Sydney, thinking grey!Snape and young!Snape are probably close to the same person *deleted and reposted to reorganize my ideas... sorry about that! From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 11:31:35 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:31:35 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: <3202590612070230k34434edft7e23a2ab87239bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162490 > Sarah: > I think I phrased that wrong. I think that DDM and ESE are both the > easy ways out, and a waste of years of build-up. Sydney: If the story was about Snape, yes. But the story's about Harry. OFH!Snape has no payoff for Harry as that's already who he thinks he is (including life debt); ESE! has a bit of payoff in terms of a little cheap revenge satisfaction (either by being the Bigger Man and Forgiving him, or by dancing on his grave). DDM!Snape has a huge payoff for Harry's character, and it's the payoff we've been building up to for six books. > Sarah: > With the exception of Lily, this all still works with what I expect to > happen. Maybe Snape didn't fear consequences of the Life Debt, maybe > it just suddenly became very important to him. Sydney: *furrows brow* Just suddenly for no reason? Sarah: My point is that > either way, I think the Life Debt is important enough to be a motive, > which negates the need for Snape-loved-Lily which only serves to > accomplish the exact same goals as the Life Debt. > If Snape loved Lily, and the Life Debt is also important, what would > Snape-loved-Lily accomplish? Sydney: My point is that Lily being endangered *was* the effect of the Life Debt and what *made* it a motive. That pulls the two strands together and makes them the same thing. Like Lockhart didn't leave Hogwarts because of the DADA Curse, he left it because of his addiction to memory-charming people and a broken wand, except that it was the *same thing*. What other effect did the DADA Curse have? The big Coincidences of Doom payoffs at the end of each book *are* the DADA curse. My theory is that "Snape loved Lily and she married James and then Snape put them both in mortal danger and was motivated to change his whole life to try to save Lily and consequently James and consequently Harry" *is* the Life Debt in operation. That's what it looks like. The Life Debt, like the DADA curse, is IMO magic that uses existing circumstances and motivations, it doesn't create new ones. It's a compositon, not an independent object. Sarah: More reason for Harry to want to barf > when he thinks about Snape? I think he has enough. Sydney: Yeah, that's the point. Not to make Harry barf mind you, but to effect some sort of turn around in Harry's hatred for Snape, which has been a potent consistent strand of conflict from one end of the books to the other. > Sarah: > Well, by his own words he was happy to stay out of Azkaban and be in a > cozy castle and have a job. I don't know if he likes his job that > much, but it beats prison. Sydney: Snape was '*cleared* by [the] council', he wasn't going to go to Azkaban. Fudge seems perfectly comfortable suggesting he might get an Order of Merlin. Umbrige would be the character to hold something like that over his head, but the only thing she uses against him is his failed applications for the DADA job; and she refers to the fact that "Lucius Malfoy speaks highly of him" as a good thing. Surely if he was a disgraced unemployable outcast before HBP we would have seen one-- even *one scene*!-- that points this out! I don't see anything in canon that suggests he couldn't get another job (Spinner's End not being much evidence for anything, scene that this is Undercover!Snape). Karkaroff was actually convicted and he could go off and be Headmaster of Durmstrang. And if Snape is so into his comfortable job, how come he's after the leave-Hogwarts-in-a-year cursed job? Whatever Snape is after "comfort" has never been something that sprang to mind. And if it was, I thing JKR would have found a way to show it. -- Sydney From scarah at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 12:11:19 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 04:11:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: References: <3202590612070230k34434edft7e23a2ab87239bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590612070411u41571338xcc594218bc4464b1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162491 Sydney: If the story was about Snape, yes. But the story's about Harry. OFH!Snape has no payoff for Harry as that's already who he thinks he is (including life debt); ESE! has a bit of payoff in terms of a little cheap revenge satisfaction (either by being the Bigger Man and Forgiving him, or by dancing on his grave). DDM!Snape has a huge payoff for Harry's character, and it's the payoff we've been building up to for six books. Sarah: I don't see Harry being sold on OFH whatsoever. I think it's crystal clear that Harry has bought ESE hook, line and sinker. At least at this point in time. Harry has all the puzzle pieces to put together OFH/Life Debt, but he hasn't done it, and Dumbledore won't tell him. Harry believing so strongly in ESE at this time is another reason it won't happen. Sydney: My point is that Lily being endangered *was* the effect of the Life Debt and what *made* it a motive. Sarah: OK, I see what you're saying, and that might actually be the strongest argument for Snape/Lily that I have ever seen. But, you're making a lot of assumptions about the machinations of the Life Debt, and so am I. :) You think it is in the style of the DADA curse, I think it is in the style of the UV and Goblet. Sydney: Yeah, that's the point. Not to make Harry barf mind you, but to effect some sort of turn around in Harry's hatred for Snape, which has been a potent consistent strand of conflict from one end of the books to the other. Sarah: We differ again. I don't think that Harry, upon finding out that Snape loved Lily, would suddenly think, "Gee maybe he's not such a bad guy after all." I think he'd be grossed out to the max, and hate Snape more than ever. Sydney: Snape was '*cleared* by [the] council', he wasn't going to go to Azkaban. Sarah: Would things have stayed that way, though? If say, Snape worked for Dumbledore for a few months or a year and then said he would see him later? I do not think that Snape would be an unemployable outcast, but I do think that Dumbledore is a harsh mistress, so to speak. Regarding "comfort:" Snape speaks of his comfortable job in chapter 2 of HBP. He might be lying for the benefit of the Black sisters, but I'm inclined to believe the basic outline. Which is basically, why not stay at Hogwarts? I had Dumbledore, I had no Azkaban, who wouldn't stay? Sarah From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 13:33:55 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:33:55 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: <3202590612070411u41571338xcc594218bc4464b1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162492 > Sydney: > > If the story was about Snape, yes. But the story's about Harry. > OFH!Snape has no payoff for Harry as that's already who he thinks he > is (including life debt); > Sarah: > I don't see Harry being sold on OFH whatsoever. I think it's crystal > clear that Harry has bought ESE hook, line and sinker. Sydney: I really don't think Harry's as concerned with the fine gradations of Snapeness as we are! For Harry to go from, "He's an evil bastard for Voldemort" to "He's an evil bastard for himself" isn't exactly a character-shaking moment to counter "He would never forgive Snape, never". It could play some part in strategy but no part whatsoever in Harry's growth as a character. It would be stronger just to leave Snape ESE!, because no change in attitude at all would be better than such a weak and subtle one. > Sydney: > > My point is that Lily being endangered *was* the effect of the Life > Debt and what *made* it a motive. > > Sarah: > OK, I see what you're saying, and that might actually be the strongest > argument for Snape/Lily that I have ever seen. But, you're making a > lot of assumptions about the machinations of the Life Debt, and so am > I. :) You think it is in the style of the DADA curse, I think it is > in the style of the UV and Goblet. Sydney: Well, of course we all have only assumptions to go for the Life Debt! I think though it's more consistent with what we've seen for it to work in an ambiguous manner than in a clear one. Dumbledore talks about it as deep and mysterious, as Snape 'feeling' that he could repay it, and that Harry 'may' be glad that he saved Peter. So far it seems to have had no effect on Peter's actions or decisions whatsoever. I also think it's much more consistent with Rowling's writing and what she's trying to do. She likes to use magic to set up plots and to get her out of storytelling difficulties (the Goblet, the Vow, Pensives). She likes to use it peripherally as symbolic of stuff-- Love Potions for hormones for example! When she has magic affect someone psychologically she makes it extrememly clear what's going on-- the character is plainly in the grip of some sort of powerful narcotic like Dobby punishing himself or Barty Sr. under Imperius, and such types of magic are cleary negative and evil because they rob the character of choice. "It is our choices that show who we are", says Dumbledore, and it would be a mockery of him and everything he stood for if he trusted Snape based on a magical enslavement or compulsion rather than on a choice. > Sydney: > > Yeah, that's the point. Not to make Harry barf mind you, but to > effect some sort of turn around in Harry's hatred for Snape, which has > been a potent consistent strand of conflict from one end of the books > to the other. > > Sarah: > We differ again. I don't think that Harry, upon finding out that > Snape loved Lily, would suddenly think, "Gee maybe he's not such a bad > guy after all." I think he'd be grossed out to the max, and hate > Snape more than ever. Sydney: I give Harry a little more credit. If he found out that Snape really was in an agony of remorse, that he moved heaven and earth to try to save Lily, that it was the defining thing of his life, and that from that day to this he'd been filled with self-hatred for what he'd done and devoted his life to bringing down Voldemort for her sake... yeah, I would hope he would at least change his opinion of Snape as nothing more than an evil self-centered git. > Sydney: > > Snape was '*cleared* by [the] council', he wasn't going to go to > Azkaban. > > Sarah: > Would things have stayed that way, though? If say, Snape worked for > Dumbledore for a few months or a year and then said he would see him > later? I do not think that Snape would be an unemployable outcast, > but I do think that Dumbledore is a harsh mistress, so to speak. Sydney: You think Dumbledore was somehow blackmailing Snape, that if he didn't stay at Hogwarts he would change his testimony and get him convicted?! The same Dumbledore that leaves people to make their own choices (to a fault!) and trusts Snape completely? Sarah: > Regarding "comfort:" Snape speaks of his comfortable job in chapter 2 > of HBP. He might be lying for the benefit of the Black sisters, but > I'm inclined to believe the basic outline. Which is basically, why > not stay at Hogwarts? I had Dumbledore, I had no Azkaban, who > wouldn't stay? Sydney: Um, Snape? Snape who hates kids, who is unhappy teaching, who is a potions genius and a healer and probably one of the world's leading experts in the Dark Arts? Snape who spent years of misery at Hogwarts (I tend to see Snape stuck at Hogwarts under Dumbledore's orders like Sirius stuck at his mother's house ditto). Snape who if he's been shown to crave anything, it's personal excellence and personal acknowlegement, neither of which is normally associated with teaching others? Snape who is burning with some kind of resentment against Dumbledore not giving him the DADA job? That Snape? One line of dialogue from a double-agent to a loyal follower isn't enough to contradict six books worth of actual character establishment for me. "Comfortable" is the last word I'd use for Snape past, present, or future. -- Sydney, oooh, the weather's cleared up! From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 15:12:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:12:06 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162493 wynnleaf: > Remember how terrible Draco was to Harry on the train in HBP? Why, he > shouldn't have felt threatened by Harry at all, right? After all, > Harry was just hiding in his train compartment eavesdropping -- Harry > wasn't really a threat. What had he ever done to Draco?? (hmm) So > Draco froze Harry and kicked him (which is worse - to kick someone > who's unconscious, or frozen? - I don't know). And then Draco left > him there and went on to Hogwarts. And this shows us how mean and > evil Draco is, right??? Alla: Um, yes, staying away for too long did not work out for me :) Harry invaded Slytherins' privacy, he did not belong in their apartment, just as Draco and his goons did not belong in Gryffs' apartment and while I understand why Harry was there from his POV ( investigation of bad guys is worth the risk to me), I totally, totally understand Darco's reaction here. I think I am being perfectly consistent in evaluating these scenes. Of course breaking Harry's nose does show to me that Draco is capable of a lot of harm. And Harry was quiet ? not insulting them, but of course he was spying so he should have been quiet. > Pippin: > Right. Two adult wizards were stalking three teenagers and attacked > them from behind because they, the adults, felt threatened. Alla: Huh? Who was stalking three teenagers? Draco and Co came to them. Pippin: > The Trio, who took down a mountain troll at the age of eleven and > Severus Snape at the age of thirteen, including Harry Potter who > stood, straight-backed and proud against Voldemort, felt > intimidated by a menacing look? Alla: Harry had just been through Graveyard. You may find it hard to believe that he would be intimidated by the son of Lucius Malfoy and sometimes I would agree with you. I submit this was not the usual time. Pippin: > Our heroes had every right to be insulted, and Draco was wrong and > foolish to provoke them, but let's not pretend they thought this > was a serious attempt by the Death Eaters to do them in. Alla: Just to make one moment clear - I do not pretend anything here, this how I honestly see this scene. And not necessarily the immediate attempt to do them in of course - but the threat that is coming this second, tomorrow or in a month. I submit that Trio and of course not Harry was not in the state of mind to calculate when this threat is coming, just that they saw red in their minds and reacted accordingly. I am not saying that it was full self-defense, just that they indeed saw the threat in their minds. That is in my view of course. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 16:41:05 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:41:05 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162494 > wynnleaf: > > > Remember how terrible Draco was to Harry on the train in HBP? Why, > he > > shouldn't have felt threatened by Harry at all, right? After all, > > Harry was just hiding in his train compartment eavesdropping -- > Harry > > wasn't really a threat. What had he ever done to Draco?? (hmm) So > > Draco froze Harry and kicked him (which is worse - to kick someone > > who's unconscious, or frozen? - I don't know). And then Draco left > > him there and went on to Hogwarts. And this shows us how mean and > > evil Draco is, right??? > > > Alla: > > Um, yes, staying away for too long did not work out for me :) > > Harry invaded Slytherins' privacy, he did not belong in their > apartment, just as Draco and his goons did not belong in Gryffs' > apartment and while I understand why Harry was there from his POV ( > investigation of bad guys is worth the risk to me), I totally, > totally understand Darco's reaction here. I think I am being > perfectly consistent in evaluating these scenes. wynnleaf If I had not read your other posts regarding Harry and the trio's reponses in GOF, I might assume that you mean that you *understand* Draco's actions in HBP, while not *condoning* them. But since you appear to feel that you both understand *and* condone Harry's actions in GOF, I must assume that, to be "perfectly consistent," you condone Draco's actions as well. Therefore, it must be okay for students who feel themselves threatened in any way to hex one another into unconsciousness, kick and injure an incapacitated student, and leave an injured person alone without help, and neglect to notify anyone to help that person. Well, to each his or her own I suppose. > Alla: > > Just to make one moment clear - I do not pretend anything here, this > how I honestly see this scene. > > And not necessarily the immediate attempt to do them in of course - > but the threat that is coming this second, tomorrow or in a month. > > I submit that Trio and of course not Harry was not in the state of > mind to calculate when this threat is coming, just that they saw red > in their minds and reacted accordingly. wynnleaf Well, no, that's simply not true. If they all felt that they were indeed under physical threat, then they did *not* act accordingly. None of the Gryffindors used defensive spells. If it had been a true threat, and they were faced with people ready to do them physical harm, then their use of spells was abysmally stupid. Particularly since none of them were expecting others to fire off spells as well. Amazing isn't it that if Harry and Co. truly thought themselves under threat, they made such a major mistake that *none* of them used defensive spells? Even when faced with true threats of impending physical harm with Voldemort, Harry makes no such mistake and uses real defensive spells. I could perhaps believe that they all thought they were under a physical threat if maybe one or two had fired off those hexes and jinxes, but most had used true defensive ones. But the fact that *no one* used a true defensive spell? Sorry, it defies belief that they all made such a stupid mistake at the same time. No, they didn't think they were under physical threat. That's why *none* of them used defensive spells. Alla > I am not saying that it was full self-defense, just that they indeed > saw the threat in their minds. wynnleaf Once again, you're saying that they saw a true threat, but *all* of them were so foolish that *none* of them used a defensive spell, even though we see no such foolishness when they are in fact under true threat - Harry in GOF, or the others in OOTP. Alla > That is in my view of course. wynnleaf You are welcome to believe it of course, but I do think it takes a lot of stretching of belief to think that they all fired off non- defensive spells in response to what they saw as a true threat. > wynnleaf > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 16:38:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:38:29 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162495 > > Carol: > > Indeed we may and probably will. After all, JKR has promised us more > > information on the Prank--primarily James's motives, I think. Sirius > > won't look very good, either, I suspect. > > Neri: > I suspect differently. James too looked very bad after OotP, and then > JKR turned the table in HBP. She can do it again with the Prank if it > fits with her goals. Easily. Alla: LOLOL. Sirius **already** does not look good at all with the information we have about Prank, me thinks. If any reevaluation is to follow, he has nowhere to go but up IMO. But I do not think that Sirius would look much better, I mean I do not think we will get any support to the claim of Sirius wanting to **kill** Snape, but even without that, there are plenty bad words to describe what he did. Snape on the other hand, oh yes I do predict that we will learn that he was so very far from blameless of what happened that night. Neri, just think of how easy that would be to do - all that needed is to say that Snape did not waste time reading that werewolf essay in pensieve scene and figured out way before he went to Shack who Remus was and that he went to Shack to prove how good of Dark art experts he was to kill that dark creature, with the curse of his own invention, no less. Ummmm, yeah, that I can see happening. > Neri: > Yes, but JKR has been very silent about those "other things" for the > whole series. A silence that I personally finds ominous, but it > certainly helped the DDM!Snapers in ignoring these deeds. It might > turn out less easy to ignore them when we know what they were. Alla: Oh, Neri. No matter how many murders we will learn that Snape committed, no matter how many innocent lives he destroyed, it had all been for the noble cause. > Neri: > Well, if it's any consolation, it looks like your "I was wrong" post > will be lost among hundreds of other such posts from all the rest of > the DDM!Snapers, while my "I was wrong" post isn't going to enjoy > that advantage . > Alla: LOL. I know I would be dissapointed if Snape would be DD!M, but why would I be upset to write my I was wrong letter? This is all for fun anyways. I promise to write mine the moment after we will reopen for business after book 7 is out if needed :) From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 16:44:27 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:44:27 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter spin-off predicted In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162496 > bboyminn: > > To my way of thinking there are really only two characters > who have lead a substantial and substantially long enough > life to rate their own series - > > -Dumbledore > > -Mad-Eye Moody > > Keep in mind that most other character are either young, > died young, or have lead relatively mundane lives. For > example, while Mr. Weasley has lead a long life, he has > spent most of it doing relatively mundane task for the > ministry, no great adventures there. > > Lily, James, and Sirius all died young. Remus lives on > but so far, he life has been restrained and limited, and > will likely continue to be so. > > I also suspect that, assuming they live, Harry, Ron, > Herione, Ginny, and everyone else is going to be content > with a quiet normal life in the future. > > That brings us back to the beginning, the only two who > seemed to have lived a long and interesting life are > Mad-Eye and Dumbledore. > > Just a thought. > > Steve/bboyminn Jenni from Alabama responds: I think that if JK chose Dumbledore's past (like a prequel to the Harry Potter books)to write about, we'd end up with all of our 'old heroes' included in the book. Since Dumbledore has always been (as far as we know) the leader of the Order of the Pheonix, all the members of this organization would be included in the story of his life. This would include the Potters, the Longbottoms, Mad-Eye, and Dean's father (if he was a member of the Order). I really would like to see the battles that the Potters and the Longbottoms had with Voldemort. I bet they were extraordinary! Dumbledore says that both sets of parents narrowly escaped. (According to the prophecy they had each already defied Voldemort three times - so that is SIX battles. pgs. 841 and 842 OotP) It would also be interesting to see how Harry's and Neville's lives were before Voldemort came and killed Harry's parents and Barty Crouch Jr. tortured the Longbottoms into insanity. Of course, Moody's many battles and captures of dark wizards would be awesome. That's a given. But, IMO, if JK wrote about DD's life, and the things that impacted him in a major way, all the battles I mentioned could be included. Jenni (waiting anxiously for the 7th book to come out and for the OotP movie in July 2007) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 16:57:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 16:57:07 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162497 wynnleaf wrote: > First, just for the record, I think it's fairly clear that Draco isn't actually making threats, he's making nasty taunting remarks. The trio don't respond as though they think they're in danger -- no > expelliarmus, or other defensive spells, just the hexes and jinxes > that insult - the kind of stuff people apparently do in the halls of > Hogwarts over various altercations. If they *really* thought they > were being threatened, and didn't realize the others were about to > fire off spells also, then they were pretty silly to be casting > non-defense spells, weren't they? But they weren't threatened. They were insulted. > > Now, what about the aftermath? JKR is careful to point out that the > boys did not drag Draco and Co. out into the hall. They kicked, > pushed and rolled them out, and one of the twins was careful to step > on one of the unconscious boys. Now while we might be able to excuse this in the heat of the moment, why does JKR so specifically describe their actions? She did, after all, have the choice of the boys dragging the unconscious bodies out the door. But no. She chose to show them kicking unconscious boys. > > And that's not all. They continue their travels for what is obviously > hours. The boys in the hall don't wake up to find themselves > incapacitated. They don't wake up at all. When the train stops in > London, they are still unconscious. Now any self-respecting 14 year > old with a reasonable intelligence should realize that someone > unconscious for that long a period probably really needs help. But > does the trio care? Oh no. > > And once again, JKR is careful to let us *know* they don't care, > having them all step over the bodies, hauling out their trunks and > other belongings. And they go home without alerting anyone to the > unconscious bodies in the hall. > > With all the trouble JKR has gone to in order to show us the trio and twins hexing some taunting boys into unconsciousness, kicking their unconscious bodies, leaving them in a hallway for hours, and then unconcernedly walking over their still unconscious bodies on their way home -- I certainly hope she plans to eventually show us that Harry and Co. really need to learn that the good guys are supposed to actually be considered "good" because they act differently - not just because they support the right side. > > Remember how terrible Draco was to Harry on the train in HBP? Why, he shouldn't have felt threatened by Harry at all, right? After all, > Harry was just hiding in his train compartment eavesdropping -- Harry wasn't really a threat. What had he ever done to Draco?? (hmm) So Draco froze Harry and kicked him (which is worse - to kick someone > who's unconscious, or frozen? - I don't know). And then Draco left > him there and went on to Hogwarts. And this shows us how mean and > evil Draco is, right??? Carol responds: Sorry to leave the post unsnipped, but I agree with almost every word. HRH and the Twins left Draco and Co., who had not even pulled theiir wands or shaken their fists, in the corridor unconscious and deliberately added insult to injury (or is that injury to insult) by stepping on them. As I said in another post that everyone ignored, Draco did not threaten them: he predicted what would happen to them when Voldemort came to power, much as he predicted (correctly) that "Mudbloods" would be the next victims of the Heir of Slytherin in CoS. The Trio interpreted this remark as a threat (they thought that Draco was the Heir) but they turned out to be wrong. He wasn't threatening to do anything, just predicting danger to his enemies and gloating about it. He's doing exactly the same thing in GoF, provoking them rather than threatening them, and this time HRH and the Twins retaliate--not because Draco is posing a threat himself but because they want to punish him for his words. One of the Twins (I think it's George) even jokes that Crabbe's (or Goyle's?) mother won't recognize him because he looks so much better with tentacles sprouting from his face. Their behavior is altogether cold and callous, and I see nothing to mark it as the behavior of good guys. Nor does this scene bode well for the future when they're dealing with real Death Eaters (which Draco emphatically is *not* in GoF). Good guys may kill their enemies in self-defense or in war, but they don't mutilate their corpses. That's the behavior of barbarians, not of civilized modern people. I would suggest that the indignity and humiliation and utter contempt with which he's treated, deserved or not, provides Draco with a motive for revenge in the HBP train scene. And eavesdropping!Harry provides him with the perfect opportunity and excuse. Harry is not about to report this incident to a teacher, even a teacher other than Snape. At any rate, Draco does much the same thing to Harry in HBP as the Trio did to him except that he makes sure Harry feels the pain of being stepped on when he breaks his nose and steps on his hand. (He could have stupefied him rather than Petrifying him, but Draco's motive is almost certainly revenge--not just for the GoF incident but for the imprisonment of his father. And he, like Harry, believes himself to be on the right side in the upcoming war. (Granted, he also believes that it's the winning side.) We can understand his behavior but we can't admire it, and, IMO, its resemblance to HRH's and the Twins' in GoF ought to make us exceedingly uncomfortable. On a side note relating to the Sectumsempra chapter, this incident, unpleasant as it is, reveals that Harry is not the target of the assassination attempts. If he were, Draco would have killed him then and there, without hesitation, or at least attempted to do so. He certainly hates Harry, and he had not yet learned what Voldemort--and death--are really about. But as Quirrell says of Snape in SS/PS, "Yes, he hates you, but he doesn't want you dead." That's the lesson Harry learns from casting Sectumsempra, IMO. He may hate Draco, but he doesn't want him dead, especially by his own hand. Too bad his remorse is so short-lived. Maybe Snape should have been a little less efficient, leaving Draco still wounded but not dying. But Draco's quick recovery, along with a detention that adds to his resentment of Snape and makes him miss Quidditch and the attentions of Ginny, seems to erase the whole incident from Harry's mind (except for two references to Snape's healing of Draco's wounds and the later ability to feel pity for Draco despite the damage he's caused). IOW, I don't think we're supposed to approve the callous mistreatment of enemies nor attacks not made in self-defense any more than we're supposed to approve of James's bullying behavior in "Snape's worst enemy." There are certain forms of behavior that good guys shouldn't stoop to, and IMO that's a lesson that Harry and his friends have yet to learn. Harry needs to stop trying to cast Crucios, Hermione needs to curb her desire for revenge on anyone who hurts her (which reminds me of James's hexing people who annoyed him just because he could), the Twins need to learn that you don't torment helpless Muggles just because they're gits. Fairness, justice, mercy, compassion, nobility, second chances--those are the traits that Dumbledore stands for. I only hope that HRH learn those lessons before it's too late. Carol, who is not asking them to turn the other cheek and allow their enemies to kill, capture, or torture them, only to avoid stooping to their enemies' methods and values From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 17:11:14 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:11:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <743969.52255.qm@web52706.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162498 lupinlore wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > I could read Potter books everyday, and I think JKR's plotting is pretty incredible. I admit that her handling of teen romance is fairly awkward, but I would rather talk about the books' strengths than the weaknesses. I would rather discuss plot theories than talk about why JKR's writing is substandard. I guess, in short, I agree with Eggplant, but felt the need to add that lupinlore is NOT the only person on this list who seems to hate the books and think JKR is a hack. > >Lupinlore responds: >Not a hack, perhaps. But she is certainly trying to sell certain messages, and her sales pitch is often dismal. As for mulching the books -- absolutely. My hard-earned money plopped down for them gives me the absolute right to do anything I want to with them if I find them to be garbage and decide they are worthy of it -- including using them for toilet paper if I so desire (although that would be an expensive bout of diarrhea). Lupinlore >>>>KATIE: So, again...WHY do you read the books? I agree that you have the right to say anything you like about them, but I really wonder why you would waste your own time. I have picked up many a book that other people adore, and read a few lines and decided that's not the book for me. So I just find another that I actually enjoy. I, personally, hate to read bad writing, being a writer myself. I write mainly history, not fiction, but bad writing is bad writing, and Potter books are not poorly written. I think one thing that overly critical people tend to miss is the overall picture. When you spend your time agonizing over little details, you miss the larger picture that the book, or books, presents. JKR has managed, over the course of thousands of pages, to maintain an intricate plot, build characters believably, introduce new storylines, and still not stray too far from her original plot. I think that is an amazing feat for any writer. So, she has some inconsistencies, she occasionally has a weaker section...but those do not take away from the whole, which is a brilliant accomplishment. I think. So, of course, you are free to criticise the books any which way you choose...I wasn't arguing that point. I was wondering why you would waste your time reading books you don't like? Love, Peace, and Potter, Katie Recent Activity 124 New Members 1 New Photos 2 New Links Visit Your Group SPONSORED LINKS Harry potter half-blood prince Half-blood prince Harry potter Harry potter birthday party Harry potter collectible Yahoo! News Kevin Sites Get coverage of world crises. Yahoo! TV Love TV? Listings, picks news and gossip. Y! GeoCities Create a Web Site Easy-to-use tools. Get started now. . --------------------------------- Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 7 17:25:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:25:24 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162499 > > Pippin: > > Right. Two adult wizards were stalking three teenagers and > attacked them from behind because they, the adults, felt threatened. > > Alla: > > Huh? Who was stalking three teenagers? Draco and Co came to them. Pippin: "Thought we'd see what those three were up to," said Fred matter- of-factly, stepping on Goyle and into the compartment. He had his wand out and so did George, who was careful to tread on Malfoy as he followed Fred inside. --GoF ch 37 Fred and George were following Draco and Co, not the reverse. > Alla: > > Just to make one moment clear - I do not pretend anything here, this > how I honestly see this scene. > > And not necessarily the immediate attempt to do them in of course - > but the threat that is coming this second, tomorrow or in a month. Pippin: But Ron and Hermione, not to mention the Twins, are generally dismissive of threats from Draco himself, both before and after this scene. If they are attacking not Draco but the looming shadow of Voldemort, which they see in a few schoolchildren, that's paranoia, and I don't think our heroes are paranoid. I agree that they saw red, but it seems much more consistent with canon to me to suppose that their anger was provoked by Draco's insults, which admittedly they were in no mood to ignore, not by their fear of Voldemort. Well, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I don't think the Gryffs acted as JKR would ideally like people to act if they're being bothered by bullies, and I think the abuse of the unconscious kids shows that. Fred and George in particular have a lot to learn. They have the power of adults but they still act like irresponsible teens, and sure enough it comes back to bite them in HBP. I'm not as troubled by the Trio's actions as Betsy seems to be, because I think overall the WW is a bit, er, Wild West and brawling, though frowned on by the authorities, is a pretty normal occurence even among adults. Consider the altercation in CoS. Can you imagine the reaction in RL if a cabinet minister and a prominent zillionaire started mixing it up at a celebrity booksigning in the middle of London? In the WW, the crowd stampedes, Molly is scandalized and the poor Grangers are shaking with terror, but despite Lockhart's best efforts, it doesn't seem to be news. Pippin From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 17:35:08 2006 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:35:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Trio's Morality Message-ID: <136229.99888.qm@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162500 Well, I've gotten in some hot water for posting this opinion before, but I'm going to do it again, since we're all talking about it again. I know that many people feel that the Trio has acting out of line on many occasions, that they have sunk to the level of Draco and his cronies, that JKR will (or should) show us in the end that that kind of behavior is unacceptable. I completely disagree. First - It's fiction. Fiction has different rules than real life, and I think that the kids who read these books are intelligent enough to realize that. I personally, get a little thrill of "Ha, ha!" when the Cronies are turned into slugs in GOF and JKR describes the Trio and the Twins stepping over them. They deserve it. They're crappy people, who on a continuing basis do nasty and violent things to people. They're bullies, and they deserve to get bullied back once in a while. Again - fiction. It's exaggerated, over-the-top. That's ok in a novel, I think. that's what makes it fun. And real life is obviously different. My three-year-old came home from nursery school last week with a bite mark on his arm from another child. Did I tell him to bite back, or punch the child? Of course not. We went and spoke with his teacher, arranged a meeting with mom and the little boy, and worked it out like civilized people. That's real life - Potter books are about wizards! Fiction! I think different rules apply. Second - In that fictionalized world, there is a lot more at stake than just some bullies on a train. Harry knows about Voldemort, and so do all his friends. They know what's at stake in this fight, and they suspect by GOF that the Malfoys are followers of Voldemort. So, why wouldn't they suspect that Draco and Cronies are going to attack them, even if they didn't have wands drawn yet? I suspect Malfoy at every turn, and always expect him to do something awful. Harry and his friends haven't saved the WW at least four times by being cautious and forgiving. They're fighting a war with evil! They have to be suspicious and aggressive, or they'll die. Third - They are children. And children need guidance. In this, I will agree with the people who say that the adults in the WW are really poor role models. Even our favourite people, like the Weasleys - they are sort of laissez faire parents, kind of letting the kids do whatever, whenever. They make shows of discipline, but that's all it is, a show. Dumbledore, as much as a adore him in other ways, isn't a very open person, and doesn't put a whole lot of trust into the abilities of children, until HBP, when Harry isn't really a child anymore. The kids in the WW are often brushed off and ignored, even when they're right. These kids seem very much on their own, and have to make their own decisions, which are not always the most wise, since they are children. Lastly, I would like to say that I believe the Trio is very moral, even when making poor decisions. These kids are trying to save everyone from a great evil. They are, in comparison to other tweens and teens, incredibly unselfish, kind, and intelligent. When they occasionally act like real teens, people act like they've just had some sort of moral downfall. Can anyone in this group say that they have NEVER, EVER teased someone into tears- even if it was your own sibling? No one had ever made a bad decision? Been unkind? Come on. These kids act like angels all the time, and when they occasionally don't, people jump all over them. They are human, and JKR wrote them that way. I wouldn't be very interested in heroes that were perfect all the time. That's boring. Begging everyone to just lay off the poor kids, Katie --------------------------------- Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From unicornspride at centurytel.net Thu Dec 7 17:51:44 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:51:44 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco,Ginny, & Tom, oh my! References: Message-ID: <00dc01c71a28$5c3aa630$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> No: HPFGUIDX 162501 My personal opinion to this topic is this.. Just a plain case of "get them before they get you.."syndrome.. It is common practice among teenagers to try and "best" the other side. We have this at our own high school.. My daughters group versus her cousins group. The 2 girls have never gotten along. Virtually hate each other for reasons that I do not really understand, but it is what it is.. You do something, so they retailate.. So you do something even "better" and they do something even "better"... never ending cycle that is the most normal behavior according to our guidance counselor.. Then the kids get to a point of forgetting who did what and just try to "get them" before they have a chance to be had.. So.. right or wrong.. it happens and it isn't a matter of defense. It is just a matter of who can get who first.. Hugs, Lana [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 18:07:41 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:07:41 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape, and the Werewolf Incident(WAS Re: OFH, Life-debt...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162502 > Alla: > > LOLOL. Sirius **already** does not look good at all with the > information we have about Prank, me thinks. If any reevaluation is to > follow, he has nowhere to go but up IMO. zgirnius: Reading your thoughts below, we would learn that Sirius betrayed his friend's secret to an enemy that wanted to kill him. I would say that makes him look worse. No wonder Lupin had no trouble believing he had done it again. Alla: > Neri, just think of how easy that would be to do - all that needed is > to say that Snape did not waste time reading that werewolf essay in > pensieve scene and figured out way before he went to Shack who Remus > was and that he went to Shack to prove how good of Dark art experts > he was to kill that dark creature, with the curse of his own > invention, no less. > > Ummmm, yeah, that I can see happening. zgirnius: Except for the seeming agreement by various parties (Dumbledore, Lupin, and Snape himself) that James saved Snape's life. That curse of his own invention seems like it ought to have done the trick, but Lupin is alive, and no mention was ever made about any serious injuries to him. This is the sort of detail I would expect to read Sirius mumbling right after a statement like 'He deserved it', it sounds so much more convincing than 'he was always following us around, the greasy git' (paraphrase). From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 7 19:04:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:04:03 -0000 Subject: The Trio's Morality In-Reply-To: <136229.99888.qm@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162503 Kathryn: > Well, I've gotten in some hot water for posting this opinion before, but I'm going to do it again, since we're all talking about it again. Magpie: I find it very hard to believe you've gotten into hot water for posting that Harry and his friends are good kids. *checks own water- feels lukewarm* Kathryn: > First - It's fiction. Fiction has different rules than real life, and I think that the kids who read these books are intelligent enough to realize that. Magpie: Absolutely. But I don't think the discussions about these scenes are quite about what you're describing. It's not, imo, that people who criticize them in these scenes are only thinking that it would be bad to do this to a person in reality. They're also reacting to it as fiction and getting a different idea about what the author is saying. They are trying to judge it by the standards of the fictional world. Kathryn: I personally, get a little thrill of "Ha, ha!" when the Cronies are turned into slugs in GOF and JKR describes the Trio and the Twins stepping over them. They deserve it. They're crappy people, who on a continuing basis do nasty and violent things to people. They're bullies, and they deserve to get bullied back once in a while. Magpie: You're kind of eliding together your emotional reaction (you personally get satisfaction out of seeing crappy people who deserve it get beaten on) with a statement about correct ethics (this is the way bullies deserve to be treated and therefore it is right to feel this way). I think the reason this makes for an interesting discussion is that it doesn't only come down to personal reactions to the scene, but genuine different possibilities for what the author is going for--is there supposed to be an element of darkness in the kids' characters? Is it an intentional parallel to similar scenes with a bad guy? This is a bildungsroman about a kid growing up, about good and evil. Isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed to be thinking about? Kathryn: > Second - In that fictionalized world, there is a lot more at stake than just some bullies on a train. Harry knows about Voldemort, and so do all his friends. They know what's at stake in this fight, and they suspect by GOF that the Malfoys are followers of Voldemort. So, why wouldn't they suspect that Draco and Cronies are going to attack them, even if they didn't have wands drawn yet? I suspect Malfoy at every turn, and always expect him to do something awful. Harry and his friends haven't saved the WW at least four times by being cautious and forgiving. They're fighting a war with evil! They have to be suspicious and aggressive, or they'll die. Magpie: But this is another thing that's being debated on the thread. They're not actually acting like they're threatened at all, they're just acting like they're angry. And while you've said that moral rules don't always apply for fiction you are obviously still following some kind of moral idea in the scene--even though they've been wrong in the past, the kids should be suspicious, even if Malfoy & Co. don't have their wands drawn it's part of the war with evil so they must be suspicious. (Which is why Malfoy can't claim rightful suspicion when he looks up into the mirror and sees Harry staring at him in HBP.) Kathryn: > Third - They are children. And children need guidance. ... These kids seem very much on their own, and have to make their own decisions, which are not always the most wise, since they are children. Magpie: So why object to adults reading the books and saying they need guidance? I think I understand where you're coming from, that you enjoy the scene even though in real life you would teach your own children otherwise. I don't think other peoples' reactions are really that different. It's just that they put more emphasis on wanting them to grow up and get that guidance. Perhaps because their emotional reaction was different to begin with--they didn't get the satisfaction out of it (not that the two things have to go together). Kathryn: > Lastly, I would like to say that I believe the Trio is very moral, even when making poor decisions. These kids are trying to save everyone from a great evil. They are, in comparison to other tweens and teens, incredibly unselfish, kind, and intelligent. When they occasionally act like real teens, people act like they've just had some sort of moral downfall. Magpie: Now you seem to again be mounting a moral defense that says the Gryffindors are fundamentally good and they have done X good things (I disagree they're particularly kind--that's one virtue I'm not going to give them) so presumably should not be spoken of in this manner--and also the things they are doing here are not bad, but normal (as opposed to the usual super good). In fact, saying they've done something bad here is claiming they've had a moral downfall. I don't think that's all accurate. Kathryn: Can anyone in this group say that they have NEVER, EVER teased someone into tears- even if it was your own sibling? No one had ever made a bad decision? Been unkind? Come on. Magpie: What difference does it make if anyone on the list has teased someone to tears or made a bad decision? And if you think it's so normal to make bad decisions or tease someone to tears why are you judging Crabbe and Goyle and Malfoy as crappy people who deserve to be beaten up? How come you get to get satisfaction out of the text and defend the morality of your reaction and other people don't? Kathryn: These kids act like angels all the time, and when they occasionally don't, people jump all over them. They are human, and JKR wrote them that way. I wouldn't be very interested in heroes that were perfect all the time. That's boring. Magpie: I don't think they act like angels all the time, myself, and I agree they would be boring if they were perfect. But if you like the fact that they're not perfect, why is it a problem to talk about the ways that they're not perfect--that is, to talk about it in ways other than to turn it into another virtue? Kathryn: > Begging everyone to just lay off the poor kids, Katie Magpie: I can't help but find it ironic that you began your post explaining how this is fiction, which makes it okay to knock deserving kids unconscious, and wind up begging us to lay off the poor equally fictional kids meaning that we shouldn't analyze or judge them harshly. This just seems to be defending them from every angle, even when it's contradictory: 1. Different rules apply in fiction so if they do something that would be wrong by real world standards it's not wrong in their world. 2. What they did was right because it shows how bullies (the badness of whose behavior exists in both worlds) deserve to be treated. 3. Not that the personal satisfaction of beating up crappy people was their motivation--they were threatened themselves and fighting evil. 4. In every other scene they're exceptionally moral, and focusing on a scene where they do bad is unfair. 5. Not that what they do is bad--it's normal kid behavior. 6. This behavior is so normal it's universal so can't really be criticized. 7. You can't criticize it if you've ever done wrong yourself. 8. Doing right all the time would make them boring, so saying they are doing wrong is asking for bad writing. So in conclusion, these characters can only be spoken of in admiring terms. -m From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 7 19:13:13 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:13:13 -0000 Subject: Draco's Crying (was:Harry, Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162504 > > Alla: > > I must specify that I am talking **only** about self defense > > situation, so in situation of self-defense if Harry **still* > decides > > that bastard like Malfoy, who threatened to kill him more than > once, > > who did at least some bodily damage to him at least once, should > not > > be killed, well ? great. > > > > If Harry would be trained enough, methodical enough to spare > Malfoy's > > life , while in danger of being hurt himself ? great again. > > > > What I completely disagree with is that Harry in the situation of > > self defense has some sort of **obligation** to feel that way, > unless > > he chooses to do so. > > Magpie: > That's what I think is important for Harry here--particularly since > he's supposed to be powered by love. If > Harry is the kind of boy who fires off a curse at someone as he did > there, splitting them open and almost exsanguinating them and > doesn't feel something then I'd worry about him. Magpie: Hope it's not too conceited to be replying to myself, but I felt like throughout this whole post there was something I was dancing around because it seems so central to the scene to me, yet I wasn't actually saying it, so I figured I should add it on. There's many different ways we can talk about any scene in canon. We can step outside the scene and just give our own opinions on what's going on--which is fine. But there's also figuring out what the author's setting up in the scene as important--we're doing that too, and I think a lot of times we're slipping back and forth. You've said you thought Harry's remorse is important in showing that he is the type to feel remorse and that he did something stupid using the spell, for instance. For me what's also really important is Draco's crying--which has been mentioned in the thread but ironically, iirc, only as a defense of Harry (he was moved by Draco's crying and maybe would have helped him if Malfoy hadn't gone postal). To me the crying is more important than that. I think it was an intentional and important decision of JKR's to put the crying together with Sectumsempra. She was, as usual, pulling lots of threads together into one dramatic scene. On the mundane plot level, of course, she's just using this scene to get a number of things out of the way--she reveals that the boy Myrtle was meeting was Malfoy, reveals Malfoy's fear and the fact he's being threatened, and also reveals Sectumsempra and shows Snape that Harry's got his book etc. I think Carol is also correct in her other post where she says Harry is seeing the same important distinction Snape feels for him--he hates Draco, but he does not want him dead (more importantly, he doesn't want to kill him). But I think there's another thing going on as well. I remember saying earlier that I didn't think we could take it as a given that Harry would have been so sympathetic to Malfoy just because he saw him crying--after all, he's upset over the very thing that Harry wants to get him for. However Harry might have felt if Malfoy hadn't attacked him, he actually isn't sympathetic in the scene. His feelings are described as: "And Harry realised, with a shock so huge it seemed to root him to the spot, that Malfoy was crying -- actually crying -- tears streaming down his pale face into the grimy basin. Malfoy gasped and gulped and then, with a great shudder, looked up into the cracked mirror and saw Harry staring at him over his shoulder. Malfoy wheeled round, drawing his wand. Instinctively Harry pulled out his own." At the point Malfoy wheels around all Harry has felt is shock, a shock so huge that it "roots him to the spot" and keeps him from doing what he probably would have done had he found Malfoy just talking to Myrtle, which is hide and listen. Not stand there like a sitting duck in full view for a pretty long moment. And the question is--why is he so shocked for so long? He's not just surprised here (like Malfoy when he found Harry and Snape doing their Occlumency lessons), he's shocked and seems to be having trouble taking it in. That shock is drawn out for two sentences, first Harry being physically rooted to where he's standing, then having to go over what he's seeing ("Malfoy was crying --actually crying --"). He's transfixed watching the physical crying--the tears falling into the basin, the gulping sobs. But what's so shocking here? I mean, so shocking that Harry has so much trouble processing it? It's not shocking to a lot of readers, presumably. Myrtle's already told us some boy was crying in the bathroom and the law of character conservation made Malfoy the obvious candidate. Harry himself has been watching Malfoy's physical deterioration all year and been pleased by it because he knows it means the Voldemort plot isn't going well. Usually Malfoy in any kind of distress makes Harry pleased. So what's so different here that it's so shocking? I think the idea is that Harry is shocked at suddenly seeing Malfoy, cliche as it sounds, as a real person. In the past the only feelings Harry's ever saw in Malfoy were negative ones: he's menacing, he hates Harry, he's a coward. He's also seen fake ones: he sucks up to people, he boasts, he struts, he plays up injuries. Did Harry really not see the vulnerability in him that many readers saw? Well, no, he probably didn't. As early as the Sorting scene Harry has actually imbued Malfoy with a sense of well-being and confidence so big he sees any evidence against it as a welcome, temporary abberation. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that up until that moment Harry really never has seen Malfoy as a boy like himself who might actually feel the same things Harry feels at times and have similar motivations. (It's really interesting the way it's both like and unlike the Pensieve scene with Snape, perhaps because Snape and Malfoy represent different shadows to Harry.) I realize this sounds really cliche--but JKR isn't afraid of cliches when she's set them up well, and she has here. There's a reason this moment had already occurred in a hundred H/D fics before she wrote it. It's not about Harry suddenly feeling sorry for Malfoy--he doesn't in the scene. It's somehow exploding something that until that moment he'd taken for granted about Malfoy, something I doubt he'd ever really been aware of. Apparently Malfoy crying -- actually crying -- really is a shock for Harry who has more than once in the past wanted to cause him as much pain as possible. There's something about that moment that makes Malfoy different, and then it's immediately choked off--just as Harry's fleeting confusion about Snape after the Pensieve is choked off by Snape attacking him. Malfoy attacks him (he knows it's a naked moment, certainly), Harry instinctively defends himself. And this is the fight that leads to Harry hurting Malfoy more than he ever has, more than he imagined or really intended. I feel like you can't separate the two things completely. Even acknowledging that Harry was acting in self defense, this isn't just another scene where Harry strikes back at the Malfoy he knew before who was asking for it. Throughout the whole fight Harry is actually more strangely empathetic than Malfoy than he ever has been, I suspect. Perhaps that's another reason Harry doesn't think about Malfoy at all after that. It's not just guilt at his (fixed) actions, perhaps, but the discomfort of his new intimacy with Malfoy. I'm not even sure if Harry told his friends about the crying--you'd think they'd have said something about it. He may still be having trouble processing it. The fight can distract him from it, but I think it's also connected to why he feels badly. I don't mean anything so literal as just Harry feels bad because he not only hurt Malfoy but Malfoy was sad right before he did it. I think it's more subtle. Subtle, btw, in a way I again think parallels Snape. Harry also saw him in the exact kind of vulnerable moment he didn't associate with him, Snape also responded by attacking Harry, Harry defended himself again, focusing more on the unfair accusations. It's also kind of funny that this is Snape and Malfoy, both of whom are connected to Occlumency by Rowling. Occlumency, which she relates to cutting onesself off from feelings, which both Snape and Draco consider potential weaknesses even though they seem at heart more emotional than Harry (or in different ways). Harry has seen exactly what these two characters are always trying to hide, and up until the moments they hit him in the face, they were successful at hiding them from Harry. -m From antonia31h at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 10:32:30 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:32:30 -0000 Subject: Two different editions of HP series one for kids and another for adults? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162505 I recently found out about this and I'm confused. I have to mention that I am not from the US nor from Britain so over here (in Romania that is) we only got the Blomsbury editions in English and the one translated in Romanian (which is dreadful by the way). So the Blomsbury edition is for adults or for children? What is the difference between the two editions? I heard that some lines were left out in the children editions. Is that true? Does anyone have the missing lines from the children editions from the 6 books? Are those lines important to the books? Do they refer to Severus? Antonia From aratchford at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 18:49:12 2006 From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 18:49:12 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162506 Hello all, I have been dealing with this itchy theory- farm in the back of my head and I would like your opinions on this. I have searched the old messages for a few hours looking for theories on this and have not found them. if they're there, I'd appreciate the link... otherwise please chime in. In HBP Ch. 24, we all know how badly Draco is injured. We also know that Snape (perhaps spying on Narcissa's behest) is there- like magic- to heal him. However, we also know that Draco gets taken to the hospital wing to be further cared for by Madam Pomfrey (I take this to be like post-op care... he's all sewn up, but it was still trauma to his body and then there's the 'might scar' scenario). If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? He would have had to have had his shirt and undershirt removed for her to properly examine all of the places where Harry slashed him open. That would certainly have exposed his left arm. And even if Snape had healed the wounds enough that she didn't need to remove his shirts, would she not insist on changing his bloody clothing? would Snape have though of that and found a way to mask the dark mark before taking Draco to Madam Pomfrey? Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big bone of contention in my house at the moment. Please offer up your own theories. :) Thanks -MQ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 19:24:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:24:36 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162507 --- , "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > Because Draco is a massive wuss. He's never (up > > > to this point) attacked any of these people > > > physically. None of the Trio have ever hesitated > > > to respond to Draco (even physically) if they > > > thought it necessary, ... > > > > > > >>Dave: > > I don't know Betsy. Draco does get Harry on the train > > once and in the girls bathroom they are really trying > > to get each other. ... > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, but that was years later in HBP. ... At this > point in time though, Draco is not a physically > aggressive boy. And since CoS Harry has stopped > treating him as a threat. Harry doesn't *like* Draco, > but he doesn't fear him. > bboyminn: Oddly, this is one of those rare times when Betsy and I are somewhat in agreement. Though, I'm not sure how long that is going to last. Let us start with a question; how do you stop a bully from bullying you? Answer: Punch him in the nose, and kick him when he is down. I know that seems completely counter intuitive, but it works. Notice that Bullies don't pick on each other. No, they bully those they preceive as helpless and weak. They bully particular people because they are convinced that those people won't fight back. When the preceived weak and helpless suddenly fight back, then what was preceived as a safe sure action takes on a very noticable element of risk. That is a sure way to gain a bully's respect. So, why don't the kids who are being bullied go to an adult? Because the school is not ruled by teachers, administrators, or rules. It is ruled by the Code of the Playground. The very fact the bullying thrives in a heavily supervised area like a school tells kids that the adults are not on their side. That going to a teacher is more likely to get you in trouble than the bully, and is certainly going to bring on a huge heap of inaction or at the most token action. So, the choices are 'grin and bear it' or 'kick bully butt'. > Betsy Hp: > I'm not sure Draco *does* know this. He, more than any > other student I think, tends to resist the whole "Boy > Who Lived" cult of personality. ... bboyminn: And that is precisely why Draco never learns his leason. Why he never learns to leave well enough alone. Draco is not your typical bully. He is not the biggest kid intimidating the little kids, that would be Dudley. Draco is a bully because he is thoroughly convinced of his own superiority. Note that Draco is not physically a big intimidating guy. His source of power is his social and economic status, and as I said, the accompaning sense of superiority. That's why he never learns. Though after the last book, now that Draco is playing with the truly BIG BOYS, I don't think he feels so superior after all. On the train, there is without a doubt a great deal of ego, pride, and even machismo involved. But what is really happening is, this is everyone's way of telling Draco that they will not be cowed or intimidated. They will not be bullied. They will not allow the memory of Cedric Diggory to be scoffed at. Further in the great war ahead, they will fight with every resource they have available, they will never surrender, they will never yeild, they will fight to the last man rather than lose to Voldemort. This is not an intimidation and threat that can be addressed by the normal rules of society because the other side, whether Draco, Voldemort, or a schoolyard bully, are themselves not playing by the rules. This is the perfect place for 'schoolyard justice' because no other source justice is able to hold sway. Notice the circumstances on the train. Everyone react independantly. This was not a calculated coordinated attack on Draco, this was a spontanious response to Draco's provocation at the most inopportune and unwise time. Also, they didn't not use deadly or even dangerous curses against Draco, just as you would not use a gun or a knife against a common schoolyard bully. Draco suffered great embarassement, but he suffered no harm. All these spells can be resolved easily leaving Draco perfectly normal and unharmed. We see from Draco's personality and from his action that he is not a typical bully fashioned after Dudley. His form of bullying and intimidation is motivated by different forces, and that leads to a different type of bullying, and leads to Draco's chronic inability to learn the lesson that it is far wiser to leave Harry Potter alone. Harry's message to Draco is 'bring it on' though I would prefer that you just left me alone. Yet, if you insist on threatening, intimidating, and harrassing me, I will fight you to the bitter end. I will never yeild. While by any standard of social behavior, Harry and the gangs actions were wrong, we can't really apply those rules because those are not the rules Draco is playing by, and those rules will never be there to help when help is needed. So, we revert to the only set of rules that are able to affect the situation, and that is 'The Code of the Playground'. You duke it out regardless of the odds of winning because that is the only law that a bully understands. You heard it here first ...or not. Steve/bboyminn From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 7 19:22:41 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:22:41 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162508 Sydney: > I still don't think we see any indecision *scenes* with Snape, as > you would sort of need to establish him as a weak and indecisive > character. So far he's been Mr. Snap-Judgement Action Man Who > Won't Change His Mind About Anything Without Being Dragged Kicking > and Screaming. With only one book left it seems a little late in > the game to introduce this vital new facet to his character. Jen: The twitch? The fight in the forest? The pause while Dumbledore pleads? I know DDM explains these things a certain way but they don't have to be explained that way, JKR could have another explanation called wavering . Essential to Grey!Snape is Debbie's idea that Snape has developed a very tight control over himself and a resulting confidence in his abilites; these two things lead to a Snape who believes he can pass through the double agent experience 'unscathed' as Debbie aptly puts it. I would add Snape expects he will be able to continue slithering out of unsavory jobs that the True Believers in both camps have to engage in. Instead he will work alone, one man traveling light with his Occlumency. Well by HBP things aren't going so hot. He's aware the DE's think he got out of the dirty work at the MOM and he has company at his little abode in the form of a rat. And lo and behold, who should arrive on his doorstep but a beautiful sobbing lady in need of a Prince to save the day? Combine that with the grinding months of practicing Occlumency, being surrounded by reminders of his old life, and Dumbledore arriving half-dead in need of patching up (how much Occlumency does *that* take to hide) and suddenly life as a spy is not exactly how he imagined it. Oh! And let's add the probability Snape already had the DADA job by the time Narcissa arrives, activating the curse which brings out the worst in a person and hasn't been foiled in 40 years. So yes, *that* Snape I see wavering regardless of how forceful his actions prior or how tight his control. He is starting to slip and that potential loss of control terrifies and enrages him, the thought he could ever be 'weak' again. As Dumbledore asks more and more of Snape throughout HBP (and in OOTP as well), Harry is getting a taste of what it's like to work for Dumbledore. He has been treated as special by Dumbledore, just like Snape always sneers about, and those days are coming to an end with the final culmination at the potion bowl, force-feeding Dumbledore poison. This common experience will be a point of intersection for them (like DDM). Sydney: > Actually, from that point of view you might well get your Grey! > Snape, if we have enough flashback material in Book VII. There's > good reason to expect that Snape's *first* descision making will be > on-screen, along with whatever Dramatic Scene made Dumbledore trust > him so much. Pensive flashbacks that Harry can witness would serve > a much better story purpose than expository non-POV chapters, which > JKR has used till now to set up suspense more than exposition. Jen: I see young Snape as similar to Draco in the way he was drawn into the world of Voldemort though I don't think he believed like Draco believes, likely he was disillusioned with the alternatives more than anything else! But Snape was surrounded by the DE culture in Slytherin house and that along with a possible growing interest in dark arts could be contributing factors. I don't see Grey!Snape developing then so much as I do after he returned to Dumbledore. Whatever happened, and I assume it was loss of a loved one at the hands of LV or threat of such a loss (like Draco), that was the time period Snape must have started developing Occlumency skills and was determined not to let his emotions get the better of him again. His loyalty to Dumbledore wasn't really tested until the point Voldemort returns and by that point Snape is quite confident about his abilities as we see during the Occlumency lessons. > Debbie, realizing that she appears to have almost talked herself > into DDM!Snape Jen, hoping Debbie won't hop into the other camp just yet . From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 19:30:45 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:30:45 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162509 > > Alla: > > > > Um, yes, staying away for too long did not work out for me :) > > > > Harry invaded Slytherins' privacy, he did not belong in their > > apartment, just as Draco and his goons did not belong in Gryffs' > > apartment and while I understand why Harry was there from his POV > ( > > investigation of bad guys is worth the risk to me), I totally, > > totally understand Darco's reaction here. I think I am being > > perfectly consistent in evaluating these scenes. > > wynnleaf > If I had not read your other posts regarding Harry and the trio's > reponses in GOF, I might assume that you mean that you *understand* > Draco's actions in HBP, while not *condoning* them. But since you > appear to feel that you both understand *and* condone Harry's > actions in GOF, I must assume that, to be "perfectly consistent," > you condone Draco's actions as well. Therefore, it must be okay for > students who feel themselves threatened in any way to hex one > another into unconsciousness, kick and injure an incapacitated > student, and leave an injured person alone without help, and neglect > to notify anyone to help that person. Alla: Actually close but not quite. I did not say anything about leaving Draco and goons unconscious as being Okay. That is one part of their reaction which I do not find to be okay. They should have called for help. I still understand them, but do not condone that. Yes, hexing them - have no problem with it just as have no problem with Draco hexing Harry. I do think that since Harry was not issuing any threats, the damage Draco did was excessive, but fully admit that this is probably not an objective reaction and of course do find Draco not calling for help to not be okay. So, yes, I think I am being consistent, if not perfectly consistent than as close to consistent as possible considering of course that I hate Malfoy and everything he stands for, but I am trying really hard to leave my emotions out of it. :) wynnleaf: > Well, to each his or her own I suppose. Alla: Yes. > > Alla: > > > > LOLOL. Sirius **already** does not look good at all with the > > information we have about Prank, me thinks. If any reevaluation is > to > > follow, he has nowhere to go but up IMO. > > zgirnius: > Reading your thoughts below, we would learn that Sirius betrayed his > friend's secret to an enemy that wanted to kill him. I would say that > makes him look worse. No wonder Lupin had no trouble believing he had > done it again. Alla: No, sorry that does not follow to me at all. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Sirius had no clue that Snape figured who Remus is and went in wanting to kill Remus. So, Sirius looks bad right now, I do not see how he can look any worse, unless of course the idea that Sirius wanted to kill Snape would get canon support - not as Sirius sending Snape to the danger, but Sirius **wanting** Snape to die. > Alla: > > Neri, just think of how easy that would be to do - all that needed > is > > to say that Snape did not waste time reading that werewolf essay in > > pensieve scene and figured out way before he went to Shack who > Remus > > was and that he went to Shack to prove how good of Dark art experts > > he was to kill that dark creature, with the curse of his own > > invention, no less. > > > > Ummmm, yeah, that I can see happening. > > zgirnius: > Except for the seeming agreement by various parties (Dumbledore, > Lupin, and Snape himself) that James saved Snape's life. That curse > of his own invention seems like it ought to have done the trick, but > Lupin is alive, and no mention was ever made about any serious > injuries to him. This is the sort of detail I would expect to read > Sirius mumbling right after a statement like 'He deserved it', it > sounds so much more convincing than 'he was always following us > around, the greasy git' (paraphrase). > Alla: Why would JKR make Sirius say anything of the sort in book three? When we only learn of that curse in book 6. There is only one book left as we all know, and still JKR promised more about that blasted night, so that maybe rather important to the end of the books IMO. I may hope that the reason why it is important is what Neri said - making Snape look worse. ;) I can be totally off of course and say Pippin will be doing happy dance at the end, when we learn that Lupin's evil mastermind was behind conspiracy to kill Snape or that Sirius planned to kill Snape after all. :) But I will hope for now. Come to think of it Why would the "James not saving Snape life" not be true, if Snape may have no chance to use it? I was speculating that he **wanted** to use it, NOT that he actually did. This is of course speculation but the fact that **werewolf recognizing essay** is mentioned twice in canon and both times in connection with recognizing Lupin and both times Snape is involved too makes me coming back to it over and over again. As an aside I was wondering whether the following quote from PoA may have any relevance or any possible clues about what happened during that night. I must warn - I do not have any ideas whether that means anything or not, basically. It is just something about this quote does not sit right with me and I want to hear what others think. I vaguely remember wanting to post this quote in the past, don't think I ever did, if anybody remembers thread discussing it, please refer me to it. "They planted the Whomping Willow the same year I arrived to Hogwarts. People used to play a game trying to touch the trunks. In the end, a boy called Davey Gudgeon nearly lost an eye, and we were forbidden to go near it. No broomstick would have a chance" - p.186, PoA, paperback, am.ed. Again, I don't have any thoughts about it, I just find it strange and I don't know why. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 7 19:36:22 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:36:22 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162510 Neri: > You may think Snape doesn't have anything to do with Kreacher, but > JKR might think differently. Snape knowing about Kreacher would be an > elegant way to explain the dilemma of LID!Snape. He wanted to make > sure that Harry doesn't go to the MoM and get killed, but he couldn't > simply warn the Order because Kreacher might report it. The Missing > Five Hours then fit right in. > Pippin: Huh? Kreacher can still report, can't he? Anyway, I think Snape's delay was explained in HBP. Snape is a true Slytherin and naturally phlegmatic. Oh, once the adrenalin is flowing, he's remarkably quick, but it actually takes a lot to get it moving, IMO. Without Dumbledore or McGonagall to spur him to act, Snape hesitated, much as Slughorn did when Ron was poisoned, not out of animosity but out of confusion. Knowing the consequences if he was wrong and he blew his cover and trashed sixteen years of thankless, dangerous work for nothing, it took a while for him to accept that he had no choice but to act. If Dumbledore and Snape assumed that it *did* blow his cover, that would explain the need for a murder ruse. The murder makes it impossible for the characters to believe in DDM!Snape, while OFH!Snape would be perfectly acceptable to Voldemort, who doesn't understand or appreciate loyalty anyway. > Neri: > Because after you saw him kill Dumbledore you are still convinced > that he isn't evil. The point would be to convince you that he is > evil beyond doubt, and *then* have him save Harry's life. Pippin: But that's weak dramatically, because regardless of what the readers think, Harry is thoroughly convinced that Snape is evil already, whether for his own ends or because he is personally loyal to Voldemort. Only a Luke Skywalker type character who was still convinced that there was good in Snape could have such a reversal, but even Hermione and Hagrid seem resigned to Harry's point of view. > Neri: > She didn't outright debunk Alive!Dumbledore for some time, and then > she suddenly did. What caused her to change her mind? The interesting > thing is that we see her changing her mind right there in live > performance, from one question to the next. What made the difference? Pippin: Hmmm.... I don't usually indulge in real life conspiracy theorizing, believe it or not, but I'm wondering if Salman Rushdie didn't pull a fast one. My understanding is that questions were submitted in advance. If Rowling didn't want to reveal that Dumbledore was the character who had been killed, her usual policy just after release when many people haven't finished the book yet, then why would she have agreed to answer Rushdie's question at all? Not that it's on topic here, replies to OT-Chatter please, but I'm wondering if Rushdie asked exactly the question he submitted. It would be an interesting interpretation of Rowling's "That's not fair." Oh well, we'll probably never know. (I mean no disrespect by suggesting this, I'm only envious of the nerve and the prestige it took to pull it off.) Pippin From scarah at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 19:43:48 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:43:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Two different editions of HP series one for kids and another for adults? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612071143j13aa01e2wbf307e0c46bb4337@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162511 Antonia: > I recently found out about this and I'm confused. I have to mention > that I am not from the US nor from Britain so over here (in Romania > that is) we only got the Blomsbury editions in English and the one > translated in Romanian (which is dreadful by the way). So the > Blomsbury edition is for adults or for children? What is the > difference between the two editions? Sarah: The only difference is the cover art. The adult covers are meant to be less embarassing to read in public. :) They're supposed to be designed to look more like a mystery novel or something. The text inside is the same. Antonia: I heard that some lines were left > out in the children editions. Is that true? Does anyone have the > missing lines from the children editions from the 6 books? Are those > lines important to the books? Do they refer to Severus? Sarah: The United States have a different publisher and editor, and there are indeed differences from the Bloomsbury (UK) to Scholastic (US) editions. I think that must be what you're thinking of. The Lexicon has been kind enough to list them for us: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html No differences between adults' and childrens' except the cover. But there are differences between UK and US. (The US only puts out one version. I mean, they do eventually have hardback, paperback, and different box sets and all, but there's no adults' vs. children's.) HTH! Sarah From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 20:01:13 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:01:13 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162512 > Alla: > Come to think of it Why would the "James not saving Snape life" not > be true, if Snape may have no chance to use it? zgirnius: I fail to see how he could not have a chance to use it, unless James somehow prevented it. Which would certainly change the tenor of the story. You're supposing he knew what he would be facing. Alla: > "They planted the Whomping Willow the same year I arrived to > Hogwarts. People used to play a game trying to touch the trunks. In > the end, a boy called Davey Gudgeon nearly lost an eye, and we were > forbidden to go near it. No broomstick would have a chance" - p.186, > PoA, paperback, am.ed. > > Again, I don't have any thoughts about it, I just find it strange and > I don't know why. zgirnius: The line does not seem strange to me. I see it as playing a couple of different purposes. In the context of PoA, it establishes the Willow as a danger (which Our Heroes will later face) and is a clue for those subtle enough to look for 'em (not me, I rip through the books to see what happens next!) that the Willow is somehow connected with Lupin. The second purpose is relevant to our discussion. It indicates that Snape was knowingly breaking a school rule when he went into the passage, above and beyond merely being out past curfew. Of course, in my view it was a rule he had reason to believe the Marauders broke regularly, so he thought he had the knowledge (once Sirius told him how to deactivate the tree) to handle the dangers safely. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 20:24:26 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:24:26 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162513 > Alla: > > No, sorry that does not follow to me at all. It seems perfectly > plausible to me that Sirius had no clue that Snape figured who Remus > is and went in wanting to kill Remus. > > So, Sirius looks bad right now, I do not see how he can look any > worse, unless of course the idea that Sirius wanted to kill Snape > would get canon support - not as Sirius sending Snape to the danger, > but Sirius **wanting** Snape to die. wynnleaf, Even if Sirius supposedly didn't think that Snape would die or be injured, one would hope that at least after the incident occurred, teachers impressed upon Sirius that these were the likely results of Snape's meeting up with a werewolf. Yet even as an adult (1 year out of Azkaban) Sirius still thought that Snape "deserved" his prank -- and at that point Sirius should have been well aware that the prank could have resulted in Snape's death. > > > Alla: > > > Neri, just think of how easy that would be to do - all that > needed > > is > > > to say that Snape did not waste time reading that werewolf essay > in > > > pensieve scene and figured out way before he went to Shack who > > Remus > > > was and that he went to Shack to prove how good of Dark art > experts > > > he was to kill that dark creature, with the curse of his own > > > invention, no less. > > > > > > Ummmm, yeah, that I can see happening. wynnleaf Problems with this possibility. How would we ever discover this in Book 7? Apparently the Marauders thought that Snape was just snooping to get them expelled, so Lupin isn't going to reveal some extra knowledge about Snape's intentions. That means that if Snape really intended to kill Lupin, no one knows, but him. I don't see Snape as the type of character to -- like Voldemort -- make some long incriminating speech about how way-back-when he tried to kill Lupin/werewolf. I tend to think if we can't invision how JKR would reveal something, we have to assume it didn't happen. But I'm sure you'll think of something.... Alla > Come to think of it Why would the "James not saving Snape life" not > be true, if Snape may have no chance to use it? > > I was speculating that he **wanted** to use it, NOT that he actually > did. wynnleaf The bigger reason Snape wasn't going to the Whomping Willow expecting to kill a werewolf -- he ended up owing James a life debt for saving his life. This means that first, Snape wasn't equipped with a werewolf-killing spell. Snape came away angry at owing James his life, when he felt that James was in on the trick to begin with. But if his purpose had been to kill Lupin, then his real feeling wouldn't be "oh damn, my enemy saved my life!" but instead, "Foiled again! That idiot James messed up my perfect plan to kill Lupin. I had this great spell that kill werewolves. I didn't need to be 'saved.' I just needed a chance at a good shot." There's no way, if Snape felt he could have killed the werewolf himself - and even wanted to do so -- that he'd feel he owed his life to James. > Alla: There is only one book > left as we all know, and still JKR promised more about that blasted > night, so that maybe rather important to the end of the books IMO. wynnleaf Does anyone know where that quote is? I've read it before and I actually thought it was a little ambiguous as to whether JKR meant we'd learn more about the prank, or simply more about the hatred between Snape and the Marauders or Sirius. I tried to find it on Accio Quotes (used to be Quick Quotes) and can't locate it. Alla quoted from POA > "They planted the Whomping Willow the same year I arrived to > Hogwarts. People used to play a game trying to touch the trunks. In > the end, a boy called Davey Gudgeon nearly lost an eye, and we were > forbidden to go near it. No broomstick would have a chance" - p.186, > PoA, paperback, am.ed. > > Again, I don't have any thoughts about it, I just find it strange and > I don't know why. > wynnleaf I'll have to look up who said this. I'm assuming Lupin? It could be some part of a bigger story eventually, OR it could just be another good example of how Lupin is so deft at telling partial truths and shifting focus toward or away from things, in order to hide truth. Whether he's ultimately a good guy or bad guy, he is definitely skilled at hiding the truth. wynnleaf From drdara at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 20:20:53 2006 From: drdara at yahoo.com (danielle dassero) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:20:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's alleged dark mark Message-ID: <20061207202053.94080.qmail@web60715.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162514 Danielle here, I believe that the dark mark shows up when it needs to and probably only to the person who wears. That is how I interpreted. Or maybe Snape did something to make sure Madame Pomfrey wouldn't see it. ----- Original Message ---- From: mandrina_q To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2006 11:49:12 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's alleged dark mark Hello all, I have been dealing with this itchy theory- farm in the back of my head and I would like your opinions on this. I have searched the old messages for a few hours looking for theories on this and have not found them. if they're there, I'd appreciate the link... otherwise please chime in. In HBP Ch. 24, we all know how badly Draco is injured. We also know that Snape (perhaps spying on Narcissa's behest) is there- like magic- to heal him. However, we also know that Draco gets taken to the hospital wing to be further cared for by Madam Pomfrey (I take this to be like post-op care... he's all sewn up, but it was still trauma to his body and then there's the 'might scar' scenario). If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? He would have had to have had his shirt and undershirt removed for her to properly examine all of the places where Harry slashed him open. That would certainly have exposed his left arm. And even if Snape had healed the wounds enough that she didn't need to remove his shirts, would she not insist on changing his bloody clothing? would Snape have though of that and found a way to mask the dark mark before taking Draco to Madam Pomfrey? Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big bone of contention in my house at the moment. Please offer up your own theories. :) Thanks -MQ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aratchford at gmail.com Thu Dec 7 20:33:04 2006 From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:33:04 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: <20061207202053.94080.qmail@web60715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, danielle dassero wrote: > > Danielle here, > I believe that the dark mark shows up when it needs to and probably only to the person who wears. That is how I interpreted. Or maybe Snape did something to make sure Madame Pomfrey wouldn't see it. > I have thought of that notion as well, but Harry seems to think that Draco is hiding his left arm from Madam Malkin in Diagon Alley at the beginning of the book. And maybe Harry is wrong about how the thing works, but it seems as though it's Harry's opinion that it's always there. And we know that Karkaroff showed his to Snape during GoF, so it's obvious to others at least some times- and again, Harry thinks Draco is hiding his from the seamstress. -MQ From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 7 20:59:35 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:59:35 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162516 MQ: > If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... > would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? *(snipping more re: Dark Mark)* > Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order > is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been > through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big > bone of contention in my house at the moment. Ceridwen: Most people I have talked to think that Draco has indeed taken the Mark. What is it he is showing to Borgin in "Draco's Detour" if not that? I think Draco has been given the task and told it is an initiation: if he succeeds, he will be given the Mark, and be LV's favorite. What he isn't told until Christmas break, in my opinion, is that, if he doesn't complete the task, he and his parents will be killed. I don't think LV wants Draco as a DE, he only wants his head on a platter to shove in Lucius's face before he kills Lucius as well. Draco is not intimidating, he is not brutal, he is not the poster boy for Death Eaters. He's the punishment before the execution. I don't know what he would be showing Borgin if not the Dark Mark. But that snippet smells like misdirection to me. No one can see what he is showing, he could have been showing him a rabid bunny rabbit. But I can't buy that LV brands the people he means to kill off that offhandedly. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 21:02:13 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:02:13 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162517 > >>MQ: > Hello all, > I have been dealing with this itchy theory- farm in the back of my > head and I would like your opinions on this. I have searched the > old messages for a few hours looking for theories on this and have > not found them. if they're there, I'd appreciate the link... > otherwise please chime in. > > Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order > is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been > through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big > bone of contention in my house at the moment. > Betsy Hp: I've wrestled with this question too. Here's a link to an older discussion about it: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139684 It's a bit long, and the short version is this: there is nothing in HBP that definitivly *proves* that Draco has a dark mark. And in fact, during the Tower scene JKR goes out of her way to avoid proving the issue. Draco goes up to the Tower before the "Marked Death Eaters only, please" barrier is set up. He is not the one to set off the Dark Mark in the sky. And Snape drags Draco off the Tower once the barrier has come back down. So, since JKR is being so careful about the issue, I suspect (but of course, cannot prove ) that Draco *does not* have a dark mark. It would be the bangier surprise, IMO. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 21:03:51 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:03:51 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162518 > > Alla: > There is only one book > > left as we all know, and still JKR promised more about that > blasted > > night, so that maybe rather important to the end of the books IMO. > > wynnleaf > Does anyone know where that quote is? I've read it before and I > actually thought it was a little ambiguous as to whether JKR meant > we'd learn more about the prank, or simply more about the hatred > between Snape and the Marauders or Sirius. zgirnius: I happen to remember part of the question...here you go! > World Book Day Chat, 2004: > Kyla: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow? > JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course. zgirnius: And I agree with wynnleaf that this is ambiguous. We may be learning more about the 'prank' or more about the feelings of loathing between Sirius and Snape (or both). From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 21:22:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 21:22:49 -0000 Subject: The Trio's Morality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162519 Kathryn: > > Well, I've gotten in some hot water for posting this opinion > before, but I'm going to do it again, since we're all talking about > it again. > > Magpie: > I find it very hard to believe you've gotten into hot water for > posting that Harry and his friends are good kids. *checks own water- > feels lukewarm* Carol responds: LOL, Magpie! I've been attacked occasionally for my opinions, as you know, but most of the time we don't do that on this list. But I would ask Kathryn to extend the same courtesy she expects from others to the other members of this list. If we want to analyze a scene or a character, in essence examining the component parts to find what appears to us to be its meaning or significance, we have the right to do so. We also have the right to express and support our opinions (preferably with canon, given the rules of his list) and to counter the arguments presented by others, as long as we do it civilly and courteously. You, of course, have the same right. > > Kathryn: > > > First - It's fiction. Fiction has different rules than real > life, and I think that the kids who read these books are intelligent > enough to realize that. > > Magpie: > Absolutely. But I don't think the discussions about these scenes > are quite about what you're describing. It's not, imo, that people > who criticize them in these scenes are only thinking that it would > be bad to do this to a person in reality. They're also reacting to > it as fiction and getting a different idea about what the author is > saying. They are trying to judge it by the standards of the > fictional world. > Carol: And yet kids *don't* necessarily make the distinction between fiction and RL to the extent that adults do, which is why so many of them identify so intensely with Harry and his friends and why, IMO, it's important for parents to discuss thes books with their kids if they're reading them together. I, for one (I may be alone in this opinion) shaudder to think what would happen in RL if a group of kids with as little adult supervision as the Hogwarts students have, especially on the Hogwarts Express, actually carried the technological equivalent of magic wands to school. Fortunately, no comparable situation exists in the RW, or if it does, I'm not aware of it. But kids are confronted by bullies and by those whose opinions differ radically from their own, and they need to know how to deal with those situations. At the very least, the child readers should think about how Harry and his friends react to provocation here and how they treat the opponents when they're unconscious and arrive at some sort of conclusion as to the rightness or wrongness of it. Whether JKR is intending her protagonists as role models or not, they fall into that category for many young readers. They're the heroes, the good guys, so their behavior is necessarily right, right? Wrong. we see Harry making mistakes (for example, going to the DoM to "save" his godfather), and mistakes have consequences in these books as in RL. Are HRH making a mistake in the GoF train scene? If so, what's their mistake? What, if any, are the consequences? If there arent't any consequences, shouldn't there be? And so on. And for us as adult readers, it's not just a matter of making moral judgments (on which we tend to disagree, whether we're discussing HRH or Dumbledore or Snape or Molly Weasley or Merope Gaunt). It's a matter of trying to determine JKR's intention with this scene. Where is she going with these characters? Are the parallels between the GoF and HBP train scenes intentional? I'm betting they are, just as the parallel between Harry's reaction to forcefeeding poison to Dumbledore and Snape's to "Severus, please" is no accident. > Kathryn: > I personally, get a little thrill of "Ha, ha!" when the Cronies are > turned into slugs in GOF and JKR describes the Trio and the Twins > stepping over them. They deserve it. They're crappy people, who on a > continuing basis do nasty and violent things to people. They're > bullies, and they deserve to get bullied back once in a while. > > Magpie: > You're kind of eliding together your emotional reaction (you > personally get satisfaction out of seeing crappy people who deserve > it get beaten on) with a statement about correct ethics (this is the > way bullies deserve to be treated and therefore it is right to feel > this way). I think the reason this makes for an interesting > discussion is that it doesn't only come down to personal reactions > to the scene, but genuine different possibilities for what the > author is going for--is there supposed to be an element of darkness > in the kids' characters? Is it an intentional parallel to similar > scenes with a bad guy? This is a bildungsroman about a kid growing > up, about good and evil. Isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed > to be thinking about? Carol: Exactly. One of the many genres that JKR is using to structure her books is the Bildungsroman, the novel about growing up, in which we expect to see the protagonist learning from his experiences, including his suffering and his mistakes. So there must be a lesson *for him* in this scene, even if he doesn't learn it immediately. Again, analyzing the text enables us to explore our ideas about exactly what he and the others are or aren't learning here and how far they have yet to go before they reach pub--erm, adulthood, not as measured by their seventeenth birthday but by the maturity of their actions. (The Twins, IMO, have a long way to go.) As for personal reactions, I, personally, *don't* get "a little thrill of ha!ha!" when any character is smacked around, whether they deserve it or not. I do sometimes get angry with a character for his or her actions (Umbridge's cruel detentions, for example). More often, I'm annoyed at Harry's or Ron's obliviousness. And Draco doesn't bother me at all, possibly because he's exactly what I'd expect a kid with his upbringing to be. But my feelings as a reader aren't what matter. What matters is the behavior of the characters on the page. Why do they do it? What will be the consequences, if any? How does this scene fit into the overall picture? If the character is Harry, how will this or that action or reaction help or hinder him in defeating Voldemort? Like it or not, if Harry's weapon is Love, he's not going to defeat Voldemort by hexing him or stepping on his hands. And he's not going to get anywhere if, like Mad-Eye Moody, he can't tell the difference between an attack and a handshake (or between provocation and a threat to his life). He needs to think about appropriate responses, and to act and react in appropriate ways, in terms of both morality and common sense. How can he judge Draco as "bad" if his own behavior is no better? How can he survive to defeat Voldemort if he behaves as rashly as sirius Black? > > Kathryn: > > > Second - In that fictionalized world, there is a lot more at > stake than just some bullies on a train. Harry knows about > Voldemort, and so do all his friends. They know what's at stake in > this fight, and they suspect by GOF that the Malfoys are followers > of Voldemort. So, why wouldn't they suspect that Draco and Cronies > are going to attack them, even if they didn't have wands drawn yet? > I suspect Malfoy at every turn, and always expect him to do > something awful. Harry and his friends haven't saved the WW at least > four times by being cautious and forgiving. They're fighting a war > with evil! They have to be suspicious and aggressive, or they'll die. > > Magpie: > But this is another thing that's being debated on the thread. > They're not actually acting like they're threatened at all, they're > just acting like they're angry. > Carol: Right. We can agree or disagree on this point. I agree with Magpie. Let me just say for, I think, the third time, Draco isn't threatening to hurt HRH or kill them himself. He's hinting rather darkly at what he thinks their fate will be under a Voldemort regime. That's provocation, and he succeeds in provoking them--a little too well. If he'd really wanted to hurt them, he'd have come in with his wand out and not wasted his time with words that weren't spells. > Kathryn: > > Third - They are children. And children need guidance. ... These > kids seem very much on their own, and have to make their own > decisions, which are not always the most wise, since they are > children. > > Magpie: > So why object to adults reading the books and saying they need > guidance? Carol: Exactly. They do need guidance and they're not getting it and consequently, they make mistakes. Why should we not discuss that? > > Kathryn: > > Lastly, I would like to say that I believe the Trio is very > moral, even when making poor decisions. These kids are trying to > save everyone from a great evil. They are, in comparison to other > tweens and teens, incredibly unselfish, kind, and intelligent. When > they occasionally act like real teens, people act like they've just > had some sort of moral downfall. > > Magpie: > Now you seem to again be mounting a moral defense that says the > Gryffindors are fundamentally good and they have done X good things > (I disagree they're particularly kind--that's one virtue I'm not > going to give them) so presumably should not be spoken of in this > manner--and also the things they are doing here are not bad, but > normal (as opposed to the usual super good). In fact, saying they've > done something bad here is claiming they've had a moral downfall. I > don't think that's all accurate. > This just seems to be defending them from every angle, even when > it's contradictory: Carol responds: Unselfishness I'll grant you most of the time, but I can think of times (for example, Harry's short-lived jealousy of Ron's appointment as Prefect or Ron's reaction when Hermione thought he had drunk the Felix Felicis) when one of them placed his or her feelings before those of his friends. I agree with Magpie that the kindness of the Gryffindors, including HRH, leaves something to be desired, as Luna points out with regard to Ron, who often makes thoughtless remarks without regard for other people's feelings (particularly if the person happens to be a ghost like Moaning Myrtle or NHN). We've discussed what some of us perceive to be Hermione's desire for vengeance on people who have crossed her. And Harry isn't always kind, either, particularly when he thinks he's right and comes very near to bullying the other two into following him. It's not really to his credit that Hermione seems afraid to say what she thinks about the improbablilty of Sirius Black's being kidnapped in broad daylight and held captive in the MoM. But Harry has no premium on self-righteousness; Hermione is certain that she's right three-quarters of the time. The Trio aren't unintelligent, granted, but Ron and Harry are not scholars and all three make their share of mistakes. Harry takes credit for the potions improvements of the HBP, an example of intellectual dishonesty, as Hermione points out. Just because we point out the characters' imperfections (and no two list members agree as to what they are) doesn't mean that we dislike the protagonists and their friends or that we think JKR is a bad writer. Quite the contrary--most of us think she's brilliant to have created such an intriguing secondary world with characters that we care about enough to take that we probably should be spending in some other way (blushes guiltily) to discuss them. Most of us want Harry to live. I think that all of us want him to defeat Voldemort. And in order to do that, he's going to have to learn from his mistakes. I read the HP books because I care about the characters and find some of them, particularly Snape, so fascinating that it's hard to think about more important things (like political issues and editing assignments). I'm not saying that JKR's writing is perfect, either in terms of consistency or style, and I'm pretty sure we wouldn't see eye to eye on politics or education. But I'm compelled to analyze them *because* I enjoy them and because I want to understand them better. i like exchanging ideas with others about them because their ideas help to shape and clarify mine whether I agree or disagree with them. That, to me, is what this list is about. Character analysis is not character bashing any more than plot analysis is plot bashing--which is not to say that we don't sometimes see character bashing on this list, but it's not encouraged. Carol, hoping that she doesn't sound too Hermioneish in this post From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 22:05:12 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:05:12 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162520 > wynnleaf, > Even if Sirius supposedly didn't think that Snape would die or be > injured, one would hope that at least after the incident occurred, > teachers impressed upon Sirius that these were the likely results of > Snape's meeting up with a werewolf. Yet even as an adult (1 year > out of Azkaban) Sirius still thought that Snape "deserved" his > prank -- and at that point Sirius should have been well aware that > the prank could have resulted in Snape's death. Alla: How is this relevant to the argument that Sirius wanted Snape to die? Yes, he thinks Snape deserves the prank, he does not say that Snape deserved to die. Whether or not he should have been aware that prank could have resulted in Snape death after the fact does not tell me anything about his state of mind when Prank occurred. So, yes, I think that Sirius wanting Snape to die has no canon support, but of course we can learn the opposite in book 7. > wynnleaf > Problems with this possibility. How would we ever discover this in > Book 7? Apparently the Marauders thought that Snape was just > snooping to get them expelled, so Lupin isn't going to reveal some > extra knowledge about Snape's intentions. That means that if Snape > really intended to kill Lupin, no one knows, but him. I don't see > Snape as the type of character to -- like Voldemort -- make some > long incriminating speech about how way-back-when he tried to kill > Lupin/werewolf. I tend to think if we can't invision how JKR would > reveal something, we have to assume it didn't happen. But I'm sure > you'll think of something.... Alla: Why does he need to make long speeches? Of course he does not make long ones, but shout something revealing during confrontation with Lupin, let's say? Why not? Something similar to **you and your filthy father** during his confrontation with Harry, something like - I should have killed you long time ago, werewolf, when Lupin, let's say catches Snape as prisoner and Harry is present. I totally see it as possibility. >> wynnleaf But if his purpose had been to kill Lupin, then his real > feeling wouldn't be "oh damn, my enemy saved my life!" but > instead, "Foiled again! That idiot James messed up my perfect plan > to kill Lupin. I had this great spell that kill werewolves. I > didn't need to be 'saved.' I just needed a chance at a good shot." > There's no way, if Snape felt he could have killed the werewolf > himself - and even wanted to do so -- that he'd feel he owed his > life to James. Alla: How do we know hat in addition to ""my enemy saved my life"" he does not feel "foiled again"? > > Alla: > There is only one book > > left as we all know, and still JKR promised more about that > blasted > > night, so that maybe rather important to the end of the books IMO. > > wynnleaf > Does anyone know where that quote is? I've read it before and I > actually thought it was a little ambiguous as to whether JKR meant > we'd learn more about the prank, or simply more about the hatred > between Snape and the Marauders or Sirius. I tried to find it on > Accio Quotes (used to be Quick Quotes) and can't locate it. Alla: I could not search now, I have link at home, if nobody posts by that time, I can send it to you. As far as I remember it starts with why Sirius send Snape to the shack and she answers because he hated him and it was mutual and you will find out more about it. I think it alluded rather bluntly to finding more about both, IMO. > > Alla quoted from POA > p.186, > > PoA, paperback, am.ed. > > > > Again, I don't have any thoughts about it, I just find it strange > and > > I don't know why. > > > wynnleaf > I'll have to look up who said this. I'm assuming Lupin? It could > be some part of a bigger story eventually, OR it could just be > another good example of how Lupin is so deft at telling partial > truths and shifting focus toward or away from things, in order to > hide truth. Whether he's ultimately a good guy or bad guy, he is > definitely skilled at hiding the truth. Alla: Could be, could be as I said I cannot pint point why I find it strange. Maybe just because another character is mentioned who lost the eye. Yes, Lupin said it. > zgirnius: > The line does not seem strange to me. I see it as playing a couple of > different purposes. In the context of PoA, it establishes the Willow > as a danger (which Our Heroes will later face) and is a clue for > those subtle enough to look for 'em (not me, I rip through the books > to see what happens next!) that the Willow is somehow connected with > Lupin. The second purpose is relevant to our discussion. It indicates > that Snape was knowingly breaking a school rule when he went into the > passage, above and beyond merely being out past curfew. Alla: Right the strange thing to me after the fact is not the line about Whomping willow, that I agree was meant to empathize connection with Lupin I guess, but games, broken eyes, as I said "name only" character and for some reason broomstick. Why is broomstick mentioned at all? Ugh, wierd. You could be right. I don't know. > > World Book Day Chat, 2004: > > Kyla: What made Sirius decide to send Snape to the Willow? > > JK Rowling replies -> Because Sirius loathed Snape (and the feeling > was entirely mutual). You'll find out more about this in due course. > > zgirnius: > And I agree with wynnleaf that this is ambiguous. We may be learning > more about the 'prank' or more about the feelings of loathing between > Sirius and Snape (or both). > Alla: Oh, thanks Zara. IMO as I said above it is rather clear that we will learn about both - their mutual hatred and prank. From katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au Thu Dec 7 22:34:53 2006 From: katrinalisa2002 at yahoo.com.au (katrinalisa2002) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:34:53 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom/ A couple of theories - Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162521 Katrina: Lots of argument about a scene I used to think was fairly straightforward... Draco is upset, crying, having a private moment. :) Harry walks in on him. Draco feels vulnerable so he attacks. He then attempts to hurt Harry for seeing him like that with the attempted Crucio, Harry stupidly uses an unknown spell and hurts Draco badly. For some strange reason Snape lets off Harry really lightly, considering his crime. And I doubt Snape was worried about Azkaban for Draco- it would be simple enough for Snape to claim Draco was Imperius'ed, and besides, Harry used Crucio and he's not in Azkaban. Obviously the Unforgivable curses are not quite that, since many people here seem willing to give Harry a pass on them, but not Draco. And don't tell me Harry was in fear of his life fighting Bellatrix because he wasn't. He's the one who ran after her for revenge. Harry and Draco are both in the wrong. Draco for using Crucio, or trying to, and Harry for seriously injuring his opponent. Harry was never in danger of losing his life- if he wasn't scared of Malfoy when he was frozen, helpless, why would he be afraid now? Harry's never taken Draco's death threats against himself seriously, because they aren't. They are a way of letting off steam, and Harry's smart enough to know that. The scene on the tower shows that Draco isn't capable of murder. His ridiculous, roundabout attempts at killing Dumbledore are obviously done because he is under pressure and scared for his family, and they are so inept as to make one wonder if Draco wanted to succeed- as if he was subconsciously sabotaging himself. ...and I hate to say it, but if my parents were in danger of being killed by a madman you don't want to know how low I'd stoop. JMO. From sydpad at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 22:52:03 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:52:03 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162522 > Sydney: > > I still don't think we see any indecision *scenes* with Snape, as > > you would sort of need to establish him as a weak and indecisive > > character. So far he's been Mr. Snap-Judgement Action Man Who > > Won't Change His Mind About Anything Without Being Dragged Kicking > > and Screaming. With only one book left it seems a little late in > > the game to introduce this vital new facet to his character. Jen: The twitch? The fight in the forest? The pause while > Dumbledore pleads? I know DDM explains these things a certain way > but they don't have to be explained that way, JKR could have another > explanation called wavering . Sydney: Is there a OFH!Snape explanation for the fight in the forest? Is Snape actually arguing with Dumbledore about what side he's on? Wouldn't he be hiding this? And why is Dumbledore still saying he trusts him completely in that case? If anyone could come up with an OFH! or Grey! storyline that would explain the twitch, the argument, and most, most, most importantly Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the second he comes on the scene, I'd be happy to entertain it. DDM!Snape takes those three sole instances of hesitation and relates them seamelessly to one thing, the killing of Dumbledore. Snape is willing to go all the way to defeat Voldemort but balks at killing Dumbledore as he is, after all, Dumbledore's Man. Dumbledore is perfectly aware of this and they had a frank argument about it; and it's still up in the air how far Snape is willing to go when he gets to the top of the tower. I actually don't think Snape was wavering even then, because, as I've said, I don't think 'wavering' could apply to Snape as a person. He got hit with the third clause of the Vow. He discusses it with Dumbledore. They agree Snape will go ahead and kill him (Horcrux!Dumbledore, maybe?). Snape then at some point (I'll have to reread the book and see if I can find a catalyst), decides he will absolutely not do it, consistent with the argument in the forest, where he says, "I don't want to do it anymore" and there's a screaming fight, not an 'uh, I've been thinking and I'm not sure' and a back-and-forthing. If Dumbledore is having a 'heated' argument I don't think he's berating an unsure guy, I think it's an actual up-front conflict. I think breaking the Vow was Snape's firm decision until he was faced with the very particular set of circumstances so fiendishly arranged by the DADA Curse/JKR: the magic barrier, the frozen Harry, the DEs, the Poison, the Vow. If JKR wanted to give Grey!Snape a choice on the tower, I don't think she would have arranged that one-- one where Draco's and Harry's lives are in the balance as well. That looks a heck of a lot more like a cruel choice for DDM!Snape-- heroic death but nothing accomplished, vs. being once again the villain of the piece but one step closer to the ultimate goal of defeating Voldemort. If I were setting up a dramatic choice for Grey!Snape, I'd feature among other things actually seeing Dumbledore realizing that he's been betrayed! And Snape realizing that Dumbledore's realized it. And some dramatic, onscreen wavering. And Harry understanding completely every single thing that was going on (why would wavering!Snape be kept under wraps, storywise?). No way in hell would JKR throw way the big Betrayal Scene. Not a run in, a plead, a pause, a look, and an AK, all of which is thoroughly ambigous and hidden and unclear, showing 10 factors of instant decisive action and Snape/D-dore mutual comprehension to one factor of pause. And why would any brand of wavering, indecisive, keeping his options open Snape take an Unbreakable Vow when no one's holding a gun to his head? That's just now the way you would paint such a character. A 'keep our options open' character would look at an Unbreakable vow and laugh and then go, 'look a pony!' and then run out the back door. Jen: >Instead he will work alone, one man traveling light with >his Occlumency.... >And lo and behold, who should arrive on > his doorstep but a beautiful sobbing lady in need of a Prince to save > the day? Combine that with the grinding months of practicing > Occlumency, being surrounded by reminders of his old life, and > Dumbledore arriving half-dead in need of patching up (how much > Occlumency does *that* take to hide) and suddenly life as a spy is > not exactly how he imagined it. Sydney: But where does the beautiful sobbing lady intersect with the guy travelling light and keeping himself out of trouble? Wouldn't he be, like, "I stick my neck out for no one, lady'? I just don't see 'keeping himself out of trouble' Snape *anywhere*. He's 'Sticking his Big Nose into Trouble at Every Available Opportunity' Snape. He's 'following people around, joining terrorist groups, becoming double agent, personally undertaking to stop Quirrel, roaming the grounds to find Harry, running off to corner werewolf and mass-murderer, taking Unbreakable Vows to interfere with voldemort's plans' Snape. He's this Snape in a little scene in OoP: "Harry could hear a muffled commotion coming from what he thought might be the Entrance Hall. Snape looked round at him, frowning. 'Did you see anything unusual on your way down here, Potter?' Harry shook his head. Somewhere above them, the woman screamed again. Snape strode to his office door, his wand still held at the ready, and swept out of sight. Harry hesitated for a moment, then followed." (OoP chapter 25) This is what I'm talking about by how JKR builds a character though having them behave consistently in even their smallest throwaway shots. Somewhere there's a problem, and Snape is *all over it*, striding off with wand drawn. Even Harry gets a 'hesitates'. If JKR wanted to paint Wavering Snape, indecisive Snape, holding-off-before-commiting Snape, she would have scenes where thing hit the fan and we see Snape *hanging back* before making a decision. But she always grabs a little chance to show Snape being the first to leap in to sort things out. I took Bellatrix's "slithering out of action" line and asked, "uh, when has Snape ever slithered out of action from our end of the books? Never. Ergo, Snape only slithers out of DE action." I mean, even Sirius acknowledges that Snape is "out there risking his life". Jen: > So yes, *that* Snape I see wavering regardless of how forceful his > actions prior or how tight his control. He is starting to slip and > that potential loss of control terrifies and enrages him, the thought > he could ever be 'weak' again. Sydney: But... I mean, Snape isn't terrified and enraged. We've *seen* Snape enraged, and you could hear him in China. In the Vow scene he's cool as the proverbial cucumber. Throughout all of HBP, in fact, I thought he seemed unusually calm and focused-- IMO because he'd made the decision to check out in every way at the end of the year. If JKR wanted to set up a wavering guy, where is the wavering? Where? It's not like she's the subtlest writer in the planet. If she was painting a wavering character he would waver for England. He'd waver like Hagrid drinks and bursts into tears. He wouldn't be enimagic proactive and decisive ("Of course I'll take the Unbreakable Vow"-- he pauses for what, two seconds?), but somehow wavering in some invisible fashion at the same time. > Jen: I see young Snape as similar to Draco in the way he was drawn > into the world of Voldemort though I don't think he believed like > Draco believes, likely he was disillusioned with the alternatives > more than anything else! Sydney: OMG, that's not how I see young!Snape at all! I think for one thing Snape was waaaaay more f'd up than Draco when he was young; Draco after all has loving, if evil, parents and a perfectly healthy social life, and if he gets out the other end of this he'll be an fine, unproductive member of society. I think Snape on the other hand was a scary, scary, violent young hoodlum at one point, who seriously wanted to bring on some pain. Snape is all about the passionate commitment. If he's going to join a racist terrorist organization it's not going to be because it sort of seemed like an okay way to pass the time. "People who wear their hearts on their sleeves and wallow in sad memories stand no chance against his powers" after all. Jen: His > loyalty to Dumbledore wasn't really tested until the point Voldemort > returns and by that point Snape is quite confident about his > abilities as we see during the Occlumency lessons. Sydney: But... but... are we just ditching the whole "great personal risk" thing when Voldemort was at the height of his powers and everyone thought he would win and Snape's amazing remorse and trust of Dumbledore built on rock-like foundations? I mean, of course we can just say, 'for the sake of Grey!Snape we're going to sacrifice this because it doesn't fit', but personally I like all the canon I get on my side. > > Debbie, realizing that she appears to have almost talked herself > > into DDM!Snape > > Jen, hoping Debbie won't hop into the other camp just yet . ---Sydney, wafting the scent of yummy smores over from the DDM!Snape camp. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 7 22:59:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:59:04 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162523 > Katrina: > > Lots of argument about a scene I used to think was fairly > straightforward... Alla: What scene ever is? :) Katrina: > Draco is upset, crying, having a private moment. :) > Harry walks in on him. Draco feels vulnerable so he attacks. He then > attempts to hurt Harry for seeing him like that with the attempted > Crucio, Harry stupidly uses an unknown spell and hurts Draco badly. Alla: You meant to say Harry stupidly uses an unknown spell to **defend himself**, no? Katrina: > For some strange reason Snape lets off Harry really lightly, > considering his crime. Alla: Huh? So now defending himself against Unforgivable, against the curse that Harry felt upon himself and saw what prolonged effect of that curse can do is not self-defense, but a crime? Katrina: And I doubt Snape was worried about Azkaban for > Draco- it would be simple enough for Snape to claim Draco was > Imperius'ed, and besides, Harry used Crucio and he's not in Azkaban. > Obviously the Unforgivable curses are not quite that, since many > people here seem willing to give Harry a pass on them, but not Draco. Alla: Draco was imperiused? Simple to claim? We don't know that. Yes, Harry is not in Azkaban, we don't know if the charges were not brought up, he would not have been. Katrina: > And don't tell me Harry was in fear of his life fighting Bellatrix > because he wasn't. He's the one who ran after her for revenge. > > Harry and Draco are both in the wrong. Alla: Um, yes, he was not in fear for his life, yes, he wanted revenge for the death of his godfather. Katrina: > Draco for using Crucio, or trying to, and Harry for seriously injuring > his opponent. Harry was never in danger of losing his life- if he > wasn't scared of Malfoy when he was frozen, helpless, why would he be > afraid now? Harry's never taken Draco's death threats against himself > seriously, because they aren't. They are a way of letting off steam, > and Harry's smart enough to know that. Alla: I am sorry, but what? Since when the use of Unforgivable is not serious enough to be afraid of? Draco never previously used Unforgivable against Harry, I guess there is the first time for everything. Katrina: > The scene on the tower shows that Draco isn't capable of murder. His > ridiculous, roundabout attempts at killing Dumbledore are obviously > done because he is under pressure and scared for his family, and they > are so inept as to make one wonder if Draco wanted to succeed- as if > he was subconsciously sabotaging himself. Alla: Draco was happy to start preparing Dumbledore assasination without having a clue that he would be blackmailed by Voldemort. Sure, if he was blackmailed right away, that would be a different story. He was **happy** on the train. That tells me a lot. And all that scene on the Tower tells me that he could not kill Dumbledore face to face. Because of his "clumsy" assasination attempts two people almost died. Poor Draco indeed. JMO, Alla From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 00:27:41 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:27:41 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162524 this is a great question. I read this editorial ( http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-hseeker01.shtml ) a while ago and I have yet to see the ides posted here so here goes: read the editorial and post your thoughts. I not sure how I feel about this idea, but it could explain a lot. Beatrice From fairwynn at hotmail.com Fri Dec 8 01:03:48 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:03:48 -0000 Subject: Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162525 > Alla: > > How is this relevant to the argument that Sirius wanted Snape to die? > Yes, he thinks Snape deserves the prank, he does not say that Snape > deserved to die. wynnleaf By the time he was an adult, only an idiot would not have realized that playing that prank on Snape equated to risking his death. Sirius continuing to affirm the rightness of the prank, also affirms that he, at least in retrospect, is glad he almost got Snape killed and that Snape deserved to be sent into the waiting jaws of the werewolf. If Sirius thought that as an adult, it seems most likely that he also thought it as an "irresponsible" teen. Alla, > > Whether or not he should have been aware that prank could have > resulted in Snape death after the fact does not tell me anything > about his state of mind when Prank occurred. > So, yes, I think that Sirius wanting Snape to die has no canon > support, but of course we can learn the opposite in book 7. wynnleaf When someone tricks another person into something that most sensible people (even a teenager) would see as life threatening, the evidence leans a great deal more to the notion that they intended the person's life to be at risk rather than that they did not. So the fact that we have no canon evidence that Sirius did *not* mean for Snape to die is more suggestive than that we have no statement contemporaneous to the event that he *intended* death. In other words, there's no evidence to refute the more obvious conclusion, that Sirius sending Snape into the path of a werewolf meant he intended him to die. It is the more obvious conclusion because in general, sending someone out to meet a werewolf should be an obviously life threatening move to make. The possibility that the person did it ignorant of the danger, or inconsiderate of the danger, is less likely, because the danger was too clear. > > wynnleaf > > Problems with this possibility. How would we ever discover this in > > Book 7? Apparently the Marauders thought that Snape was just > > snooping to get them expelled, so Lupin isn't going to reveal some > > extra knowledge about Snape's intentions. That means that if Snape > > really intended to kill Lupin, no one knows, but him. I don't see > > Snape as the type of character to -- like Voldemort -- make some > > long incriminating speech about how way-back-when he tried to kill > > Lupin/werewolf. I tend to think if we can't invision how JKR would > > reveal something, we have to assume it didn't happen. But I'm sure > > you'll think of something.... > > Alla: > > Why does he need to make long speeches? Of course he does not make > long ones, but shout something revealing during confrontation with > Lupin, let's say? Why not? > > Something similar to **you and your filthy father** during his > confrontation with Harry, something like - I should have killed you > long time ago, werewolf, when Lupin, let's say catches Snape as > prisoner and Harry is present. I totally see it as possibility. wynnleaf, Saying "I should have killed you a long time ago" does not in anyway mean that Snape actually *did* try to kill Lupin, or that he wanted to try during the prank. The kind of speech we'd have to hear is something like, "too bad I didn't get to kill you back when we were in school. Remember that prank Sirius played? I knew you were a werewolf all along and I just went down there trying to kill you, but James pulled me back and I never got the chance." Yeah, that's more of a speech. Only villians who like to explain everything do that, and even if Snape were a thorough-going villian, I don't think he's the "explains all" type. > > >> wynnleaf > > But if his purpose had been to kill Lupin, then his real > > feeling wouldn't be "oh damn, my enemy saved my life!" but > > instead, "Foiled again! That idiot James messed up my perfect plan > > to kill Lupin. I had this great spell that kill werewolves. I > > didn't need to be 'saved.' I just needed a chance at a good > shot." > > There's no way, if Snape felt he could have killed the werewolf > > himself - and even wanted to do so -- that he'd feel he owed his > > life to James. > > Alla: > > How do we know hat in addition to ""my enemy saved my life"" he does > not feel "foiled again"? > wynnleaf Perhaps you're not getting it. James pulled Snape back out of the tunnel. If Snape had already had a chance to try to kill Lupin, but had failed, then he'd have already been right at the jaws of the werewolf. Lupin said Snape only saw him in the tunnel. If James came and found Snape firing off powerful werewolf-killing types of curses, I'm sure that Lupin and Sirius would have heard about it. The thing is this, if Snape thought he was going to kill Lupin, then he wouldn't think James saved his life. In fact, if Snape had any hope (or even thought he had a chance) of killing Lupin, he wouldn't consider James' action to be life-saving -- he'd just think of it as getting in the way. Snape would not consider his life to have been saved, therefore there'd have been no life debt. wynnleaf > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 01:21:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 01:21:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162526 MQ wrote: > In HBP Ch. 24, we all know how badly Draco is injured. We also know > that Snape (perhaps spying on Narcissa's behest) is there- like magic- to heal him. However, we also know that Draco gets taken to the hospital wing to be further cared for by Madam Pomfrey (I take this to be like post-op care... he's all sewn up, but it was still trauma to his body and then there's the 'might scar' scenario). > > If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... > > would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? Carol responds: If you recall, snape went up to the hospital wing with Draco. He would have told Madam Pomfrey what happened and requested the dittany, which I assume is either eaten or drunk in a potion. He would have made it clear tha he had already healed Draco's wounds and that there was no need for further treatment, aside from perhaps bedrest. We've never seen Madam Pomfrey examine anyone; she merely treats the affected limb or whatever, usually with potions (made by Snape?). And when a patient goes to bed, she hands him his pajamas and draws the curtains. When Harry needed help getting into his, she allowed Ron to help him. So I don't think that Madam Pomfrey would have seen his Dark Mark, and in any case, Draco would have been as reluctant for her to see it as for Madam Malkin to touch it (if it existed) and Snape would have known that and taken precautions, not because he's ESE! (I think he's DDM!) but because he's protecting Draco. On another note, while we're talking about Snape and Draco, I doubt that Snape knew about the attempted Crucio even if he took the few minutes required to get to the hospital wing to interrogate him. Draco isn't about to volunteer that information and is using his rudimentary Occlumency against Snape, so it's unlikely that Snape would be protecting Draco from expulsion or prosecution. Besides, the Crucio wasn't completed, so I doubt that it registered with the MoM even if it monitors Hogwarts, which is doubtful. MQ: > Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order > is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been > through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big > bone of contention in my house at the moment. > > Please offer up your own theories. :) Carol responds: Good question. I would say yes, simply because we've received no alternate explanation for Draco's actions with Borgin and Madam Malfoy, as we usually get with red herrings. So I would tentatively conclude that yes, he does have the Dark Mark and is under Voldemort's command as of the end of HBP. Carol, who thinks that Draco and Snape Apparated to Voldemort and Snape protected him from a Crucio by explaining that Draco had indeed fulfilled his mission by fixing the cabinet and letting in the DEs From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 02:51:44 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 02:51:44 -0000 Subject: Werewolf!Draco (was:Re: Draco's alleged dark mark) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162527 > >>Beatrice: > this is a great question. I read this editorial ( > http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit- > hseeker01.shtml ) a while ago and I have yet to see the ides posted > here so here goes: read the editorial and post your thoughts. I not > sure how I feel about this idea, but it could explain a lot. Betsy Hp: I've seen this idea flitting about fandom a time or two. I don't think it's all that believable, myself. Draco has been scared of werewolves since PS/SS (it's what's he's most nervous about stumbling across in the Forbidden Forest). If Draco had been bitten over the summer, his illness and observable stress levels wouldn't slowly grow. They'd be at red alert from the very start. I also don't understand why Borgin would be so terrified of a werewolf. He's a wizard. He knows when a werewolf is dangerous and when it is not. And I'm betting he's fairly familiar with the WW laws when it comes to werewolves. We've had a few hints that the Ministry is actually cracking down on known werewolves so I can't see that Draco could use his disease as a threat. Borgin could simply turn him in. Honestly, I think the assignment to kill Dumbledore explains everything the essayist tries to tie to Draco's supposed werewolf- ism. And I think it does so more clearly. The stress would slowly build as Draco realized he wasn't a killer and that his family is now on the hook. And of course Draco would move away from his school-boy rivalry with Harry as he tried to shoulder a man's burden. Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 03:19:23 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:19:23 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162528 Betsy Hp: A general warning: I make some (guarded) references to Ender's Game in this post. I *think* they're oblique enough to not be spoiler- ish. But read at your own risk. > >>bboyminn: > Oddly, this is one of those rare times when Betsy and I are > somewhat in agreement. Though, I'm not sure how long that > is going to last. Betsy Hp: Hee! Not very long, Steve, not very long at all. > >>bboyminn: > Let us start with a question; how do you stop a bully from > bullying you? Answer: Punch him in the nose, and kick him > when he is down. I know that seems completely counter > intuitive, but it works. Betsy Hp: Hmmm, I'm sensing an Ender's Game theme... > >>bboyminn: > Notice that Bullies don't pick on each other. No, they > bully those they preceive as helpless and weak. > > We see from Draco's personality and from his action that > he is not a typical bully fashioned after Dudley. His > form of bullying and intimidation is motivated by > different forces, and that leads to a different type of > bullying, and leads to Draco's chronic inability to learn > the lesson that it is far wiser to leave Harry Potter > alone. > > While by any standard of social behavior, Harry and the > gangs actions were wrong, we can't really apply those > rules because those are not the rules Draco is playing > by, and those rules will never be there to help when help > is needed. So, we revert to the only set of rules that > are able to affect the situation, and that is 'The Code > of the Playground'. You duke it out regardless of the > odds of winning because that is the only law that a > bully understands. > You heard it here first ...or not. Betsy Hp: Oh yeah, definitely some Ender's Game influence at play here. But here's the thing, while Ender *was* facing dangerous bullies on the one hand and an unbeatable enemy on the other, Draco is neither of those beasts. *Especially* to Harry. Draco isn't strong enough, and Harry isn't weak enough. When Ender goes to the wall he does so because he's got no choice. As you say, Ender is in danger of either death or very serious injury or the annihilation of the human race. Harry is in danger of being annoyed. Possibly being pissed off. That's all Draco brings to the table in this scene. So this idea that Harry needs to react to Draco as a solider going into a war is, to my mind, completely overblowing Draco's power. And it also undermines Harry's intelligence. Harry is fully aware of Draco's abilities. (Even in HBP, Harry is the only one of the Trio to recognize that things had changed for Draco.) I'll also add that Ender would never, *never* step on the body of a downed enemy. There's no message in that. (Unless the message is "I'm a bully!") There's certainly no honor in it. And it's the sort of behavior the empathetic Ender would find horrifying. The Trio's and the twins treatment of the bodies of Draco and Crabbe and Goyle showed their complete and total contempt for those boys. Draco and his friends were so beneath the Gryffindors they didn't even deserve simple human consideration. Betsy Hp (who feels the only bullies in this scene were the twins -- I know, I know, they torture small animals in a *funny* way... ) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 04:11:02 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 04:11:02 -0000 Subject: Books moral messages WAS: Re: The Trio's Morality In-Reply-To: <136229.99888.qm@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162529 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kathryn Lambert wrote: > > Well, I've gotten in some hot water for posting this opinion before, but I'm going to do it again, since we're all talking about it again. > > I know that many people feel that the Trio has acting out of line on many occasions, that they have sunk to the level of Draco and his cronies, that JKR will (or should) show us in the end that that kind of behavior is unacceptable. > > I completely disagree. > > First - It's fiction. Fiction has different rules than real >life, and I think that the kids who read these books are >intelligent enough >to realize that. I personally, get a little thrill of "Ha, ha!" >when the Cronies are turned into slugs in GOF and JKR describes the >Trio and the Twins stepping over them. They deserve it. They're >crappy people, who on a continuing basis do nasty and violent >things to people. They're bullies, and they deserve to get bullied >back once in a while. Again - fiction. It's exaggerated, over-the->top. That's ok in a novel, I think. that's what makes it fun. And >real life is obviously different. Lupinlore: Well, that's true. But that isn't what all this is about. Not, I think, at the ultimate root. Like it or not, fiction does send messages. Sometimes the messages are very clear. Sometimes they aren't. But they are always there. Like it or not, writers of fiction are trying to sell messages. Sometimes they are making their sales pitch quite consciously. Other times they are making it at more basic levels. But once again, the sales pitch is always there. The messages are most powerful when they are moral messages. That is also when they are the most problematic. It behooves authors to be extremely careful in the moral messages they try to sell, and to be sure they have thought of the implications of those messages. Because when it comes to basic matters of right and wrong, you are going to find that lots of people aren't going to let you get away with waving your hands and saying "it's only a story." And that, I think, is what all this is about. There are, like it or not, enormous moral problems with the books (problems here meaning issues that seem to many to be inconsistent, insidious, and downright wrong-headed and wrong-hearted). Those problems manifest in any number of places. They come up with DD's policies toward Harry from the minute he leaves him with an abusive family and acquiesces to abuse from that family and further abuse from Harry's teachers. They come up in regard to the Trio and there relationship with other characters. They come up with regard to the Wizarding World and its relationships to Muggles, Elves, and others. They come up any number of other places. True, not everyone sees all the problems in the same light, nor even recognizes some of them as problems. But the phenomenon is incredibly widespread, involving Snape-lovers and Snape- haters, Harry-lovers and Harry-haters, Hermione-lovers and Hermione- haters, DD-lovers and DD-haters. In short, it is so widespread that it is pretty much impossible to dismiss it as just the creation of difficult people trying to spoil everybody's fun. Now, people will take any number of tacks in trying to deal with these problems. Some say that JKR has a grand plan that will satisfy most of these issues if we just give her a chance. Others say that JKR is simply a cruel woman with a death neurosis. Others (and this is the tack I tend to take) hold that most of it is just bad writing - - JKR doesn't mean to raise most of these issues, and lets herself get trapped in them because she has the bad habit of just not thinking things through before she puts them in writing or says them in public. Regardless, the problems remain very real. And they can't be dismissed by waving one's hands and saying "it's fiction" or "they're just kids." That it's fiction doesn't mean that messages aren't being sent. And that they are kids is one of the facts that rests at the heart of many of the problems in the first place. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 8 04:02:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 23:02:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Werewolf!Draco (was: Draco's alleged dark mark) References: Message-ID: <008b01c71a7d$c73ee310$456c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162530 Beatrice: > this is a great question. I read this editorial ( > http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-hseeker01.shtml ) a > while ago and I have yet to see the ides posted here so here goes: > > read the editorial and post your thoughts. I not sure how I feel about > this idea, but it could explain a lot. Magpie: Well, you asked for it.:-) I hate this theory. Not because Werewolf!Draco is something I particularly dislike (I think it's kind of interesting the way he seems so often connected to them as Snape is so often connected with vampires), but because it's one of those totally backwards theories where the person gets an idea that isn't really a conclusion from canon, and instead of looking for actual proof they just take scenes that more logically mean something else and say how they can make them fit the theory. In this case, the author starts by asking "is it just me, or does DM exhibit the symptoms of a werewolf?" The answer would be no. Draco exhibits none of the symptoms of being a werewolf. So the writer creates them with half truths. S/he says he misses Quidditch matches--implying that he, like Lupin, is incapacitated for days around the full moon. Only the book shows Draco not incapacitated at all, but going to the RoR during Quidditch matches--the RoR explained by the actual plot in the book. It's no a "disappearance" as the writer calls it. It's cutting a game. (Once Harry even sees Draco minutes before the game.) That plot also explains Draco's not handing in his Transfig homework, which Harry learns about from McGonagall, not Hermione as the writer claims. The fact that he didn't hand in his homework indicates that he was in class, not missing class because he's a werewolf, which McGonagall would not give him detentions for. This, like the missed Quidditch games, is presented as if it's a mystery and not something explained in the book. Then there's the one actual symptom: Draco's deteriorating physical condition, which has some things in common with Lupin's in PoA. It also has something in common with Tonks' condition, which is emotional in nature. That's who Harry himself compares Draco to himself, not Lupin. The writer ignores the ways in which Draco's condition is different from Lupin's. Lupin's illness was monthly. Draco is deteriorating all year--as explained by the Cabinet plot, not being a werewolf. (He's also described as being thinner as well as paler, something left out because it's less werewolf-y. Lupin didn't lose weight.) The writer then presents Dumbledore's being surprised that Draco brought Fenrir to Hogwarts as a mystery when it's not. Dumbledore isn't shocked, he just correctly surmises that Draco would be upset at the idea of his friends being hurt by Fenrir. Dumbledore's words don't at all suggest that Dumbledore must think that Draco's a werewolf. The fact that Draco's so afraid of Fenrir is also presented as a mystery in the essay when the guy's just plain scary and Draco's easily scared (in PS he's specifically scared of werewolves). Next there's some significance to Draco drawn from the fact that Lupin mentions Fenrir wants to infect as many people as possible in the same scene as he explains how he himself was bitten in revenge--though it's natural that both these things would be in the place where Lupin introduces Fenrir's backstory. What's missing from the essay is anything that specifically indicates that Fenrir has gotten Draco. The book, on the contrary, offers a completely different revenge on the Malfoys. While Draco may be afraid of Fenrir, Fenrir himself doesn't show that kind of interest in Draco. He says he likes kids and wants Dumbledore for afters. I'll bet if we get to see Fenrir interacting with Lupin they'll be a different vibe. If Fenrir was in fact the cause of all Draco's suffering I don't think he'd just avoid looking at him in the scene. At that point it would be too late for "if I don't look at him maybe he won't really be here." The fact that Harry could be wrong about Draco's Dark Mark is true (I assume we'll learn for sure in the next book and if we do I hope we'll get confirmation of just what Draco showed Borgin--until the Mark is confirmed it feels like a loose thread), but we don't know that werewolf bites are so recognizable, that they would frighten someone. It's not needed in the scene. Draco doesn't need to threaten Borgin with another werewolf if he's one himself. ' Then there's this: The essay: "It makes sense that Draco is a werewolf. It explains why he was sick for much of the school year. It explains why he was afraid of Greyback. It explains why Snape at Slughorn's Christmas party was looking at Draco as though both angry and...was it possible?...a little afraid? (page 321). It explains why Draco was crying in front of Moaning Myrtle." Magpie: Huh? It's like the entire book didn't happen and these things weren't far better explained by the actual plot. (This is followed by a reference to the movie that's neither here nor there--Hermione howls like a werewolf in the movie too, doesn't she?) What the essay completely ignores is a really honest attempt to look for evidence of werewolfism as the best conclusion, real reasons why the answers given in the book *can't* be true and things that disprove the werewolf theory. In Draco's case this is as easy as it is with any other character. Werewolves miss school for several days a month. Draco does not. There's no references to his being absent from classes. Harry's watching him like a hawk and notices when he disappears from the map sometimes during the day. He'd have noticed monthly absences according to Lupin's schedule. Not only does the theory not explain anything, it unexplains a lot. -m From juli17 at aol.com Fri Dec 8 05:05:26 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:05:26 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162531 > > Jen: The twitch? The fight in the forest? The pause while > Dumbledore pleads? I know DDM explains these things a certain way > but they don't have to be explained that way, JKR could have another > explanation called wavering . > Julie: I need some clarifications on the difference between DDM!Snape and Grey!Snape. First, is it the contention of Grey!Snapers that Snape was not doing Dumbledore's bidding on the Tower? Rather than Dumbledore pleading with Snape to fulfill his Unbreakable Vow for a higher purpose (to save Draco and Harry, and himself as he could be of more value to the effort to defeat Voldemort), Dumbledore was pleading with Snape *not* to kill him, even if in an indirect way (Don't choose this path, don't tear your soul, etc)? Or *was* Snape doing Dumbledore's bidding with a great deal of resentment (as perhaps we observe in Snape's look of hatred and revulsion as he performs the AK), and it's the contention of Grey!Snapers that this resentment will cause Snape to waver in his loyalty during the next book? It's hard for me to see it working either way. If Grey!Snape killed Dumbledore to save himself while Dumbledore was pleading for Snape not to do it, it still leaves the question of *how* Dumbledore knew what Snape was about to do even before Snape actually reached him (remember, Dumbledore uttered his first "Please..." as Snape was approaching, before they even made eye contact). And if Grey!Snape killed Dumbledore at Dumbledore's request and his resentment at being forced into that act has eroded his loyalty to Dumbledore, well, how will we ever know it? We don't get Snape's POV ever in the books, and I can't see a reason why or how Harry would become privy to Snape's indecisive thoughts or acts (since he assumes all Snape's thoughts and acts are traitorous anyway). Furthermore, how would it even play into the plot? It's not likely Snape will have that large a role in Book Seven. In the end he will either help Harry or he won't. And Harry's final impression will simply be one of two--ESE!Snape ("Aha, I always knew it!!") or DDM!Snape ("Looks like he really was on our side all along, and I'll have to respect that even if he's still a miserable git!"). And Harry's impressions are generally the readers' impressions, because we know only as much as Harry does. At least that's the only way I can see it all coming down. While there may be time to delve a bit into the shades of grey that make up Snape's character, and how that character was shaped by his past choices, I can't see precious plot time in Book 7 devoted to explaining Grey!Snape as presented here--a Snape whose loyalties are *still* wavering (if I'm understanding correctly) as opposed to loyal to Dumbledore (DDM), loyal to Voldemort (ESE), or loyal only to himself (OFH). Julie, still baffled by Grey!Snape From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Fri Dec 8 05:50:38 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 05:50:38 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162532 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Oh yeah, definitely some Ender's Game influence at play here. > But here's the thing, while Ender *was* facing dangerous bullies on > the one hand and an unbeatable enemy on the other, Draco is neither > of those beasts. *Especially* to Harry. Draco isn't strong enough, > and Harry isn't weak enough. > > When Ender goes to the wall he does so because he's got no choice. > As you say, Ender is in danger of either death or very serious injury > or the annihilation of the human race. Harry is in danger of being > annoyed. Possibly being pissed off. That's all Draco brings to the > table in this scene. Quick_Silver: Ok I'm going to start by saying I'm mostly in agreement with your arguments on this. The thing that intrigues me, if you will, about that scene is that Draco should have no doubt what's going to happen to him and his friends. The point was made as early as PS that the Trio would respond with physical force to insults (the wizards duel), then reiterated by Ron in CoS (the slug curse), and by Hermione slapping Draco in PoA (for insulting Hagrid). Draco himself attacked Harry from behind when Harry shot back a "your momma" insult (which is only the oldest insult known to humans). So Draco and co. walk into the compartment of his equals (I don't think there's any bullying going on here) and Draco starts shooting his mouth off. He ignores Harry ordering him and then boom the attack occurs. But that doesn't make it right just expected although I'll admit to finding it weird (I mean you go looking for trouble then can't handle it). >Betsy Hp: > I'll also add that Ender would never, *never* step on the body of a > downed enemy. There's no message in that. (Unless the message > is "I'm a bully!") There's certainly no honor in it. And it's the > sort of behavior the empathetic Ender would find horrifying. > > The Trio's and the twins treatment of the bodies of Draco and Crabbe > and Goyle showed their complete and total contempt for those boys. > Draco and his friends were so beneath the Gryffindors they didn't > even deserve simple human consideration. Quick_Silver: I agree with you about the treatment of bodies (although it should be noted Draco did show contempt for Hermione touching him with his badge/Mudblood insult...a little reversal perhaps?). That being said I think the most interesting thing about the scene is that we hear nothing more of it...at least not from Draco (not that I remember I think Harry references back to it?...I'll have to check). Even when a similar incident happens to Harry, Harry basically writes it off (aside from some bruised pride) and follows Draco not to get revenge for the incident but because of his suspicions about Draco. And it doesn't seem to change Draco's relationship with the Trio in OotP there's not hints that he's trying extra hard to get back at them indeed two months later he's back in their compartment (the only difference being he leaves when Hermione says get out). Even the argument that the Trio should act better because they're good guys doesn't ring true to me because I don't view them as being that much better then Draco. And I don't mean that in a bad way considering that Draco in HBP showed himself to be capable of empathy or at least a sense of self-preservation (really IMO either would do...people underestimate self-preservation;)). > Betsy Hp (who feels the only bullies in this scene were the twins -- > I know, I know, they torture small animals in a *funny* way... ) Quick_Silver (completely torn over this issue but agreeing that the Twins are...morally interesting to say the least) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 08:14:36 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:14:36 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF - Playground Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162533 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > Betsy Hp: > A general warning: I make some (guarded) references to > Ender's Game in this post. I *think* they're oblique > enough to not be spoiler-ish. But read at your own > risk. > bboyminn: Well, that is something else we both have in common, we are both Ender fans. I love those books and have read both the Ender and the Shadow Series several times. Indeed I was thinking about Enders Game as I wrote my post, while there are some parallels, I wouldn't compare Ender to Harry. > ...edited... > > > >>bboyminn: > > ... > > > > We see from Draco's personality ... that he is not a > > typical bully fashioned after Dudley. His form of > > bullying ... leads to Draco's chronic inability to > > learn the lesson that it is far wiser to leave Harry > > Potter alone. > > > > While by any standard of social behavior, Harry and > > the gangs actions were wrong, we can't really apply > > those rules ... ... So, we revert to the only set of > > rules that are able to affect the situation, and that > > is 'The Code of the Playground'. ... > > Betsy Hp: > Oh yeah, definitely some Ender's Game influence at play > here. But here's the thing, while Ender *was* facing > dangerous bullies..., Draco is neither... Draco isn't > strong enough, and Harry isn't weak enough. > bboyminn: That's part of the point I was trying to make. Draco isn't the standard generic schoolyard bully. This is more of a grudge match rather than the big kid picking on the skinny kid. So, I acknowledge the uniqueness of Harry and Draco's relationship, but unique as it is, it is still resolved by the rules of the playground, or if you prefer Kid's Rules. It is because of this unique 'hurt feelings', 'grudge' aspect of Draco's actions that I didn't use any direct 'Enders Game' references. I do believe though, that to some extent, a somewhat more restrained version of Enders defense philosophy is still valid. > Betsy Hp: > > When Ender goes to the wall he does so because he's got > no choice. As you say, Ender is in danger of either > death or very serious injury .... Harry is in danger of > being annoyed. Possibly being pissed off. That's all > Draco brings to the table in this scene. > bboyminn: In general, I think this applies to Harry too, but not so much in this scene. The real heart of my argument was in the part you cut. The part that went something like this- "On the train, there is without a doubt a great deal of ego, pride, and even machismo involved. But what is really happening is, this is everyone's way of telling Draco that they will not be cowed or intimidated...." Harry and the gang try to ignore Draco, but quite rightly Harry's nerves are on edge. Harry warns Draco to leave, he is trying to avoid a fight. But Draco can't help him self, he has to shoot off his mouth. Finally, Draco takes it too far, and pays a price. Now, if you try to explain the logic behind this to teachers, parents, or the police, it doesn't make logical social sense. Those actions seem poorly justified under the circumstances, but I guarantee every kid on the playground was cheering Harry on, because even if adults don't understand, kids on the playground DO. This is an action that is not a physical defense against physical bullying, it is about pride and respect. If you whimp out, you lose both. If you stand your ground and fight, whether you win or lose, you gain both. Sadly that is the world, and those are the rules, kids live by. It really is a jungle out there on the playground. > Betsy Hp: > > So this idea that Harry needs to react to Draco as a > solider going into a war is, ... > bboyminn: Again, it's not about a 'soldier going to war', it is about a kid going out to the playground. That is a much softer 'war' but when you are the kid who is being chronically picked on, it still feels like war. That is why people identify with Harry and the gang in this scene. It is not that they condone it as adults, its that they remember their own playground wars, and consciously or unconsciously, remember the rules those wars are played by. > Betsy Hp: > > I'll also add that Ender would never, *never* step on > the body of a downed enemy. There's no message in that. > ... bboyminn: While you are absolutely right about Ender, he is far too compassionate kick a man when he is down unless it serves a clear strategic purpose. Remember, kicking a man when he is down, is exactly what Ender did on the play ground, but again, he did it with a clear strategic purpose. When it comes to the Twins and Harry & Co, actually there is a message in that; a playground message. And the message is not 'we assult you' or 'we hurt you', it is about pride and respect. So, when the Twins step on Draco, they are simply disrespecting him because they believe he has more than earned this show of disrespect. Draco fancies himself this wealthy priviledge boy that Harry should have chosen over the ragamuffin Weasleys. He fancies himself the 'Crown Prince of the School'. When he walks in the room, all eyes SHOULD turn toward him. Harry & Co, and the Twins are telling Draco, we don't care how much wealth, power, or status you think you have, you've revealed your true self to us as the scum that you are, and we won't /fake/ respect for someone who is so thoroughly despicable. Draco is filled with a sense of superiority, and is flush with Voldemort's victory, and the Twins are saying, we don't care how rich and powerful you are, you are just trashed to be swept out the door to us. So, I agree, by adult standards this is a terrible thing for the twins to do. It is completely understandable that adults don't understand it, but like I said, kids understand it perfectly. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From h.m.s at mweb.co.za Fri Dec 8 08:56:06 2006 From: h.m.s at mweb.co.za (Sharon) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 10:56:06 +0200 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh m Message-ID: <002e01c71aa6$d01b93b0$62d517c4@Home> No: HPFGUIDX 162534 I'm not going to snip relevant passages about how lacking the Gryffs are in responsibility, morals, etc or how "bad" they are to all hex / jinx the Slytherins; but to reply to this thread: I think we are all forgetting that these incidents are all taking place in the WIZARDING WORLD! where it is commonplace to use minor hexes and jinxes in the passages of Hogwarts. I think that, while we would be horrified at the various degrees of what looks like attacks on each other in the real world, we must remember that the consequences of these attacks are very different here. For instance: broken bones are healed overnight, blood is siphoned away, buck teeth, overgrown eyebrows & toenails are corrected almost instantly, broken windows, glasses & bowls are fixed with a wave & a word. Why worry about the damages when (mostly) everything can be fixed? These kids have talents and abilities beyond "normal" people and therefore a greater struggle to control them. Many of these kids come from muggle backgrounds where there is no example of how to cope with this. Others come from wizarding backgrounds where magical power is a casual thing. (I like the "WILD WEST" comment - the victors are those fastest on the draw) I think JKR is doing well to reflect the tense type of atmosphere that exist during the period just before and during a war - just think of the "wildness" that seems to be prevalent at these times - eg Hitler youth attacking their own countrymen because they are Jews [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarah at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 09:54:33 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 01:54:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Trio's Morality In-Reply-To: References: <136229.99888.qm@web52710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3202590612080154i3faa4e52t2115b8b08c651e54@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162535 Sarah: I think the Sorting Hat forgot to say that "hypocrisy" is a Gryffindor trait. I don't know whether that's authorial intent. JK thinks that Ginny is hilariously funny and not in a mean way at all. She's also careful to show us the previous generation so we know that everyone was mental as a teenager. I don't think she means the trio to be thought of as morally bankrupt, I think she's endeavoring to depict the various bunglings and self-centeredness of teen life. That's just my opinion though, I don't mind if anyone else wants to think they are morally bankrupt. When I saw this thread, I misread the subject as "The Trio's MorTality" and thought it must be my lucky day! ;) Sarah From scarah at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 09:34:01 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 01:34:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612080134m38129b5coc6f732b971a54bbd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162536 Sydney: Is there a OFH!Snape explanation for the fight in the forest? Is Snape actually arguing with Dumbledore about what side he's on? Wouldn't he be hiding this? And why is Dumbledore still saying he trusts him completely in that case? If anyone could come up with an OFH! or Grey! storyline that would explain the twitch, the argument, and most, most, most importantly Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the second he comes on the scene, I'd be happy to entertain it. Sarah: That's the thing. I'm sure other posters' mileage will vary, but I'd explain all of these things almost identically to how a DDM believer would. The only real difference is the underlying reason why Snape even bothers with any of it at all. I think he has to for self-preservation because of the Life Debt plot device, and I guess DDM thinks one of two things: he's just a secretly awesome guy who deep down loves freedom for all, or else his only reason to get out of bed in the morning is his deep and abiding love of Dumbledore. I'm not sure the forest argument is as straight forward as it seems, though. What's the DDM consensus on this? Do people reckon that Snape wants to just let the UV kill him that Dumbledore may live? I don't think that, because I think that Snape's murder pact with Dumbledore predates the UV, and was the reason he felt he had the green light to go ahead and make the UV. Hagrid thinks it's something to do with the necklace, and it's possible Snape is asking something about having to do with Draco. Draco says later that Snape had been yelling at him about how lame the necklace was. Which twitch are we talking about? The hatred and revulsion? I don't think OFH precludes Snape feeling gratitude for Dumbledore who picked him up, dusted him off, cleared his name, and gave him a job. And as folks have pointed out, it's the same expression on Harry's mug while feeding Dumbledore a barrel of poison. But it doesn't have to be just one reason. Snape might not like teaching all that much, but I think he likes being a double agent. (Not that he still can't be, but he can't be for all public appearances.) It's scored him numerous points with both Dumbledore and Voldemort over the years. And now he has to go on the run from the law. Bother! As far as "Severus please" goes, I'd say the same as any DDM. It means, "Remember that whole death pact thing? Would you mind going ahead with that now? Thank you, have a nice day." Sydney: If JKR wanted to give Grey!Snape a choice on the tower, I don't think she would have arranged that one-- one where Draco's and Harry's lives are in the balance as well. Sarah: And here we agree, I don't think he had choice one. Even if Snape wanted to break his UV, Draco wasn't working as fast as the poison was. I don't know if he knew or how he would have known about the poison or Harry, but if he didn't, Dumbledore is still sliding down the wall. If he did somehow, would Dumbledore count as a suicide soul-wise, or would Harry count as his murderer? Either would be very bad for the story. ;) Sydney: And why would any brand of wavering, indecisive, keeping his options open Snape take an Unbreakable Vow when no one's holding a gun to his head? Sarah: Agreed again, I think he took the UV because: It was no skin off since all this was set up with Dumbledore as soon as he showed up with his crisped hand. Narcissa wants him to maybe kill Dumbledore if he has to, which he already told Dumbledore he would, so there's no reason to resist when it gets him in good with Narcissa and maybe helps quell some doubts of Bellatrix. Jen: It's not likely Snape will have that large a role in Book Seven. In the end he will either help Harry or he won't. And Harry's final impression will simply be one of two--ESE!Snape ("Aha, I always knew it!!") or DDM!Snape ("Looks like he really was on our side all along, and I'll have to respect that even if he's still a miserable git!"). Sarah: But therein lies the beauty of OFH/Life Debt. (Not Grey.) If Snape does all the stuff that he does because of a relatively simply understood plot device, there is hope that Harry could plausibly find it out without someone taking three chapters to describe the decades of history of Snape's innermost thoughts. Sarah From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 12:28:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:28:39 -0000 Subject: Depiction of death in the books WAS:Books moral messages In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162537 > Lupinlore: Others say that > JKR is simply a cruel woman with a death neurosis. Alla: I snipped your whole post, because I wanted to ask you to clarify this one point. Could you explain to me how you drew the conclusion that JKR has a death neurosis? I mean, maybe she does, I don't know, I am just curious what in the books gave you that idea. I vaguely recall that you mention the interview that made you think that? Am I misremembering? Do you have the link if this interview indeed exists? But of course I am mostly interested about the reasons in the books that made you drew this conclusion. I am assuming that it is based on the way JKR portrays death, so what is it? I mean it is not a fear of death, right? DD famously talks about death as next great adventure, etc, so what is it? Thanks :) Alla From scarah at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 12:54:14 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 04:54:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Depiction of death in the books WAS:Books moral messages In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612080454y2c243851jcbf8b04d6ba845a9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162538 > > Lupinlore: > > Others say that > > JKR is simply a cruel woman with a death neurosis. > > > Alla: > > I snipped your whole post, because I wanted to ask you to clarify > this one point. > > Could you explain to me how you drew the conclusion that JKR has a > death neurosis? I mean, maybe she does, I don't know, I am just > curious what in the books gave you that idea. Sarah: I don't want to put words in Lupinlore's mouth, but it seemed clear she was referring to an analysis she didn't agree with, there. One she's seen from people on the list and doesn't share. (Those people may include me.) She wrote that as one of three distinct possibilities, and then said that she tends toward a different one. For the record, I do not believe that killing more characters would indicate mental or emotional problems in JKR. But I do think that Lupinlore was talking about stuff other fans think and say, not reality or her own beliefs/analysis. Sarah From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 8 12:57:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 12:57:56 -0000 Subject: Two different editions of HP series one for kids and another for adults? In-Reply-To: <3202590612071143j13aa01e2wbf307e0c46bb4337@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > Antonia: > > I recently found out about this and I'm confused. I have to mention > > that I am not from the US nor from Britain so over here (in Romania > > that is) we only got the Blomsbury editions in English and the one > > translated in Romanian (which is dreadful by the way). So the > > Blomsbury edition is for adults or for children? What is the > > difference between the two editions? > > Sarah: > The only difference is the cover art. The adult covers are meant to > be less embarassing to read in public. :) They're supposed to be > designed to look more like a mystery novel or something. The text > inside is the same. > > Antonia: > I heard that some lines were left > > out in the children editions. Is that true? Does anyone have the > > missing lines from the children editions from the 6 books? Are those > > lines important to the books? Do they refer to Severus? > > Sarah: > The United States have a different publisher and editor, and there are > indeed differences from the Bloomsbury (UK) to Scholastic (US) > editions. I think that must be what you're thinking of. The Lexicon > has been kind enough to list them for us: > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/hbp/differences-hbp.html > > No differences between adults' and childrens' except the cover. But > there are differences between UK and US. (The US only puts out one > version. I mean, they do eventually have hardback, paperback, and > different box sets and all, but there's no adults' vs. children's.) Geoff: The same is true of the UK editions. There are, in fact, three types: the paperback sets with the cover art aimed more at young people; the hardback editions with a more "adult" dustjacket; and the version which I usually end up buying with which I would term a "library" edition. These have no dustjacket and have almost a plain colour cover except for a small square abbreviated version of the paperback art in the centre of the front cover. From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 13:29:45 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 13:29:45 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612080134m38129b5coc6f732b971a54bbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162540 > Sarah: I'm sure other posters' mileage will vary, but I'd > explain all of these things almost identically to how a DDM believer > would. The only real difference is the underlying reason why Snape > even bothers with any of it at all. I think he has to for > self-preservation because of the Life Debt plot device > Agreed again, I think he took the UV because: It was no skin off > since all this was set up with Dumbledore as soon as he showed up with > his crisped hand. Sydney: No skin off his nose?! No.. skin.. off his nose.. dude, we get this again and again from OFH!Snapers I this just makes no kind of sense at all. This is a vow that you break it, you die. Snakes of fire wrap around your hand and Bind Your Fate Forever. You don't get main-chancer, OFH, playing-the-odds wiggle room here. Again, why would a guy who's about life preservation *take an Unbreakable Vow at all*? Why would you write such a scene about such a character? You say it's because the 'kill D-dore pact' was already in place. But that's not what Snape was swearing to do or die. He was swearing to protect Draco from all harm and watch over him as he did the Dark Lords wishes-- the third clause, going by the 'twitch of his hand', was unexpected. He was putting his life on the line for somebody else. That's just simply, plain, out-and-out, NOT a way for a writer to efficiently paint a picture of a guy who is all about self-preservation. Sarah: > As far as "Severus please" goes, I'd say the same as any DDM. It > means, "Remember that whole death pact thing? Would you mind going > ahead with that now? Thank you, have a nice day." Sydney: Yeah, but, again, if Snape knows and Dumbledore knows that this is the point at which either Snape or Dumbledore will die, and Snape knows and Dumbledore knows that Snape is Mr. Self-Preservation, then *why is Dumbledore having to plead*? Why does he use a voice so pleading and out of his usual tone that it shocks Harry to the core? Surely if this was, 'yay, no problems at all with the plan, of course Snape will save himself over me', the first thing that Dumbledore would say when Snape arrives is, 'Yay. Do your thing.' in a confident, knowing tone. Not "Severus... please..." in a pleading tone. According to this theory the LifeDebt and self-preservation *is* Dumbledore's understanding of Snape's character in the first place and the whole reason he has this unshakeable 'trust' (in the mangling-of-the-noble-English-language fashion necessary for this theory) in him. So why is he pleading? The LifeDebt Snape explains the same things as DDM!Snape because it explains the same things on the bare level of action (except of course for the Unbreakable Vow and wanting the DADA job and pretty much every single thing relating to Peter Pettigrew). And on the bare level of action DDM!Snape explains everything because that's what's going on . But LifeDebt Snape doesn't cover the emotional level that's shown to be going on with Dumbledore and his pleading and having heated arguements and his heartfelt description of Snape's remorse. It doesn't cover Snape's personality as it actually shows up when he has actual scenes on the page (still looking for invisible 'all about self preservation Snape'). It definitely doesn't cover why JKR has lavished so many scenes with him and Harry and given Harry stronger, more passionate emotions towards Snape than to any other character in the book! Sarah: > But therein lies the beauty of OFH/Life Debt. (Not Grey.) If Snape > does all the stuff that he does because of a relatively simply > understood plot device, there is hope that Harry could plausibly find > it out without someone taking three chapters to describe the decades > of history of Snape's innermost thoughts. Sydney: So then what's with Snape's innermost thoughts actually being really mysterious at all? And why have Harry have such potent emotional reactions to him for book after book? Why not just get this cool fun 'out for himself but bound by magical debt' character in the open where we can enjoy the 'which way is that crazy Snape going to jump?" sensation? It seems to me on the 'surprise vs. suspense' equation, seeing as the surprise is pretty dull and doesn't have an effect on Harry's feelings about him, you'd obviously go for suspense here-- how long can OFH!Snape play this game and how can Harry use him? I want to write a story about that guy right now, and I'd have the reveal way back halfway through the second act and then squeeze all the fun inherent in us and Harry watching this guy twist in the wind, and I'd bloody well share it with the audience. According to the LifeDebt theory, the mystery of Snape's motives is, as you say, very simple and quickly dealt with and does't expand at all on Harry's understanding of him. So what's up with, say, the whole plot of HBP? The one when Harry gets to know Snape without actually realizing it's Snape, and likes him and relates to him and thinks of him as a friend and defends him against Hermionie, and then OMG realizes he's covered in Snape cooties and feels all betrayed? Why are we getting this guy swathed in black Driven By Mysterious Passions who rants about wallowing in sad memories? Why are Lily and Snape revealed as Potions whizes in the same book? Why the hit-over-the-head anvil-sized hints of, "Snape was sorry because he endangered James and Lily! But Snape hated James! Fill in the blank, kids!" -- Sydney, who saw the "Tornado Hits London" headline on the Standard and said "VOLDEMORT!" out loud. Not really loud, but still. From scarah at gmail.com Fri Dec 8 14:26:07 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:26:07 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: <3202590612080134m38129b5coc6f732b971a54bbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3202590612080626j369b201ej51b4498a99cf6cb7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162541 Sydney: No skin off his nose?! No.. skin.. off his nose.. dude, we get this again and again from OFH!Snapers I this just makes no kind of sense at all. This is a vow that you break it, you die. Snakes of fire wrap around your hand and Bind Your Fate Forever. You don't get main-chancer, OFH, playing-the-odds wiggle room here. Again, why would a guy who's about life preservation *take an Unbreakable Vow at all*? Sarah: By playing-the-odds wiggle room, I think you're referring to what people have been calling Grey, which I don't believe. LDS (Life Debt Snape, not Latter Day Saints) isn't counting on wiggle room. He already knows what he has to do, and if he can't it'll be worse to him than anything the UV could bring on. Sydney: Why would you write such a scene about such a character? You say it's because the 'kill D-dore pact' was already in place. But that's not what Snape was swearing to do or die. He was swearing to protect Draco from all harm and watch over him as he did the Dark Lords wishes-- the third clause, going by the 'twitch of his hand', was unexpected. He was putting his life on the line for somebody else. That's just simply, plain, out-and-out, NOT a way for a writer to efficiently paint a picture of a guy who is all about self-preservation. Sarah: You think she wants us to efficiently guess the end at this point in time? No, someone who is not trying to give the end away would not paint an efficient picture. The reasons to write such a scene about such a character are: misdirection while giving just enough clues so it's not a cheat. OK, now I see what twitch you are talking about, thank you. I can think of any number of explanations for that. Snape doesn't like to talk about killing Dumbledore, Snape doesn't want to think about what will happen if Draco fails, etc. If you really think killing Dumbledore was a surprise from Narcissa, and Snape put his life on the line to promise he would kill Dumbledore to protect Draco, how is he Dumbledore's man? Wouldn't that make him Draco's or Narcissa's man? Sydney: Yeah, but, again, if Snape knows and Dumbledore knows that this is the point at which either Snape or Dumbledore will die, and Snape knows and Dumbledore knows that Snape is Mr. Self-Preservation, then *why is Dumbledore having to plead*? Why does he use a voice so pleading and out of his usual tone that it shocks Harry to the core? Sarah: I thought that was just more of the Harry filter, to be honest. I thought Dumbledore said please because he's a polite dude, and his voice sounds funky because he's a) getting weaker by the minute b) doesn't really want to ask this as it's a hell of an imposition, but it needs doing. I don't see how it makes that big of a difference whether Dumbledore and Snape love each other forever or not. They are certainly on pretty good terms (assuming lack of ESE which I think we both are), and this is certainly a big favor to ask. Sydney: The LifeDebt Snape explains the same things as DDM!Snape because it explains the same things on the bare level of action (except of course for the Unbreakable Vow and wanting the DADA job and pretty much every single thing relating to Peter Pettigrew). Sarah: I think it explains the UV, for reasons I've tried to explain but you may not agree with. I think the DADA job isn't a large enigma, it's Snape's version of reading the weather report to see if Dumbledore has anything big in store for him in the coming year. I'm unsure what problems it creates for Peter Pettigrew, could you elaborate? Sydney: So then what's with Snape's innermost thoughts actually being really mysterious at all? And why have Harry have such potent emotional reactions to him for book after book? Why not just get this cool fun 'out for himself but bound by magical debt' character in the open where we can enjoy the 'which way is that crazy Snape going to jump?" Sarah: Do you really think Snape will have three pages of exposition, leave a suicide note, or perhaps leave Harry some pensieve memories that explain it all? Why is this Snape idea more "cool fun" and bears more mockery than anyone else's? Why not ask the same of DDM, ESE, or any other? Let's get all those cool fun guys out here. Which way is that crazy in love with Dumbledore Snape going to jump next? Sarah From marklb2 at comcast.net Fri Dec 8 15:41:30 2006 From: marklb2 at comcast.net (det_okse) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:41:30 -0000 Subject: The Ring and the necklace... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162542 Probably asking more questions here than posting theories... 1. After Dumbledore died, what happened to the Gaunt's ring? Will it have any significance to further developments? I doubt it, but it seemed funny that he felt compelled to wear it when he picked harry up from the Dursley's in THBP. I wonder that, even if it was shattered, did it offer some sort of protection, or why would he wear it? 2. What happened to the necklace that Katie Bell touched? I know it was delivered to DD, but I think there is still a place for it to re- emerge in book 7. 3. It's well established that Harry will probably speak to Mundungus in book 7....but I'm interested to find what happened during the conversation Mundungus had with "the tall thin barender" immediately preceeding his encounter with Harry. Assuming the bartender is indeed DD's brother, I would bet that at some time Harry speaks to him to find clues as to where Dung is hiding. Can't wait to read the chapter when he finds him! 4. How much, exactly, is Kreacher under Harry's control? Since the Kreacher had a habit of hauling items back to his lair, I wonder what else he might have hidden from the OOTP? I know if Kreacher was at the Black residence, Mundungus probably wouldn't have been able to make off with any of the black heirlooms. 5. Finally, I think that the dissapearance of Olivander will come into play- the DE's wouldn't have nicked him just to hold him prisoner... Just thoughts- Mark From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 16:01:18 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:01:18 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612080134m38129b5coc6f732b971a54bbd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162543 Sydney wrote: > > Is there a OFH!Snape explanation for the fight in the forest? Is > Snape actually arguing with Dumbledore about what side he's on? > Wouldn't he be hiding this? And why is Dumbledore still saying he > trusts him completely in that case? If anyone could come up with an > OFH! or Grey! storyline that would explain the twitch, the argument, > and most, most, most importantly Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the second he comes on the scene, I'd be happy to entertain it. > Sarah responded: > That's the thing. I'm sure other posters' mileage will vary, but I'd explain all of these things almost identically to how a DDM believer would. The only real difference is the underlying reason why Snape even bothers with any of it at all. I think he has to for self-preservation because of the Life Debt plot device, and I guess DDM thinks one of two things: he's just a secretly awesome guy who deep down loves freedom for all, or else his only reason to get out of bed in the morning is his deep and abiding love of Dumbledore. Carol stares in astonishment and responds: No wonder you don't accept DDM!Snape if that's your impression of the (highly varied) theory. I do think that a few people see everything Snape says or does as an act, but I've never encountered a single person who argues that Snape loves freedom for all or that his raison d'existence is the love of Dumbledore. What I see, and what I think most DDM!Snapers see, is a deeply passionate, deeply hurt, deeply resentful man who nevertheless is capable of remorse and loyalty and courage, who, for his own personal reasons, is willing to risk his life to help the one man who trusts him completely bring down Voldemort. The explanations for his remorse and loyalty vary. But we see no signs of a desire for self-preservation (Snape is constantly risking his life, and has been doeing so for DD since *before* Godric's Hollow), nor would self-preservation explain his actions after he killed Dumbledore, notably getting the DEs out of Hogwarts and saving Harry from a Crucio. The motives I see, and I think most DDM!Snapers see in these scenes, are a desire to protect Draco (not just because of the UV, which he took in the first place for the same reason) and to protect Harry, however much he hates him, because he's the only one who can bring down Voldemort. I don't think the Life Debt applies to Snape's self-preservation, which is necessary to preserve Harry, Draco, and himself as deep-cover saboteur. *If* the Life Debt is important, it's only so as the reason why Snape tried to protect James and why he still hates him ("How dare the arrogant b-----d ignore the warnings and die before I've fulfilled my debt to him?"). Strange as it seems, Snape has a sense of honor and moral obligation. But having saved Harry's life once in SS/PS (and both DD and Quirrell regard him as having done so), why continue to protect him? There must be a reason other than the Life Debt, which DD could easily have explained to Harry when he had the chance as the reason he trusts Snape *completely.* DDM!Snapers believe that this trust is justified and that it is based on Snape's *choice* to serve Dumbledore rather than Voldemort, not on some magical compulsion. Dumbledore believes in second chances, and second chances are meaningless if the person being given the chance is not free to change his mind. Sarah: > I'm not sure the forest argument is as straight forward as it seems, > though. What's the DDM consensus on this? Do people reckon that > Snape wants to just let the UV kill him that Dumbledore may live? I > don't think that, because I think that Snape's murder pact with > Dumbledore predates the UV, and was the reason he felt he had the > green light to go ahead and make the UV. Hagrid thinks it's something to do with the necklace, and it's possible Snape is asking something about having to do with Draco. Draco says later that Snape had been yelling at him about how lame the necklace was. Carol responds: I don't know of anyone who thinks that the argument in the forest is straightforward. It's reported incompletely at secondhand by Hagrid, who presents his own interpretation (likely to be wrong, as such interpretations almost always are in the HP books, regardless of the character making them). We don't even get the benefit of overhearing all or part of the conversation ourselves (along with the dubious benefit of Harry's reactions) because Harry doesn't overhear it. So any interpretation of this offstage scene is based on the incomplete information offered to us by Hagrid. What, exactly, is Dumbledore taking for granted? What, exactly, has Snape promised to do that he wants to get out of and DD won't let him? We don't know, and our guesses vary. Is there a masterplan involving Snape's carrying out the UV if necessary? Or does the plan extend only as far as snape's joining the DEs at the end of the year because of the DADA curse? DDM!Snapers generally agree that Snape told Dumbledore as much as he knew of Voldemort's plans for Draco (essentially, that he had assigned Draco to kill DD), that Snape did not know about the Vanishing Cabinet plan (though he may have known, as Harry did, about the RoR and the polyjuiced assistants), that Snape told DD about all three provisions of the UV, and that DD wanted Snape to protect Draco at all costs. And that, I think, is as far as any "consensus" goes. Re Draco saying that Snape had been yelling at him about how lame the necklace plan was, that's essentially Draco's interpretation of the confrontation between Draco and Snape that Harry partially overhears in "The Unbreakable Vow," in which Snape manages to show concern for Draco without breaching his DE cover. I think that the argument in the forest occurred after the poisoning incident, not the necklace incident. It's possible that DD wanted Snape to talk to Draco again and Snape knew that doing so was futile, but again, we just don't know. Snape certainly was still following Draco, or he couldn't have rescued him from Sectumsempra about two months later. > > Which twitch are we talking about? The hatred and revulsion? Carol: I'm sure that Sydney is talking about the hand twitch that precedes the third clause of the UV, when Snape anticipates what Narcissa is going to require of him. It seems crystal clear that he doesn't want to kill Dumbledore, and it's possible that he sees the wording of that provision as just vague enough that he may be able to wiggle out of it. IMO, and I don't know whether a single person agrees with me, Snape was trying throughout HBP to postpone any confrontation that would force him to carry out the UV or die. He even speaks to Harry about continuing the detentions next year, as if he somehow thinks he can escape the DADA curse and return as DADA teacher or Potions Master the following year. But once the DEs enter the building, he knows that the time has come. Maybe he still hopes that he won't have to kill DD, who, after all, defeated Voldemort in the MoM and escaped from Fudge and Co. using Fawkes. I do think that, once he's on the tower and has assessed the situation, knowing that his options are to kill DD (and get his body off the tower) or die futilely trying to protect the wandless, dying DD (and Draco and the invisible Harry) from the DEs, that he would prefer to die. That's what the look of hatred and revulsion is all about--self-hatred, hatred of the deed he has to do, momentary hatred of DD for forcing him to make this horrible choice. But having sacrificed *everything* for DD and the cause, he is not about to go back now. Nothing, IMO, can make him serve Voldemort for any reason other than to protect Draco, get as close to LV as possible, learn his secrets, and ultimately, help the Chosen One to bring him down. A huge order, especially given the Chosen One's view of him as a hated murderer and traitor, but DDM!Snape is cunning and courageous and will once again face torture, Azkaban, or death to do what must be done. Whether he survives or not, I have no doubt that he'll ucceed in his objectives. > Sarah: > Even if Snape wanted to break his UV, Draco wasn't working as fast as the poison was. I don't know if he knew or how he would have known about the poison or Harry, but if he didn't, Dumbledore is still sliding down the wall. Carol responds: Snape is a potions expert and a Healer. I think he had a pretty good idea that DD had drunk a slow-acting poison and that under the circumstances, there was no way to save him. And we see Snape's eyes sweep the room. If Draco saw the two brooms, and we know he did, Snape saw them, too. And as he knows about Harry's invisibility cloak, I think it's a safe bet that he knows Harry is on the tower. DDM!Snape knows at that point exactly what his choices are and which one DD wants him to make. But it takes DD speaking his name, an exchanged look which may simply be mutual understanding but could be two-way Legilimency, and a "Severus, please" before he finally raises his wand and casts that curse, with all its terrible consequences. Far from being the act of a coward, it's IMO the bravest thing Snape has ever done. And he's not about to back out now. Sarah: > But therein lies the beauty of OFH/Life Debt. (Not Grey.) If Snape > does all the stuff that he does because of a relatively simply > understood plot device, there is hope that Harry could plausibly find it out without someone taking three chapters to describe the decades of history of Snape's innermost thoughts. Carol: But that relatively simple plot device does not explain Snape's passionate intensity, nor the look of hatred and revulsion, nor his saving Harry from the Crucio. OFH!Snape wouldn't care what happened to Harry; he only wants to save his own skin, Peter Pettigrew-style. And Life!Debt Snape wouldn't care if the DEs tortured Harry, or if Harry learned to shut his mouth and close his mind and stop casting Unforgiveables. He would simply have made sure that Harry wasn't killed without the trouble of deflecting his curses. And, again, if the Life Debt were DD's sole reason for trusting Snape *completely*, which involves more than trusting him not to kill Harry, why not tell Harry when he had the chance? After all, Harry has known about the Life Debt since SS/PS. And why be so mysterious about Snape's Boggart and Patronus? Carol, who thinks that Snape, whom Harry now hates more than he hates Voldemort, will appear in more than the crucial confrontation chapter, if only as the subject of discussion and a few visits to the Pensieve From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 16:24:24 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:24:24 -0000 Subject: The Ring and the necklace... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162544 > Mark: > 1. After Dumbledore died, what happened to the Gaunt's ring? Will it > have any significance to further developments? I doubt it, but it > seemed funny that he felt compelled to wear it when he picked harry > up from the Dursley's in THBP. I wonder that, even if it was > shattered, did it offer some sort of protection, or why would he wear > it? zgirnius: He was wearing it in order for Slughorn to see it (that's where he was going after picking up Harry). It was a part of his psychological warfare campaign against him to get the real memory. Tom was wearing that same ring in the memory where Slughorn told him about Horcruxes. It worked, too. Harry does not understand what is hgappening at the time, but he does notice the following: > HBP: > Slughorn's eyes lingered for a moment on the ring too, and Harry > saw a tiny frown momewntarily crease his wide forehead. > Mark: > 2. What happened to the necklace that Katie Bell touched? I know it > was delivered to DD, but I think there is still a place for it to re- > emerge in book 7. zgirnius: I would guess that Snape deactivated the curse (the necklace was brought to him by Filch, on McGonagall's orders.) It's a dangerous object to leave lying around in its cursed state. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 16:50:46 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:50:46 -0000 Subject: The Ring and the necklace... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162545 Mark wrote: > 1. After Dumbledore died, what happened to the Gaunt's ring? Will it > have any significance to further developments? I doubt it, but it > seemed funny that he felt compelled to wear it when he picked harry > up from the Dursley's in THBP. I wonder that, even if it was > shattered, did it offer some sort of protection, or why would he wear it? Carol responds: The ring is cracked, the Horcrux/soul bit destroyed, and the curse left the ring and attacked DD, prevented from killing DD but not from blackening his hand by Snape's timely action. IMO, it is now just a badly damaged ring with an ominous history. Dumbledore wears it to visit Sllughorn because he knows that Slughorn will recognize it (Tom Riddle wore it when he asked about Horcruxes) and because he wants Harry to see it. It has nothing to do with the Dursleys but everything to do with the lessons Harry will be learning. > Mark: > 2. What happened to the necklace that Katie Bell touched? I know it > was delivered to DD, but I think there is still a place for it to re-emerge in book 7. Carol responds: It wasn't delivered to DD; it was delivered to Snape, who not only examined it to determine what curse was on it so that he could stop the curse in its tracks and save Katie Bell before she was sent to St. Mungo's for further treatment. I'm guessing that Snape, with his knowledge of the Dark Arts and DADA, removed the curse from the necklace, which would otherwise be too dangerous for anyone, even Snape himself, to handle. I don't think we'll hear any more about it, except possibly in retrospect. It isn't a Horcrux, and I don't see what plot purpose it could serve (except as a reminder of Snape's DADA skills). > Mark: > 3. It's well established that Harry will probably speak to Mundungus > in book 7....but I'm interested to find what happened during the > conversation Mundungus had with "the tall thin barender" immediately > preceeding his encounter with Harry. Assuming the bartender is indeed DD's brother, I would bet that at some time Harry speaks to him to find clues as to where Dung is hiding. Can't wait to read the chapter when he finds him! Carol: Dung isn't hiding. He's in Azkaban, having been arrested for impersonating an Inferius. I agree that there's some connection between him and the bartender, who is almost certainly Aberforth, besides Aberforth having kicked him out of the Hog's Head some twenty years before (a cover story like the "slow reflexes" to explain DD's blackened hand?). I think, for one thing, that they're both members of DD's extensive spy network, though who they report to now is unclear. And I think there's a connection to the locket Horcrux, which may have passed into Aberforth's keeping as "stolen goods" (Dung as thief; Aberforth as fence) though neither would know the significance of that particular object. I don't know what's going on, either, except that there's more to Mundungus than being a "smelly sneak thief." (He may be a traitor, for all I know, someone whom DD was wrong to trust, which will lead Harry to think, wrongly, IMO, that DD shouldn't have trusted Snape, either.) as for Aberforth, who may now be the Heir of Gryffindor(!) and the inheritor of Fawkes, he can give us background on DD and he witnessed Snape's eavesdropping. Maybe Harry will pay him a visit if he ever puts two and two together, Snape-style. He can be a bit slow sometimes! > Mark: > 4. How much, exactly, is Kreacher under Harry's control? Since the > Kreacher had a habit of hauling items back to his lair, I wonder what else he might have hidden from the OOTP? I know if Kreacher was at the Black residence, Mundungus probably wouldn't have been able to > make off with any of the black heirlooms. Carol: But Kreacher was at Hogwarts, so the Black heirlooms were unprotected. And without doubt, not all of Mundungus's motives were honorable. ("This solid silver, Sirius, mate? That [the Black family crest]'d come off, though.") I do think he wanted to make a profit, but if Aberforth is the fence, at least the items are still in the Order's keeping. As for Kreacher hauling items into his lair, that's another possibility for the Horcrux, and once Harry figures out that RAB is Regulus and remembers the locket that no one could open, he'll probably look for it there. I don't think he'll find it, so he'll summon Kreacher and cross-examine him and we'll hear the story of RAB/Regulus through him. At least, that makes sense to me. > Mark: > 5. Finally, I think that the dissapearance of Olivander will come > into play- the DE's wouldn't have nicked him just to hold him > prisoner... Carol: Yes, we've seen Ollivander often enough that he's a real character (unlike Florian Fortescue, who also disappeared), and he seems to have a connection to Dumbledore, having informed him when the Phoenix-core wands, were sold (or was it only the second one?). I think he, too, was a member of DD's spy network and possibly of the Order. But I don't think the theory that LV will want a new wand is the reason for the kidnapping/disappearance, as some posters have theorized. There are other ways of getting around the brother wands effect, chiefly by disarming Harry. LV's wand, with its yew wood and Phoenix-feather core, symbolizes his goal, earthly immortality, and it's the wand he used to commit most of his murders and create all of his Horcruxes. He won't trade it in for another one, not if I know the superstitious, souvenir-loving Voldemort. Carol, just guessing and not theorizing here From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 8 16:57:28 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 11:57:28 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: EBA!Snape Message-ID: <9892135.1165597049037.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162546 Bart: I figure it's about time to put a label on my own favorite Snape theory: Evil but Allied. Consider, for example, during WWII (it's OK to mention Nazi's here because JKR herself has compared Voldermort's movement to the German Nazi movement), there were German generals who were loyal to Germany, and even agreed with the ideals of the Nazi Party, who recognized that Hitler was a madman who had to be stopped. Now, as JKR has made clear, Tommy "Lord Voldemort" Riddle is a user, plain and simple. By the philosophy of his own organization, he is an inferior, and should not be the head. He doesn't care about philosophy; all he cares about is his own power. He only cares about his followers in terms of how he can use them. Snape was clearly taken in by the philosophy of the Death Eaters, having the basic self-conception, "I'm better than everybody else; why doesn't everybody recognize it?". And it is clear that he still has the idea. But it is also clear that he has a clear moral and ethical code of his own, and saw that the person he had chosen as a leader was a fake. I suspect that he did have feelings for Lily; certainly there are hints that he saw her as an intellectual equal, although a social inferior. He also owed his life to James, although it is also clear that he also attributed his being in danger in the first place at least in part to James, making his owing his life double-hateful. Sirius, of course, he despises; there wasn't even the saving grace of repentance that occurred with James (from Snape's point of view). There is also, although not explicitly hinted at, a probable jealousy of Dumbledore. Both Snape and Dumbeldore were demonstrated to be highly creative and had a sufficient understanding of the basics of magic to improve upon the techniques commonly taught, yet Dumbledore was everybody's favorite, and Snape was nobody's (which left Snape vulnerable to the entrapments and temptations of the Death Eaters). So, when whatever happened (but certainly linked to the revelation of the prophecy) that opened Snape's eyes (and it is vaguely hinted that it was his putting Lily into jeopardy), Snape changed sides. He clearly did this well BEFORE the initial defeat of Voldemort; the fact that he received no hint of punishment speaks to that. The point is that Snape's cruelty, his, face it, evil nature is NOT an act. He IS as reprehensible as he seems. But, like the generals who turned against Hitler, he sees that Lord Voldemort is, even by his own standards, thoroughly evil, and is willing to do whatever he can to stop him, even trying to work with a kid who reminds him of everything he hated as a youth, even if it means slaying a man who, by his own standards, should have hated him, but offered him nothing but friendship and support. Was he Dumbledore's man? Not really; at best, he was an ally, not a friend. He did what Dumbledore said not because Dumbledore said it, but because Dumbledore was right. His arguments with Dumbledore showed that he was quite capable of disobeying Dumbledore if he disagreed. And it was clear that Dumbledore could not trust him 100%; he not only dropped Harry's Occlumancy lessons, but, as is obvious through context, failed to tell Dumbledore that he had. But, while Dumbledore could not always trust the man, he DID know where his loyalties lay, and that is where he found Snape to be trustworthy. And, for those who believe in ESE Snape, I have one question which I have posed several times, and yet to have heard a satisfactory answer: Why did Snape raise the alarm about the Ministry raid so quickly? A little bit of stalling, and Voldemort would not have been defeated, yet Snape's cover would have been intact. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 8 17:44:06 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:44:06 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612080626j369b201ej51b4498a99cf6cb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162547 > Sydney: > No skin off his nose?! No.. skin.. off his nose.. dude, we get this > again and again from OFH!Snapers I this just makes no kind of sense at > all. This is a vow that you break it, you die. Snakes of fire wrap > around your hand and Bind Your Fate Forever. You don't get > main-chancer, OFH, playing-the-odds wiggle room here. Again, why > would a guy who's about life preservation *take an Unbreakable Vow at > all*? > > Sarah: > By playing-the-odds wiggle room, I think you're referring to what > people have been calling Grey, which I don't believe. LDS (Life Debt > Snape, not Latter Day Saints) isn't counting on wiggle room. He > already knows what he has to do, and if he can't it'll be worse to him > than anything the UV could bring on. Magpie: I don't see how OFH/LiD is not looking for wiggle room. You need wiggle room if you're OFY always. People who are out for themselves don't make Unbreakable Vows to other people. People who are about self-preservation do not make vows that end in death. These same things fit perfectly well, otoh, into the character of DDM!Snape who is the perfect personality type for vows--and nothing like what you described about loving freedom and DD. Snape as written was made for that kind of thing. It's Snape at his most Snape. With LiD or Grey or OFH this vow centerpiece of a scene where Snape knowingly binds his fate to another and makes a vow (a solemn promise committing oneself to an act, service, or condition ) into nothing, something he's doing because he really doesn't care either way. That's why, imo, OFH!Snape arguments always have to focus on the fact that he's agreeing to kill Dumbledore instead of the more important aspect, which is what happens if he doesn't do as he's promised. I plan to come to work on Monday morning. I'm there mostly every Monday morning. But if someone asked me to take a UV that I would be at my desk Monday morning? I wouldn't do it. Because there's no wiggle room in a vow that kills me. > Sydney: > Why would you write such a scene about such a character? You > say it's because the 'kill D-dore pact' was already in place. But > that's not what Snape was swearing to do or die. He was swearing to > protect Draco from all harm and watch over him as he did the Dark > Lords wishes-- the third clause, going by the 'twitch of his hand', > was unexpected. He was putting his life on the line for somebody > else. That's just simply, plain, out-and-out, NOT a way for a writer > to efficiently paint a picture of a guy who is all about > self-preservation. > > Sarah: > You think she wants us to efficiently guess the end at this point in > time? No, someone who is not trying to give the end away would not > paint an efficient picture. The reasons to write such a scene about > such a character are: misdirection while giving just enough clues so > it's not a cheat. Magpie: What you're describing isn't cheat or misdirection, it's not writing the character. Sydney's point is that whatever is revealed about Snape eventually it *must* satisfyingly explain all of Snape's behaviors at once--without leaving anything dangling (as in Sydney's example where there's no questions like "That bit where Crouch took Neville aside--what was that about?"). Writing Snape as decisive (the entire time, natch) as a cover for his really being wavering isn't the way Rowling writes at all--or any good writer would. It's a bait and switch, writing one character and then saying, "But that was all an act!" with not a single sign that it was an act. Snape's entire personality disappears replaced by a guy who's got to be explained from top to bottom through exposition or our own imagination. Yes, Rowling has kept us from guessing Snape's secret. But she's also *got* us guessing by giving us actual clues to work with. With DDM!Snape we don't yet have a lot of technical explanations but emotionally everything clicks. In fact, to me technically everything still clicks more as well. The killing of Dumbledore still seems written as begging for some explanation in canon, with lots of flags that say we don't really know what's going on, while ESE!Snape's sending to help to the MoM--which he doesn't even offer a cover story for--seems a lot more difficult to explain. Sarah: > OK, now I see what twitch you are talking about, thank you. I can > think of any number of explanations for that. Snape doesn't like to > talk about killing Dumbledore, Snape doesn't want to think about what > will happen if Draco fails, etc. Magpie: Rowling's really clear about little moments and gestures from Snape. The twitch doesn't automatically show that he's DDM!Snape, certainly, but I can't see how it works as anything else than some show of difficulty in taking that part of the vow. Snape's not talking about killing Dumbledore in the scene, he's vowing to do it or die himself. If he's OFH, why go through with the vow? OFH explains the twitch but not the follow through. The twitch, far from showing indecision, shows Snape as ever decisive--he masters any misgivings and plows ahead. If we imagine Peter Pettigrew in the scene, I think his twitch would have been written differently, in such a way that we could see that he was making the decision to kill for himself because he saw no way out of the vow. Sarah: > > If you really think killing Dumbledore was a surprise from Narcissa, > and Snape put his life on the line to promise he would kill Dumbledore > to protect Draco, how is he Dumbledore's man? Wouldn't that make him > Draco's or Narcissa's man? Magpie: It makes him not his own man, which is what he is if he's OFH. Those of us who believe in DDM!Snape think that the vow will slot into that as well, but we don't yet have the real explanation. What we do have, though, is a Snape who's put his life on the line for someone besides himself willingly. > Sydney: > Yeah, but, again, if Snape knows and Dumbledore knows that this is the > point at which either Snape or Dumbledore will die, and Snape knows > and Dumbledore knows that Snape is Mr. Self-Preservation, then *why is > Dumbledore having to plead*? Why does he use a voice so pleading and > out of his usual tone that it shocks Harry to the core? > > Sarah: > I thought that was just more of the Harry filter, to be honest. I > thought Dumbledore said please because he's a polite dude, and his > voice sounds funky because he's a) getting weaker by the minute b) > doesn't really want to ask this as it's a hell of an imposition, but > it needs doing. I don't see how it makes that big of a difference > whether Dumbledore and Snape love each other forever or not. They are > certainly on pretty good terms (assuming lack of ESE which I think we > both are), and this is certainly a big favor to ask. > Magpie: Explaining it through the Harry this way takes a moment that's highlighted in the text as important and tosses it out. And anyway the Harry filter doesn't work that way-it doesn't create things that aren't there. Harry's interpretations of things are often wrong, but he does see things as they appear. If Harry hears a note of pleading in DD's voice so strange it shocks him and is so new and different-- this after an entire scene of DD being weaker--I think that note is there and we just don't yet understand it. As for Dumbledore "imposing" on Snape--he's not imposing on him if he knows Snape's going to kill Dumbledore to save himself. It doesn't matter if it's according to Dumbledore's plan as well. Snape's not doing him a favor. DDM!Snape has reason to consider not fulfilling the vow even if it means death to himself. > Sydney: > The LifeDebt Snape explains the same things as DDM!Snape because it > explains the same things on the bare level of action (except of course > for the Unbreakable Vow and wanting the DADA job and pretty much every > single thing relating to Peter Pettigrew). > > Sarah: > I think it explains the UV, for reasons I've tried to explain but you > may not agree with. I think the DADA job isn't a large enigma, it's > Snape's version of reading the weather report to see if Dumbledore has > anything big in store for him in the coming year. I'm unsure what > problems it creates for Peter Pettigrew, could you elaborate? Magpie: I admit I haven't quite understood the explanation for the UV in this theory. It seems like it only understands why Snape would agree to kill Dumbledore rather than explaining why he'd agree to die if he didn't kill Dumbledore. And this again takes something that's been hammered on throughout the series turns out to be nothing. Snape might as well have been checking the weather. Far from explaining things in canon, it's needing to explain away things in canon. The twitch, Snape's oft-mentioned desire for the DADA job and Dumbledore's pleading on the Tower either didn't happen or didn't mean anything. > Sydney: > So then what's with Snape's innermost thoughts actually being really > mysterious at all? And why have Harry have such potent emotional > reactions to him for book after book? Why not just get this cool fun > 'out for himself but bound by magical debt' character in the open > where we can enjoy the 'which way is that crazy Snape going to jump?" > > Sarah: > Do you really think Snape will have three pages of exposition, leave a > suicide note, or perhaps leave Harry some pensieve memories that > explain it all? Why is this Snape idea more "cool fun" and bears more > mockery than anyone else's? Why not ask the same of DDM, ESE, or any > other? Let's get all those cool fun guys out here. Which way is that > crazy in love with Dumbledore Snape going to jump next? Magpie: Suicide note? No. Penieve memories? Maybe. Three pages of exposition? At least. That's less than we got in PoA, isn't it? And that was Snape explaining his hatred of Sirius and the Marauders-- and it was awesome. Snape's nature's been the biggest open question of the series and not only do I think we're going to get pages of exposition but I think they're going to be juicy and fun and a joy to read--and that they're going to rock Harry's world. Snape, like Petunia in OotP, seems rather bursting to cry out what's been eating him and how unfair life has been to him. I think we as readers are unconsciously just as close to begging for it. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 18:16:46 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:16:46 -0000 Subject: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: <9892135.1165597049037.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162548 Bart wrote: > I figure it's about time to put a label on my own favorite Snape theory: Evil but Allied. > > Now, as JKR has made clear, Tommy "Lord Voldemort" Riddle is a user, plain and simple. By the philosophy of his own organization, he is an inferior, and should not be the head. He doesn't care about philosophy; all he cares about is his own power. He only cares about his followers in terms of how he can use them. Carol responds: Interesting. I agree with your assessment of Voldemort, at any rate. > Bart: > Snape was clearly taken in by the philosophy of the Death Eaters, having the basic self-conception, "I'm better than everybody else; why doesn't everybody recognize it?". Carol responds: Can you supply some canon here to connect these two ideas? I don't see how Snape's view of himself (the Half-Blood Prince?) relates to Voldemort's ostensible philosophy of pureblood superiority. Regulus Black would have been taken in by this philosophy, but why young Snape? I think what he wanted was recognition and acceptance (and possibly revenge against certain Gryffindor opponents of LV). Bart: And it is clear that he still has the idea. But it is also clear that he has a clear moral and ethical code of his own, and saw that the person he had chosen as a leader was a fake. Carol: Clear that he still thinks highly of himself, do you mean? Are you thinking of the "I, the Half-Blood Prince" speech? I can't think of any other evidence to support this view, but perhaps you can cite some. (Of course, Snape is *aware* of his own abilities, but he never brags about them. And he certainly says nothing about saving DD from the ring Horcrux or any of his other acts as Healer in HBP. Granted, he *has* to keep quiet about these actions and others, or he'd be a dead man, but he could have boasted more directly about his own abilities as an Occlumens in OoP. I don't recall his boasting at all on any occasion. Even the HBP speech doesn't involve any gloating about his own abilities, only resentment that Harry would used his own spells against him.) And how, exactly, can you reconcile "a clear moral and ethical code of his own" (which I agree that he has) with being evil? What is that coed, in your view, and how does it fit with his leader's being a fake? (Snape is a half-blood, too, which didn't prevent him from joining the DEs.) DD says that Snape's motivation for turning against Voldemort was his recognition of how LV interpreted the Prophecy. Why reject DD's testimony in favor of Snape's recognition that LV didn't support his own code? We have no evidence that Snape supported it, either, other than his once, under duress, calling Lily a "Mudblood." He didn't want her to rescue him any more than he later wanted James to save his life. Too humiliating, and besides, in a fair duel, he could take care of himself. He doesn't call anyone else a "Mudblood" (unlike Draco, who buys the philosophy hook, line, and sinker), and his nickname for himself as a teenager suggest (to me) that he views himself as being as much a Prince as the "pureblood Princes" (who could not have treated him well or he would not have had that pallid, stringy look of a plant kept in the dark). > Bart; > I suspect that he did have feelings for Lily; certainly there are hints that he saw her as an intellectual equal, although a social inferior. Carol: I'm not so sure. It's interesting that he never insults Lily as he does James, and I'm sure that he regretted having placed her in danger because of the Prophecy, but beyond that, I'll wait and see. In any case, having feelings for her and/or viewing her as an intellectual equal would not make him evil. Nor, BTW, do the scrawled notes in his Potions book, which make Harry view him as a friend. Bart: He also owed his life to James, although it is also clear that he also attributed his being in danger in the first place at least in part to James, making his owing his life double-hateful. Sirius, of course, he despises; there wasn't even the saving grace of repentance that occurred with James (from Snape's point of view). Carol: I'm not sure about repentance. Snape hates James precisely *because* he saved his life--not that there was any love lost in the first place. But I think you're right that he despises rather than hates Sirius Black. His treatment of him in OoP resembles his treatment of Bellatrix, whom he also despises. (It's different in PoA, where he still thinks that Black is a murderer out to kill Harry and the spy/SK who betrayed the Potters. Once that's cleared up, he has no reason to hate Black except for the Prank, and he sneers at him and taunts him in retaliation for "Snivellus" and other insults. Neither of them can get past their schoolboy grudges, rather like brothers and sisters who behave like civilized adults until they come home to visit their parents for Christmas and fall into the old habit of bickering.) Anyway, none of this makes Snape evil or even amoral. It just makes him unforgiving, like a lot of other characters on the good side, Sirius Black, Hermione, and Harry himself, for starters. > Bart: > There is also, although not explicitly hinted at, a probable jealousy of Dumbledore. Both Snape and Dumbeldore were demonstrated to be highly creative and had a sufficient understanding of the basics of magic to improve upon the techniques commonly taught, yet Dumbledore was everybody's favorite, and Snape was nobody's (which left Snape vulnerable to the entrapments and temptations of the Death Eaters). Carol: Can you show some canon for this perceived jealousy? DD is hardly Snape's contemporary--he's about 115 years older, more like a great-great-grandfather than any kind of peer or equal, and he's always in a superior position to Snape--headmaster, head of the Order, etc. I don't think that Snape envies Dumbledore: I think that he wants DD's approval and envies *James*, who became Head Boy despite being a troublemaker and a bully (and never even having been a Prefect). In PoA, for example, he wants DD to pay attention and believe him when he suggests that Lupin is helping Black to get inside the castle. (*Someone* is, but it turns out to be Crookshanks!) > Bart: > So, when whatever happened (but certainly linked to the revelation of the prophecy) that opened Snape's eyes (and it is vaguely hinted that it was his putting Lily into jeopardy), Snape changed sides. He clearly did this well BEFORE the initial defeat of Voldemort; the fact that he received no hint of punishment speaks to that. Carol: Exactly. Snape *risked his life* to spy on Voldemort *before* the Potters were killed. Hardly the act of an evil young man. (And I don't think thee's any hint that it was Lily per se, only the way that LV interpreted the Prophecy, meaning, IMO, that LV intended to go after the infant and his parents, who turned out to be people that Snape knew.) > Bart: > The point is that Snape's cruelty, his, face it, evil nature is NOT an act. He IS as reprehensible as he seems. Carol: Okay, here's where we get into opinion rather than interpretation. What cruelty? Do you mean his sarcasm and his unfair point deductions or his hatred of Harry or something else? Can you show me a single instance of Snape's ostensible cruelty that's comparable to Umbridge's detentions or her sending Dementors after Harry or her intention to Crucio him, or to Bellatrix's actual Crucio of Neville? Snape *saved* Harry from a Crucio? How is that cruelty? I think "reprehensible" is a matter of opinion here. Just show me any actual cruelty, please, and I'll show you nastiness and a mean disposition and a penchant for revenge not very different from hermione's. Not admirable, I'll grant you, but a far cry from Umbridge or Bellatrix or Barty Jr., all of whom are actual sadists and all of whom, unlike Snape, are in some way associated with the Cruciatus curse. And I almost forgot Voldemort, from whose clutches Snape has saved Harry more than once. If you call Snape's mean-spirited detentions cruel, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Bart: But, like the generals who turned against Hitler, he sees that Lord Voldemort is, even by his own standards, thoroughly evil, and is willing to do whatever he can to stop him, even trying to work with a kid who reminds him of everything he hated as a youth, even if it means slaying a man who, by his own standards, should have hated him, but offered him nothing but friendship and support. Carol: Snape is "evil," but he objects to a tyrant who's even more evil? I don't get it. Sorry. Nor do I see any evidence that he's evil or even cruel at age twenty or so when he changes sides. Bitter, yes. Disappointed, yes. Angry, yes. Evil, not that I can see. I think he joined the DEs because he wanted recognition from a fellow Slytherin for his intelligence and skills but balked when he realized how far LV would go to insure his real agenda, his own immortality. The fact that, as you say, he cared no more for his DEs than for his enemies may have played a role. If Snape wanted from Voldemort what he felt that he should have received from DD, as I suspect, he certainly didn't receive it, and the death of Regulus (which I'm guessing that young Snape witnessed) would have given him additional reason to want to "return to our side," as DD puts it. Snape must have realized that he had made more than one great mistake, including joining the DEs in the first place as well as revealing the Prophecy. > Bart: > Was he Dumbledore's man? Not really; at best, he was an ally, not a friend. Carol: I'm not sure that DDM!Snape requires him to be DD's friend, more like his faithful follower, a dutiful son (great-great-grandson) who resents DD's perceived favoritism toward the less dutiful son, James, the one who refused to have DD as his Secret Keeper, a decision that led to his death. And now that favoritism is extended to Harry, who unfortunately resembles James in more ways than one. But that doesn't mean that DD and Snape don't love each other in a father/son way. DD knows that he's sending Severus into grave danger and can't bring himself to speak for several minutes after doing so in GoF. And Snape doesn't want to kill Dumbledore, which is what the hand twitch and the look of revulsion and hatred and the agony like that of the dog in the burning house are all about. Bart: He did what Dumbledore said not because Dumbledore said it, but because Dumbledore was right. His arguments with Dumbledore showed that he was quite capable of disobeying Dumbledore if he disagreed. And it was clear that Dumbledore could not trust him 100%; he not only dropped Harry's Occlumancy lessons, but, as is obvious through context, failed to tell Dumbledore that he had. But, while Dumbledore could not always trust the man, he DID know where his loyalties lay, and that is where he found Snape to be trustworthy. Carol: But DD could and *did* trust Snape completely. there was every reason to drop the Occlumency lessons after Harry betrayed Snape's trust by entering the Pensieve. They weren't working and it's possible that they were having the opposite of the intended effect. DD doesn't blame Snape for dropping them or force him to resume them. Instead, he continues to trust him, even placing his life in his hands, not once but twice, the first time trusting him to save him, the second time trusting him to keep his vow. He also trusted him to save Katie Bell and to teach the cursed subject DADA, which he did more effectively than any teacher so far, including Lupin and Fake!Moody. Completely is completely. Bart: > And, for those who believe in ESE Snape, I have one question which I have posed several times, and yet to have heard a satisfactory answer: Why did Snape raise the alarm about the Ministry raid so quickly? A little bit of stalling, and Voldemort would not have been defeated, yet Snape's cover would have been intact. Carol: Well, at least we agree here. If Snape were ESE! or OFH! he would not have raised the alarm. But I don't think he'd do it if he were evil, either. You know, Bart, I think you're actually a DDM!Snaper even though you don't want to be. You just dislike Snape and so you consider him evil without presenting any evidence to support that label. Maybe a better label for your view would be DDMNB! (Dumbledore's Man But Nasty). Carol, who understands but doesn't share your dislike for this complex and fascinating character From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 17:06:23 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:06:23 -0000 Subject: Depiction of death in the books WAS:Books moral messages In-Reply-To: <3202590612080454y2c243851jcbf8b04d6ba845a9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162549 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Scarah wrote: > > > Sarah: > I don't want to put words in Lupinlore's mouth, but it seemed clear > she was referring to an analysis she didn't agree with, there. One > she's seen from people on the list and doesn't share. (Those people > may include me.) She wrote that as one of three distinct > possibilities, and then said that she tends toward a different one. > Yes, that is so. I (I'm a "he" by the way) tend toward the explanation of inadvertant problem-making on JKR's part -- i.e. that she just doesn't consider the implications of much of what she says until it explodes on her. Dumbledore's speech in OOTP is, I think, a very clear example of this. Another way of putting it, and a way I've put it many times before, is the "rule of three." That is what you hear yourself say, what you actually say, and what other people hear you say are three very different things. I think JKR often falls into this trap. To continue with the DD-OOTP example, only because it is a discrete and clear case, I think JKR understood herself to be writing a certain type of scene. However, what she understood herself to be doing, what she actually put down, and what came across to many readers are different things. And I think she was rather taken aback by the results, hence the scrambling in the early part of HBP with regard to DD and the Dursleys. The thing about cruel woman, etc., I actually took from a couple of her own interviews, where she has indicated that she often gets accused of this (and where she has expressed reactions ranging from weary resignation to snappish bewilderment). Lupinlore From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 18:36:31 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:36:31 -0000 Subject: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: <9892135.1165597049037.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162550 Bart: > I figure it's about time to put a label on my own favorite Snape theory: Evil but Allied. ape's point of view... > The point is that Snape's cruelty, his, face it, evil nature is NOT an act. He IS as reprehensible as he seems. But, like the generals who turned against Hitler, he sees that Lord Voldemort is, even by his own standards, thoroughly evil, and is willing to do whatever he can to stop him > Was he Dumbledore's man? Not really; at best, he was an ally, not a friend. He did what Dumbledore said not because Dumbledore said it, but because Dumbledore was right. His arguments with Dumbledore showed that he was quite capable of disobeying Dumbledore if he disagreed. Sydney: Heh. Okay, I'll call this, DDM-but-I-still-don't-have-to-like-him Snape! For the most part it's fine by me and I don't see where it is, in fact, inconsistent with DDM!Snape as I see him. If Snape's behaviour in the books to the kids makes you classify him as having an evil nature there's nothing in the last book, IMO, that will change your mind, and different opinions on the subject are natural and irresolvable. It will fall forever into the "Is Hermione a power-hungry Nietzchian Superwoman or a sweet crusader for social justice who gets a little overenthusiastic sometimes?" Or, "The Twins: loathesome bullies you'd cross the street to avoid or Lovable Troublemakers with a heart of gold?" That's the whole glory of the series. I only have a couple of minor quibbles: Barty: >And it was clear that Dumbledore could not trust him 100%; he not >only dropped Harry's Occlumancy lessons, but, as is obvious through >context, failed to tell Dumbledore that he had. But, while Dumbledore >could not always trust the man, he DID know where his loyalties lay, >and that is where he found Snape to be trustworthy. Sydney: "I trust Severus Snape completely". I just don't understand why you would throw this out. Dumbledore, having a broad church, can and obviously does have a different opinion of Snape's evil nature than you do. Lupin (is it? or McGonnegal? I can't remember) says that Dumbledore "wouldn't hear a word against him". He gets quite worked up to Harry trying to get across Snape's agonizing remorse. Personally I think Dumbledore and Snape had an obviously very problematic, but deep relationship. And it's not obvious at all in the context that Snape didn't tell Dumbledore that he'd stopped the lessons. Surely Lupin would have told him? Or Sirius? Why would Snape himself assume that Dumbledore wouldn't find out? Dumbledore gives a heavy sigh and says 'there are wounds too deep to heal' and the knows all about it. It stretches credibility to me, from what we're shown about Snape, that he wouldn't send an immediate owl to D-dore saying, "Dear Dumbledore. Given up on your precious golden boy. What are you gonna do, fire me? No, seriously, please, please fire me. Love, Snape." -- Sydney, starting to panic on the Christmas knitting front From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 8 19:20:46 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:20:46 -0000 Subject: The Trio's Morality In-Reply-To: <3202590612080154i3faa4e52t2115b8b08c651e54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162551 > Sarah: > I think the Sorting Hat forgot to say that "hypocrisy" is a Gryffindor > trait. I don't know whether that's authorial intent. Pippin: It is, at least in the case of Sirius. http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=61 Sirius is very good at spouting bits of excellent personal philosophy, but he does not always live up to them. JKR goes on to say that most of us are like that. It's not, I think, that Gryffindors are more hypocritical than others by nature but that their hypocrisy is more glaring (and easier to make fun of) because their standards are so high. What would a hypocritical Slytherin do, profess Machiavellian self- interest while blithely practicing altruism at every turn? Nor do I think hypocrisy is a JKR trait. JKR's advice to RL kids who are being bullied is to tell someone, http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=78 but her characters seldom do that. I don't think this is authorial hypocrisy, this is JKR showing us *why* people don't follow this advice, and why they would often prefer to give the bully a taste of his own medicine instead. But she also shows that in her world when you fight fire with fire, everyone gets burned. No one in canon has ever stopped being a bully because of punishment or retaliation (short of being totally incapacitated.) HBP makes clear that the Marauders were punished time and again for picking on other students. We also know that Snape was in the habit of retaliating. But something changed James all the same. We don't know what it was, but I'm betting it was not punishment or retaliation. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 20:04:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:04:38 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts detentions (Was: The Trio's Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162552 Pippin wrote: > JKR's advice to RL kids who are being bullied is to tell someone, > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=78 > > but her characters seldom do that. I don't think this is authorial > hypocrisy, this is JKR showing us *why* people don't follow this > advice, and why they would often prefer to give the bully > a taste of his own medicine instead. > > But she also shows that in her world when you fight fire with > fire, everyone gets burned. No one in canon has ever stopped > being a bully because of punishment or retaliation (short of being > totally incapacitated.) HBP makes clear that the Marauders were > punished time and again for picking on other students. We > also know that Snape was in the habit of retaliating. But > something changed James all the same. > > > We don't know what it was, but I'm betting it was not punishment > or retaliation. Carol responds: Very good point. Which brings up the whole question of punishment in the HP books. Setting aside the Dursleys, who of course don't teach Harry anything except to stay out of their way when possible, what, exactly, do the Hogwarts detentions accomplish? Snape's detentions, nasty as they are, aren't that different from anyone else's: He has Harry sort rotten Flobberworms from good ones and later recopy old detention records from the MWPPS era; McGonagall sends first years to work with Hagrid, who takes them into the Forbidden Forest at night(!), Filch has Ron polish all the trophies in the trophy room, including one on which he's spit up slugs; Lockhart's idea of an "enjoyable" detention (enjoyable detention?) is having Harry help him sign his fan mail; Flitwick has Seamus write "I am a Wizard, not a baboon brandishing a stick." Umbridge's detentions are an unspeakable variation of writing lines, this time in the student's own blood. What all these detentions have in common is that they're ineffectual. None of the students involved is taught any lesson. Harry doesn't stop breaking rules or telling "lies" about Voldemort, and the only reason he stops using the HBP's Potions book to get credit he doesn't deserve is that the book is hidden in the RoR. He doesn't regard himself as "a liar and a cheat," nor does he get Snape's point that his father was every bit as much of a bully and rule breaker as Snape has always said. Snape's detention doesn't even address the main issue of Harry's using a dangerous, Dark spell, and unfortunately, it directs Harry's attention away from his own foolish and dangerous action onto Snape himself and the perceived unfairness of making him miss the Quidditch match. Snape may well have some other purpose in mind for his detentions in HBP, for example, keeping Harry and Draco apart, but in terms of changing Harry's attitude and behavior, they're as pointless and futile as all the other detentions. They may punish the students (even idiot!Lockhart's "treat" is excruciating), but they don't accomplish anything more than perhaps providing an outlet for the teachers' anger--certainly better than whipping or Transfiguration as punishment, but equally useless as teaching tools. And point docking is equally ineffective. It's intended as a deterrent, but it serves mostly to make the students angry at the teacher, or at the student who lost them 50 or 200 hard-earned points in a single day. I'm not sure what JKR's point is here, perhaps that punishment is different from discipline, which actually teaches a lesson. And that seems to be the same point she's making with the bullies--no matter how often you hex them, they don't learn their lesson. Multiple detentions didn't teach James to change his ways, but, as Pippin says, something did. Maybe it was saving an enemy's life. Maybe it was serving in the Order and accomplishing something important as opposed to reckless self-indulgence and danger for its own sake. Maybe it was "only" getting married and having to be responsible for his own child that made him settle down and behave responsibly (and ultimately, heroically). The Hogwarts teachers can't teach responsibility and consideration and the importance of following sensible rules (as opposed to Umbridge's dictates) by placing the lives of helpless infants in the students' hands, and only a few can be made Prefects (a position that doesn't always teach responsibility, either--witness Remus, Ron, and Draco, the last of whom abuses his power). I don't know the answer, but I'm almost certain that we're supposed to ask the question. Carol, agreeing with Pippin that JKR is trying to illustrate the futility of retaliation and wondering how HRH are going to learn that lesson in Book 7 From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 8 20:29:55 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 20:29:55 -0000 Subject: HBP!Snape (was Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162553 > Carol: snip That's what the look of hatred and > revulsion is all about--self-hatred, hatred of the deed he has to do, > momentary hatred of DD for forcing him to make this horrible choice. > But having sacrificed *everything* for DD and the cause, he is not > about to go back now. Nothing, IMO, can make him serve Voldemort for > any reason other than to protect Draco, get as close to LV as > possible, learn his secrets, and ultimately, help the Chosen One to > bring him down. A huge order, especially given the Chosen One's view > of him as a hated murderer and traitor, but DDM!Snape is cunning and > courageous and will once again face torture, Azkaban, or death to do > what must be done. Whether he survives or not, I have no doubt that > he'll succeed in his objectives. Potioncat: I wonder if this explains the terrible outburst during the flight from Hogwarts,along the line of "It was I, the Half-Blood Prince..." The line comes out like a badly acted part and sort of draws attention to itself. Most of us thought it was a poorly written line. Although Snape knows Harry has his old book, he's never taken it from him. Could there be something in the margins of the potions text that could help Harry? Or something that will help Snape communicate with Harry? Should we add this to the other set of advice, keep your mouth shut and your mind closed? And now, to compare apples to oranges, because it involves over acting, in TMTMNBN: Snape bursts into the Shreiking Shack to confront Lupin and Black and he comes out like an actor on stage. I recall noticing it the very first time. But you know, that's not how Rickman generally acts. MAGIC DISHWASHER, anyone? Oh, please don't ask me, I couldn't begin to explain MAGIC DISHWASHER but it concerns Snape pretending a bit and an intentional freeing of Pettigrew. From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 21:53:09 2006 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:53:09 -0000 Subject: HBP!Snape (was Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162554 Hi All, Snape is just such a fascinating character b/c he isn't GOOD or EVIL but shades of grey, many shades of grey. Even if he is DD's man (bone of contention, there,) he's still not a nice human being. I was listening to the movie version of PoA last night as I was quilting a baby quilt for a friend (baby is now 2 days old, I have to finish that puppy,) and I was struck by how Alan Rickman said the line (in the Shrieking Shack, pointing his wand at SB,) "Give me a reason to do *it* and I swear I will." (Am PoA p359) "It" was not defined. The alternative to "it" was dragging SB back to the castle for the dementors' kiss, so "it" has to be very bad, like AK. (As we all know, PoA was before we learned about AK in GoF, from Crouch!Moody and the spider example in DADA.) Would Snape have killed SB a/o Lupin? He seems to need an *additional* reason to kill either of them, but he desperately wants to as it stands. The desire to *kill* them is there. Is that merely the result of schoolyard taunting? Or more? Harry assumes that it is schoolyard taunting. "JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL...." (P361), etc. However, doesn't JKR usually put a red herring in someone else's mouth? I hope this is resolved in Book 7. And I wish we knew the real name for Harry Potter & the Toenail of Ickledork. TK Kenyon Recent articles on HP: http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/blog.cfm/still_waiting_for_harry _potter_7 http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/article.cfm/great_books_like_har ry_potter Rabid: A Novel: Coming in April, 2007. "RABID is a solid good read by first time novelist TK Kenyon, a gifted writer who has crafted a book of such mystery that you find yourself, at midnight, on the edge of your seat, asking, 'What's next? What's next?'" -- Thom Jones, National Book Award-winning author of: The Pugilist at Rest, Cold Snap, Sonny Liston was a Friend of Mine --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > And now, to compare apples to oranges, because it involves over > acting, in TMTMNBN: Snape bursts into the Shreiking Shack to confront > Lupin and Black and he comes out like an actor on stage. I recall > noticing it the very first time. But you know, that's not how Rickman > generally acts. > > MAGIC DISHWASHER, anyone? > > Oh, please don't ask me, I couldn't begin to explain MAGIC DISHWASHER > but it concerns Snape pretending a bit and an intentional freeing of > Pettigrew. > From vama_30595 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 14:30:37 2006 From: vama_30595 at yahoo.com (vama_30595) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:30:37 -0000 Subject: Time turner theory In-Reply-To: <020801c70a71$8f15a0d0$2f01a8c0@UnicornsPride> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162555 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lana" wrote: >> >> JKR said that she "is not telling" when asked if HP will time travel again.. So, this brings me to think that it is possible for Harry to go back in time to make certain things happen. Or to take certain things that he will need in the future battle with LV. >> I don't think it has been established how far back one can go, but what if Harry went back in time and explained to the past DD what was happening in the future. DD would be able to make changes that would affect the future and current HP situation with LV.<< vama replies: It could be, but then I recall that in the 6th book McGonagall said that Dumbledore's last wish was to remain in Hogwarts. So that means that there would be a frame of DD and HP could ask him for help. Because as far as I remember there were other portraits that used to talk and that means that DD can also talk and HP can ask him for help. Though I think that Lana has a better theory because maybe if there is still a DD portrait he couldn't use his brain properly.... ...just a thought... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Dec 8 22:26:33 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:26:33 -0000 Subject: Resurrection (sort of) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Constance Vigilance" wrote: CV: . sigh...mumbles something along the lines of .... canon .... > books .... not-canon .... whatever Geoff: Do speak up and don't mumble,,,, CV: > I give you .... horses pulling carriages. Not *invisible* horses > as it quite clearly says in the books, but clearly, horses. But > we've gone over this a hundred times. The movie is not allowed on > this list for a very good reason. It is not canon. In fact, it > *violates* canon at times. And JKR's input into the movie, while > kindly accepted, is not the final word. She can be overridden > whenever the director desires. Like when there is a cool special > effect which is already in the can. I'm just saying. Geoff: What have invisible horses (or more accurately Thestrals) got to do with this discussion? To echo your remark, I don't understand this comment... I am perfectly aware that we don't usually want film comment on the group. I have been on the group for nearly three and a half years and I believe I coined the phrase "the medium that dare not speak its nsme" (with acknowledgements to Oscar Wilde). However, there are situations where comparison with the films is necessary to underline a point. JKR and Steven Kloves both emphasised in their joint interview how much they had worked together and cooperated and mentioned that this matter of not intruding on certain areas had arisen. I think, in the circumstances, if Quirrell was alive - which I personally don't believe - she would have stopped that piece of screenplay. Geoff (earlier): > > Also, is he is still around, where has he been for the > > last five years? > CV: where is he? I'm glad you asked! He is doing background work for > Dumbledore, of course! I have my ideas where he most probably is. > I'm betting somewhere in Scandinavia near Durmstrang. And don't > point me to the Lexicon. In spite of all the nice research people > have done, Durmstrang is in Scandinavia. JKR said so. > > Why is he there? He is recruiting trolls and Durmstrang students. > And working off his unicorn karma. Geoff: OK, show me the canon for that theory about him. Geoff (earlier): > And is he likely to seek to be used again by > > Voldemort when he had been so ruthlessly abandoned? CV: > I'm sorry? I don't understand this comment. The whole point is > that Voldemort thinks he is dead. Geoff: Perfectly clear. Quirrell himself reveals his deep loyalty to Voldemort in "The Philosopher's Stone" so, after Voldemort flees possibly to save himself, our misguided turban-wearing friend might have gone off to try and get back in with his hero. It might come as a surprise to Voldemort but, if - if he is alive, I really can't see him working for Dumbledore. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 22:51:35 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:51:35 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612080626j369b201ej51b4498a99cf6cb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162557 > >>Sydney: > > The LifeDebt Snape explains the same things as DDM!Snape because > > it explains the same things on the bare level of action (except > > of course for the Unbreakable Vow and wanting the DADA job and > > pretty much every single thing relating to Peter Pettigrew). > >>Sarah: > I think it explains the UV, for reasons I've tried to explain but > you may not agree with. I think the DADA job isn't a large enigma, > it's Snape's version of reading the weather report to see if > Dumbledore has anything big in store for him in the coming year. > I'm unsure what problems it creates for Peter Pettigrew, could you > elaborate? Betsy Hp: Ah, the Peter Pettigrew issue. This is the big large stinky rat doing the back swim in the LiD theory's chardonnay. Because if the Life-Debt is sooo incredibly strong it makes Snape risk himself for people he despises, if the Life-Debt is such an unbreakable bit of magic it leads Dumbledore to decide he can now trust that evil Professor Snape *completely*... then how the *hell* did Peter Pettigrew get away with the graveyard scene at the end of GoF?!? Because (much as this gets ignored) Snape isn't the only character that's been mentioned as owing his life (in a debt like way) to a character he dislikes. If anything, Dumbledore is a bit more emphatic in saying that Peter's now got a life-debt to Harry. *Directly* to Harry I might add. And yet this does nothing to stop Peter from assisting and brewing and giving his own right (or was it his left?) hand to a scheme that ends with Harry dead if all goes to plan. It's not really that LiD causes problems for *Peter*, but Peter is certainly causing problems for LiD. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 8 22:58:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:58:33 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > Magpie: With LiD or > Grey or OFH this vow centerpiece of a scene where Snape knowingly > binds his fate to another and makes a vow (a solemn promise > committing oneself to an act, service, or condition ) into nothing, > something he's doing because he really doesn't care either way. > That's why, imo, OFH!Snape arguments always have to focus on the > fact that he's agreeing to kill Dumbledore instead of the more > important aspect, which is what happens if he doesn't do as he's > promised. I plan to come to work on Monday morning. I'm there mostly > every Monday morning. But if someone asked me to take a UV that I > would be at my desk Monday morning? I wouldn't do it. Because > there's no wiggle room in a vow that kills me. Alla: Just small thing, or maybe not so small :) The fact that Snape is going to die is more important that he agreed to kill Dumbledore? Why is that? I also wanted to specify something about OFH!Snape or LID!Snape since I love them both. OFH!Snape or LID!Snape as I see him would totally make the UV even if at the core of it is desire to protect Draco. OFH!Snape is not the man who does not care about anybody. I do not think such characters exist, unless they are meant to be completely cartoonish. ( Voldemort?) Snape as I see him is out for himself in the fight of Dark v Light ( Voldemort v Dumbledore), but of course there are people he may care about and Draco and Narcissa may as well be them. I do not see the contradiction, really. I mean, I despise Narcissa, but she clearly loves her son. That in my book does not make her any less of the evil follower of Voldemort. Just as if Snape wanted to protect Draco because he likes the boy for whatever reasons, but would have cared less about Dumbledore's goals does not become DD!M Snape. So he has human emotions, but he is still primarily concerned with his own goals ( that is if he is OFH! I mean) I am just confused how does it follow that Snape could not make UV if he is OFH. In my view - easily. As long as he is not for Dumbledore or for Voldemort, he can be friend, protector, lover of any number of people ( I don't think the number is that great but theoretically, why not?) Alla. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 00:05:10 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:05:10 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162559 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But here's the thing, while Ender *was* facing dangerous > > bullies..., Draco is neither... Draco isn't strong enough, and > > Harry isn't weak enough. > > > > Harry is in danger of being annoyed. Possibly being pissed off. > > That's all Draco brings to the table in this scene. > >>bboyminn: > That's part of the point I was trying to make. Draco isn't > the standard generic schoolyard bully. This is more of a > grudge match rather than the big kid picking on the skinny > kid. > > The real heart of my argument was in the part you cut. The part > that went something like this- > > "On the train, there is without a doubt a great deal of > ego, pride, and even machismo involved. But what is > really happening is, this is everyone's way of telling > Draco that they will not be cowed or intimidated...." > Betsy Hp: Aaah. Okay, but this means it isn't about bullying at all then, right? Not between the Trio and Draco and Co., anyway. Because, as you say, Draco cannot bully Harry. It's a grudge match more than anything. And when has Draco *ever* won one of these grudge matches? I'm pretty sure that up until HBP, the answer is never. So I think, in this scene Draco is playing the role of Scapegoat. The Trio cannot hit the Death Eaters like this. They cannot hit Voldemort like this. But they *can* hit Draco. They can show their utter contempt for Draco's side of the war by treating him with utter contempt (and his body with utter contempt). So this isn't a reaction based on terror on the Trio's part. It's rage. Which is, as I've said, understandable after what the Trio (and especially Harry) have been through. But it's not praiseworthy behavior. But this does raise an interesting question: > >>Quick_Silver: > > The thing that intrigues me, if you will, about that scene is that > Draco should have no doubt what's going to happen to him and his > friends. The point was made as early as PS that the Trio would > respond with physical force to insults (the wizards duel), then > reiterated by Ron in CoS (the slug curse), and by Hermione slapping > Draco in PoA (for insulting Hagrid). > > So Draco and co. walk into the compartment of his equals (I don't > think there's any bullying going on here) and Draco starts shooting > his mouth off. He ignores Harry ordering him and then boom the > attack occurs. > Betsy Hp: I'm fascinated by that question, Quick_Silver. It's part of what's kept me intrigued with Draco throughout the series. I don't think I have a definitive answer. The great Elkins wrote a post about "Draco the Nutter" you can find here: http://www.theennead.com/elkins/hp/archives/000213.html or here if you want to follow the thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/51687 where she points out that Draco seems a bit mad whenever he foolishly bursts out with these pro-Voldemort sentiments right where he so obviously shouldn't be saying such things. In that post she rather cleverly predicits Draco's HBP breakdown and suggests that perhaps Draco isn't as committed to Voldemort as he thinks he should be. Hence the stupid, and even more stupidly timed, pro-Voldemort speeches. I wouldn't say Draco is *consciously* making a decision to stand in harm's way, and put his face in the direct path of Harry's fist. But I do think his outbursts speak to an underlying pathos (is that the word I'm looking for?) of some sort. (Gosh, Draco is so complex in some ways. He comes from one of the more normal and loving families in the series except that oops! they're members of a totally evil cult. That has to mess a kid up at least a little. ) > >>Quick_Silver: > I agree with you about the treatment of bodies (although it should > be noted Draco did show contempt for Hermione touching him with his > badge/Mudblood insult...a little reversal perhaps?). > That being said I think the most interesting thing about the scene > is that we hear nothing more of it...at least not from Draco (not > that I remember I think Harry references back to it?...I'll have to > check). > Betsy Hp: I think part of the reason Draco doesn't refer back to it is that I doubt he's all that surprised. We the readers (or some of us, anyway ) might expect more noble actions from our heroes, but Draco sees the Trio as loathsome and brutish. So there's nothing in their actions to surprise him. For that matter, Harry sees Draco in a similar light, so the treatment he receives at Draco's hand wouldn't have surprised him either. And (and for me this is the huge icky part) I think this sort of thing is normal in the WW. Do we ever see an adult chide a child for behaving with what Steve termed "playground rules"? I don't think I can recall such an incident. It all goes towards the brutish and backwards nature of the WW. Honestly, I'm surprised there isn't a place in Diagon Alley for public floggings. In the WW, might makes right, and I don't think any of the characters (including Dumbledore) have questioned such thinking. > >>Quick_Silver: > Even the argument that the Trio should act better because they're > good guys doesn't ring true to me because I don't view them as being > that much better then Draco. And I don't mean that in a bad way > considering that Draco in HBP showed himself to be capable of > empathy or at least a sense of self-preservation (really IMO either > would do...people underestimate self-preservation;)). Betsy Hp: I don't see the Trio as being better than Draco either. They're on the right side of this particular war, but that was luck of birth rather than any noble instincts on their parts, IMO. And that the Trio aren't going through the same sort of self-defining struggle Draco is going through in HBP suggests that Draco will arrive at a morally stronger position than at least Ron or Hermione. (Unless Harry drags them along on his journey which... hey! He probably will! Hope is reborn!! And I'm deadly serious about that.) What bothers me about this scene is that (a) it's never revisited. Harry (our hero) hasn't yet felt bad about his behavior, and at this point I'm not sure that he will. And (b) so many readers seem to think such behavior is okay. Which, considering we're grownups, makes me a bit nervous about the kids out there. I don't like that decency seems to have gone out of style. But this does lead me to Magpie's post here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162504 about Draco's crying in the bathroom scene in HBP (which I have snipped the heck out of). > >>Magpie: > > Apparently Malfoy crying -- actually crying -- really is a shock > for Harry who has more than once in the past wanted to cause him as > much pain as possible. > There's something about that moment that makes Malfoy different, and > then it's immediately choked off--just as Harry's fleeting confusion > about Snape after the Pensieve is choked off by Snape attacking him. > > Perhaps that's another reason Harry doesn't think about Malfoy at > all after that. > > I don't mean anything so literal as just Harry feels bad because he > not only hurt Malfoy but Malfoy was sad right before he did it. I > think it's more subtle. > Subtle, btw, in a way I again think parallels Snape. > Betsy Hp: I've snipped the heck out of this to focus on Harry's similar reactions to Draco's crying in HBP, and Snape's worst memory in OotP. I think a part of his reaction is that he's forced to see the humanity in two people he's always comfortably seen (and treated) as less than human. (IIRC, doesn't Huck Finn have a similar moment with Jim, when he causes Jim to get bit by a snake?) It's interesting to me, because I do think that ultimately Harry is going to heal the rift in Hogwarts and bring the houses (including the Slytherins) back together. So of course he'd got to recognize the inherent humanity of the two people who most represent Slytherin to him. And that first moment of recognition is going to be majorly shocking to him. With Snape's worst memory, Harry is shocked because he sees himself in young!Snape while at the same time seems completely unable to relate to his father. With Draco, I wonder if the revelation goes beyond just recognizing that Draco can feel real, actual pain (the tears), but also recognizing that there are things he (Harry) does not want to see or cause Draco suffer. While working through Snape's worst memory Harry thinks that the twins doing something similar to Draco would have been alright. But in the bathroom scene he's horrified when Draco is so badly hurt. It's like Harry is forced to see beyond a line here to a place where his hitting Draco can actually cause Draco damage. And Harry doesn't like it. So, I'm not sure that book 7 will have Harry thinking back to the train scene in GoF and regreting his behavior once Draco was down. But perhaps there'll be a moment where he could behave in such a way again, and this time he chooses not to? And um, explains to Ron and Hermione why he's hesitating? Betsy Hp (thinking that just might be enough to save the series for her... especially if we get an evil!twin ) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 00:29:01 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:29:01 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162560 > >>Magpie: > > > > That's why, imo, OFH!Snape arguments always have to focus on the > > fact that he's agreeing to kill Dumbledore instead of the more > > important aspect, which is what happens if he doesn't do as he's > > promised. I plan to come to work on Monday morning. I'm there > > mostly every Monday morning. But if someone asked me to take a UV > > that I would be at my desk Monday morning? I wouldn't do it. > > Because there's no wiggle room in a vow that kills me. > > > >>Alla: > Just small thing, or maybe not so small :) The fact that Snape is > going to die is more important that he agreed to kill Dumbledore? > Why is that? Betsy Hp: Because an OFH!Snape would care more about his *own* death than the death of Dumbldore. IOWs, the burden on explaining why an Out For Himself!Snape works with the UV isn't on explaining why such a Snape would want Dumbledore dead. It's on explaining why such a Snape would magically tie his life to *anything*. If OFH!Snape is okay with killing Dumbledore, he doesn't need a UV to make himself do it. But why would an OFH!Snape make a vow that means he is no longer out for himself? > >>Alla: > > OFH!Snape is not the man who does not care about anybody. I do not > think such characters exist, unless they are meant to be > completely cartoonish. > Betsy Hp: By definition, he actually kind of has to be. If you're arguing that Snape's main motivation is to protect himself, you can't turn around and say, actually, he'll lay his life on the line for so and so. In that case Snape is no longer putting himself first. I mean, sure he can *care* about someone else, to a certain extent. But he can't put their lives in front of his own, not and remain primarily motivated by his own survival. > >>Alla: > > I mean, I despise Narcissa, but she clearly loves her son. That in > my book does not make her any less of the evil follower of > Voldemort. Just as if Snape wanted to protect Draco because he > likes the boy for whatever reasons, but would have cared less about > Dumbledore's goals does not become DD!M Snape. So he has human > emotions, but he is still primarily concerned with his own goals > (that is if he is OFH! I mean) > Betsy Hp: But to be out for himself, Snape's own goal is to survive. Possibly acheive some measure of greatness once this particular war is over. What we learned in Spinner's End is that Narcissa is not out for herself. She puts her son's safety ahead of her own. By taking the UV, by tying his life to the life of Draco, Snape shows that, whatever his goals are, he is not out for himself. Because he's put Draco's safety ahead of his own life. Snape is no longer concerned with his *own* survival. He's concerned with Draco's. And that means he is not out for himself. > >>Alla: > As long as he is not for Dumbledore or for Voldemort, he can be > friend, protector, lover of any number of people (I don't think the > number is that great but theoretically, why not?) Betsy Hp: Oh sure, he can be. But that means he's not OFH. It's an entirely different Snape you've created. Ambiguously Motivated!Snape, I guess, or Out For Unknown Character!Snape (LiD!Snape can fit into this particular Snape, if that matters). He's on *someone's* side, just not Dumbledore's or Voldemort's and not his own. Because he's willing to risk his life for someone who is not himself. So he's no longer out for *himself*. Betsy Hp (kind of hoping AM!Snape or OFUC!Snape doesn't catch on because the abbrevations are starting to get a little bit out of hand and is one them looking a tiny bit naughty? ) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 00:36:07 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:36:07 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162561 Alla wrote: > I am just confused how does it follow that Snape could not make UV if he is OFH. In my view - easily. As long as he is not for Dumbledore or for Voldemort, he can be friend, protector, lover of any number of people ( I don't think the number is that great but theoretically, why not?) Carol responds: It's simple, really. An Unbreakable Vow will kill you if you break it, and a character who's Out For Himself (Peter Pettigrew, for example) would never make one (unless he was compelled at wandpoint). The reason that Snape agreed to the UV in the first place is canonical: he agreed to protect Draco, putting Draco's life above his own. (That pesky third provision was not mentioned when he agreed to take the UV and can't constitute his motive.) Yes, OFH!Snape can have friends (read the Malfoys), but he wouldn't risk dying for them. OFH! means exactly that. He's out for himself, and he puts himself first. He wouldn't risk dying from a broken vow or doing anything that would compel him to do something as dangerous as killing Dumbledore. (In the unlikely event that he succeeded, he'd be the most wanted man in the WW next to Voldemort, which is exactly what happened. What OFH! character would want that? PP went to great lengths to frame Sirius Black for his murders. Who could OFH!Snape blame? Draco? Not without triggering the vow.) DDM!Snape, OTOH, has every reason to protect Draco, who is a student in his own House and the only son of his friend, Lucius Malfoy. Dumbledore, too, would want to protect Draco from both killing and being killed. So duty and natural inclination go together in this instance. Yes, the vow is dangerous, but DDM!Snape is used to walking a tightrope, and it will bind him and Narcissa together in a common cause, helping and protecting Draco, with the danger only to himself. Snape may even feel that he can later turn Draco's danger at the hands of Voldemort to good use, once Draco is safe from harm, by enlisting Narcissa and possibly Lucius against LV. After all, Narcissa will owe Snape a huge favor if he saves her son from harm. As for the third provision, which he clearly didn't anticipate but ultimately agreed to, what is the likelihood that Dumbledore, who defeated *Voldemort* in the MoM, could be killed by Snape in ordinary circumstances, even with his dead hand? DD still has Fawkes, who saved from an AK at the MoM and spirited him to safety when Fudge and Co. tried to arrest him. DD is the most powerful Wizard alive, Voldemort notwithstanding. Consequently, Snape must have thought that it was his own life he was risking, not DD's, or that he and Dumbledore together could make sure that Draco came nowhere near Dumbledore and the UV wasn't activated. (Snape probably knew that Draco didn't have the skill, the power, or the courage to confront Dumbledore on his own without DE backup. He also believed, as Dumbledore did, that no DEs could get into Hogwarts. I think, based on his remarks about next year, that he actually hoped to return to Hogwarts the next year.) So taking the UV, especially that last provision, was a calculated risk: DDM!Snape would do everything he could to protect Draco and to avoid triggering the UV, which he couldn't refuse to take without arousing Narcissa's and Bellatrix's suspicions. And if Bellatrix's suspicions were aroused, she'd find some way of informing Voldemort without compromising herself. (ESE!Snape, of course, would have refused to protect Draco or to help Narcissa and would not have taken even the first part of the vow.) So DDM!Snape took the vow, probably under orders from DD to do everything he could to protect Draco and to keep his cover as a double agent. The hand twitch suggests that Snape realized halfway through the third provision what was coming and didn't like it, but once he'd heard the actual wording, he agreed to it. Why? I'm not sure. I don't think he had much choice (he was on his knees, his wand hand clasping Narcissa's, bound to hers with double ropes of fire, and Bellatrix was standing over him with her wand pointed at him). It would have been difficult if not impossible, to escape that accursed third clause, but I do think he thought that he and DD could work around it. And I do think he told Dumbledore about all three provisions. DD says that he knows more about what's going on with Draco than Harry does, and "Severus, please" makes no sense (to me) unless Dumbledore knew exactly what Snape was facing at that moment. Carol, knowing that you won't agree but trying to make clear why DDM!Snape would take the UV and OFH!Snape, concerned primarily if not solely for his own life like PP, would not From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 03:22:18 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:22:18 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162562 > Betsy Hp: >> If OFH!Snape is okay with killing Dumbledore, he doesn't need a UV to > make himself do it. But why would an OFH!Snape make a vow that > means he is no longer out for himself? Alla: Because being out for himself is not limited to his survival maybe? But keep reading. > > >>Alla: > > > > OFH!Snape is not the man who does not care about anybody. I do not > > think such characters exist, unless they are meant to be > > completely cartoonish. > > > > Betsy Hp: > By definition, he actually kind of has to be. If you're arguing that > Snape's main motivation is to protect himself, you can't turn around > and say, actually, he'll lay his life on the line for so and so. In > that case Snape is no longer putting himself first. Alla: Eh, no that is not actually what I am arguing. I am arguing that "out for himself" Snape means ( in my view) that Snape has goals in this war, which he is going to pursue regardless of what Dumbledore or Voldemort want from him. And protecting himself while certainly can be one of those goals and may help him achieve ultimate goal is not necessarily the main one. Say he indeed loves Narcissa and wants her more than anything else and will indeed do anything for her. As long as serving DD or Voldemort or both of them does not stop him from achieving that goal, zis fine for Snape, but when he has to choose, he chooses to finish off Dumbledore as long as Cissy dear is happy and her son is safe. I am not a big fan of that one, I think Lily will tie Harry in more neatly, but this is just one of the examples IMO which goals Out for himself Snape can pursue IMO. I mean since when Out for himself Snape became out for himself to survive Snape? It is I guess one of the OFH! Snape subspecies, but IMO not the only one. :) Betsy: > I mean, sure he can *care* about someone else, to a certain extent. > But he can't put their lives in front of his own, not and remain > primarily motivated by his own survival. Alla: See above. I truly do not see why not as long as Out for himself Snape wants something else not just his own survival. > > >>Alla: > > As long as he is not for Dumbledore or for Voldemort, he can be > > friend, protector, lover of any number of people (I don't think the > > number is that great but theoretically, why not?) > > Betsy Hp: > Oh sure, he can be. But that means he's not OFH. It's an entirely > different Snape you've created. Ambiguously Motivated!Snape, I > guess, or Out For Unknown Character!Snape (LiD!Snape can fit into > this particular Snape, if that matters). He's on *someone's* side, > just not Dumbledore's or Voldemort's and not his own. Because he's > willing to risk his life for someone who is not himself. So he's no > longer out for *himself*. Alla: Well, Okay whatever you want to call him, I don't mind. As long as the substance is clear. That Snape can indeed put his life on the line for somebody else, but he will not hesitate to kill his mentor to help out somebody else. That does not make Snape a good guy in my view. > Betsy Hp (kind of hoping AM!Snape or OFUC!Snape doesn't catch on > because the abbrevations are starting to get a little bit out of hand > and is one them looking a tiny bit naughty? ) > Alla: LOLOL. Put those on Innish Alley too. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 9 03:27:03 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:27:03 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) References: Message-ID: <007701c71b41$e63b2b10$3a9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162563 > Alla: > > Just small thing, or maybe not so small :) The fact that Snape is > going to die is more important that he agreed to kill Dumbledore? Why > is that? Magpie: Because in this specific context what's being argued is that Snape is out for himself. So when people question how someone out for himself could take the Unbreakable Vow, it's not the fact that he's going to kill Dumbledore that seems a problem. Killing Dumbledore isn't at odds with being out for himself, given the right circumstances. What is at odds with it is the fact that he's willingly agreed that if he doesn't do something asked of him--whatever that thing is--he will die. Alla: > I also wanted to specify something about OFH!Snape or LID!Snape since > I love them both. > > OFH!Snape or LID!Snape as I see him would totally make the UV even if > at the core of it is desire to protect Draco. OFH!Snape is not the > man who does not care about anybody. I do not think such characters > exist, unless they are meant to be completely cartoonish. ( > Voldemort?) > > Snape as I see him is out for himself in the fight of Dark v Light ( > Voldemort v Dumbledore), but of course there are people he may care > about and Draco and Narcissa may as well be them.> I do not see the > contradiction, really. I mean, I despise Narcissa, > but she clearly loves her son. That in my book does not make her any > less of the evil follower of Voldemort. Just as if Snape wanted to > protect Draco because he likes the boy for whatever reasons, but > would have cared less about Dumbledore's goals does not become DD!M > Snape. So he has human emotions, but he is still primarily concerned > with his own goals ( that is if he is OFH! I mean) Magpie: I see--you're saying that OFH doesn't for you mean stay alive whatever the cost, but that Snape is out for goals known only to himself as of yet? But in the battle b/w the Light vs. Dark he doesn't favor one side or the other. One question for that, then, is why is he, more than any other character, risking his life for it? I mean, Snape's the character who's the most in the thick of this battle, and a lot of his characterization seems to turn on that and his ties to both sides. Or do you mean he's very into the battle, because he's planning to switch sides depending on which one wins? Because with that goal I see the Vow as more in conflict with his goal since it might out him to one side or the other. Of course with DDM!Snape there's the even more direct conflict of: Isn't agreeing to kill Dumbledore in direct conflict with being DDM? But that's why the heart of the DDM theory is that killing Dumbledore is the ultimate test for DDM!Snape, who would have preferred to die. And many of us see that not so much from wanting to explain away things like the murder (as seemed to be suggested up thread), but from things in canon that seem like red flags telling us this Things Are Not As They Seem and We Don't Know Yet. (Protect Draco, of course, isn't at odds with being DDM, and Dumbledore seems to know about the Vow.) With DDM is there actually isn't anything to explain away. The murder is the biggest sticking point, but that seems written to be just that kind of question. Alla: > I am just confused how does it follow that Snape could not make UV if > he is OFH. In my view - easily. As long as he is not for Dumbledore > or for Voldemort, he can be friend, protector, lover of any number of > people ( I don't think the number is that great but theoretically, > why not?) Magpie: I see what you mean--you aren't, as I think others were, denying that Snape is decisive and not wavering. Your version of OFH is more out for his own agenda Snape (perhaps OA!Snape for short). He can be equally committed as DDM!Snape, we just don't know what he's committed to yet? -m From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 03:41:43 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 03:41:43 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162564 > Sydney: > > Is there a OFH!Snape explanation for the fight in the forest? Is > Snape actually arguing with Dumbledore about what side he's on? > Wouldn't he be hiding this? And why is Dumbledore still saying he > trusts him completely in that case? If anyone could come up with an > OFH! or Grey! storyline that would explain the twitch, the argument, > and most, most, most importantly Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the > second he comes on the scene, I'd be happy to entertain it. DDM!Snape > takes those three sole instances of hesitation and relates them > seamelessly to one thing, the killing of Dumbledore. Snape is willing > to go all the way to defeat Voldemort but balks at killing Dumbledore > as he is, after all, Dumbledore's Man. Dumbledore is perfectly aware > of this and they had a frank argument about it; and it's still up in > the air how far Snape is willing to go when he gets to the top of the > tower. Neri: I agree that the "fight" in the forest needs to be explained further in Book 7. What was the thing that Snape didn't want to do anymore? Here is one possible LID!Snape explanation, which unfortunately will be slightly vague because the exact terms of the Life Debt are highly classified material at the moment. I think that, by asking Snape to assume again his old double-agent role in VW2, Dumbledore in fact had Snape in a trap: As long as Snape knows about Voldemort's plans to kill Harry, the Life Debt terms consider him a part to these plans, and therefore fully accountable for anything that happens to Harry as a result. In fact, Dumbledore was deliberately recreating the situation in the end of VW1, when Snape knew about Voldemort's plans to kill the Potters and therefore had to prevent them any way he could or be held accountable by the Life Debt. Snape agreed to return to his double-agent role, but for his own reasons. He wanted to establish again his good relations with Voldemort, because he hoped to somehow clear his Debt without Voldemort ever finding out about it, and then he'd be free to join whichever side has the best chance to win the war. To Dumbledore Snape was of course pretending that he's doing it because it's the right thing to do. Dumbledore perhaps bought it and perhaps didn't, or most probably he always hoped that Snape, like Harry, would come to realize that the only way to be free of his terrible destiny is to embrace it, to do it for the right reasons. But in any case, because of the Life Debt Dumbledore could completely trust Snape to save Harry, even (or especially) if Snape betrays Dumbledore and the Order. So in HBP, when Snape made the UV, he thought he was buying time for himself to continue the double-agent game and find an opportunity to clear the Debt. He was certain that he could easily control and manipulate Draco, so he'd ensure that Draco never makes a real attempt, and so never succeeds in killing Dumbledore while never actually failing. But to Snape's surprise Draco turned out to be uncontrollable, and Snape found himself in a trap of his own making (the proper end for a spinner): if Draco makes an irrevocable move, Snape would either die, or have to kill Dumbledore, which means trapping himself on Voldemort's side with the Debt still active. Just before Christmas, after his failed attempt to discipline Draco, Snape realized that he has taken a bigger bite than he could swallow. So, in the forest, Snape hoped to convince Dumbledore to free him from his obligation to continue the double agent role. Presumably he then hoped to tell Voldemort that Dumbledore now suspects him and he has no choice but to lie low for a while, or something of that sort. Not knowing Voldemort's plans anymore would make Snape unaccountable if and when Voldemort kills Harry. No Harry ? no Debt, and then Snape is free to assist Draco in killing Dumbledore, and end up in Voldemort's camp with the friggin Debt finally cleared. But Dumbledore of course wouldn't hear about freeing Snape from his obligation, and Snape couldn't disobey Dumbledore, because if Dumbledore's done with him, Snape is again stuck on Voldemort's side with the friggin Debt. A fiendish dilemma only JKR and Dumbledore can construct. And so, when Draco finally made his move, Snape was indeed caught in the trap he had feared. He was left no choice but to kill Dumbledore in order to save his own life from the UV, and now he is stuck on Voldemort's side, he's part to all the plans to kill Harry (because he's Voldemort favorite DE) and so he'd either be fully accountable when Harry is killed, or he'd have to save Harry and bear Voldemort's wrath. Small wonder he was so furious at Dumbledore on the tower, eh? This was a tentative explanation of LID!Snape to the "fight" in the forest. Now, according to the DDM explanation the fight refers to the hypothetical Plan Dumbledore had made for Snape to kill him. So I have to imagine this conversation really went something like this: SS : You know, Headmaster, you're taking too much for granted here. I mean, this whole plan of me killing you. You know how I still suffer remorse over causing the death of the woman I loved, and now you want to add the burden of killing you to my frayed soul? Well maybe I just don't want to do it anymore. I had it. I'll just die myself instead. AD : No, no, no, Severus. We had it all planned and there's no chickening out now. You agreed to kill me and this is all there is to it! Now, how is the investigation in the Slytherin House going? Well, personally I don't buy Dumbledore demanding from anybody to kill him (unless he's under the effect of a very evil potion, that is), especially not from someone who already suffers such remorse. But what I find completely ludicrous in the above conversation is the choice of words: Snape saying that "Dumbledore takes too much for granted" and Dumbledore saying "you agreed to do it and this is all there is to it" before moving to the next item on his list. Is this *all* there is to it??? Neri From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Dec 9 03:46:20 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:46:20 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way Message-ID: <599.4eae7314.32ab8b8c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162565 >Susan: >The most compelling argument to me about Snape being basically self centered and nasty come from JKR herself, who is surprised that there are those amongst us who still think Snape might be a good guy. He is vile, cruel and abusive. His verbal abuse of Harry, Neville and Hermione, his total unfairness as a teacher, his abuse of authority, his hatred of Sirius and his willingness to give ANYONE up to have their soul sucked out is pretty awful. Nikkalmati: Maybe she is just terribly disappointed, as a writer, that she has not been able to pull the wool over our eyes and she is trying to rescue her plan to surprise us when SS turns out to be on the right side after all. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 9 03:40:52 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 22:40:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) References: Message-ID: <007801c71b43$d4391ce0$3a9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162566 BetsyHP: While working through Snape's worst memory Harry thinks that the twins doing something similar to Draco would have been alright. But in the bathroom scene he's horrified when Draco is so badly hurt. It's like Harry is forced to see beyond a line here to a place where his hitting Draco can actually cause Draco damage. And Harry doesn't like it. So, I'm not sure that book 7 will have Harry thinking back to the train scene in GoF and regreting his behavior once Draco was down. But perhaps there'll be a moment where he could behave in such a way again, and this time he chooses not to? And um, explains to Ron and Hermione why he's hesitating? Magpie: I feel like there should be something...because I'll also add something else that really struck me today. I've been re-reading PS a chapter a week and at Chapter 8 Harry's behavior towards Draco is a really good illustration of James' "it's more just that he exists" or whatever James says of Snape. Harry's anger at Snape is something different--it's more a reaction to Snape's behavior towards him. He hasn't gotten down to the nitty gritty with Snape yet--that's the big kahuna, I think. It's not that Draco is never nasty to Harry, obviously. But in their early confrontations Harry is completely beyond Draco in hostility immediately. In their first scene Draco seems unaware that he's making such a bad impression--Harry injects the first bit of open hostility, to which Draco responds with the beginnings of a sneer, but he's not quite sure enough as he will be in the future. In their second meeting Draco doesn't seem to have had the negative reaction to Harry that Harry had to him. He insults Ron and Harry humiliates him--to which Draco responds with open animosity, but then the scene ends with Harry the clear winner. You'd think that the only thing that would keep Draco in the game after that would be his own efforts, but actually Harry keeps it up all on his own, watching Malfoy and hating him. I just read the Rememberall scene, and Harry goes from 0 to 60 in seconds, calling him out. Draco's always obviously the worse boy in terms of character, but that doesn't always translate into aggression in every scene. It's actually different than the way Snape bothers him. It's really kind of brilliant the way it's done. Draco seems like he's doing more than he is, because Harry describes behavior of Draco's that's got nothing to do with Harry and imbues it with aggression. Harry sees Draco's behavior as being intentionally offensive to Harry, thus Harry's behavior always seems defensive--it's a common thing (popular on the Internet, especially on anonomemes). But perhaps that's part of Harry's shock--it's quite possibly the only time in canon when Harry can't slot Malfoy's behavior into one of his two categories: intentionally annoying or paying for such in some way. That's one thing missing in the bathroom--for the first time Harry can see Draco as playing a different role, with his own defense being more than defense. Oddly, noticing the way Harry describes Draco in those scenes in PS added something to Draco's usual behavior for me, because I just never buy the idea that Draco's just so stuck up he can't get it through his head Harry always beats him because that's just not Draco's character. Draco's *particularly* sensitive to getting hurt--twitching at the mention of Moody's name, getting jumpy in Hagrid's class. There's no way he doesn't remember getting hit by Harry and his friends; but his need to provoke is stronger. What suddenly struck me in reading (with amusement) ickle!Harry's immediate and true hatred of Malfoy was that I could actually suddenly see what part of the appeal might be. Sure nobody likes to get beaten up, but if you've got somebody who always seems so close to blowing his stack around you, I can see making it into a show to give yourself a little more control. Obviously that's not meant as some claim that Malfoy's provocations of Harry are Harry's fault or *only* coming out of what I just described. I was just kind of pleased to for once be able to imagine them from Draco's pov and do something besides cringe. It's a believable-especially for this character-attempt at turn around. Not that this make Harry James--I don't think any parallels in canon are supposed to work perfectly, and these two pairs reflect each other in lots of different ways. Harry doesn't pick on Malfoy the way James picked on Snape--though perhaps that's also got to do with Malfoy not reacting like Snape as well. But Harry does, I think, as early as PS have Malfoy firmly slotted into the place that readers often put him as well, as someone who's so full of himself that he's always due to be brought down a peg--and can be without any real hurt because his ego is so incredibly huge to begin with how could it ever be bruised? (We maybe see a similar cycle with Percy and the twins.) With Snape the situation's interesting because the vulnerability is different. Harry is seeing Snape without dignity being bullied, but Snape is still in public so he's covering his personal vulnerability as much as he can. Draco crying is the next level up because Draco's alone. Harry sometimes has to be reminded that even his friends have their own inner lives and problems, so it's got to be even more difficult for his enemies, who are even more different (and that's what Harry named Draco as by using the spell). -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 04:05:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:05:23 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <007701c71b41$e63b2b10$3a9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162567 > Magpie: > I see--you're saying that OFH doesn't for you mean stay alive whatever the > cost, but that Snape is out for goals known only to himself as of yet? But > in the battle b/w the Light vs. Dark he doesn't favor one side or the other. Alla: Yes, exactly :). Magpie: > One question for that, then, is why is he, more than any other character, > risking his life for it? I mean, Snape's the character who's the most in > the thick of this battle, and a lot of his characterization seems to turn on > that and his ties to both sides. > Alla: I really, really disagree that Snape is shown as the character who is risking his life for the Order more than anybody else. We have Potters, who thrice defied Voldemort, we have Longbottoms, who were also heroic aurors, we have real Alastor Moody. We have Lupin, unless you dig ESE!Lupin of course, I can give you at least several more names, who fircely fight a good fight and I disagree that all of them are risking their lifes any less than Severus Snape. I mean he sure is shown to risk his life as a spy, but I would say that it is not exactly clear that he is doing it for the order. Magpie: > Or do you mean he's very into the battle, because he's planning to switch > sides depending on which one wins? Because with that goal I see the Vow as > more in conflict with his goal since it might out him to one side or the > other. Alla: I think he is planning to stick with whatever side advances his goals more and if none - ditch them both, therefore I don't see UV as being in conflict with that. Magpie: > Of course with DDM!Snape there's the even more direct conflict of: Isn't > agreeing to kill Dumbledore in direct conflict with being DDM? But that's > why the heart of the DDM theory is that killing Dumbledore is the ultimate > test for DDM!Snape, who would have preferred to die. And many of us see > that not so much from wanting to explain away things like the murder (as > seemed to be suggested up thread), but from things in canon that seem like > red flags telling us this Things Are Not As They Seem and We Don't Know Yet. > (Protect Draco, of course, isn't at odds with being DDM, and Dumbledore > seems to know about the Vow.) With DDM is there actually isn't anything to > explain away. The murder is the biggest sticking point, but that seems > written to be just that kind of question. Alla: Well, see you brought the explaining away the murder part, not me, so I may as well say it. When I first read HBP and Snape killing Dumbledore, I thought to myself - no, there is absolutely no way that in the book where author basically beats us over the head with the baseball bat that murder rips your soul apart, there is absolutely no way that Snape killing Dumbledore can be explained as a **good** deed, **noble** deed, the deed of the character who is loyal to Dumbledore. I should have known better. :) Oh, and of course I know all the arguments as to why it can be indeed DD!M Snape, know them by heart and can argue them myself, just as I am sure everybody who had been here can argue my position. That is not my point. My point is that yes, while respecting everybody's right to argue anything they want, I remain pretty convinced that this is indeed explaining away the murder, red herrings or not. And yes, shifting the focus on Dumbledore asking Snape to do it in my view is blaming the victim, instead of the murderer. As I said, I have no problem cheerfully admitting me being wrong after book 7 and apologising to Severus Snape for misjudging him ;), (as an aside that would mean for me an absolute condemnation of Albus Dumbledore, who would ask his teacher to rip his soul apart), but right now this is where I stand. I will swallow that and I will not even throw the books out, I respect the written word too much :) But the only thought which I will spare for Dumbledore if that will turn out to be true is that he should have died sooner. I mean, going back to bathroom scene for a second, Harry is expected to feel bad for almost killing Draco while defending himself, but Snape's **murder** is a totally different animal and here it does not matter that murder is a big deal? Just saying it in general. There is of course as I said several times in the past **one** variety of sort of DD!M Snape which I will be happy with, but I am sure that for many DD!M Snape theorists this Snape is not Dumbledore man enough. :) This is of course Severely Siguine Snape. Had been a while since I reread her amasing essay ( highly recommended, highly), but the gist that I can remember is that her Snape kills Dumbledore because he feels he has no choice on the Tower, while is not wavering in his loyalty to white hats. I am not sure if in her version Dumbledore is indeed dying from poison, but it can be very fitting. The difference that I can see between mainstream DD!M Snape and hers is that Snape and only Snape made a decision to kill Dumbledore, even if with the best possible reasons in mind . Snape and only Snape made a mistake of taking UV and that eventually lead him to the Tower. He made a choice, he pays consequences. If that Snape is shown to be remorseful in book 7, I can even be happy with it. > Magpie: > I see what you mean--you aren't, as I think others were, denying that Snape > is decisive and not wavering. Your version of OFH is more out for his own > agenda Snape (perhaps OA!Snape for short). He can be equally committed as > DDM!Snape, we just don't know what he's committed to yet? Alla: Totally, yes.) JMO of course. Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Dec 9 04:16:42 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:16:42 EST Subject: Unbreakable Vow (was Snape on the Tower) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162568 >Debbie: >Snape appears to be in a bind at Spinner's End only because he had been (ostensibly) working for Dumbledore. Though Cissy entrapped Snape into making the vow, it was the right move at that time. Every double agent knows he may be backed into a corner someday despite his best efforts to prevent it, and it is not always a *mistake* when that happens. >Julie: >I don't know that the Unbreakable Vow was Snape's mistake. I think Dumbledore may consider it his mistake more than Snape's. He is the one who sent Snape to Voldemort at the end of GOF. Presumably he wanted Snape to get in as deep as possible while gaining as much useful information as possible. Snape can't do that without taking risks, and Dumbledore knows that very well. Dumbledore may well have told Snape to jump at any chance to get further information, even if it leads down a blind alley. You have to take a big chance to get a big payoff. And this is all about the fate of the WW after all. >Jen: The Unbreakable Vow was lame to me. if you are implying that by taking the UV it's an oxymoron to say Snape is DDM, now *that* I would agree wholeheartedly with. I'm liking my own Grey!Snape version more and more: Nikkalmati: I am much more with Julie and Debbie here and I believe in DDM!Snape. I have said before, and I stick with it, that SS did not have a clue what Draco's task was before he took the vow. (No one else seems willing to jump on the bandwagon, however). SS wanted and needed to know that information and promising to protect Draco was a small price to pay. Of course, we know that the protective mother went a little over the top in ensuring Draco's life by trapping SS into a vow he did not intend and did not understand at the time. I have seen many people speculate that SS knew Draco's task at Spinner's End, but I have never seen any support for it. You would have to assume he is telling the truth to the Black sisters when it appears he is lying through his teeth throughout the scene (unless he is ESE) and you have to assume that LV trusts him with his plan, which is also doubtful when you note PP is sent to spy on SS and that Bella is astonished that LV would tell SS. Surely she know the relative position of the members of the inner circle. There is a question as to when DD and SS figured out exactly what SS promised to do. It must have become clear by the time Katie Bell was cursed. They then had to decide what to do about it. They hoped that SS would be able to get close to Draco and thwart him, but we know why that didn't work out. The alternate plan must have been, if worse came to worse, to kill DD rather than let SS die or let Draco kill him. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 9 04:54:21 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2006 23:54:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) References: Message-ID: <00a201c71b4e$179d43d0$3a9e400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162569 > Magpie: >> One question for that, then, is why is he, more than any other > character, >> risking his life for it? I mean, Snape's the character who's the > most in >> the thick of this battle, and a lot of his characterization seems > to turn on >> that and his ties to both sides. >> > > Alla: > > I really, really disagree that Snape is shown as the character who is > risking his life for the Order more than anybody else. We have > Potters, who thrice defied Voldemort, we have Longbottoms, who were > also heroic aurors, we have real Alastor Moody. We have Lupin, unless > you dig ESE!Lupin of course, I can give you at least several more > names, who fircely fight a good fight and I disagree that all of them > are risking their lifes any less than Severus Snape. I mean he sure > is shown to risk his life as a spy, but I would say that it is not > exactly clear that he is doing it for the order. Magpie: But I would still say that within canon-spanning the timeframe of the story-Snape is the character most of all associated with playing all these dangerous games as a spy and working with Dumbledore etc. HBP did add Lupin to the game, but even there he's only for a year been promoted to the same job Snape already has, and Snape is Voldemort's right hand man--he's closer to the heart of the villain than Lupin. I'm not claiming that Snape is the biggest hero or anything like that. Just that a big part of his characterization in canon has been his part in the fight against Voldemort. Somebody like Moody's obviously committed, but he's a minor character who's just there as an Order member. Snape's the central character who keeps getting bound into all things Voldemort-y. Alla: I think he is planning to stick with whatever side advances his goals more and if none - ditch them both, therefore I don't see UV as being in conflict with that. Magpie: Isn't it? It puts his life in danger--unless dying doesn't stand in the way of advancing his goals. It also locks him into a certain act--what if circumstances changed so that fulfilling the Vow would make one side reject him? It seems like "stick with whichever side advances your goals or ditch them both" gets back to that original problem that this guy needs to have some wiggle room to move between sides or ditch. Alla: > > Well, see you brought the explaining away the murder part, not me, so > I may as well say it. Magpie: Absolutely! It's the elephant in DDM's Snape.:-) Alla: When I first read HBP and Snape killing > Dumbledore, I thought to myself - no, there is absolutely no way that > in the book where author basically beats us over the head with the > baseball bat that murder rips your soul apart, there is absolutely no > way that Snape killing Dumbledore can be explained as a **good** > deed, **noble** deed, the deed of the character who is loyal to > Dumbledore. I should have known better. :) > > Oh, and of course I know all the arguments as to why it can be indeed > DD!M Snape, know them by heart and can argue them myself, just as I > am sure everybody who had been here can argue my position. That is > not my point. > > My point is that yes, while respecting everybody's right to argue > anything they want, I remain pretty convinced that this is indeed > explaining away the murder, red herrings or not. And yes, shifting > the focus on Dumbledore asking Snape to do it in my view is blaming > the victim, instead of the murderer. Magpie: I can see what you mean. Which is why I should probably make clear that for me, an important aspect to the whole DDM Snape thing is that I don't have a defense for the murder. I think the next book will explain the murder in some way that does fit it in with Snape being DDM, but it's a total unknown. I've no idea how JKR can do it--which, if she is planning to do that, is good for her. It's just I think we could get something that explains what Snape did in some way that makes him still DDM (and fits Dumbledore too). Just as presumably if I believed ESE!Snape I'd assume that the next book would explain things like why Snape brought the Order to the MoM. Alla: > I mean, going back to bathroom scene for a second, Harry is expected > to feel bad for almost killing Draco while defending himself, but > Snape's **murder** is a totally different animal and here it does not > matter that murder is a big deal? Just saying it in general. Magpie: Oh no--the murder of Dumbledore would be a huge deal. One that Snape might not get over at all! Alla: > This is of course Severely Siguine Snape. Had been a while since I > reread her amasing essay ( highly recommended, highly), but the gist > that I can remember is that her Snape kills Dumbledore because he > feels he has no choice on the Tower, while is not wavering in his > loyalty to white hats. I am not sure if in her version Dumbledore is > indeed dying from poison, but it can be very fitting. The difference > that I can see between mainstream DD!M Snape and hers is that Snape > and only Snape made a decision to kill Dumbledore, even if with the > best possible reasons in mind . Snape and only Snape made a mistake > of taking UV and that eventually lead him to the Tower. He made a > choice, he pays consequences. If that Snape is shown to be remorseful > in book 7, I can even be happy with it. Magpie: I personally don't see DDM as being about Dumbledore actually ordering Snape to kill him either--I can't see him ordering Snape to kill anyone that way. I don't think what happened on the Tower was the plan, but a disaster. One that Dumbledore had perhaps prepared for in some way, which is why he can say "Severus, please" and know that Snape knows what he's talking about. I don't think it was a cold-blooded plan plotted out. Snape knows what he has to do when he comes to the Tower, but that's not what was supposed to happen. I can't see Dumbledore's plan ever being, "Okay, then you kill me..." It seems like Dumbledore's supposed to be dying all year. Dumbledore wouldn't, imo, make a plan that included murder or suicide. They both seem pretty anti-Dumbledoreness as I see it so far. Nikkalmati: I am much more with Julie and Debbie here and I believe in DDM!Snape. I have said before, and I stick with it, that SS did not have a clue what Draco's task was before he took the vow. (No one else seems willing to jump on the bandwagon, however). SS wanted and needed to know that information and promising to protect Draco was a small price to pay. Magpie: If he needed that information why didn't he just let Narcissa tell it to him like she was going to before he himself jumped in and said, "Don't tell me?" Nikki: There is a question as to when DD and SS figured out exactly what SS promised to do. It must have become clear by the time Katie Bell was cursed. Magpie: So the vow really was completely useless. Why did Snape take it if he still had to figure out what Draco's task was by just hanging around school and waiting to see what Draco did? If he'd only not taken the vow he would have gotten his information without putting his and Dumbledore's life in danger. Neri: I agree that the "fight" in the forest needs to be explained further in Book 7. What was the thing that Snape didn't want to do anymore? Here is one possible LID!Snape explanation, which unfortunately will be slightly vague because the exact terms of the Life Debt are highly classified material at the moment. Magpie: I don't know if this is the classified part, but I just don't get what the Life Debt could possibly do that makes Snape need to fulfill it so badly. You say that it's very bad for Snape to be in LV's service and confidence when he attacks Harry because that will make him accountable for his debt when Harry is killed, as he was when he told LV the prophecy and so became accountable. But so then what's to fear? Snape's Life Debt isn't actually with Harry. It was with James. James who died as a result of Snape's telling Voldemort the prophecy. Whom Snape was unable to save despite trying to save him. And yet sixteen years later Snape's fine. Nothing bad happened to him as a result of James dying. So why is it so important for him to avoid being in LV's confidence when he goes after Harry? -m From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 05:13:26 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 00:13:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612082113n59deab5bx34d117463f568b12@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162570 Sydney: LOL-- mulled Snape, how Christmassy! Debbie: A much better analogy. I agree grey!Snape would be an awesome character but maybe I just feel he'd need a book of his own... maybe the supposed prequel could be Young Snape, who would be in exactly the mind-making-up position you would love (I'd LOVE to do a comic book on that)! Debbie: You know, I was debating between spiced Snape and spiked Snape, but (keeping with the drinks for a moment) I now believe we could call him, at this moment anyway, Shaken, Not Stirred. For someone who joined, then repudiated the DEs by the time he could drink legally in the U.S., DDM!Snape has been steadfast in his loyalty for an awful long time. It just seems to me that all that volatility and anger should be welling up right about now. The revulsion and hatred revealed in his face on the Tower speaks volumes. Jen: I see young Snape as similar to Draco in the way he was drawn into the world of Voldemort though I don't think he believed like Draco believes, likely he was disillusioned with the alternatives more than anything else! But Snape was surrounded by the DE culture in Slytherin house and that along with a possible growing interest in dark arts could be contributing factors. Debbie: This may be where Jen and I diverge a bit (though I'm not certain). My Young Grey!Snape was disillusioned at the time about one thing: Dumbledore. And in particular, Dumbledore's excessive affinity for that arrogant bully James Potter. Sydney: If anyone could come up with an OFH! or Grey! storyline that would explain the twitch, the argument, and most, most, most importantly Dumbledore's pleading with Snape the second he comes on the scene, I'd be happy to entertain it. DDM!Snape takes those three sole instances of hesitation and relates them seamelessly to one thing, the killing of Dumbledore. Debbie: The Grey!Snape explanation for the twitch is essentially the same as DDM!Snape's. He has been caught, as if in a vise, in a game he thought he could win. He is hoping to escape from the vise, but he really has no choice but to go ahead with the UV; if he doesn't, the game is over today. The argument is, plain and simple, Snape wavering, as in "take this cup away from me" only it's not Jesus' cup he's being asked to swallow, it's Judas'. In fact, he goes ahead with the plan. He has no reason not to; either way, it is the end of the road for him and the rest of the Order. He did remain loyal to Dumbledore as long as he lived, but now he's rethinking his options. Julie: I need some clarifications on the difference between DDM!Snape and Grey!Snape. First, is it the contention of Grey!Snapers that Snape was not doing Dumbledore's bidding on the Tower? Rather than Dumbledore pleading with Snape to fulfill his Unbreakable Vow for a higher purpose (to save Draco and Harry, and himself as he could be of more value to the effort to defeat Voldemort), Dumbledore was pleading with Snape *not* to kill him, even if in an indirect way (Don't choose this path, don't tear your soul, etc)? Or *was* Snape doing Dumbledore's bidding with a great deal of resentment (as perhaps we observe in Snape's look of hatred and revulsion as he performs the AK), and it's the contention of Grey!Snapers that this resentment will cause Snape to waver in his loyalty during the next book? Debbie: I think what I've already written above establishes that Grey!Snape is more like your second scenario than the first. Snape does like recognition for the risks he takes, but he's been forced into an endgame that will leave him high and dry, with his mentor dead at his own hand, and himself with choices to make. Sarah: But therein lies the beauty of OFH/Life Debt. (Not Grey.) If Snape does all the stuff that he does because of a relatively simply understood plot device, there is hope that Harry could plausibly find it out without someone taking three chapters to describe the decades of history of Snape's innermost thoughts. Debbie: One person's beauty is another's deep disappointment. At bottom, I think we are all here because JKR is a character-driven writer. As Sydney said, she has the ability to make characters (Snape, at least) act consistently with a single vision of his character throughout the series. We care about his backstory because it provides clues as to what makes him tick. That's why I want to see his loyalty to Dumbledore put to the test, for his anger to rise to the surface and call into question everything he's done for the last 15 years. I want to see the effect of circumstances on his character. If it turned out that everything he did was the result of a plot device (which is how I read LID!Snape), I would feel sorely cheated of his character. I don't see the life debt as the equivalent of a magical contract. The fact that Snape feels burdened by a life debt is a testament to his character, not the other way around. I think we may get an early scene in book 7 from the POV of the omniscient narrator that gives us a glimpse into Snape's mindset. Or maybe I should say that I want such a scene. Neri: And so, when Draco finally made his move, Snape was indeed caught in the trap he had feared. He was left no choice but to kill Dumbledore in order to save his own life from the UV, and now he is stuck on Voldemort's side, he's part to all the plans to kill Harry (because he's Voldemort favorite DE) and so he'd either be fully accountable when Harry is killed, or he'd have to save Harry and bear Voldemort's wrath. Small wonder he was so furious at Dumbledore on the tower, eh? Debbie: Well, yes! And, in the Grey! scenario, why he's out there in the forest with some decisions to make. Does he really want to be stuck on Voldemort's side? (And with Draco-Who-Couldn't-Do-The-Deed in tow?) If he's really DDM! he shouldn't go back to Voldemort at all. Voldemort will punish, if not kill, Draco, and, much worse, hanging around Voldemort might allow Voldemort to use Snape's anger at what Dumbledore to win him over. Better for Snape if he and Draco hid in the forest somewhere, but I don't think this will happen. Hence, Grey!Snape. But in the end, I believe Grey!Snape will come back to the fold. He will repay Dumbledore's trust in him (DDM!), repay the Life-Debt (LID!), seize some glory for himself (OFH!) yet never truly be forgiven for Dumbledore's murder (ESE!). Debbie toasting yummy DDM! s'mores over the campfire with Sydney, Carol and the gang but so far refusing to eat them [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 05:14:05 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:14:05 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <00a201c71b4e$179d43d0$3a9e400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162571 > Alla: > > I think he is planning to stick with whatever side advances his goals more > and if none - ditch them both, therefore I don't see UV as being in conflict > with that. > > Magpie: > Isn't it? It puts his life in danger--unless dying doesn't stand in the way > of advancing his goals. It also locks him into a certain act--what if > circumstances changed so that fulfilling the Vow would make one side reject > him? It seems like "stick with whichever side advances your goals or ditch > them both" gets back to that original problem that this guy needs to have > some wiggle room to move between sides or ditch. Alla: Yes, true, I should rephrase myself - I think that UV may fit with his goals whatever that is and this goal would take priority over any side for Snape. > Magpie: > I can see what you mean. Which is why I should probably make clear that for > me, an important aspect to the whole DDM Snape thing is that I don't have a > defense for the murder. I think the next book will explain the murder in > some way that does fit it in with Snape being DDM, but it's a total unknown. > I've no idea how JKR can do it--which, if she is planning to do that, is > good for her. It's just I think we could get something that explains what > Snape did in some way that makes him still DDM (and fits Dumbledore too). > Just as presumably if I believed ESE!Snape I'd assume that the next book > would explain things like why Snape brought the Order to the MoM. Alla: Can I just say again how much I love your posts? Can I? Because even when I am disagreeing with you, it is rather, I don't know - close disagreement of the sorts. So, if you do not have defense for murder, would it be fair to say that you simply believe that Snape is DD!M because of his past deeds? That what you already saw Snape doing makes your faith in him being DD!M strong enough that you expect the murder to be explained but do not have an explanation yet? > Magpie: > I personally don't see DDM as being about Dumbledore actually ordering Snape > to kill him either--I can't see him ordering Snape to kill anyone that way. I can't see Dumbledore's plan ever being, "Okay, then you kill > me..." It seems like Dumbledore's supposed to be dying all year. Dumbledore > wouldn't, imo, make a plan that included murder or suicide. They both seem > pretty anti-Dumbledoreness as I see it so far. Alla: Yes, precisely. I know that you are not into speculation much, but do you have anything in mind? Just curious. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 05:29:43 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:29:43 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612082113n59deab5bx34d117463f568b12@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162572 > Debbie: > Well, yes! And, in the Grey! scenario, why he's out there in the forest > with some decisions to make. Does he really want to be stuck on Voldemort's > side? (And with Draco-Who-Couldn't-Do-The-Deed in tow?) If he's really > DDM! he shouldn't go back to Voldemort at all. Voldemort will punish, if > not kill, Draco, and, much worse, hanging around Voldemort might allow > Voldemort to use Snape's anger at what Dumbledore to win him over. Better > for Snape if he and Draco hid in the forest somewhere, but I don't think > this will happen. Hence, Grey!Snape. zgirnius: I don't quite see how hiding in the forest is a viable option for any flavor or Snape, or for Draco for that matter. People who try to leave the Death Eaters in this manner, die. (FOr two examples, Regulus Black and Igor Karkaroff). DDM!Snape is not able to protect Draco from Voldemort by hiding him. *Dumbledore* could do that, but Snape's relationship with the Order is not, at present, in good shape. I think DDM!Snape's best bet is going to be to go face the music with Draco and hope Voldemort's in a good mood. (He might be. Draco's actions did set up the easy kill, and Dumbledore is dead. If Voldemort had some niggling doubts that Snape's DDM, their are gone.) It's also the move that would put him in the best position to help Harry/the Order in Book 7. Lurking in a forest with Draco somewhere he isn't going to be all that useful to his side. > Debbie > toasting yummy DDM! s'mores over the campfire with Sydney, Carol and the > gang but so far refusing to eat them > zgirnius: These smores of Sydney's are mighty tasty... :D From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 9 05:30:57 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 05:30:57 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162573 Julie: > I need some clarifications on the difference between DDM!Snape and > Grey!Snape. Jen: Grey was originally a variation on DDM and started out as a character study because one component of DDM is difficult for me to believe: Snape switched sides, pledged loyalty to Dumbledore and dutifully moved forward without ever allowing his DE days or reasons for joining Voldemort to affect him again. He's still affected by the Marauders, he still carries around painful childhood memories, he still favors Slytherin house--how did he cleanly cut out just one very significant part of his past? Just because we don't know why he joined up doesn't mean it's not part of him anymore and doesn't affect him as keenly as other past events. I'm not saying Snape contemplates a return to Voldemort or is playing both sides, just proposing Snape's past is wreaking havoc with both Dumbledore's carefully laid plans and their relationship in HBP. > Sydney: > DDM!Snape takes those three sole instances of hesitation and > relates them seamelessly to one thing, the killing of Dumbledore. > Snape is willing to go all the way to defeat Voldemort but balks at > killing Dumbledore as he is, after all, Dumbledore's Man. Jen: I'm not convinced the plan was to kill Dumbledore from the moment the UV was taken. Dumbledore is focused on finding Horcruxes and staying out of the castle for most of the year, a plan that both furthers the goal of defeating Voldemort and keeps him away from Draco. He's contingency planning to keep everyone alive as long as possible and that means the burden falls on Snape to stop Draco. I believe they are arguing over what Snape feels like is a lousy plan that isn't working. I'm not saying this negates DDM, just that Dumbledore is ordering and Snape appears to be trying to refuse. Sydney: > I actually don't think Snape was wavering even then, because, as > I've said, I don't think 'wavering' could apply to Snape as a > person. He got hit with the third clause of the Vow. He discusses > it with Dumbledore. They agree Snape will go ahead and kill him > (Horcrux!Dumbledore, maybe?). Snape then at some point (I'll have > to reread the book and see if I can find a catalyst), decides he > will absolutely not do it, consistent with the argument in the > forest... Jen: Here's one thing that doesn't work for me with DDM. Snape was not hit with the third clause of the Vow. He *chose* to take the Vow and from what we know so far in canon, the UV was not ordered by either Dumbledore or Voldemort since Snape was surprised to see Narcissa. In fact, from the information prior to the Vow Snape is going *against* Voldemort to even be talking to Bella and Narcissa. People have argued Bella and Narcissa will kill him but that's not said or implied anywhere in the conversation. If Snape is indeed in tight with LV at the moment and Bella and Narcissa are on the outs due to the DOM (and neither denies this), that seems crazy to attempt to kill Snape and then answer to Voldemort. All agree Voldemort expects Snape to help kill Dumbledore from the inside. For those reasons and the fact that Peter may have been eavesdropping again, why didn't Snape show them the door? Does he love Draco so much he's willing to die for him before helping defeat Voldemort and seeing Lily's death avenged (or someone else's)? So much he's willing to kill the one man who can help the Chosen One face his destiny and rid the world of Voldemort? Snape's desire to help defeat Voldemort sounds a little lukewarm there and if Snape is willing to die for Draco I'm afraid Noble Snape is not in the books: *Dumbledore* is willing to die for Draco and the greater good but so far Snape has not been presented as having these same impulses. If it's not love of Draco, maybe Narcissa is the reason he can't refuse and that could be an interesting conflict of interest if he placed Narcissa before Dumbledore. Sydney: > I think breaking the Vow was Snape's firm decision until he was > faced with the very particular set of circumstances so fiendishly > arranged by the DADA Curse/JKR: the magic barrier, the frozen > Harry, the DEs,the Poison, the Vow. If JKR wanted to give Grey! > Snape a choice on the tower, I don't think she would have arranged > that one-- one where Draco's and Harry's lives are in the balance > as well. That looks a heck of a lot more like a cruel choice for > DDM!Snape-- heroic death but nothing accomplished, vs. being once > again the villain of the piece but one step closer to the ultimate > goal of defeating Voldemort. Jen: It is cruel, JKR is cruel to her characters! It's Snape's version of Harry's 'walking into the arena or being dragged there' when Snape is on the tower. In your version Snape is still making a choice if he entered the tower firmly convinced he would break the Vow and then saw the scene and changed his mind. He also had the choice to die a heroic death and accomplish nothing just like James did or the Order members in the first War who were being picked off one by one. I'm not saying that was a great choice, just one he did have open to him. This scene is often compared to the scene with Harry feeding potion and I do like the symmetry there. One difference is that Dumbledore doesn't order Snape to do anything or remind him in a firm voice what he agreed to do with a "Severus...your word." No. He pleads, begs, entreats, he doesn't sound like a man sure what Snape will do in this *particular situation* no matter how much he trusts Snape is on his side and not Voldemort's. > Sydney: > But where does the beautiful sobbing lady intersect with the guy > travelling light and keeping himself out of trouble? Wouldn't he > be, like, "I stick my neck out for no one, lady'? I just don't > see 'keeping himself out of trouble' Snape *anywhere*. Jen: I didn't say Snape keeps himself out of trouble or doesn't stick his nose into things because I agree with you he's everywhere at Hogwarts. But when it comes to Order duties he is exempt and when it comes to DE duties he doesn't have to participate (heck he's even forgiven for not showing up at the graveyard). He does what he has to do and gets out again, he's not interested in comrades or connections or making commitments to people with the exception of his return to Dumbledore and agreeing to go back to Voldemort (which once again was a choice like being dragged to the arena or walking in). Narcissa's arrival puts a definite crimp in his style of working alone and answering to as few people as possible and to top it off she asks for a *commitment*. I'm assuming the DADA curse is at work here and just as Lupin's lycantropy (sp.?)catches up with him, or Umbridge's lust for power or Crouch-Moody's insane follower of Voldemort trip, Snape's 'worst' catching up with him is his old life. > Sydney: > If she was painting a wavering character he would waver for > England. He'd waver like Hagrid drinks and bursts into tears. He > wouldn't be enimagic proactive and decisive ("Of course I'll take > the Unbreakable Vow"-- he pauses for what, two seconds?), but > somehow wavering in some invisible fashion at the same time. Jen: I can't see this from Snape or JKR at all! She's the one who showed Dumbledore's enormous regret for leaving Harry with the Dursleys by saying the light went out in his eyes. Or showing his pain for Harry with one tear after telling him about the Prophecy. Especially if Snape is practicing Occlumency, the twitch is an indication of hesitation as would be the blank face when Narcissa asks for the Unbreakable Vow. Even Bella recognizes these two things as hesitation. Before Voldemort returns Snape loses control plenty, mainly over Harry and the Marauders, but since then the only incident I recall is when he threw Harry out of his office (not following Dumbledore's orders like a good soldier). So maybe I was wrong to say Snape is enraged about his carefully controlled world falling apart, maybe it's just plain fear like the kind Harry thought he saw when Snape reflexively grabbed his arm or possibly his pale face when Dumbledore asked him to return to Voldemort. Jen before: > His loyalty to Dumbledore wasn't really tested until the point > Voldemort returns and by that point Snape is quite confident about > his abilities as we see during the Occlumency lessons. > Sydney: > But... but... are we just ditching the whole "great personal risk" > thing when Voldemort was at the height of his powers and everyone > thought he would win and Snape's amazing remorse and trust of > Dumbledore built on rock-like foundations? I mean, of course we can > just say, 'for the sake of Grey!Snape we're going to sacrifice this > because it doesn't fit', but personally I like all the canon I get > on my side. Jen: Hey, I object here! Just because I didn't think something through all the way back to the beginning doesn't mean I'm trying to twist to make a theory work. There's nothing wrong with trying to build a theory even if it means getting parts knocked down and having to rethink. In my point above I was musing about the time period after Voldemort turned to vapor and wasn't thinking about Snape's actual turn. I agree with about 'great personal risk' and Dumbledore's implicit trust of Snape because they're in the book, but reserve judgement on Snape's amazing remorse and trust of Dumbledore and the rock-like foundation part until I hear it from Snape's mouth (unless of course I'm forgetting some canon again and will be reminded. ) Jen R. From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Dec 9 05:55:50 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:55:50 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457A4FE6.1050603@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162574 justcarol67 wrote: >>Snape was clearly taken in by the philosophy of the Death Eaters, > > having the basic self-conception, "I'm better than everybody else; why > doesn't everybody recognize it?". > > Carol responds: > Can you supply some canon here to connect these two ideas? I don't see > how Snape's view of himself (the Half-Blood Prince?) relates to > Voldemort's ostensible philosophy of pureblood superiority. Regulus > Black would have been taken in by this philosophy, but why young > Snape? I think what he wanted was recognition and acceptance (and > possibly revenge against certain Gryffindor opponents of LV). Bart: Recognition and acceptance, certainly. Calling himself The Half-Blood Prince shows his sensitivity about his muggle father. Classic egotist masquerading an inferiority complex. Bart: > And it is clear that he still has the idea. But it is also clear that > he has a clear moral and ethical code of his own, and saw that the > person he had chosen as a leader was a fake. > > Carol: > Clear that he still thinks highly of himself, do you mean? Are you > thinking of the "I, the Half-Blood Prince" speech? I can't think of > any other evidence to support this view, but perhaps you can cite > some. Bart: His criticism of the pupils, of other professors, and building up of himself occurs throughout the series. Do you really need for me to come up with examples? Carol: > I don't recall his boasting at all > on any occasion. Even the HBP speech doesn't involve any gloating > about his own abilities, only resentment that Harry would used his own > spells against him.) Bart: Damn, I WILL have to look up the quotes. They ARE there, if you look for them. Look, in particular, to when he talks about potions, what he says about Lupin in POA, his attitude towards Sirius in OOTP, just for example. Carol: > And how, exactly, can you reconcile "a clear moral and ethical code of > his own" (which I agree that he has) with being evil? What is that > coed, in your view, and how does it fit with his leader's being a > fake? Bart: Many people have moral codes that others consider to be evil. I eat meat, which many consider to be evil. Carol: > (Snape is a half-blood, too, which didn't prevent him from > joining the DEs.) DD says that Snape's motivation for turning against > Voldemort was his recognition of how LV interpreted the Prophecy. Why > reject DD's testimony in favor of Snape's recognition that LV didn't > support his own code? Bart: I must admit a lot of it is backwards logic; taking Snape's behaviors and attitudes, and asking how they can be reconciled. In the case of Dumbledore speaking of his motivation, Dumbledore can be counted on to give as little information as possible. In this case, one might ask how could Riddle's interpretation of the prophecy drive Snape away, so decisively. The only logical answer is that he showed his true colors, his true hypocrisy. Also note that a big part of the "Voldemort Philosophy" is more than purebloods, halfbloods, and muggle born; he believes that the WW should rule the muggle world. I am also familiar with a possibly relevant piece of real world history. I am reasonably certain that JKR has come across it in her research. There was a special branch of Hitler Youth. Youths from all over Germany were specially invited to be in it. They were sent into concentration camps to taunt the Jews. Those who compared notes realized a strange coincidence; they had a Jewish grandmother, grandfather, or some more remote ancestor who was Jewish. When it was time to leave the concentrations camps, the guards would not open the doors. They were prisoners, themselves. And there WERE rumors that Hitler had a Jewish grandparent... Bart: > jealousy of Dumbledore. Both Snape and Dumbeldore were demonstrated to > be highly creative and had a sufficient understanding of the basics of > magic to improve upon the techniques commonly taught, yet Dumbledore > was everybody's favorite, and Snape was nobody's (which left Snape > vulnerable to the entrapments and temptations of the Death Eaters). Carol: > Can you show some canon for this perceived jealousy? DD is hardly > Snape's contemporary--he's about 115 years older, more like a > great-great-grandfather than any kind of peer or equal, and he's > always in a superior position to Snape--headmaster, head of the Order, > etc. I don't think that Snape envies Dumbledore: I think that he wants > DD's approval and envies *James*, who became Head Boy despite being a > troublemaker and a bully (and never even having been a Prefect). In > PoA, for example, he wants DD to pay attention and believe him when he > suggests that Lupin is helping Black to get inside the castle. Bart: I guess "jealous of Dumbledore" is an overstatement. I don't believe he holds anything against Dumbledore; it's more against society as a whole. Consider: He clearly was (and continues to be) an extraordinarily talented mage, who should have been able to write his own ticket in the WW. But all we saw was that he was treated with scorn (as opposed to a wizard, such as Dumbledore, who was admired from the time he was a student). With the superficiality clearly shown among many in the WW (particularly by Corn Fudge and his ilk) it is not a stretch that Snapes outward appearance overcame his inner talent in forming the judgment of others. Bart: >>The point is that Snape's cruelty, his, face it, evil nature is NOT > > an act. He IS as reprehensible as he seems. Carol: > Okay, here's where we get into opinion rather than interpretation. > What cruelty? Do you mean his sarcasm and his unfair point deductions > or his hatred of Harry or something else? Can you show me a single > instance of Snape's ostensible cruelty that's comparable to Umbridge's > detentions or her sending Dementors after Harry or her intention to > Crucio him, or to Bellatrix's actual Crucio of Neville? Snape *saved* > Harry from a Crucio? How is that cruelty? I think "reprehensible" is a > matter of opinion here. Just show me any actual cruelty, please, and > I'll show you nastiness and a mean disposition and a penchant for > revenge not very different from hermione's. Not admirable, I'll grant > you, but a far cry from Umbridge or Bellatrix or Barty Jr., all of > whom are actual sadists and all of whom, unlike Snape, are in some way > associated with the Cruciatus curse. And I almost forgot Voldemort, > from whose clutches Snape has saved Harry more than once. If you call > Snape's mean-spirited detentions cruel, we'll just have to agree to > disagree. Bart: Not all evil is equal in degree. Snape satisfies his sadism in petty ways, such as using his position to arbitrarily punish those he dislikes while looking the other way with those he likes. His cruelty to Sirius is obvious. When he takes over Lupin's class, he attempts to betray Lupin's trust. Consider when he arbitrarily destroyed Harry's work; this shows an inner evil. Bart: > He did what Dumbledore said not because Dumbledore said it, but > because Dumbledore was right. His arguments with Dumbledore showed > that he was quite capable of disobeying Dumbledore if he disagreed. > And it was clear that Dumbledore could not trust him 100%; he not only > dropped Harry's Occlumancy lessons, but, as is obvious through > context, failed to tell Dumbledore that he had. But, while Dumbledore > could not always trust the man, he DID know where his loyalties lay, > and that is where he found Snape to be trustworthy. Carol: > But DD could and *did* trust Snape completely. there was every reason > to drop the Occlumency lessons after Harry betrayed Snape's trust by > entering the Pensieve. In context. He trusts that Snape is loyal to the Order. Snape dropped the Occlumancy lessons, but did not tell Dumbledore that he had done so. Bart P.S. I think Snape is a more interesting character than Harry. There, I said it! From sydpad at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 12:10:14 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:10:14 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162575 > Jen: Grey was originally a variation on DDM and started out as a > character study because one component of DDM is difficult for me to > believe: Snape switched sides, pledged loyalty to Dumbledore and > dutifully moved forward without ever allowing his DE days or reasons > for joining Voldemort to affect him again. Sydney: Oh, yeah! And I think this is what grates on people who imagine DDM!Snape as cuddly guy who 'became good' or something. But I think the exact same things that drove Snape to join the DE's are still driving him, and they're not happy fluffy things: they're rage, shame, hatred, self-destruction, and a thirst for vengeance. It's just pointed the other way. I guess personally I see Snape as an extremist, and like a lot of extremists it's not so much the cause in the abstract that's attractive as the opportunity to lose himself in it and keep him from facing up to his own issues. And like a lot of extremists he flips quantumly from one extreme end of the spectrum to the other without even passing through the space between. I think this is going to play out in Book VII in terms of Harry's final confrontation with Voldemort and the tactics that he uses and the whole "Power of Love" thing. Because at present Harry's drive against Voldemort is much closer to Snape's than to Dumbledore's. It's all about anger and revenge. That's where the whole Draco thing gets so interesting because you can see Dumbledore's 'love' method of fighting in action-- he empathises with Draco and draws him in, which is exactly what I think he did with Snape. On the symbolic level insofar as Rowlings using the whole Jungian Shadow thing, it's about integrating the dark side rather than rejecting it. Not that I'm picturing of course a denoument where Harry's Voldemort's therapist or something! The Voldemort plots always seem to float off into dream-symbolism territory and I guess, I dunno, Harry will open the Room of Love and Voldemort's head will explode or something like with the Arc of the Covenant. Jen: > I'm not saying Snape > contemplates a return to Voldemort or is playing both sides, just > proposing Snape's past is wreaking havoc with both Dumbledore's > carefully laid plans and their relationship in HBP. Sydney: I'd say story-wise that's just too complicated and off-screen, and too much about Snape in way that has nothing to do with Harry. Not that it's not possible, just that, I can't see the bit where the crucial evidence of what was going on in HBP comes out and Harry's like, *gasp!* and it's got a nice clear bang. > Jen: I'm not convinced the plan was to kill Dumbledore from the > moment the UV was taken. Sydney: I'm definitely not married to any specific kill-Dumbledore theory, although I love Horcrux!Dumbledore, becuase it's pretty simple and sets up cool stuff for Harry in the next book. I mean, if every time a Horcrux is destroyed a mini-Voldemort soul-bit has to be fought or tries to possess someone like the Diary did Ginny, that would be sooo cool. But it's just a theory. There's no end of permutations to what could have happened. But they all have to factor in DDM!Snape . > > Jen: Here's one thing that doesn't work for me with DDM. Snape was > not hit with the third clause of the Vow. He *chose* to take the Vow > and from what we know so far in canon, the UV was not ordered by > either Dumbledore or Voldemort since Snape was surprised to see > Narcissa. Sydney: Ditto the Vow-- I really don't know quite what was up with it (although it could be argued that magically speaking, he couldn't opt out half-way through and was stuck with the last part). Snape definitely didn't have to take the Vow. I have a lot of vague theories about that... my most crazy one, if you'd like to hear it, is that he actually took the vow to force the DADA job issue. I know, I know, it sounds mental, but the DADA job is the one thing Snape really seems to be after for some mysterious reason, and the Vow definitely would have forced Dumbledore's hand. And the next thing we see is Dumbledore going off to hire himself a Potions guy. Then there's Suicidal!Snape... (cuddles suicidal!Snape)... but it's more of a cheap fling than a theory I'm totally married to! Jen: > If it's not love of Draco, maybe Narcissa is the reason he can't > refuse and that could be an interesting conflict of interest if he > placed Narcissa before Dumbledore. Sydney: The Narcissa angle is just too left-field for me. It just doesn't seem to tie thematically in with anything we've seen with Snape or the story in general, and I can't see an angle for Harry at all. It would be a better storyline for a peripheral character, but Snape seems so central to the Big Themes it just feels weird to me. Jen: > This scene is often compared to the scene with Harry feeding potion > and I do like the symmetry there. One difference is that Dumbledore > doesn't order Snape to do anything or remind him in a firm voice what > he agreed to do with a "Severus...your word." No. He pleads, begs, > entreats, he doesn't sound like a man sure what Snape will do in this > *particular situation* no matter how much he trusts Snape is on his > side and not Voldemort's. Sydney: In your theory, is Dumbledore begging for Snape to kill him, or not to kill him? Because the one scenario where Dumbledore could totally trust Snape completely as being on his side but still have to plead, IMO, is the "do this awful thing for me" scenario. Harry wasn't sure he was feeding Dumbledore poison, plus he didn't have a chance to really think about the situation; whereas whatever is going on between Snape and Dumbledore here, it's something they've hashed over before. > Jen: I didn't say Snape keeps himself out of trouble or doesn't > stick his nose into things because I agree with you he's everywhere > at Hogwarts. But when it comes to Order duties he is exempt and when > it comes to DE duties he doesn't have to participate Sydney: But I don't think this is how JKR characterises people. She gives them a few very strong character traits and lets them run. And he's not exempt when it comes to the Order at least-- Sirius, as I said, talks of Snape being "out there risking his life", and he'd be the last guy to exaggerate this. -- Sydney, reminded by husband that it's a really beautiful day and we should go OUT RIGHT NOW okay okay! From scarah at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 13:13:26 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 05:13:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612090513y18e3043dm3aa93059301045a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162576 This is taking a long time to respond to all of these posts, sorry if I neglected to address anything, it just got really long. Carol stares in astonishment and responds: No wonder you don't accept DDM!Snape if that's your impression of the (highly varied) theory. I do think that a few people see everything Snape says or does as an act, but I've never encountered a single person who argues that Snape loves freedom for all or that his raison d'existence is the love of Dumbledore. What I see, and what I think most DDM!Snapers see, is a deeply passionate, deeply hurt, deeply resentful man who nevertheless is capable of remorse and loyalty and courage, who, for his own personal reasons, is willing to risk his life to help the one man who trusts him completely bring down Voldemort. The explanations for his remorse and loyalty vary. Sarah: OK, I think more and more all the time that I am DDM. In a *way.* ;) I don't think much of this really negates anything about OFH. (I'd personally assign a bit less emo to Snape, but that's really just personal preference which doesn't affect the story all that much.) I'm sure you have your own interpretation of "for his own personal reasons," and so do I. I think there are plot devices that basically make Snape be DDM whether he likes it or not. He has other choices of course, but they don't include being as comfortable and/or alive and/or non-imprisoned as he has hanging out with Dumbledore. Carol: The motives I see, and I think most DDM!Snapers see in these scenes, are a desire to protect Draco (not just because of the UV, which he took in the first place for the same reason) and to protect Harry, however much he hates him, because he's the only one who can bring down Voldemort. Sarah: If he's really Dumbledore's man, how could he let himself be put in a position to be making a pact with bad guys to help kill Dumbledore? I see three possibilities. 1. He's clueless and just made a mistake by letting the girls put him on the spot. I don't believe this for a second. 2. He believes that Dumbledore would rather he protect Draco over Dumbledore himself. I think that's a bit of a stretch. 3. As I have already proposed and personally believe, he knows what Narcissa is asking, and it doesn't conflict (much, maybe) with what Dumbledore has already asked of Snape. Carol: There must be a reason other than the Life Debt, which DD could easily have explained to Harry when he had the chance as the reason he trusts Snape *completely.* Sarah: If Dumbledore had a plausible, non-emotional, fact-based reason for why he trusts Snape, the one thing he could *never* do is reveal it to Harry Potter, failure at all things Occlumentic. (If that is a word.) I assume you think a big reason for Dumbledore staging his big murder is to progress Snape into new heights of Voldemort's trust. (This could be a wrong assumption, if it is forgive me, but it seems to be a cornerstone of DDM, and I believe it too.) If that's the case, providing Voldemort (via Harry's unprotected mind) with a rational reason to distrust Snape spells game over. Dumbledore hesitates when he's talking to Harry about this, because understandably he probably thinks it's not fair to Harry to stay in the dark, then after realizing it's bad strategy he gives Harry the stock answer. Carol: But that relatively simple plot device does not explain Snape's passionate intensity, nor the look of hatred and revulsion, nor his saving Harry from the Crucio. OFH!Snape wouldn't care what happened to Harry; he only wants to save his own skin, Peter Pettigrew-style. Sarah: Passionate intensity? Like when he didn't get the Order of Merlin? It's not at odds with hatred and revulsion at all, I wouldn't think. I put more reasons upthread, but no one really likes to do dirty work is another very general one. I think that if LDS is true, Dumbledore probably saved Snape by transferring his debt onto Harry. Plenty of reason to care what happens to Harry. Hatred and revulsion could even be caused in part due to the knowledge that Snape no longer will have proximity to watch Harry, of all things. No reason not to accept Harry's torture though, except that it tends to incapacitate one, leaving him open to other spells from the DEs still on premises. Carol: And, again, if the Life Debt were DD's sole reason for trusting Snape *completely*, which involves more than trusting him not to kill Harry, why not tell Harry when he had the chance? After all, Harry has known about the Life Debt since SS/PS. Sarah: Where Dumbledore mentioned it pretty casually, where we might not put it together. :) And again, because Harry fails Occlumency. Voldemort can presumably shuffle Harry's brain whenever he likes. And that's one thing that Dumbledore cannot have Voldemort finding out. Magpie: I don't see how OFH/LiD is not looking for wiggle room. You need wiggle room if you're OFY always. People who are out for themselves don't make Unbreakable Vows to other people. Sarah: I kind of answered this already, but I think what is being asked in the UV is within Snape's pre-established boundaries, which are concurrent with what he has to do in order to not self-eviscerate, therefore he doesn't have a problem doing it. Magpie: That's why, imo, OFH!Snape arguments always have to focus on the fact that he's agreeing to kill Dumbledore instead of the more important aspect, which is what happens if he doesn't do as he's promised. Sarah: I think the more important aspect is what he's promised Dumbledore, which is basically the same thing he's promising Narcissa. Magpie: Snape's entire personality disappears replaced by a guy who's got to be explained from top to bottom through exposition or our own imagination. Yes, Rowling has kept us from guessing Snape's secret. But she's also *got* us guessing by giving us actual clues to work with. Sarah: LDS suffers from this problem no more badly than DDM or ESE, and possibly less so. And there are actual clues. A theory should seek to solve problems, right? Problem: Snape keeps saving Harry even though he hates him. If Snape were a huge fan of all that is Dumbledore, maybe he'd be convinced that Harry and Neville aren't jerks since they are liked by Dumbledore. Problem: introduction to important Life Debt magic which has yet to play out. Problem: no one knows what that blasted Snape is up to. There are more, but this is just a theory that would wrap up a lot of things. Magpie: Dumbledore "imposing" on Snape--he's not imposing on him if he knows Snape's going to kill Dumbledore to save himself. It doesn't matter if it's according to Dumbledore's plan as well. Snape's not doing him a favor. DDM!Snape has reason to consider not fulfilling the vow even if it means death to himself. Sarah: Of course he does. It's entirely possible I have misrepresented my argument. I know I said before that he didn't have "choice one," but in fact he does. It's just that none of them will probably have very good results. Snape has several choices here. He can wait for Draco to kill Dumbledore. If Draco manages to do that before Dumbledore dies of other causes, that might be OK for Snape. (Depends on what he promised Dumbledore, he could have said several things there.) Snape can also wait for the poison to kill Dumbledore. This wouldn't be very good for DDM or LDS since it may allow Harry to become Dumbledore's murderer, though I'm not sure about that. Another thing Snape can do is attempt to revive or cure Dumbledore. If Dumbledore has been working to establish Snape's DE status better than ever before, as I believe, then doing this in front of the witnesses present would not be good for just about anyone involved. Magpie: I admit I haven't quite understood the explanation for the UV in this theory. It seems like it only understands why Snape would agree to kill Dumbledore rather than explaining why he'd agree to die if he didn't kill Dumbledore. Sarah: It makes sense if and only if LDS's Life Debt was transferred to Harry. Dumbledore's mission in life is to defeat Voldemort. Harry is the weapon. Having a protector for Harry therefore helps the cause. Having a spy who outlives Dumbledore also helps the cause. Dumbledore's plan is convoluted, and related to the fact he's going to drop dead of various issues any minute anyway. If Dumbledore told Snape, look, your best bet for protecting Harry is to kill me blah blah, then LDS Snape already has to do it to escape other gnarly magical consequences which may or may not include death, or may be "worse." Debbie: One person's beauty is another's deep disappointment. At bottom, I think we are all here because JKR is a character-driven writer. Sarah: Really? :D I always liked her characters but thought she was a plot driven writer. Hmm, I think Snape will be solved by plot, others think he will be solved by his character traits! Imagine that. Magpie: I don't know if this is the classified part, but I just don't get what the Life Debt could possibly do that makes Snape need to fulfill it so badly. Sarah: Judging by the introduction of the UV, I would say it's possible that it is death at the least. Not written in stone, just possible. Sarah From rklarreich at aol.com Sat Dec 9 06:44:29 2006 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:44:29 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162577 I'm a bit behind on posts right now, but I see several people have been promising in advance to write "I was wrong posts" if necessary after the final book comes out: > > Neri: > > Well, if it's any consolation, it looks like your "I was wrong" > post > > will be lost among hundreds of other such posts from all the rest > of > > the DDM!Snapers, while my "I was wrong" post isn't going to enjoy > > that advantage . > > > > Alla: > > LOL. I know I would be dissapointed if Snape would be DD!M, but why > would I be upset to write my I was wrong letter? > > This is all for fun anyways. I promise to write mine the moment after > we will reopen for business after book 7 is out if needed :) Roberta: To save everyone (well, some of us, but we don't know which ones) some time later, I have drawn up the following template for you to follow: To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Date: July 8, 2007 [wishful thinking] Subject: I was wrong Hello everyone, Well, I admit it. I was wrong. I was so sure Snape was [ESE!/OFH!/LID!/Grey!/DDM!]. I have just finished Harry Potter and the [TBA] and I am reeling with shock. Snape was [ESE!/OFH!/LID!/Grey!/DDM!] after all!!! I just can't believe it. Sad as I am to do so, I must now say farewell to [ACID POPS/LOLLIPOPS/DRIBBLE SHADOWS/HMS DESIRE]. I must say, [JKR really cheated us/JKR really convinced me]. As for how I feel about Snape now, I think [he deserved everything he got/he really redeemed himself]. I'm [glad/sorry] he's [dead/rotting in Azkaban/ensconced as a Healer at St. Mungo's/outlawed from the wizard world/new headmaster of Durmstrang/new bartender at the Hog's Head]. That scene where [he saved Harry's life/he tried to kill Harry/Harry forgave him/he told Harry he'd always loved Lily/he turned on Harry right after Harry killed Voldemort/he and Harry went to the Three Broomsticks and had a butterbeer] just [disgusted me/made the tears roll down my cheeks]. OK, my order of crow has just arrived, so excuse me while I go and [reread the book/reread all seven books/turn the book into fertilizer/figure out what I'm going to do with the rest of my life]. [your name here], who still can't quite believe Snape really is [ESE!/OFH!/LID!/Grey!/DDM!]. *** Respectfully submitted, Roberta, who has her own opinions about Snape but is being careful not to make predictions these days so she doesn't have to write one of those From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 9 14:58:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:58:03 -0000 Subject: Unbreakable Vow (was Snape on the Tower) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162579 Nikkalmati: > I have said before, and I stick with it, that SS did not have a clue what Draco's task was before he took the vow. (No one else seems willing to jump on the bandwagon, however). SS wanted and needed to know that information and promising to protect Draco was a small price to pay. Ceridwen: I waver on whether Snape knew Draco's task or not. I've read a lot of convincing arguements on both sides. He's in LV's inner circle - How is this so? He was able to slither out of being killed or tortured when he went back late in GoF, but that doesn't mean LV was taken in hook, line and sinker. As you say, PP is at Spinner's End for a reason. So I'm not certain that Snape *was informed* of Draco's task. I think he might have guessed. Since he is the only DE we know of at Hogwarts to this point, he may have been informed that Draco had a task. But he may only have been told this much because of his proximity. He may have had an idea, even a very good idea, since he does know some of the DE gossip, as he says to Bellatrix (he knows they are discussing him behind his back). He probably knew speculation as well. And Draco receiving a task after his father displeased LV in two ways would have set the rumor mills churning. So, he has a good idea of the general plot. Now to get the specifics... Nikkalmati: > Of course, we know that the protective mother went a little over the top in ensuring Draco's life by trapping SS into a vow he did not intend and did not understand at the time. Ceridwen: Which explains the twitch for me just fine. He had agreed to the first two provisions, now she is starting on a third that she didn't warn him about. Being smart enough to catch onto things, he knows it will have something to do with what he guesses in general is Draco's mission. He's already said that he knows, he's already agreed to the first two provisions, both casually and under a vow - here it comes, the huge problem. (And I'm with Carol and others who believe that this is at or near the moment that Slughorn agrees to return to teach Potions. Snape has just become the holder of the cursed DADA position. The curse is setting him up. It seems like an elegant twist at this point when we don't know about the curse for sure, and we are not shown the first four chapters playing out together.) Nikkalmati: > You would have to assume he is telling the truth to the Black sisters when it appears he is lying through his teeth throughout the scene (unless he is ESE) and you have to assume that LV trusts him with his plan, which is also doubtful when you note PP is sent to spy on SS and that Bella is astonished that LV would tell SS. Surely she know the relative position of the members of the inner circle. Ceridwen: He apparently tells a hodgepodge of truth and lies. He may have messed up at one point by claiming responsibility for Sirius's death. He seems to be back-pedaling to me when he gives credit for the actual killing to Bellatrix. That perceived back-pedaling made me pay a little closer attention to what he was saying. Wish I knew what exactly happened, or supposedly happened, to Emmaline Vance! So hard to evaluate with only "I killed Sirius... actually, I laid the groundwork but you, dear Bella, did the deed'. I don't assume that LV trused Snape with anything. This was the guy who didn't bother to return on time; this was the guy who was 'in Dumbledore's pocket' all those years; see full list in Spinner's End. Wormtail is suddenly living with Snape. As if they were such buddies back in school! I don't think so. Wormtail is there to spy on Snape. He's there gratefully, I think, because he doesn't want to do something else. Notice his physical condition. Life hasn't been easy as the servant of the Dark Lord. And, why assume that Snape is in any Inner Circle? Sure, there must be degrees of Death Eater placement, since Fenrir and the Three Stooges on the tower defer to Snape. But, I don't know about any Inner Circle of trusted advisors who are privy to LV's plans. This plan, in particular, seems to be restricted to those who need to know - Draco, and Narcissa. I think the intention of Narcissa knowing at all is to get the bad news to Lucius. Draco probably won't go to Daddy for help so it's up to Narcissa to provide mounting stress for the imprisoned Lucius. Snape was probably told a little something, since he is both a friend of the Malfoys, and the only DE we know of at Hogwarts at this point. It would be necessary for him to know something. But, not the entire plan, not the specifics, and not that DEs should, by Draco's plan, be brought in. Maybe he'll tell Lucius. And, since it seems that he may have witnessed LV's anger over the diary incident based on Dumbledore's certainty that LV's wrath was something to behold, so he may have heard LV gnashing his teeth and vowing that he would get Draco killed to punish Lucius. He seems sure of this himself when he is talking to Narcissa. Nikkalmati: > They then had to decide what to do about it. They hoped that SS would be able to get close to Draco and thwart him, but we know why that didn't work out. The alternate plan must have been, if worse came to worse, to kill DD rather than let SS die or let Draco kill him. Ceridwen: I agree that there was a plan for Snape to intervene with Draco before it was too late, and the necklace incident made it that much more urgent that this be done. I don't know if there was a set plan for Snape to kill Dumbledore. I do think there was a plan to minimize damage in any way possible, it's just that the only way to do that in the end was for Snape to kill Dumbledore and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. DD may have known it could come to this. I personally think he did know that this could be the result, even before the UV, and was busy tying up loose ends all year. Ceridwen ~ sorry this is so long! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 15:19:11 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:19:11 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162580 > Betsy Hp: > Ah, the Peter Pettigrew issue. This is the big large stinky rat > doing the back swim in the LiD theory's chardonnay. Because if the > Life-Debt is sooo incredibly strong it makes Snape risk himself for > people he despises, if the Life-Debt is such an unbreakable bit of > magic it leads Dumbledore to decide he can now trust that evil > Professor Snape *completely*... then how the *hell* did Peter > Pettigrew get away with the graveyard scene at the end of GoF?!? > Neri: First, Peter is certainly affected by the Life Debt. In GoF Ch. 1 he risks Voldemort's wrath, trying to convince him not to use Harry for the plot. Secondly, when Peter stabs Harry in the graveyard, it is not at all certain that he's doing Harry a disservice. The Gleam of Triumph in Dumbledore's Eyes when he hears about it suggests otherwise. Whatever The Gleam means exactly, we are probably going to discover some new interesting details about the graveyard scene in Book 7. Thirdly, Harry was extremely lucky to get away from all the DEs in the graveyard. They all missed him when he ran between the gravestones. I won't be surprised to find in Book 7 that they were Confounded from behind. But most of all, I suspect that Snape's Life Debt is an upgraded version, relative to the one Peter has. This is because Snape is already on his second chance from the Life Debt. Snape originally owed his Debt to James, and James was killed because of information that Snape had passed to Voldemort. So some procedure of transferring the Debt from James to Harry must have took place, and I imagine this procedure would not be simple matter at all, when talking about such deep and impenetrable magic. I'd estimate that Snape's Debt acquired considerable interest when it was passed to Harry. Neri From scarah at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 18:06:16 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:06:16 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612091006n368d2128hd4c07cb386cc7dfc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162581 Neri: First, Peter is certainly affected by the Life Debt. In GoF Ch. 1 he risks Voldemort's wrath, trying to convince him not to use Harry for the plot. Secondly, when Peter stabs Harry in the graveyard, it is not at all certain that he's doing Harry a disservice. The Gleam of Triumph in Dumbledore's Eyes when he hears about it suggests otherwise. Sarah: Oh, that's one thing I missed to address. I agree here, and none of this led to Harry dying. If Peter ever did kill Harry or entrap him so that Voldemort did, I would be very interested to see what would happen to Peter. There's also the strong possibility that this whole resurrection business is what Dumbledore wants anyway, independent of whose blood is used. They need a walking, talking target rather than a shadow on the forest floor, right? Dumbledore might just be glad Voldemort used Harry (who Dumbledore knows to be Voldemort's enemy) as the blood of his enemy, rather than the blood of someone he thinks to be his enemy but isn't really so much. Neri: But most of all, I suspect that Snape's Life Debt is an upgraded version, relative to the one Peter has. This is because Snape is already on his second chance from the Life Debt. Snape originally owed his Debt to James, and James was killed because of information that Snape had passed to Voldemort. So some procedure of transferring the Debt from James to Harry must have took place, and I imagine this procedure would not be simple matter at all, when talking about such deep and impenetrable magic. I'd estimate that Snape's Debt acquired considerable interest when it was passed to Harry. Sarah: I think I could be down with that idea. It's either that, or Peter is just dumber than Snape. I think Peter is a) dumb, and b) dumber than Snape, but c) usually not quite as dumb as he looks. Also, assuming all the interaction between Snape and Dumbledore occurred to try and troubleshoot the Life Debt and figure out what they could do, and then Dumbledore pulled some elaborate magic to flip it around, Snape is probably just better educated and informed with regard to the Life Debt magic than Peter is. Like the symbolism of their living situation in HBP, they are both in the same flat (boat), but Snape has the shelves full of books (knowledge) and the authority and power, and Peter doesn't. Sarah From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 9 18:05:41 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:05:41 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) References: <3202590612090513y18e3043dm3aa93059301045a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005501c71bbc$a413a160$bb72400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162582 > Magpie: > I don't see how OFH/LiD is not looking for wiggle room. You need > wiggle room if you're OFY always. People who are out for themselves > don't make Unbreakable Vows to other people. > > Sarah: > I kind of answered this already, but I think what is being asked in > the UV is within Snape's pre-established boundaries, which are > concurrent with what he has to do in order to not self-eviscerate, > therefore he doesn't have a problem doing it. Magpie: But it's the self-eviscerate that's the problem, not agreeing to kill Dumbledore. If he doesn't want to eviscerate himself why is he taking a suicide pact? > Magpie: > That's why, imo, OFH!Snape arguments always have to focus on the > fact that he's agreeing to kill Dumbledore instead of the more > important aspect, which is what happens if he doesn't do as he's > promised. > > Sarah: > I think the more important aspect is what he's promised Dumbledore, > which is basically the same thing he's promising Narcissa. Magpie: And as I said to Alla yes, killing Dumbledore is important but in the specific context of Snape being out for himself the suicide nature is the sticking point. Why is someone who is trying to avoid being destroyed agreeing to his own death? I know that the idea is that Snape would be planning to kill Dumbledore and so fulfill the Vow, but the risk is still there that something would prevent it or circumstances would change. If Snape had just agreed to kill Dumbledore without the magical vow, it wouldn't be an issue. > Magpie: > Snape's > entire personality disappears replaced by a guy who's got to be > explained from top to bottom through exposition or our own > imagination. Yes, Rowling has kept us from guessing Snape's secret. > But she's also *got* us guessing by giving us actual clues to work > with. > > Sarah: > LDS suffers from this problem no more badly than DDM or ESE, and > possibly less so. And there are actual clues. A theory should seek > to solve problems, right? Problem: Snape keeps saving Harry even > though he hates him. If Snape were a huge fan of all that is > Dumbledore, maybe he'd be convinced that Harry and Neville aren't > jerks since they are liked by Dumbledore. Problem: introduction to > important Life Debt magic which has yet to play out. Problem: no one > knows what that blasted Snape is up to. There are more, but this is > just a theory that would wrap up a lot of things. Magpie: I don't think this at all shows that LDS avoids the problems DDM Snape doesn't. The DDM theory is built from exactly these things. DDM is not "a huge fan of all that is Dumbledore." That's a straw DDM you're referring to, where he's a nice guy and being DDM means he mirrors Dumbledore's feelings and looks to him for all things, but he clearly doesn't and doesn't have to--he's more dynamic for not being that. (Harry, too, is DDM without understanding or agreeing with Dumbledore's nature half the time.) The way DDM actually answers these questions is that Snape is driven by remorse over the events at Godric's Hollow, which fuels both his desire to protect Harry and his hatred of him. It made him switch sides, and he became loyal to Dumbledore. He has no reason to like Harry or Neville personally (any more than Harry has come to give Snape a chance since DD likes him). This is all connected to the Life Debt playing out in terms of Snape's personality. > Magpie: > I admit I haven't quite understood the explanation for the UV in > this theory. It seems like it only understands why Snape would agree > to kill Dumbledore rather than explaining why he'd agree to die if > he didn't kill Dumbledore. > > Sarah: > It makes sense if and only if LDS's Life Debt was transferred to > Harry. Dumbledore's mission in life is to defeat Voldemort. Harry is > the weapon. Having a protector for Harry therefore helps the cause. > Having a spy who outlives Dumbledore also helps the cause. > Dumbledore's plan is convoluted, and related to the fact he's going to > drop dead of various issues any minute anyway. If Dumbledore told > Snape, look, your best bet for protecting Harry is to kill me blah > blah, then LDS Snape already has to do it to escape other gnarly > magical consequences which may or may not include death, or may be > "worse." Magpie: So basically we have to make up a fate worse than death that Snape is avoiding by taking a death vow? That seems like a lot for me to be assuming that I haven't seen any dramatic references to in canon. Especially since canon directly contradicts it. Snape's Life Debt was to James, not Harry. James died partially as a result of Snape's own actions and nothing bad happened to Snape literally. I think the transferrence of the debt to Harry is purely the doing of Snape's own emotions. The Debt itself, if it's the kind of magical contract you describe here, wouldn't hop over to Harry. It would play out on Snape at James' death and he would die or something worse. He didn't. You yourself in another post are referring to complications like "upgraded versions" and "second chances" which take any teeth out of it as a plot device. Unlike the kind of magical contract we see in GoF (the point of it being that it's a simple way to make Harry have to participate) it's fifteen pages of legalese with outclauses and interest gained. It's no longer a magical contract. It works beautifully as a metaphor for DDM's own feelings, however.:-) -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 9 20:36:47 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:47 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162583 > Sydney: > Oh, yeah! And I think this is what grates on people who imagine > DDM!Snape as cuddly guy who 'became good' or something. Jen: Noble Snape willing-to-die-for-the-cause is difficult to take, including willingness to die for Draco. And while I'm on the subject, any version of Snape as misunderstood, diamond in the rough or scapegoated, any version where the outside is one way and the inside is another makes DDM ring false for me, I find myself wanting him to be evil just so he doesn't have to suffer what I see as a makeover. I'm opinionated on this one...no one can tell, right? Sydney: > But I think the exact same things that drove Snape to join the DE's > are still driving him, and they're not happy fluffy things: > they're rage, shame, hatred, self-destruction, and a thirst for > vengeance. It's just pointed the other way. I guess personally I > see Snape as an extremist, and like a lot of extremists it's not so > much the cause in the abstract that's attractive as the opportunity > to lose himself in it and keep him from facing up to his own > issues. Jen: Now this Snape I recognize. The only thing is Snape's return to Dumbledore was desperation, wanting to stop the process he himself set in motion. So he wasn't turning to lose himself in a cause, he needed *help*. He stayed on, after the Potters were killed and after Voldemort turned to vapor and that part interests me for Grey. Dumbledore didn't accomplish what Snape wanted, was the fact that DD attempted to save the Potters enough for him? Was the thought of vengeance one day should Voldemort return enough to keep him on Dumbledore's side? The other pratical problem is Snape didn't have options, no money like Lucius or connections and/or money like Karkaroff, he couldn't buy his way into another job and upgrade from former DE. Being stuck does not loyalty make and there wasn't a cause going on to lose himself in unless it was the dunderheads. Sydney: > That's where the whole Draco thing gets so interesting because you > can see Dumbledore's 'love' method of fighting in action-- he > empathises with Draco and draws him in, which is exactly what I > think he did with Snape. On the symbolic level insofar as Rowlings > using the whole Jungian Shadow thing, it's about integrating the > dark side rather than rejecting it. Jen: I see this coming into play with Harry and Snape more than Harry and Voldemort (I agree the Room of Love will be the non-killing method of vanquishing Voldemort). Some combination of Harry being tempted to kill a weakened Snape, probably a Voldemort trap, and overcoming the temptation because he finally sees something of Snape in himself. Now here's where I think a struggling-with-his-loyalty Snape or at least a Snape who didn't see eye-to-eye with Dumbledore fits in. See I think Harry could really identify with Snape's dilemma after his own taste of what it was like to work for DD in HBP, what he asked of his followers. Whatever the point of connection I hope it's not Lily. Her empathy of Snape leading to Harry recognizing empathy in himself and Snape's love for Lily is fine as long as Harry and Snape never have to have a *conversation* about it! Ick, ick. Snape > He definitely didn't have to take the Vow. I have a lot of vague > theories about that... my most crazy one, if you'd like to hear it, > is that he actually took the vow to force the DADA job issue. I > know, I know, it sounds mental, but the DADA job is the one thing > Snape really seems to be after for some mysterious reason, and the > Vow definitely would have forced Dumbledore's hand. And the next > thing we see is Dumbledore going off to hire himself a Potions > guy. Jen: I can add extortion to my list of Snape crimes, lol. I sorta see the reverse with Dumbledore needing to get Slughorn for the memory so he moves Snape with some reservations about it and boom, with the DADA curse in play Snape's past comes back to haunt him. He thinks he's above such things and can outwit the DADA and all that, just like he thinks he can outwit Voldemort in the end and *that* will catch up with him, too. Well and I'm still tied to the idea he really does have a fascination with dark arts and that was part of his undoing with Narcissa, that he got caught up in dark magic again. > Sydney: > In your theory, is Dumbledore begging for Snape to kill him, or not > to kill him? Because the one scenario where Dumbledore could > totally trust Snape completely as being on his side but still have > to plead, IMO, is the "do this awful thing for me" scenario. Harry > wasn't sure he was feeding Dumbledore poison, plus he didn't have a > chance to really think about the situation; whereas whatever is > going on between Snape and Dumbledore here, it's something they've > hashed over before. Jen: I'm thinking the awful thing Snape has to do is choose Harry's life over Dumbledore's. Dumbledore is pleading for Snape to save the boys and carry out his plan for Harry from the inside and *Snape* decides what must be done. The only thing that bothers me about this scenario is DD lands on the tower under the Dark Mark and tells Harry to get Snape. Dumbledore knows the death that night will be his own and he doesn't ask Harry to get heroic willing-to-die-for-the-cause Order members, he asks for Snape. But still I like the idea that Snape's redemption will have added value if he wasn't just following an order, that he made a choice and has to live with it. Live with the resentment toward Dumbledore, Harry and even Draco and still follow Dumbledore's plan at the same time. Jen R. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 22:10:33 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 22:10:33 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162584 --- "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > > > But here's the thing, while Ender *was* facing > > > dangerous bullies..., Draco is neither... > > > > > > Harry is in danger of being annoyed. Possibly being > > > pissed off. That's all Draco brings to the table in > > > this scene. > > > >>bboyminn: > > That's part of the point I was trying to make. Draco > > isn't the standard generic schoolyard bully. This is > > more of a grudge match rather than the big kid picking > > on the skinny kid. > > > > The real heart of my argument was in the part you cut. > > The part that went something like this- > > > > "On the train, there is without a doubt a great deal > > of ego, pride, and even machismo involved. But what is > > really happening is, this is everyone's way of telling > > Draco that they will not be cowed or intimidated...." > > > > Betsy Hp: > Aaah. Okay, but this means it isn't about bullying at > all then, right? Not between the Trio and Draco and Co., > anyway. Because, as you say, Draco cannot bully Harry. > It's a grudge match more than anything. And when has > Draco *ever* won one of these grudge matches? > I'm pretty sure that up until HBP, the answer is never. > bboyminn: What we are doing now is dancing around the definition of 'bully'. What you seem to be implying is that a 'bully' is someone who DOES hit you. Yet, I say what is so insidious about bullying is that it is based not necessarily in the act of violences, but in the teasing, threats, harassment, and intimidation. It's not about violence, it's about the attempt to instill fear and invoke negative emotions in you victim. But Draco is the provocateur. He is the one that always initiates the harassment and teasing of Harry & Co. Harry would gladly spend his life ignoring Draco, if only Draco would let him. Why does Draco 'wind Harry up'? Answer: because it does wind Harry up. Draco continues to harass and provoke Harry because it bothers Harry, because it gets a negative response out of him. Because it annoys him. Anything he can do to add to the misery of Harry's life, he is going to do. Unfortunately, Draco, like most bullies, doesn't know where to draw the line. In real-life your friends probably tease you more mercilessly than your enemies, but they know when enough is enough. They no when to draw the line. Draco has never learned this lesson. So he pushes Harry and pushes Harry until he pushes too far, and usually suffers greatly for it. In the specific Train scene, it doesn't matter, by the rule of the playground, if Draco represents a real, genuine, and direct physical threat. What matters is that Draco is threatening and intimidating the gang, and he doesn't know when to stop. You can only take just so much pushing on the playground, before you have to respond. Draco pushed on step too far, and suffered for it. But regardless of how right or wrong, by adult standards, the gangs response was, Draco clearly provoked the situation. He clearly teased, threatened, and tried to intimidate the Trio, and he went too far when he insulted Cedric. You can say that Harry's many attacks on Draco are caused by his own anger, but you must ask, what causes that anger and the answer is Draco. Draco provokes Harry, so naturally Harry responds. It's not like James and Snape where Snape's presences in enough to provoke James to action. It takes a direct and deliberate action on Draco's part to provoke Harry to action, and not just provocation, but provocation 'one step too far'. Most kids when faced with this type of intimidation just bear it. They suffer the humilation and move on. That is until one day when they snap and end up in bell tower with a high powered rifle. Harry on the other hand, has limits, push him past his limit, and be prepared for a furious response. A particular lesson Draco never seems to learn. Draco could have come in with his threats and intimidation and walked away laughing as he often does, but he just couldn't restrain himself. He had to take it one step too far. Harry has consistently shown, that he will not be intimidate. Certainly he allows Draco to harrass and annoy him all the time. It winds him up, but he takes it; miserable as it make him feel. But he won't take much. He won't allow himself to be pushed too far before he responds with a fury. 'Never tickle a sleeping dragon'. And if you do tickle a sleeping Dragon, then you better be prepared for it to wake up and bite your head off. Since Draco is always provoking the situation, I have very little sympathy for him. Since he always starts the teasing, threats, and intimidation; that makes him the bad guy even when he provokes Harry into responding. By extension, that makes Harry the good guy because, when pushed too far, he is responding rather than provoking. As to whether this indicent will prey on anyone's conscience in the future. I think not. Certianly, there will always be an underlying emotional element to it, but kids are resilient and incidences like this are typically left behind and forgotten. Life goes on. > Betsy Hp: > > So I think, in this scene Draco is playing the role of > Scapegoat. The Trio cannot hit the Death Eaters like > this. They cannot hit Voldemort like this. But they > *can* hit Draco. bboyminn: Again, only because Draco provoked them beyond endurance; beyond highly emotional teenage schoolyard endurance. Once Draco took it one step too far, then yes, the underlying emotion response is as much directed at what Draco apprears to be standing for as it is at Draco himself. > Betsy Hp: > > They can show their utter contempt for Draco's side of > the war by treating him with utter contempt (and his > body with utter contempt). So this isn't a reaction > based on terror on the Trio's part. It's rage. Which > is, as I've said, understandable after what the Trio > (and especially Harry) have been through. But it's not > praiseworthy behavior. > bboyminn: This is similar to what I said, then the Twins step on Draco & Co, it is a sign of total disrespect and contempt. I've never bought the 'self defense' aspect of this scene, at least not from the sense of physical self-defense, but it is very much self-defense from the moral, emotional, psychological, and from the self-respect, pride, and dignity perspective. When you are confronted with threatening intimidating behavior, you have to stand your ground. You have to make it perfectly clear that you will not be threatened or intimidated. Why do bullies bully; because they can, and when they realize they can't, they don't. And as a side note: Let's remember that the only thing harmed here on both sides are egos. Being cursed as Draco was, can easily be resolved. Even being stepped on as Draco was, while bruising to the ego, really doesn't cause any harm. Let's be careful not to inflate this beyond what it really is, a schoolyard scuffle. As to the reminder of Betsy_HP's post and her response to Quick_Silver, let me just add, while I don't 100% agree with either, I found both side sbriliantly insightful and interesting. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 9 23:20:46 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 23:20:46 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: <599.4eae7314.32ab8b8c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162585 Susan wrote: > >The most compelling argument to me about Snape being basically self centered and nasty come from JKR herself, who is surprised that there are those amongst us who still think Snape might be a good guy. He is vile, cruel and abusive. His verbal abuse of Harry, Neville and Hermione, his total unfairness as a teacher, his abuse of authority, his hatred of Sirius and his willingness to give ANYONE up to have their soul sucked out is pretty awful. Carol responds: Setting aside the whole argument as to whether abuse of authority and (occasional) unfairness as a teacher constitutes being "evil" (I think it has nothing whatever to do with Snape's loyalties and that JKR is building up the the *appearance* of evil before springing her reversal), I just want to say that Snape's hatred of Sirius Black, who joined James Potter in an unprovoked attack on him in their fifth year and planned the so-called Prank which could have led to Severus's death (or to his becoming a werewolf) is perfectly understandable and in no way makes him evil. Neither Black nor Snape can let go of that schoolboy hatred. More important, the evidence in PoA indicates that Snape thought that Black had betrayed the Potters to their deaths, an act that Snape was apparently trying to prevent--otherwise, his change of sides and decision to spy on LV for DD *before* Godric's Hollow is inexplicable. So hatred of Sirius Black, himself no angel, and whom even Dumbledore believed to have betrayed the Potters, is not evidence that Snape is evil. Harry hates Black, too, for much of the same book. As for the willingness to let a character, any character, have his soul sucked, being evidence for evil, I guess we'd better give up on any hope of Harry's goodness or heroism because he was perfectly willing to have Peter Pettigrew punished in exactly that way: "'Harry, this piece of vermin is the reason you have no parents,' Black snarled. 'This cringing bit of filth would have seen you die too, without turning a hair. You heard him. His own stinking skin meant more to him than your whole family.' ''I know,' Harry panted. 'We'll take him up to the castle. . . . We'll hand him over to the dememntors. . . .'" (PoA Am. ed. 375). So Black wants to murder Pettigrew because he's the reason the Potters are dead; Harry wants to hand him over to what passes for justice in the WW, the soul-sucking Dementors, for the same reason. Snape resists the temptation to murder Black and intends to turn *him* over to the Dementors because he believes Black to be the traitor who betrayed the Potters. (Yes, he hates James, but he didn't want him dead.) He also believed Black to have murdered thirteen people, including PP, whom he at that point did not know to be alive and in that very room as a rat Animagus. So I fail to see how his wish is any different from Harry's. And to point out a further parallel, Harry intended to kill Sirius Black earlier in the scene. Good thing he didn't know Avada Kedavra at that point in his life. And both Lupin and Black were ready to commit murder, a temptation that Snape resisted. They stopped because Harry persuaded them to turn PP over to the Dementors. Too bad that didn't happen, and PP escaped to resurrect Voldemort. Somehow, I can't accept Snape's desire to turn Sirius Black, whom he thinks is a murdering traitor, over to the Dementors as evidence that Snape is evil. And it's interesting that Snape refers to PP as "vermin," the very word Black uses in this scene, in "Spinner's End." Now that he knows who the real betrayer is, his view of him matches Sirius Black's. Carol, who thinks that Black's description of Pettigrew, if we subtract the venom and examine the essence, is the epitome of OFH! From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Dec 10 00:00:51 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:00:51 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > I don't see the Trio as being better than Draco either. They're on > the right side of this particular war, but that was luck of birth > rather than any noble instincts on their parts, IMO. And that the > Trio aren't going through the same sort of self-defining struggle > Draco is going through in HBP suggests that Draco will arrive at a > morally stronger position than at least Ron or Hermione. (Unless > Harry drags them along on his journey which... hey! He probably will! > Hope is reborn!! And I'm deadly serious about that.) Quick_Silver: Excellent points and I find myself in agreement with a lot of what you're saying. As for Draco being morally stronger then Ron or Hermione after his struggle in HBP...interesting...I can't say that I disagree with you, indeed it's a very good point. Especially when you consider how little Ron and Hermione seem to have done in HBP to advance their..."standing" in the good side (at least Harry nearly foiled Draco's plot). >Betsy Hp: > What bothers me about this scene is that (a) it's never revisited. > Harry (our hero) hasn't yet felt bad about his behavior, and at this > point I'm not sure that he will. And (b) so many readers seem to > think such behavior is okay. Which, considering we're grownups, > makes me a bit nervous about the kids out there. I don't like that > decency seems to have gone out of style. Quick_Silver: Two points here...I think partly JK may be tying in Harry's reaction in that scene to the overall character flaw that Harry has of being reckless, hot-headed, heavy with the wand, etc...basically all the things that Snape moans about. Secondly for Harry regretting that scene specifically, I don't think he'll regret that scene specifically unless it somehow comes up. On the other hand I think that Harry will specifically regret the bathroom incident because (if I remember correctly) he still gets a guilty squirm months (or is it weeks?) later. >Betsy Hp: > So, I'm not sure that book 7 will have Harry thinking back to the > train scene in GoF and regreting his behavior once Draco was down. > But perhaps there'll be a moment where he could behave in such a way > again, and this time he chooses not to? And um, explains to Ron and > Hermione why he's hesitating? Quick_Silver: I actually hopes that doesn't happen because I think there's no need for Malfoy to be down in front of Harry...Harry is the only person (aside from Malfoy obviously) that show the choice Malfoy made on the Tower. That at least deserves a handshake between the two of them in my mind. Quick_Silver From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 00:12:03 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:12:03 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162587 > Jen: I'm thinking the awful thing Snape has to do is choose Harry's > life over Dumbledore's. Dumbledore is pleading for Snape to save the > boys and carry out his plan for Harry from the inside and *Snape* > decides what must be done. The only thing that bothers me about this > scenario is DD lands on the tower under the Dark Mark and tells Harry > to get Snape. Dumbledore knows the death that night will be his own > and he doesn't ask Harry to get heroic willing-to-die-for-the-cause > Order members, he asks for Snape. But still I like the idea that > Snape's redemption will have added value if he wasn't just following > an order, that he made a choice and has to live with it. Live with > the resentment toward Dumbledore, Harry and even Draco and still > follow Dumbledore's plan at the same time. zgirnius: It was this sort of reasoning that initially attracted me to the Grey! camp. But then it hit me...what was Dumbledore asking Snape for? As you say, that he save the boys and carry out the plan. This is semantically different from "Kill me, Severus!", but under the circumstances, logically equivalent. So Snape does it. The following orders vs. making a choice seems a false dichotomy, to me. Both are choices. And in either case, Snape knows what Dumbledore wants, and Snape does it. DDM! does not, to me, mean that Snape is an automaton devoid of free will who always does what Dumbledore says. (Nor do I think this is what my fellow DDM!ers think...) So, even if he's given an order, if he carries it out, her's making a choice. From kat7555 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 00:37:49 2006 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:37:49 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162588 > bboyminn: > When you are confronted with threatening intimidating > behavior, you have to stand your ground. You have to make > it perfectly clear that you will not be threatened or > intimidated. Why do bullies bully; because they can, and > when they realize they can't, they don't. > > And as a side note: Let's remember that the only thing > harmed here on both sides are egos. Being cursed as Draco > was, can easily be resolved. Even being stepped on as > Draco was, while bruising to the ego, really doesn't > cause any harm. Let's be careful not to inflate this > beyond what it really is, a schoolyard scuffle. Draco gets no sympathy from me due to his calling Hermione a Mudblood. Harry has less tolerance for bullying at school because he has to put up with Dudley at home. The adults in Harry's life do him no favors because they do nothing to stop the abuse. When kids are left to handle bullies the results can be less than ideal. Kathyk From aratchford at gmail.com Sat Dec 9 21:11:16 2006 From: aratchford at gmail.com (mandrina_q) Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 21:11:16 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162589 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > I think part of the reason Draco doesn't refer back to it is that I doubt he's all that surprised. We the readers (or some of us, anyway ) might expect more noble actions from our heroes, but Draco sees the Trio as loathsome and brutish. So there's nothing in their actions to surprise him. >>>>> I am so glad that this got brought up. I have always had an empathy with Draco that none of the people I know or have spoken to have echoed at all. The fact is, Draco has a unique POV that we, as readers, can choose to analyze or not. Most people choose the 'not' option so as to be that much more enamored with HRH and able to excuse any actions that the golden trio take which might otherwise be deemed less than noble. Absoultely the attack on Draco wold not be any surprise to him. It would be nothing more and nothing less than the next step in a rivalry that, in his eyes, Potter STARTED. Draco spent most of their first encounters trying to befriend Harry (motivations unknown, but mostly I think Draco wanted to be one of the "cool kids" and Harry would be a cool friend to have- celebrity and all that) and Harry is outright vile to him. Draco is completely frustrated with the three of them, because their friendship and ability to do too much and get away with anything challenges his world view. How can a Muggle-born be more adept than he is? How can someone raised by Muggles be a better flier than he is? How can someone who is supposedly meant for greatness choose to be friends with someone as pathetic as a Weasley as opposed to the son of the noble house of Malfoy? Draco doesn't GET them and it pisses him off. By the attack on the train, whatever Draco does to the trio is 'mean' or 'bullying' in the eyes of most readers, but whatever happens to Draco is 'what he deserved'. And that's the perspective we get because Harry is the protagonist. Try seeing any scene through Draco's eyes and you'll see a confused and insecure young man who was groomed to be a person that reality won't let him be. Yeah, he talks a big game, but it's all defensive mechanism IMO. I was thrilled with Harry catching Draco sobbing in HBP because it forces Harry (and readers) to see Draco as a complete person with fears and feelings and the ability to be broken. Harry then takes that to the next level by cursing emotionally broken Draco and making him physically broken Draco (although Harry didn't know what the curse would do, so we can easily forgive him, whereas had Draco used a curse he didn't know the effect of we'd not have dismissed it so easily, I think). I hope that this becomes very important in Bk 7 because it's critical that we not forget the humanity of our enemies. Voldemort has motivations, too. No one sets out and says "let's do some evil today", it always starts with a motivation that the 'evil-doer' finds to be pure, noble, or at least proper. I think we see that as HRH harm Draco & co., but with the purest of intentions. I sincerely hope that HRH begin to understand that the other side is just as human as they are. I think that their deplorable conduct on the train is evidence of the fact that they're not there yet, but perhaps later on we will see evidence of that kind of emotional maturity. By HBP, I think Draco has grown up a lot more than the others have. Just after "Sectumsempra," we see evidence that Harry is maturing to a place where he has the ability to feel bad for hurting Draco and does so immediately. This will make the entire struggle more human and more true. Golly, I ramble... but I hope I'm the only one who adheres to the "Draco's not pure evil and it's not all his fault that he got picked by the other team" philosophy. -MQ From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 00:59:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:59:43 -0000 Subject: Harry and Draco WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162590 Kathyk: > Draco gets no sympathy from me due to his calling Hermione a > Mudblood. Harry has less tolerance for bullying at school because he > has to put up with Dudley at home. The adults in Harry's life do him > no favors because they do nothing to stop the abuse. When kids are > left to handle bullies the results can be less than ideal. Alla: This is general comment of the sort, not directly replying to you, since I agree with you,but I thought that would be good enough place to put it, since I got a bit lost trying to find direct quotations I was thinking of. I keep reading this thread and getting more and more surprised from the analogies of Harry behaving like James towards Draco, etc. >From several posts I got the impressions that in the initial confrontation between them Harry misperceived Draco's intentions, etc. I mean, really from the moment they met Draco insulted **the other kind ** of witches and wizards and lo and behold this is the kind of witch Harry's mom was. And of course afterwards Draco manages to insult Harry's first friend. But even his insult of Ron falls behind Draco insulting muggleborn witches and wizards to me. What else is that if not confrontation? Of course maybe in Draco's head he wanted to become friends with Harry, I cannot pretend to know what was in his head at that time, but even if he did, he revealed what he stands for to Harry. I am not surprised at all that Harry did not want to be friends with the bigot, I really don't. Harry probably already started to learn that Draco has a human side to him, but I completely disagree as I always do that Harry misinterpreted the part of Draco's personality that Draco revealed to him earlier. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 01:15:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:15:43 -0000 Subject: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: <457A4FE6.1050603@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162591 Bart wrote: > justcarol67 wrote: > >>Snape was clearly taken in by the philosophy of the Death Eaters, having the basic self-conception, "I'm better than everybody else; why doesn't everybody recognize it?". Carol responds: Whoops. I didn't say that. I was quoting you! > > Carol earlier: > > Can you supply some canon here to connect these two ideas? I don't see how Snape's view of himself (the Half-Blood Prince?) relates to Voldemort's ostensible philosophy of pureblood superiority. Regulus Black would have been taken in by this philosophy, but why young Snape? I think what he wanted was recognition and acceptance (and possibly revenge against certain Gryffindor opponents of LV). Carol again: Okay. This part I did say. :-) > Bart wrote: > Recognition and acceptance, certainly. Calling himself The Half-Blood Prince shows his sensitivity about his muggle father. Classic egotist masquerading an inferiority complex. Carol responds: I know this is just speculation based on the shouting man in Snape's childhood memory being Grandpa Prince rather than Tobias (surely Harry would have recognized the man as a Muggle by his clothing), but I don't think his Muggle father is in the picture. I think the Pureblood Princes have treated their Half-blood grandson rather badly and the nickname he gives himself is a kind of compensatory gesture (I may be a Half-blood, but I'm still a Prince). I don't see the egotism, either. His talents and intelligence are real. What I do see is a desire for recognition that he has yet to receive--and for Dumbledore's approval, which he receives to some degree throughout the books. He does express disagreement with Dumbledore on at least two occasions, but he ends up doing what DD wants. "Dumbledore trusts me!" he tells Fake!Moody in GoF. And, clearly, DD's trust is very important to him, whether he's DD's man or not. (And, of course, I think he is.) > > Bart: > His criticism of the pupils, of other professors, and building up of himself occurs throughout the series. Do you really need for me to come up with examples? Carol: Criticizing others, no. But do note the variety of people he criticizes, including Peter Pettigrew and Bellatrix. He even pushes Umbridge to the point where she puts him on probation. But "building up of himself"? Yes, please. I would like some examples--other than "I, the Half-Blood Prince," which is spoken under highly unusual circumstances. > Carol earlier: > > I don't recall his boasting at all on any occasion. Even the HBP speech doesn't involve any gloating about his own abilities, only resentment that Harry would used his own spells against him.) > > Bart: > Damn, I WILL have to look up the quotes. They ARE there, if you look for them. Look, in particular, to when he talks about potions, what he says about Lupin in POA, his attitude towards Sirius in OOTP, just for example. Carol: Me look for evidence to support your argument? Seriously, I do want to see the quotes. I rather suspect you're seeing something in them that I don't see. As for his attitude toward dear Sirius, in PoA, he thinks he's a murdering traitor. In OoP, they can't get past their schoolboy grudges, and if someone called me Snivellus and implied that I was trying to hurt Harry by following DD's orders to teach him Occlumency, I wouldn't be nice to him, either. And how would what he says about Lupin reflect his view of himself, which is what we're talking about here, specifically boasting? > > Carol earlier: > > And how, exactly, can you reconcile "a clear moral and ethical code of his own" (which I agree that he has) with being evil? What is that coed, in your view, and how does it fit with his leader's being a fake? > > Bart: > Many people have moral codes that others consider to be evil. I eat meat, which many consider to be evil. Carol: I think the code of the fundamentalist Muslims, who believe that suicide bombing will grant them a place in Paradise, might be a better example than meat-eating. And I suppose the code of the Death Eaters, if they have one, might qualify. ("Evil, be thou my good.") But I accept DD's view that Snape is now no more a Death Eater than Dumbledore. Tell me, please, what *you* see as Snape's "clear moral and ethical code" and how it's evil. I see a code all right, involving placing yourself in danger for your convictions, righting the wrongs you've done, and repaying debts of honor even to your enemies (the life debt to James). Just how that's evil, though, I can't quite make out. Bart wrote: > I must admit a lot of it is backwards logic; taking Snape's behaviors and attitudes, and asking how they can be reconciled. In the case of Dumbledore speaking of his motivation, Dumbledore can be counted on to give as little information as possible. In this case, one might ask how could Riddle's interpretation of the prophecy drive Snape away, so decisively. The only logical answer is that he showed his true colors, his true hypocrisy. Also note that a big part of the "Voldemort Philosophy" is more than purebloods, halfbloods, and muggle born; he believes that the WW should rule the muggle world. Carol: I don't disagree with you regarding Voldemort. I just accept Dumbledore's words that Snape "returned to our side" spying "at great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow and that the reason he returned was his recognition of the way that LV interpreated the Prophecy. IOW, when he gave LV the information about the Prophecy, he didn't know that LV was going to go infant hunting. Even Harry stated that the obvious thing to do, once LV found out that there were two boys who fit the Prophecy criteria, was to wait and see which boy turned out to be the threat. At any rate, I don't see what LV's hypocrisy has to do with his interpretation of the Prophecy, which is what canon tells us caused Snape to reject LV and go to Dumbledore. Your "logical answer" isn't logical to me. Carol earlier: > > Can you show some canon for this perceived jealousy? DD is hardly Snape's contemporary--he's about 115 years older, more like a great-great-grandfather than any kind of peer or equal, and he's always in a superior position to Snape--headmaster, head of the Order, etc. I don't think that Snape envies Dumbledore: I think that he wants DD's approval and envies *James* > > Bart: > I guess "jealous of Dumbledore" is an overstatement. Carol: Good. Thanks for conceding that. But do you agree that he wants DD's approval and that if he's jealous of anyone, it's James? Bart: I don't believe he holds anything against Dumbledore; it's more against society as a whole. Consider: He clearly was (and continues to be) an extraordinarily talented mage, who should have been able to write his own ticket in the WW. But all we saw was that he was treated with scorn (as opposed to a wizard, such as Dumbledore, who was admired from the time he was a student). Carol: By James and Sirius, do you mean? I think that the Gryffindors had their usual anti-Slytherin prejudice and those who weren't amused by Severus's humiliation were afraid of being hexed by James if they spoke up in Severus's defense. Also, he very clearly didn't want any defenders, as we saw from his reaction to Lily's interference. Scorn? I don't see it. But I do think he wanted recognition, especially from Dumbledore, but the only people who had ever given it to him were the older Slytherins who had allowed him to join their gang (and maybe Slughorn, based on his treatment of Snape in HBP). So, IMO, he joined the Death Eaters at least in part because his Slytherin friends were the only ones who had ever fully appreciated his talents and because he hoped that Voldemort would reward those talents. Pureblood philosophy had nothing to do with it. Bart: With the superficiality clearly shown among many in the WW (particularly by Corn Fudge and his ilk) it is not a stretch that Snapes outward appearance overcame his inner talent in forming the judgment of others. Carol: I don't think his appearance had anything to do with it. For one thing, the older Snape is no longer skinny, stoop-shouldered, and pallid. He's developed a posture and a style of walking (sweeping and swooping) and a tone of voice and a way of looking at people that can silence a classroom command respect (or fear?) even from Death Eaters. Probably by the time he joined the Death Eaters, he was already cultivating this persona--compensation again, but very effective. At any rate, his appearance as a teenager didn't prevent Slughorn from recognizing that he was exceptionally gifted as a potion maker, and his appearance as an adult certainly didn't deter Narcissa from grasping and kissing his hands. Maybe his nerdy appearance led to *James's* contempt for him, but I don't think it would have kept him from getting a job in the WW. Cornelius Fudge certainly doesn't react one way or another to it, only to Snape's losing his temper at one point and showing his Dark Mark at another. We're seeing Snape from Harry's pov, and I don't think he's actually any less attractive than most of the Hogwarts teachers--and more so than Umbridge and Fake!Moody. I think that he was judged as a colleague and equal up until the end of GoF, when McGonagall and a few others discovered, through his own courageous gesture of showing the Dark Mark, that he had been a Death Eater. That's when they became suspicious, not before. Just look at the end of CoS, where he leads them all to show their contempt Lockhart. Carol earlier: > > What cruelty? Do you mean his sarcasm and his unfair point deductions or his hatred of Harry or something else? Can you show me a single instance of Snape's ostensible cruelty that's comparable to Umbridge's detentions or her sending Dementors after Harry or her intention to Crucio him, or to Bellatrix's actual Crucio of Neville? Snape *saved* Harry from a Crucio? How is that cruelty? > > Bart: > Not all evil is equal in degree. Snape satisfies his sadism in petty ways, such as using his position to arbitrarily punish those he dislikes while looking the other way with those he likes. His cruelty to Sirius is obvious. When he takes over Lupin's class, he attempts to betray Lupin's trust. Carol: I don't see the sadism, really. When do we ever see him enjoying taking points the way that Umbridge enjoys her blood-letting detentions or Bella her Crucios? The only example I can think of is "Whoops!" when Harry's correctly made potion slips and breaks. That's a petty bit of revenge, I admit, but he thinks that Harry has been stealing from his supplies and lying about it. But, at any rate, the petty tyranny of a schoolmaster and the sick sadism of a Crucio-loving Death Eater are poles apart. I acknowledge that Snape isn't nice. Neither are a lot of people. But that doesn't make, say, a Scroogelike boss into a murderer. Not nice does not equal evil. If Snape is protecting Harry and risking his life to fight Voldemort, he isn't evil. And God knows, hating Sirius Black, who in Snape's mind tried to kill him when he was a teenager, who humilitated him in public (along with James Potter), attacking him two on one without provocation, does not make him evil, especially since in PoA he believed sirius Black to be a murderer who was trying to kill Harry. If disliking the wonderful Sirius makes a person evil, best turn me over to the Dementors right now. As for Lupin, he knew him to be a werewolf who could endanger the students and believed him to be helping the would-be murderer into the castle. And Sirius Black *was* a would-be murderer who had already shown near-psychotic rage by slashing up the Fat Lady's portrait. Snape was simply wrong about his intended victim, who happened to be a rat Animagus whom Snape could not have suspected was the real Secret Keeper, Peter Pettigrew. What surprises me is snape's remarkable restraint in making the Wolfbane Potion perfectly all year and saying nothing (except assigning that essay, which would enable the more astute students, or at least Hermione, to see their own danger). Evil? Where? He was protecting Harry, the boy he hated. Carol: > > But DD could and *did* trust Snape completely. there was every reason to drop the Occlumency lessons after Harry betrayed Snape's trust by entering the Pensieve. > Bart: > He trusts that Snape is loyal to the Order. Snape dropped > the Occlumancy lessons, but did not tell Dumbledore that he had done so. Carol: Canon for that, please? How is it that DD knows they were dropped and isn't angry with Snape? And "completely" means "completely," in all respects. Yes, he trusts Snape to be loyal to the Order. But he also trusts him with the cursed DADA class, with Harry's life, with Draco's life, with Katie Bell's life, and with his own life at the beginning of HBP. When he comes back from the cave, it's Snape and only Snape that he wants to see. And at the end, he trusts Snape to do whatever he means by "Severus, please." Whether Snape lived up to his trust or not, and I believe he did, Dumbledore did trust him. Completely. We just don't yet know why. > Bart: > > P.S. I think Snape is a more interesting character than Harry. There, I said it! > Carol: Hooray! At least we agree on that! Carol, astonished to discover that this is only her second post of the day From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 01:55:19 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 01:55:19 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162592 Sydney: Sydney wrote: at present Harry's drive against Voldemort is much closer to Snape's than to Dumbledore's. It's all about anger and revenge. That's where the whole Draco thing gets so interesting because you can see Dumbledore's 'love' method of fighting in action-- he empathises with Draco and draws him in, which is exactly what I think he did with Snape. Carol: My version of DDM!Snape isn't quite as conflicted as yours, but I agree with this part. I think that Harry has to look at Snape and see his own image, and then he'll have to forgive Snape in order to get to the Love-as-weapon scenario. And, oddly, I think that Snape knows all this ("No Unforgiveable curses from you!") but doesn't know how to make it come about. Sydney wrote: > Ditto the Vow-- I really don't know quite what was up with it (although it could be argued that magically speaking, he couldn't opt out half-way through and was stuck with the last part). Carol: Right. Just look at the imagery in the last few paragraphs. He's *bound* to Narcissa by *ropes of fire*. I don't know what would have happened if he had tried to get out of the last provision. It's entirely possible that he couldn't and knew it, which could be what the twitch was all about. (That and not wanting to kill Dumbledore or swear to kill him.) Sydney: Snape definitely didn't have to take the Vow. Carol: He didn't have to agree to take it (which he clearly did to protect Draco). I'm not so sure about the third provision. It wasn't in the original bargain, and he might have pointed that out, but it would have undone everything he had accomplished so far. Bella expected him to slither out; Narcissa was counting on him not to do so. Maybe the key factor, if indeed he had a choice, was what Dumbledore would want him to do. And I don't think that DD would have wanted him to reveal his allegiance by refusing to "do the deed," nor do I think that either of them wanted Draco to be forced to cast an AK or die. But, of course, we just don't know what was in Snape's head. I do think it was his own life he was putting on the line, not Dumbledore's. He couldn't have anticipated the circumstances on the tower. He must have thought that DD would find a way out. Assuming, of course, that he is DDM. Sydney: I have a lot of vague theories about that... my most crazy one, if you'd like to hear it, is that he actually took the vow to force the DADA job issue. I know, I know, it sounds mental, but the DADA job is the one thing Snape really seems to be after for some mysterious reason, and the Vow definitely would have forced Dumbledore's hand. And the next thing we see is Dumbledore going off to hire himself a Potions guy. > Carol: See, I think the opposite, that DD had already told Snape he would give him the DADA job if Slughorn, whom DD wanted at Hogwarts for other reasons (not least to become Head of Slytherin House after Snape's inevitable departure) agreed to take the job. Who else could DD have hired to teach DADA, and what better time than now to have his Dark Arts expert pass on his unique knowledge of DADA and Voldemort to the students, especially Harry, than now? Not to mention that the DADA teacher has other duties, like removing curses from Dark objects that make their way into the castle--a likely occurrence if Draco is trying to kill DD. If we look at the timing of those chapters, both "Spinner's End" and "Horace Slughorn" occur around midnight on a Friday night/Saturday morning. I think it's the same night, and that the moment Slughorn agrees to take the Potions position, Snape becomes the DADA teacher. And just at that moment, the DADA curse falls into place in the form of the Unbreakable Vow (or possibly just the last provision). At any rate, I agree with you that the DADA curse and the UV are definitely linked. Carol, who thinks that Snape will have to play a largish role in Book 7 if all are questions are going to be answered and wondering how JKR can manage that without frequent deviations from her Harrycentric narrator From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 03:19:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:19:48 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612090513y18e3043dm3aa93059301045a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162593 Carol earlier: > No wonder you don't accept DDM!Snape if that's your impression of the (highly varied) theory. I do think that a few people see everything Snape says or does as an act, but I've never encountered a single person who argues that Snape loves freedom for all or that his raison d'existence is the love of Dumbledore. What I see, and what I think most DDM!Snapers see, is a deeply passionate, deeply hurt, deeply resentful man who nevertheless is capable of remorse and loyalty and courage, who, for his own personal reasons, is willing to risk his life to help the one man who trusts him completely bring down Voldemort. The explanations for his remorse and loyalty vary. > > Sarah: > OK, I think more and more all the time that I am DDM. In a *way.* ;) Carol: Hooray! S'mores, s'merrier. (Groan.) Sarah: > I don't think much of this really negates anything about OFH. (I'd > personally assign a bit less emo to Snape, but that's really just > personal preference which doesn't affect the story all that much.) > I'm sure you have your own interpretation of "for his own personal > reasons," and so do I. I think there are plot devices that basically make Snape be DDM whether he likes it or not. He has other choices of course, but they don't include being as comfortable and/or alive and/or non-imprisoned as he has hanging out with Dumbledore. Carol responds: The main thing about OFH!Snape that I just can't see is how a man who cares only, or even primarily, for himself would constantly risk his life for a cause or bind himself with a UV that could cost him his life--or send him to Azkaban if he's caught after carrying it out. As for the comfortable job, that's a line he gives Bella. She probably thinks that he weaseled his way out of Azkaban the same way Lucius Malfoy did, with the Imperius plea. She certainly doesn't know that he was cleared of all charges because he was spying for Dumbledore. Until the end of HBP, Snape is not in any danger of being sent to prison. I don't think anyone except the Wizengamot even knows he was a Death Eater. If Rita Skeeter did, she'd certainly have listed him among the controversial hiring decisions made by Dumbledore. Instead, she lists Hagrid, Lupin, and Mad-eye Moody. > Sarah: > If he's really Dumbledore's man, how could he let himself be put in a position to be making a pact with bad guys to help kill Dumbledore? I see three possibilities. 1. He's clueless and just made a mistake by letting the girls put him on the spot. I don't believe this for a > second. 2. He believes that Dumbledore would rather he protect > Draco over Dumbledore himself. I think that's a bit of a stretch. 3. As I have already proposed and personally believe, he knows what > Narcissa is asking, and it doesn't conflict (much, maybe) with what > Dumbledore has already asked of Snape. > Carol: I've already talked about the UV in another post, so I'll just say that I think he agreed to take the UV in the first place to protect Draco. If he had a choice in the third provision, and I'm not sure he did, I think he agreed to it at least in part to keep Narcissa and Bellatrix believing that he's still faithful to the Dark Lord but willing to take the responsibility for DD's death on his own shoulders. If he's going to go under cover with the DEs at the end of the year, which will surely happen if he's given the DADA post, he can't give the game away by refusing to "do the deed." But the wording of the vow, "should it prove necessary, if it seems Draco will fail," may have led him to believe that there were loopholes in the Vow. DD was too powerful and clever to be trapped by a sixteen-year-old boy (so he and DD both thought). All they had to do was keep Draco away from DD and make sure that no DEs could get into Hogwarts to help him and the vow would not be triggered. And in the unlikely event that either Draco or Snape had to try to kill Dumbledore, surely an attempt doomed to failure, better Snape than Draco, whom DD would not want to become a murderer or a murder victim, as he would be if he failed in his mission. > Sarah: > If Dumbledore had a plausible, non-emotional, fact-based reason for why he trusts Snape, the one thing he could *never* do is reveal it to Harry Potter, failure at all things Occlumentic. (If that is a word.) Carol: It's now an official neologism. You coined it. ;-) I'm not sure that Harry's failure to learn Occlumency is the only reason, though. I think DD is protecting Snape's privacy: "That is a matter between Professor Snape and myself, Harry," as DD says in GoF. And, of course, JKR doesn't want to spoil the surprise for Harry or for us. Sarah: > Passionate intensity? Like when he didn't get the Order of Merlin? Carol: No. It wasn't the Order of Merlin that he was furious about. He wanted Sirius Black, the murdering traitor (his as-yet-uncorrected view), to get his just deserts. I mean things like his reaction to Harry's failure to block the dream about the MoM. I mean his white-faced, glittering-eyed determination to go back to Voldemort ("If you are ready, if you are prepared" "I am"). And his speech at the end of HBP, albeit melodramatic, is also filled with passionate intensity. Sarah: > I think that if LDS is true, Dumbledore probably saved Snape by > transferring his debt onto Harry. Plenty of reason to care what > happens to Harry. Hatred and revulsion could even be caused in part > due to the knowledge that Snape no longer will have proximity to watch Harry, of all things. No reason not to accept Harry's torture though, except that it tends to incapacitate one, leaving him open to other spells from the DEs still on premises. > Carol: But if that were the reason, why would DD hesitate to tell him? Harry already knows that James saved Severus's life when they were kids and that he already saved Harry's life for that very reason. Nothing for Harry to hide from Legilimens Voldemort there. (And Occlumens Snape has already provided his own explanation.) Also, we get the idea in SS/PS that Snape considers that debt to be discharged, and yet he continues to protect Harry and attempt to or succeed in saving his life. I think that's better explained by his understanding that, like it or not, Harry Potter is the Chosen One and he has to be kept alive to fight LV. And even that doesn't explain why he saved Harry from the Crucio. He didn't have to do that, any more than he had to save Draco from Voldemort. Maybe he did it because Dumbledore would have wanted him to? Sarah: > And again, because Harry fails Occlumency. Voldemort can presumably > shuffle Harry's brain whenever he likes. And that's one thing that > Dumbledore cannot have Voldemort finding out. > Carol: I don't think that's the way Legilimency works. snape says that it's not like reading a book that the Legilimens can examine at leisure. Evidently both Snape and Voldemort use it primarily to determine whether someone is lying, by making the thought or memory that contradicts the lie rise to the surface--Harry's Potions book, for example. Sarah: > I know I said before that he didn't have "choice one," but > in fact he does. It's just that none of them will probably have very good results. Snape has several choices here. He can wait for Draco to kill Dumbledore. If Draco manages to do that before Dumbledore dies of other causes, that might be OK for Snape. Carol: How would that be okay for Snape? The whole reason he took the UV was to protect Draco, not only from death but from murder. If Draco killed DD, he'd split his soul and be the second-most wanted wizard in the WW. Snape would be betraying Draco and Narcissa as well as Dumbledore. He doesn't consider that possibility for a moment. The first thing he does after sweeping the room with his eyes is push Draco roughly out of the way. And later he grabs him by the scruff of the neck and makes sure he gets safely out of Hogwarts. I don't think that was a choice at all, at least not in his own mind. Sarah: Snape can also wait for the poison to kill Dumbledore. This wouldn't be very good for DDM or LDS since it may allow Harry to become Dumbledore's murderer, though I'm not sure about that. Carol: I don't think the other DEs would have allowed that. They expect Snape to take immediate action, and if he doesn't kill DD himself, they'll expect him to force Draco to do it. Also, Fenrir is slavering to have Dumbledore for "afters," and he'll attack the body the moment DD falls dead from the potion. Snape eliminates that problem by sending the body over the battlements and then getting the DEs off the tower before they can touch Draco or realize that Harry is hiding under the Invisibility Cloak, as Snape surely knows. Sarah: Another thing Snape can do is attempt to revive or cure Dumbledore. Carol: With four DEs right there on the tower? They'd kill him if the UV didn't. And besides, I doubt that he would know the antidote to a complex poison without carefully examining Dumbledore, adn he certainly didn't have it in his pocket. A bezoar won't cure all poisons, and some--probably including this one, compounded by Voldemort himself--have no antidotes. Not an option. Besides, he has to keep his cover. Sarah: If Dumbledore > has been working to establish Snape's DE status better than ever > before, as I believe, then doing this in front of the witnesses > present would not be good for just about anyone involved. Carol: Exactly. It isn't an option, for that reason among others. Now if the DEs hadn't cast the Dark Mark, giving away the fact that they were in the castle, and Harry had gone for Snape as requested--but then, we'd have a different novel and Snape wouldn't have faced his terrible dilemma. > Magpie: > I don't know if this is the classified part, but I just don't get what the Life Debt could possibly do that makes Snape need to fulfill it so badly. > > Sarah: > Judging by the introduction of the UV, I would say it's possible that it is death at the least. Not written in stone, just possible. Carol: But why place Snape under *two* magical obligations involving death? That seems like overkill to me (two bad puns in one post! Sorry!). Besides, we already have a Life Debt-bound character, Peter Pettigrew, who certainly didn't die when he injured and kidnapped Harry so that LV could use his blood and then kill him. Possibly, he might have dropped dead if Harry had died, but he doesn't seem to have considered that possibility. Carol, who thinks that both the Life Debt and OFH! fit Pettigrew much better than they fit Snape From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 10 03:57:14 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 22:57:14 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Draco WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) References: Message-ID: <00c101c71c0f$48690dc0$bb72400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162594 > Alla: > > This is general comment of the sort, not directly replying to you, > since I agree with you,but I thought that would be good enough place > to put it, since I got a bit lost trying to find direct quotations I > was thinking of. > > I keep reading this thread and getting more and more surprised from > the analogies of Harry behaving like James towards Draco, etc. > > From several posts I got the impressions that in the initial > confrontation between them Harry misperceived Draco's intentions, > etc. I mean, really from the moment they met Draco insulted **the > other kind ** of witches and wizards and lo and behold this is the > kind of witch Harry's mom was. And of course afterwards Draco > manages to insult Harry's first friend. > > But even his insult of Ron falls behind Draco insulting muggleborn > witches and wizards to me. > > What else is that if not confrontation? Magpie: It's Draco trying to present himself as a worthy social connection. It's Harry in their early interactions who is the first to turn it into a confrontation and a dismissal which Draco will not accept. Draco's first speech about Muggleborns to Harry isn't confronting Harry, it's an attempt to find a connection with Harry, who is not Muggleborn (though I think Draco does bring it up as potentially something darker, since he's reacting to the more open hostility that Harry has injected into the scene). It upsets Harry because he's been raised Muggle so it makes him insecure--Draco is saying what he fears, that as someone not raised a wizard he won't ever fit into the WW. (And Harry also just doesn't like or trust that kind of bonding--understandably, he sees through it.) Draco is wrong, and parroting stuff he's learned at home and he's ignorant, but he's not intentionally confronting Harry with anything. Looking at his life as seen in glimpses like in CoS he's unfortunately been trained to see this kind of connection as one he can trust more than healthier connections. Harry is not misinterpreting this aspect of Draco, but it's not an all or nothing thing. Especially in this universe you can get one part of a person without getting another part. If you compare Draco to Slughorn, for instance, Slughorn's bigotry is more hidden. Harry picks it up from his sounding a bit too surprised about Lily's talent. In Draco's case, the bigotry is the surface personality. Understanding that Draco is a bigot is probably as difficult as understanding that he's got an English accent or blond hair. But it's not understanding him completely. I know you have said in the past, understandably, that given that surface bit why should Harry have any interest in finding out about anything deeper? That's how Harry feels--but I think it has still left him open to misinterpretations that have had a negative effect on Harry's life. Alla: > Of course maybe in Draco's head he wanted to become friends with > Harry, I cannot pretend to know what was in his head at that time, > but even if he did, he revealed what he stands for to Harry. > > I am not surprised at all that Harry did not want to be friends with > the bigot, I really don't. Magpie: He revealed what he stands for to Harry and Harry rejected it--exactly. That sounds very much like what James would say about Snape. When he says "it's more that he exists" that's imo what he means. (And Harry soon after basically agrees with that sentiment as applied to Malfoy.) It's not that Draco is, at first, picking on Harry intentionally, it's what he stands for that Harry hates and Harry makes that obvious. Though it's not that he stands for Black Magic and Voldemort or bigotry. Harry doesn't like those things, but they're not motivating all his feelings about Malfoy (he's not hypersensitive to all those things universally). In the early chapters of PS when we hear about the hatred Harry has for Malfoy, Malfoy's actions are described in such a way that make them almost seem like acts of aggression against Harry even when they've got nothing to do with him (or any of those bad things)--because Malfoy stands for things more personal for Harry than bigotry. Alla: > Harry probably already started to learn that Draco has a human side > to him, but I completely disagree as I always do that Harry > misinterpreted the part of Draco's personality that Draco revealed > to him earlier. Magpie: I do think he misinterpreted him, and that he was completely unable to even begin to do otherwise given his experience of life. What Harry associates with Draco most of all, what makes him hate him, is that as far as Harry is concerned, Draco thinks he's all that and he pushes Harry's own buttons of insecurity even when objectively Harry shouldn't be bothered so much by him. When Harry has bad dreams about Malfoy, Malfoy is usually laughing at him. The Harry-filter is always working hard when it comes to that character. But as I said elsewhere recently, the Harry-filter isn't about making things up, it just looks at things in a way that isn't objective. Harry doesn't make up the things that Draco does that Harry thinks are bad, like calling people names and supporting Voldemort and provoking him. But I still don't think he sees him very realistically. He projects a lot of stuff onto him imo. So much that I think it's genuinely shocking to him to see him in position that he can't slot into either Draco being an insufferable git or Draco being rightfully taken down a peg but remaining an insufferable git. James' treatment of Snape in the Pensieve is one isolated thing. Harry is never going to mimic that because he's not James and Draco is not Snape. But there are things in common, imo, very much in the way James and Harry judge Snape and Draco. And for both of them I think that judgment is part of both their darker sides and what makes them heroes. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 04:27:51 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:27:51 -0000 Subject: Harry and Draco WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: <00c101c71c0f$48690dc0$bb72400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162595 Magpie: > Harry is not misinterpreting this aspect of Draco, but it's not an all or > nothing thing. Especially in this universe you can get one part of a person > without getting another part. Understanding that Draco is a bigot is > probably as difficult as understanding that he's got an English accent or > blond hair. But it's not understanding him completely. I know you have said > in the past, understandably, that given that surface bit why should Harry > have any interest in finding out about anything deeper? That's how Harry > feels--but I think it has still left him open to misinterpretations that > have had a negative effect on Harry's life. > > Magpie: > I do think he misinterpreted him, and that he was completely unable to even > begin to do otherwise given his experience of life. What Harry associates > with Draco most of all, what makes him hate him, is that as far as Harry is > concerned, Draco thinks he's all that and he pushes Harry's own buttons of > insecurity even when objectively Harry shouldn't be bothered so much by him. > When Harry has bad dreams about Malfoy, Malfoy is usually laughing at him. > > The Harry-filter is always working hard when it comes to that character. But > as I said elsewhere recently, the Harry-filter isn't about making things up, > it just looks at things in a way that isn't objective. Harry doesn't make up > the things that Draco does that Harry thinks are bad, like calling people > names and supporting Voldemort and provoking him. But I still don't think he > sees him very realistically. He projects a lot of stuff onto him imo. So > much that I think it's genuinely shocking to him to see him in position that > he can't slot into either Draco being an insufferable git or Draco being > rightfully taken down a peg but remaining an insufferable git. Alla: I squashed these two quotes in here and cut a lot of staff in between since IMO you are contradicting yourself. I think that not seeing Draco's whole personality if such exists and misinterpreting what he sees ( even this is only part of his whole personality, and as always I cringe when I write that :)) are two very different things. Let's concentrate on their first encounter, let's assume that for the sake of the argument I agree that Draco wants to be friends here. We do agree right, that Draco is insulting to Muggleborns in his speech, whether he wants to provoke Harry or not? ( I think he totally does, but let's assume I agree he is not) So, what is the misinterpretation from Harry filter here? I mean he may not see the whole picture, true - as in not to see what Draco **really wants**, but he sees Draco beliefs and he rejects them. Where is the misinterpretation? I think it is a spot on objective evaluation, personally. Whether Draco makes Harry insecure or not, Harry sees that Draco thinks of Muggleborn witches and wizards as inferior to purebloods. Do you think Harry is wrong here and Draco really does not think so? It does not strike me as you do, so what is Harry misinterpreting from what he sees, not what he cannot see in Draco's head whatever is in there? I mean, if Harry misinterprets Draco as he is all that, this is not that had been shown to him as the opposite, no? Alla. From mjd at spillwaycable.com Sun Dec 10 04:27:27 2006 From: mjd at spillwaycable.com (mjanetd) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:27:27 -0000 Subject: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162596 > Carol: > I just accept > Dumbledore's words that Snape "returned to our side" spying "at great > personal risk" before Godric's Hollow and that the reason he returned > was his recognition of the way that LV interpreated the Prophecy. IOW, > when he gave LV the information about the Prophecy, he didn't know > that LV was going to go infant hunting. Even Harry stated that the > obvious thing to do, once LV found out that there were two boys who > fit the Prophecy criteria, was to wait and see which boy turned out to > be the threat. At any rate, I don't see what LV's hypocrisy has to do > with his interpretation of the Prophecy, which is what canon tells us > caused Snape to reject LV and go to Dumbledore. Your "logical answer" > isn't logical to me. I've seen people before say that there was no way Snape could know what LV would do after he was told of the prophecy. But after hearing the prophecy I can't believe anyone would not believe that LV would go after every boy born in the past, current and future year. It would only be "logical" for a psychopath who enjoys killing to kill potential problems before they become big problems. I'm a big Snape fan and this is the only thing that makes me doubt he's DDM. Janet From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 10 04:59:56 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 23:59:56 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry and Draco WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) References: Message-ID: <00d101c71c18$0c8b3130$bb72400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162597 > Alla: > > I squashed these two quotes in here and cut a lot of staff in > between since IMO you are contradicting yourself. I think that not > seeing Draco's whole personality if such exists and misinterpreting > what he sees ( even this is only part of his whole personality, and > as always I cringe when I write that :)) are two very different > things. Magpie: I don't think it's a contradiction, because it's not like Harry just says "he's a bigot and I don't care about anything else." He gets that he's a bigot, but also imo interprets his motivations as being different from what they are. Draco's views on Muggleborns is not the entirety of Harry's interpretation of Malfoy. Alla: > Let's concentrate on their first encounter, let's assume that for > the sake of the argument I agree that Draco wants to be friends > here. We do agree right, that Draco is insulting to Muggleborns in > his speech, whether he wants to provoke Harry or not? ( I think he > totally does, but let's assume I agree he is not) > > So, what is the misinterpretation from Harry filter here? I mean he > may not see the whole picture, true - as in not to see what Draco > **really wants**, but he sees Draco beliefs and he rejects them. > Where is the misinterpretation? I think it is a spot on objective > evaluation, personally. Magpie: The misinterpretation is that Harry does not see Draco as being insecure and trying to sound cool and present himself as attractive. What Harry sees is someone who thinks he is impressive, and better than Harry. Alla: > Whether Draco makes Harry insecure or not, Harry sees that Draco > thinks of Muggleborn witches and wizards as inferior to purebloods. > Do you think Harry is wrong here and Draco really does not think so? Magpie: Harry isn't misinterpreting what Draco ways about Muggleborns (that they don't understand the ways of Wizards--the Pureblood/Mudblood idea doesn't appear until CoS) but that's just something Draco believes and says. Harry's hatred of Draco does not come from strictly from Harry thinking that Draco thinks Muggleborns are inferior. He's got views on his personality beyond that. Alla: > It does not strike me as you do, so what is Harry misinterpreting > from what he sees, not what he cannot see in Draco's head whatever > is in there? Magpie: He's misinterpreting that Draco is just as insecure and wanting to make friends as Harry is. Alla: > I mean, if Harry misinterprets Draco as he is all that, this is not > that had been shown to him as the opposite, no? Magpie: It is a misinterpretation, imo, based on what we see of Draco ourselves. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 05:11:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 05:11:07 -0000 Subject: Harry and Draco WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: <00d101c71c18$0c8b3130$bb72400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162598 > Alla: > > Whether Draco makes Harry insecure or not, Harry sees that Draco > > thinks of Muggleborn witches and wizards as inferior to purebloods. > > Do you think Harry is wrong here and Draco really does not think so? > > Magpie: > Harry isn't misinterpreting what Draco ways about Muggleborns (that they > don't understand the ways of Wizards--the Pureblood/Mudblood idea doesn't > appear until CoS) but that's just something Draco believes and says. Harry's > hatred of Draco does not come from strictly from Harry thinking that Draco > thinks Muggleborns are inferior. He's got views on his personality beyond > that. Alla: Oh, I think I got your POV, thanks, but just to be sure. You think Harry has a view of Malfoy that stems beyond Malfoy being a bigot, yes? Okay, I guess we arrived to agree to disagree moment rather quick in this situation, but as I said just want to be clear that I understand you right. I think that everything that Harry thinks of Malfoy is based precisely on that "Malfoy being a bigot" and everything else ( for Harry I mean, and which is as I already said may not be a complete picture) stems from there. Could you bring me couple of examples where Harry judges Malfoy based on something **else** besides him holding his bigoted views, something independent from that? > Alla: > > It does not strike me as you do, so what is Harry misinterpreting > > from what he sees, not what he cannot see in Draco's head whatever > > is in there? > > Magpie: > He's misinterpreting that Draco is just as insecure and wanting to make > friends as Harry is. Alla: How would he see it? Why would he see it? All that he sees is the bigot who let Harry knows what he thinks and feels on Muggleborns, etc? > Alla: > > I mean, if Harry misinterprets Draco as he is all that, this is not > > that had been shown to him as the opposite, no? > > Magpie: > It is a misinterpretation, imo, based on what we see of Draco ourselves. Alla: I know I did not see that ;) I see precisely that - the son of the rich former Death Eater, somebody who thinks that thanks to his father's connections he can have all that - be on the team, have good broom ( who Is dissapointed when Harry gets on the team, etc) Sure, Draco is insecure in HBP, daddy is in prison and he eventually does learn that Voldie dear is blackmailing him, but I see Draco in books 1-5 as supremely secure and confident in himself. JMO, Alla. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 10 07:19:45 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 07:19:45 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162599 > zgirnius: > It was this sort of reasoning that initially attracted me to the > Grey! camp. But then it hit me...what was Dumbledore asking Snape > for? As you say, that he save the boys and carry out the plan. This > is semantically different from "Kill me, Severus!", but under the > circumstances, logically equivalent. > So Snape does it. The following orders vs. making a choice seems a > false dichotomy, to me. Both are choices. And in either case, Snape > knows what Dumbledore wants, and Snape does it. Jen: DDM makes some assumptions about the tower like saying Dumbledore and Snape have planned for Snape to kill him when the time comes or that the two of them are simpatico on the tower and know exactly how to proceed. I'm just not reading as much premeditation on the tower as I once did. For Dumbledore he is in an impossible situation as he slips down the ramparts dying. He has to think about Harry frozen and possibly being discovered if Malfoy suddenly remembers the two brooms or more people come through the door and find him when both are defenseless. Draco has lowered his wand but his future is far from assured and he and his family are in great danger now. Dumbledore is surrounded by increasingly angry DE's with a Voldemort Horcrux hidden in his robes. I just don't think the first thing he thinks about when Snape bursts through the door is the UV. Snape would definitely think about the UV once his eyes sweep the room and he takes in what's happening and hears Draco can't go through with it thus activating the third clause in the Vow. Whether he sees the brooms when he first walks in or when he comes closer to DD it's hard to say. Either way at some point he realizes Harry is on the tower, too. "Kill me" presumes both men have the UV uppermost in their minds. This is hard for me to believe with Dumbledore. I think his *greatest* fear is for the boy who holds the secret now to defeating Voldemort and is the only person who knows about the Horcrux. Dumbledore's faced with a man with hatred and revulsion on his face who doesn't happen to think Harry is more valuable than Dumbledore because he doesn't know or believe everything that Dumbledore does. This same guy has let him down before in regards to Harry because of wounds that run 'too deep' and yet he's Dumbledore's only hope in this moment. Couldn't all that make Dumbledore plead for Harry's life? Why can't the decision to kill DD be Snape's alone because he doesn't see another way out of the situation and not because Dumbledore is pleading to be killed? I don't think Dumbledore had to be worrying about ways and means while the life is draining out of him. It's more consistent to me that he would be thinking about Harry, Draco and the students below in his dying moments. This idea works with the moment Harry says "Kill me like you killed him" because Snape is both enraged and in deep pain. He can't explain anything, he can't taunt Harry back about how worthless he is, that HE should have died on the tower instead of Dumbledore. And Snape knows once again he royally messed up just like he did when he handed over the prophecy only he has no one to turn to this time. He killed the one person who gave him a second chance and helped him after his last big mistake. So I'm saying there doesn't have to be a logical equivalency to 'kill me' and 'save Harry and continue with our plan' if JKR is looking ahead when she wrote the tower scene instead of looking back. She knows what's in store for Snape and he may very well need blood on his hands for his mistake to get where she's taking him. Jen From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 08:51:37 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:51:37 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162600 MQ wrote: (snip) > In HBP Ch. 24, we all know how badly Draco is injured. We also know > that Snape (perhaps spying on Narcissa's behest) is there- like magic- > to heal him. However, we also know that Draco gets taken to the > hospital wing to be further cared for by Madam Pomfrey (I take this > to be like post-op care... he's all sewn up, but it was still trauma > to his body and then there's the 'might scar' scenario). > > If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... > > would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? > He would have had to have had his shirt and undershirt removed for > her to properly examine all of the places where Harry slashed him > open. That would certainly have exposed his left arm. And even if > Snape had healed the wounds enough that she didn't need to remove his > shirts, would she not insist on changing his bloody clothing? > > would Snape have though of that and found a way to mask the dark mark > before taking Draco to Madam Pomfrey? > > Or does Draco not have the mark yet? I wonder if Voldemort's order > is like other magical orders of lore, and if Draco has not yet been > through the proper initiation to earn the Dark Mark. This is a big > bone of contention in my house at the moment. Ginger responds: I have wondered about the Dark Mark for some time. My opinion is that the DEs can choose whether or not they want someone to see it. I started wondering about it when Snape showed his to Fudge at the end of GoF. Why (I wondered) didn't the Azkaban officials just check the arms of anyone accused of Death Eating? Why was Sirius sent there as a DE- and a high ranking one at that- if he didn't have the Mark? Which led me to wonder- why didn't the Aurors just do an arm check on any suspects? Why didn't the ministry just pass a law stating that robe sleeves could be no longer than 3/4 length? Sure, LV could have just moved the brand to the buttocks, but they could have at least spotted those whose arms had been branded already. In GoF (right before Snape shows his) Fudge is quick to assert that Harry is just reiterating the names of people who were accused in VWI. He especially excuses Lucius. We know Lucius had the brand back then, because he answered its call to the Graveyard to greet his returned master. Lucius and the others who claimed Imperious could have claimed to have been branded whilst under the Curse, but not everyone could have used that defense. The clincher for me was that Snape had to explain to Fudge what the Dark Mark brand was. Of course Fudge was familiar with the Dark Mark in the sky, but he didn't seem to know about the brand. So I have come to the conclusion that the DEs can hide their Mark if they choose. It may be the easy way, and perhaps a bit of a cop-out, but I don't think LV would have been stupid enough to make a mark that would have been so easy to find by his enemies. It was for his purposes. (See Snape's speech to Fudge in the hospital wing.) With regards to Draco- perhaps it was still new when he was at Malkin's shop, and that it was either not yet set fully and was still tender, or that he was still focused on it, like when you get a tooth pulled and you can't help but stick your tongue in the empty socket until you get used to it. So that's my answer. Plain, simple and boring that it may be. Ginger, noting (in reference to another thread) that the s'mores on this list are calorie-free. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 09:54:27 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:54:27 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162601 And now to the post that made me sit at my computer for hours catching up on the list just so I could stand, applaud, throw roses at the feet of the author and, of course, respond: Steve/bboyminn wrote: > Let us start with a question; how do you stop a bully from > bullying you? Answer: Punch him in the nose, and kick him > when he is down. I know that seems completely counter > intuitive, but it works. > > Notice that Bullies don't pick on each other. No, they > bully those they preceive as helpless and weak. They > bully particular people because they are convinced that > those people won't fight back. When the preceived weak > and helpless suddenly fight back, then what was preceived > as a safe sure action takes on a very noticable element of > risk. That is a sure way to gain a bully's respect. > > So, why don't the kids who are being bullied go to an > adult? Because the school is not ruled by teachers, > administrators, or rules. It is ruled by the Code of the > Playground. The very fact the bullying thrives in a > heavily supervised area like a school tells kids that > the adults are not on their side. That going to a teacher > is more likely to get you in trouble than the bully, and > is certainly going to bring on a huge heap of inaction > or at the most token action. > > So, the choices are 'grin and bear it' or 'kick bully > butt'. (big snip) You duke it out regardless of the > odds of winning because that is the only law that a > bully understands. Ginger: Steve, let me give you a hug. That was a totally realistic analysis. School officials (which are lacking on the train) can only react to what they see. If it is hearsay, they are bound to be "fair". Kids are taught nowadays that the right thing to do is to walk away and tell a teacher. In a perfect world, where everyone played by the same rules, this would be the ideal solution. The kid would go to the teacher. The teacher would talk to the bully. The bully would say he was sorry and mend his way. They would have a healthy snack with no trans fats, and everyone would live happily ever after. As you so aptly point out, the bully doesn't play by these rules. In fact, the bully uses these rules to his advantage. (I say "his" not to be sexist, but because we are discussing Draco here. Apologies to any guys who feel that I am trashing their gender. Girls are most certainly capable of bullying as well.) My adorable Godson is going through a bullying right now. He has been told to "tell a teacher". Of course the bully is from a "good family" and can do no wrong, so, according to the school, it isn't happening. He is just making it up. As are the other kids who are being bullied. His father has told the school that if the boy has to defend himself because the school won't, that he (the father) will stand behind his son. His mother has gotten the parents of the other kids together and they are threatening legal action if it is not stopped. This all reminds me of Harry and Draco. Sure Harry is "the Boy who Lived", but Draco is from "a good family". Draco is careful to keep himself in a position where he can say he didn't throw the first punch except for the end of OoP where he attacks Harry on the train and in the bathroom scene in HBP where Draco wasn't in control of the situation. Actually, that's kind of the point. Draco (in the first 4 books) is always the one in control. He seeks out the trio. He has his words picked out. He has his muscles (in the form of C&G) flexed and ready for the trio's response. As long as it is just words, he can go on forever. He can keep spouting "mudblood" and "LV rules" and that sort of thing until the cows come home. If the trio tells him to leave, tough. He just keeps at it. Eventually, they make him stop. They do it in the only way the bully understands. They physically make him shut his mouth. My Godson's bully has been taunting him verbally. He has been saying that he sleeps with his mother and rapes 2-yr-olds and I won't get into what the bully accuses about the boy's father as there is no way to put it politely. Granted, these are much younger kids than Draco and the trio, but the MO is the same. Push, push, push. Push until you get a response. Then hide behind your parents' position in society. The trio can't walk away on the train. They are in the compartment and Draco and Co. are blocking the door. They can't shut him up. They can't go for help or call a prefect (not that a prefect would do much good against Draco). He knows exactly which buttons to push. Declare victory. Abuse Cedric's memory. Threaten one of their group. How long would it have gone on had the trio not struck? Until London, I'd bet. Draco is asking for it- not in the "please, won't you hex me?" kind of way, but in the "I want a response, and I won't stop until I get it" kind of way. Well, he got it. In a way he can't ignore. Sometimes "stop it" doesn't cut it. Sometimes there is no way to get help. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and, as Steve says, "kick some bully butt". Counterintuitive? Only according to our adult minds where we have the upper hand over the bully. Not if you're a kid who just wants it to stop. True, it only stops it for now, but if you're a kid in that position, "for now" is good enough. As you have probably guessed, I was in that position once upon a time. My dad taught me the rules: If there is an adult around: 1) Never throw the first punch. 2) Never throw the second punch. When the first punch is thrown, the teacher isn't looking (the bully makes sure of that). After the first punch, there is a commotion, and the teacher looks, so if you throw the second punch, you'll be the one to get in trouble. 3) If you get punched, stand your ground, look the bully square in the eye, and say as loudly and clearly as you can "Draco Malfoy (or bully's name)! Don't you ever hit me again." That tells the teacher that you have been hit, and by whom. If the teacher doesn't intervene, or if there are no adults around and you get hit, fight. Fight hard, and let them know you won't stand for it. If you lose, you have at least sent the message that you won't take it. If you win, more's the better. So back to Draco and the trio- Draco (still talking about the first 4 books here) never throws the first punch. He doesn't have to. He is in the position of control. He can harass, intimidate, threaten, insult, and annoy them to his heart's content. The one time Harry does walk away, Draco responds by hexing Harry when his back is turned, and is made a ferret for his troubles. It's just lucky for Harry that Draco missed and that Fake!Moody was there to stop things before Draco got off another shot. Draco in the last 2 books (actually the end of OoP) becomes more of an aggressor. Given their past, and the fact that Draco has moved himself up from bratty boy parroting his parents' prejudices to fledgling (if not actual) DE, I think Harry would be making a mistake to underestimate him as just a mouthy bully. His father is in Azkaban, and he has personal motive for revenge. He is in the service of LV. He is a true threat now, and has taken on an adult role in an actual way in the war against LV. Harry has never encouraged Draco to "bring it on". He only responds to Draco's actions. Words are actions. They are Draco's weapon of choice. He gets as much sadistic glee from using them as the Dudley type of bully enjoys punching. So what do you do in Harry's shoes? Some sit back and take it. Some fight back. I'm with Harry. Ginger, still aware of the Rules of the Playground, even if they don't get used in the adult world. Much. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 13:57:53 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:57:53 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162602 Ginger: > Harry has never encouraged Draco to "bring it on". He only responds > to Draco's actions. Words are actions. They are Draco's weapon of > choice. He gets as much sadistic glee from using them as the Dudley > type of bully enjoys punching. > > So what do you do in Harry's shoes? Some sit back and take it. Some > fight back. I'm with Harry. Alla: Well, Ginger you loved Steve's post, I loved , loved, loved yours and agree with every word of it and this is my main reason for posting it, but since the rules won't allow me post just my big thank you, I want to add something of substance. :) Which I am sure I mentioned in the past discussions of this scene, but not in this scene. Before Harry resorts to action, before he listens to what I consider Malfoy making a death threat, he **tries** to react with words, he tries to make Malfoy listen. He is not succesful, but I am giving him big cheer for even attempting to do that. "Trying not to think about it, are we?" said Malfoy softly, looking around at all three of them. "Trying to pretend it hasn't happened?" "Get out" - said Harry - p.729, paperback. ************** Does Malfoy listen and gets out? Surely not, instead we get "Mubloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well- second- Diggory was the f----" And in the piece I cut Harry's ears start ringing. Harry just saw Cedric's death. Poor Draco indeed, NOT as far as I am concerned, but bully is as bully does to me. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 15:20:12 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:20:12 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162603 > Jen: DDM makes some assumptions about the tower like saying > Dumbledore and Snape have planned for Snape to kill him when the time > comes or that the two of them are simpatico on the tower and know > exactly how to proceed. I'm just not reading as much premeditation > on the tower as I once did. zgirnius: I've never believed in any premeditation there. I am aware of the theories of a long-laid plan for Snape to kill Dumbledore, and I see where people are getting the idea, but I don't buy it myself. If Snape makes his choice on the Tower because he sees it as the only way he can save Harry and continue his spying mission, he's not Grey in my eyes, he's DDM. > Jen: > I just don't think the first thing he thinks about when Snape > bursts through the door is the UV. zgirnius: Possibly not. As a practical matter, though, it can't be ignored. It definitely limits what Snape can do, if Snape doing it for longer than the next few seconds is desired, which is why I think Dumbledore would be thinking/worrying about it among other things. On an emotional level he might care less about it than other factors, but it becomes important once it becomes clear that whatever actions that will be taken to rescue Harry and Draco will have to be taken by Snape. If Snape dies after eliminating, say, one Death Eater from the fight, how have Draco and Harry's predicaments gotten significantly better? He seems quite on top of his game mentally, I don't think he'd miss this fact. Jen: > Snape would definitely think about the UV once his eyes sweep the > room and he takes in what's happening and hears Draco can't go > through with it thus activating the third clause in the Vow. zgirnius: Not to mention the Death Eater who helpfully summarizes the situation for Snape as soon as he shows up: "The boy does not seem able" Jen: >Whether > he sees the brooms when he first walks in or when he comes closer to > DD it's hard to say. Either way at some point he realizes Harry is > on the tower, too. zgirnius: I tend to think he saw the brooms. Not merely because he would, he's an observant person, but because I don't quite see why Rowling would mention them at all, else. Draco does not put two and two together, so it's a somewhat pointless throwaway bit in the conversation if noone else makes the connection. Jen: > Dumbledore's faced with a man with hatred and revulsion on his face > who doesn't happen to think Harry is more valuable than Dumbledore > because he doesn't know or believe everything that Dumbledore does. zgirnius: This hatred and revulsion is not Snape's initial reaction to the situation, or to Dumbledore. His expression is not worthy of comment until after he has walked in and approached Dumbledore. Dumbledore's immediate reaction to Snape's appearance suggests to me that he wants to communicate something *right then*. If what this something is changes when Snape's expression does, I wonder what the two distinct somethings are. Jen: > Why can't the decision to kill DD be Snape's alone because he > doesn't see another way out of the situation and not because > Dumbledore is pleading to be killed? I don't think Dumbledore had to > be worrying about ways and means while the life is draining out of > him. It's more consistent to me that he would be thinking about > Harry, Draco and the students below in his dying moments. zgirnius: I could see that, yes. Here's the question, though. What different choice by Snape at that moment would make him DDM, as opposed to Grey? There's also the description of the body, with his eyes closed, and the appearance of sleep. Sure, Dumbledore would be all about calm acceptance of 'the next great adventure' on his own account, but not, I think, if he was in horrible doubt about the immediate fates of Harry, Draco, and his students after his death. It still seems to me that he must have seen the same solution Snape saw, at least in his final moments, whether or not he communicated it successfully. zgirnius: > This idea works with the moment Harry says "Kill me like you killed > him" because Snape is both enraged and in deep pain. He can't > explain anything, he can't taunt Harry back about how worthless he > is, that HE should have died on the tower instead of Dumbledore. And > Snape knows once again he royally messed up just like he did when he > handed over the prophecy only he has no one to turn to this time. He > killed the one person who gave him a second chance and helped him > after his last big mistake. zgirnius: This is definitely still there with DDM, and even if Dumbledore *was* able to communicate his wish to be killed by Snape explicitly before the end. The tactical situation on the Tower was materially different because of the Unbreakable Vow, for which I believe Snape would blame on himelf. He has blood on his hands, no question. From drednort at alphalink.com.au Sun Dec 10 11:08:31 2006 From: drednort at alphalink.com.au (Shaun Hately) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:08:31 +1100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457C855F.3171.5BAE98C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 162604 On 7 Dec 2006 at 6:03, wynnleaf wrote: > > Now, what about the aftermath? JKR is careful to point out that > the > boys did not drag Draco and Co. out into the hall. They kicked, > pushed and rolled them out, and one of the twins was careful to > step > on one of the unconscious boys. Now while we might be able to > excuse > this in the heat of the moment, why does JKR so specifically > describe > their actions? She did, after all, have the choice of the boys > dragging the unconscious bodies out the door. But no. She chose > to > show them kicking unconscious boys. Yes, she did. And for me, when I read that, I was utterly horrified at what they did. I condemn it utterly. I could never ever condone it. But I understand it. And though I cannot and could never condone it, I find myself able to forgive it. I haven't posted for a while because I've been incredibly busy. I've been finishing my degree - something I have now achieved, so I am a qualified teacher! I hope to be getting more active on the list again now, and this thread is one I have been following with interest. Let me make something clear before I continue this post. I *hate* bullying. No, that's not strong enough a word. I utterly *detest* bullying. I experienced truly horrific bullying as a child which has emotionally scarred me (and physically scarred me to a lesser extent). I take bullying incredibly seriously. I have been working to eliminate bullying in schools in anyway I can for more than a decade and I'm actually considered to be quite a prominent authority on it, with a number of articles published on the issue (though I must in fairness say some of my ideas are considered unorthodox and even disturbing by some people). And from my perspective, Draco Malfoy is a bully - but honestly I find it hard to see him as a particularly bad one. He'd *like* to be a bad bully, I think. But I don't think he really is all that bad. Neville is the only person I really feel I've seen him successfully bully, and Neville is an easy target (before anyone accuses me of attacking Neville, let me say that I am speaking here as someone who was a very easy target himself, and I am talking about early Neville - the Neville we see emerging from Order of the Phoenix onwards is no longer this easy target). Honestly, Draco to me, doesn't seem all that bad as a bully. Not because of any redeeming features on his part - but because he isn't at a school that particularly tolerates bullying in its worst forms. My experience is that this is the major factor that limits how much bullying occurs in a school. It's whether or not bullying is tolerated. If it's tolerated, you will likely have a lot of bullying. A school that refuses to tolerate it will not have a lot of bullying. And the reason Draco isn't much of a bully is because his form of bullying is not tolerated at Hogwarts. Now, when I talk about bullying not being tolerated - that refusal to tolerate can take a lot of different forms - sometimes quite radically different forms. A school can refuse to tolerate bullying by teachers and staff doing what they can to detect bullying, and to address it when it occurs - my preference (and I believe this works very well) is for them to address it through severely punishing the bully and then working to help him or her with any issues he or she has, but as I say, there's so many different ways a refusal to tolerate can be expressed. Some schools have success with a moral suasion approach, some exclude the bully, some stick them in counselling. These can all work - the key is the refusal to tolerate. Ideally (again in my view) this refusal to tolerate comes from the staff, the adults, primarily. But it doesn't *have* to. It can come from the children. And this is what I see happening at Hogwarts. Draco is not much of a bully because the other students as a whole do not tolerate his form of bullying. And that is what we see in the train scene. A severe expression of that refusal to tolerate Draco's bullying. Draco does get away with reasonably minor bullying, because that doesn't reach the tolerance trigger. But there's a limit and that's what we see in the train. This approach - of the students expressing their refusal to tolerate bullying - can be quite successful in schools. But it often has a downside. And that is that children do lack judgement. And they can go too far. And that is what we see after the bullies have been dealt with in that scene. Somebody with mature judgement might - and I stress might - feel that stopping the incident was enough. But kids are fairly unlikely to stop at that point. And they may work to hurt the people they have dealt with. Is that acceptable? It is a hard call for me, actually. Personally I believe bullies should be severely punished and part of me can view additional injury inflicted on these people over and above the need to disable them as punishment and that I could justify. But in general, no, because I just don't see that as what is happening - it's a possible explanation... but a likely one? As I say, I experienced quite horrific bullying as a child. And when that scene, a memory came to mind. When I was nine, the worst bully in my school came upon me in the playground and took a soccer ball off me - a very benign incident by the standards I experienced. An older boy saw this and for once, somebody came to my aid. This older boy tripped the bully and returned the ball to me. And I went up to the bully on the ground and kicked him in the head. Over and over and over again. This kid deserved to be punished. Severely and seriously. Head injuries and the potential for brain damage was probably a bit excessive, sure, but if I had been simply trying to punish him, I doubt I'd feel the guilt I feel about that incident. I didn't want to punish him. I just wanted to *hurt* him. And I think that's the most likely explanation here. I can't condone that - when I did it, or when they did it. But I understand it - and I can forgive it. In them anyway. The fact is... most people on that train (maybe with the exception of some or most of the Slytherins) would probably say that Draco and co got what they deserved. And if you can view what happened to them as punishment, maybe they did. A person can deserve to be punished - but they can't deserve to be abused. And sometimes the action can be exactly the same, but the motivation behind it can be quite a bit different. The thing is - as I say, what stops bullying being a serious problem in a school is a refusal to tolerate it. And what Draco does isn't tolerated. But what Harry and the others do is probably tolerated - and so that's why they get away with it. I don't think JKR is condoning their behaviour. But I think it's quite a realistic depiction of what would likely happen in that situation. Personally, just as a matter of record, I think Fred and George are the most successful bullies I've seen in the Harry Potter books. Because they are funny, and because they seem to limit most of what they do to targets that other students don't care about, their actions are tolerated in a way that Draco's never would be. But I still see them as bullies. That doesn't make them evil or wicked - bullying is complicated and not all bullies fit neatly into our preconceptions. But they are bullies, in my view. Ginger wrote: > School officials (which are lacking on the train) can only react to > what they see. If it is hearsay, they are bound to be "fair". Kids > are taught nowadays that the right thing to do is to walk away and > tell a teacher. In a perfect world, where everyone played by the > same rules, this would be the ideal solution. > > This all reminds me of Harry and Draco. Sure Harry is "the Boy who > Lived", but Draco is from "a good family". Draco is careful to keep > himself in a position where he can say he didn't throw the first > punch except for the end of OoP where he attacks Harry on the train > and in the bathroom scene in HBP where Draco wasn't in control of > the > situation. Ginger, first of all, let me say that I agree with most of what you have said here (and with quite a lot of what Steve said before you). But I think there's one point that needs to be made here about Hogwarts. And that is that unlike *most* modern schools in the real world, Hogwarts does not seem to be as obsessed with the need to be "fair" in the way you describe. Hogwarts is shown to us as a much more arbitrary environment in my view, one in which everybody isn't particularly worried about the new idea of "fair" as "equal". There is nothing wrong with fairness in a school - real and true fairness. But what is imposed on so many schools today as fairness really isn't in my view. A teacher shouldn't be compelled to treat the word of a known bully and a known liar as being of equal value to that of a known victim who has always been truthful. Unfortunately, often they are pretty much required to do that in modern schooling. Hogwarts though does not seem to be a particularly modern school in its outlook. The thing is - Harry, up until he goes to Hogwarts, has been in a muggle school, and I wonder if he has internalised ideas that wouldn't necessarily be true at Hogwarts. We know Harry was bullied by Dudley and his gang at their primary school, and had no friends because of it - and I wonder if it was there that Harry learned the truth that so many lonely children who are bullied learn when we allow fairness to become corrupted into giving the benefit of every doubt to every child. That when five people say you did something, they will always be believed over you alone saying something different. The arithmetic of equal treatment for unequal people that pervades much of modern educational ideology. And so, with Harry, I think he might find Hogwarts much more ready to deal with bullying than he expects. But he never gives it a chance. That aside, we are told that Harry was bullied at primary school, and that he was a loner because nobody wanted to cross Dudley. And that is likely to have affected Harry. To him, you probably can't rely on anyone to help protect you from bullies - especially when the bullies have friends. The only thing you can rely on is friends of your own. And so that is what he does. And like real friends, they do what they have to do. 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 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 10 15:50:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:50:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's alleged dark mark/Harry and Draco References: Message-ID: <003801c71c72$feeb4730$8eb4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162605 quigoniginger: > With regards to Draco- perhaps it was still new when he was at > Malkin's shop, and that it was either not yet set fully and was still > tender, or that he was still focused on it, like when you get a tooth > pulled and you can't help but stick your tongue in the empty socket > until you get used to it. Magpie: Or it was just what Draco claimed it was--Malkin stuck him with a pin while pinning his sleeve. Remember Harry's interpretation was that he didn't want Malkin to see it--I don't think he even remembered the pain issue. He just said Draco "jumped a mile" when Malkin went near his arm. Alla: Could you bring me couple of examples where Harry judges Malfoy based on something **else** besides him holding his bigoted views, something independent from that? Magpie: Harry doesn't like Draco before his bigoted views come out. Draco reminds him of Dudley when he says he'll bully his father into buying him a broom (which isn't actually true), likes him less and less as he talks about school houses, and what he's heard about Hagrid and how he's good at Quidditch. It's only *after* Harry coldly says "I think he's brilliant" (not liking Malfoy's unflattering report of what he's heard about Hagrid) that Malfoy brings up Purebloods. He thinks he struts in the Sorting, feels he doesn't show Harry interest in their first meeting. His hatred of this kid has nothing to do with a philosophical opposition to Pureblood elitism. If Ron had revealed he'd been raised with Muggleborn prejudice I don't think Harry would have hated Ron--even if he would have objected to that particular prejudice because of his mother. Just as Harry doesn't hate Slughorn when he picks up on his Muggleborn prejudice. He doesn't like the prejudice, but he doesn't hate Slughorn because Slughorn's personality doesn't get under his skin. Nor does Ernie Macmillan, whom he finds pompous but likes anyway, even though Ernie brags about his family being Pureblood back 9 generations. Draco's personality does bug Harry. > Magpie: > He's misinterpreting that Draco is just as insecure and wanting to make > friends as Harry is. Alla: How would he see it? Why would he see it? All that he sees is the bigot who let Harry knows what he thinks and feels on Muggleborns, etc? Magpie: It doesn't matter how or why he would see it. He doesn't. In the chapter that begins "Harry never thought he'd ever hate any boy more than Dudley, but that was before he met DM" there's not a word about Draco's views on Muggleborns. Harry's not an anti-Muggleborn prejudice activist, he's a boy who can't stand that Malfoy kid--and wouldn't be able to stand him if Malfoy were Muggleborn himself (especially if he were a Muggleborn somehow raised in the WW so he could have that advantage over Harry). Malfoy is brought up far more in connection to Harry's own insecurities than prejudice. Alla: I know I did not see that ;) I see precisely that - the son of the rich former Death Eater, somebody who thinks that thanks to his father's connections he can have all that - be on the team, have good broom ( who Is dissapointed when Harry gets on the team, etc) Magpie: When Harry meets him he knows nothing of Death Eaters, and I think that rather than seeing someone who thinks he can be on the team and have a good broom, he sees someone who can get on the team and have a good broom. Alla: Sure, Draco is insecure in HBP, daddy is in prison and he eventually does learn that Voldie dear is blackmailing him, but I see Draco in books 1-5 as supremely secure and confident in himself. Magpie: Which is what Draco wants us to see--and especially wants Harry to see since Harry humiliated him and rejected him. Just as Hermione isn't supremely secure and confident despite also projecting that image in PS. When Harry sees signs that Draco might have his own problems and insecurities, he just chalks it up under a wonderful, isolated moment where Draco gets put down that will have no affect on his confidence. He's the face of Harry's own insecurity far more, imo, than the face of prejudice that Harry is fighting. Prejudice is not a huge hot button for Harry. -m From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Dec 10 16:18:11 2006 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 09:18:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt References: Message-ID: <003201c71c76$c9f788f0$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 162607 >> Sarah: >> We differ again. I don't think that Harry, upon finding out that >> Snape loved Lily, would suddenly think, "Gee maybe he's not such a bad >> guy after all." I think he'd be grossed out to the max, and hate >> Snape more than ever. > > Sydney: > > I give Harry a little more credit. If he found out that Snape really > was in an agony of remorse, that he moved heaven and earth to try to > save Lily, that it was the defining thing of his life, and that from > that day to this he'd been filled with self-hatred for what he'd done > and devoted his life to bringing down Voldemort for her sake... yeah, > I would hope he would at least change his opinion of Snape as nothing > more than an evil self-centered git. Now Shelley's response: I think that I agree with Sarah on this point. Let's face it, if we accept the Snape/Lilly attraction (which I don't, btw), and we assume that Snape truly tried to do a selfless, kind act (which I also don't think he did), and then Harry finds out this, is this suddenly supposed to change ALL of Harry's experiences with Snape so far? I don't think it would. Snakes don't change their nature; leopards don't change their spots. Harry sees Snape as something to be loathed, and it's because of Snape's actions that Harry sees him that way. To say that he "once" tried to do something good would just be unbelievable. And to think that Snape had loved his mother- that is about on par with having Draco, who's also been known to do some nasty name-calling and ill-treatment to Muggleborns, to suddenly announce that he's in love with Hermione. A Slytherin, going after a Gryffindor, after he's made it clear that he doesn't like their kind? I think it would be enough to see Snape as sick and demented- a pervert who was placing his affections inappropriately. Lilly married someone else- she had a child by someone else. To have him STILL messing with their lives after they moved on is just sick- and I hardly think that Harry would see this as a good thing. Snape would have been an obsessed stalker. I think Harry would "grossed out to the max, and hate Snape more than ever". I don't think we will have Rowling doing any about-faces with Snape- no sudden changes of heart, no softening to become the good guy, no hard-exterior Snape with this goody-ewey good center, no once heroic deeds in his past that changes Harry's mind about him. His fate is forever sealed as the evil, self-centered git, the slimy guy to be loathed. The readers have reason to hate him now that he's killed Dumbledore. There is NO forgiving of that, no matter how he may plead, beg, or try to undo his actions. Even if we assume that the two of them (DD and Snape) plotted this beforehand, I can't see Harry ever saying that this is "good", or "ok", or ever forgiving Snape for it. Dumbledore is dead, all because of Snape. Snape did have a choice- he could have saved DD, fought the death eaters. That's what Harry would have done, even at the risk of his own life. I often hesitate to join this conversations about Snape's personality, especially when so many of these theories about who Snape really is are based upon a presumed Snape attraction for Lilly. I just don't think it ever happened. I just can't see Snape selflessly devoting his entire life to doing anything for anyone else. Even if he served Dumbledore, I have to think that he's got his own motives for it. DD provided him a job, kept his ass out of Azkaban, and Snape played along because it suited himself to do so, for more than just those obvious reasons. He was a double spy, and I think that as so often as true with double spies, that they "play" loyal to both parties, and both end up thinking that "he's their man", but only that double spy knows which way he really will turn when the hand is forced. I think Dumbledore was being wronged all this time, fooled by Snape, but he should have seen the warnings. How he treated Harry was a true indicator of his real character. If I want to put this in the terms that others have used, Grey!Snape is just the outward manifestation of his double-crossing- that he plays the part he needs to play at the time he needs to do it, and that Evil!Snape is the carefully calculating, patient man who will know the right opportunity when he sees it. It's a contrast to Lucius Malfoy, who got impatient and short-sighted with the diary. Snape is willing to wait years if necessary. I can see him as seeing the post at Hogwarts as his advantage as that double spy- access to ingredients and the "lab" to keep experimenting. He wanted the other post, the DADA, because he wanted his research in the Dark Arts to have a "professional excuse". But he's calculating, and will make use of his talents either way to get what he wants in the end. Shelley From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 17:43:35 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:43:35 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162608 Jen wrote: DDM makes some assumptions about the tower like saying Dumbledore and Snape have planned for Snape to kill him when the time comes or that the two of them are simpatico on the tower and know exactly how to proceed. I'm just not reading as much premeditation on the tower as I once did. > Carol responds: I don't think that DDM! makes any such presumptions. I certainly don't think, for example, that there was any plan in which Snape *had* to kill Dumbledore. I think both of them did whatever they could to postpone any confrontation as long as possible, and that Snape, at least, hoped that he wouldn't have to do it, whereas Dumbledore, who was preparing all year for his own absence, was more ready to face the inevitable. I do think that they both knew, especially after Snape accepted the DADA position, that he would have to go deep undercover at the end of the year. So "Severus, please" doesn't exactly mean "Severus, please kill me." It's more like "Severus, please do what you have to do." So Snape, knowing that he can't save Dumbledore and that it would be futile to die heroically, chooses not only to kill DD but to get his body off the tower, save the boys, and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. So he's Dumbledore's man in that he's faithful to him to the end and in his rage at having to kill him, but his own man in making that choice and having to figure out exactly what to do. The circumstances on the tower could not have been anticipated; Snape has to make a choice he hoped he wouldn't have to make and to take additional action. It isn't just Dumbledore's weak and wandless state that he didn't expect. He didn't expect Harry Potter to be there under the Invisibility Cloak, either. But either he figured it out, being Snape, or that's what the silent communication was about. Maybe both. Jen: > For Dumbledore he is in an impossible situation as he slips down the ramparts dying. He has to think about Harry frozen and possibly being discovered if Malfoy suddenly remembers the two brooms or more people come through the door and find him when both are defenseless. Draco has lowered his wand but his future is far from assured and he and his family are in great danger now. Dumbledore is surrounded by increasingly angry DE's with a Voldemort Horcrux hidden in his robes. I just don't think the first thing he thinks about when Snape bursts through the door is the UV. Carol: I disagree. At this point, the UV *is* Snape. It, and the DADA curse, have placed him in his position. But only he can determine his fate, and only he can save the boys on the tower. I'd say that the UV is very much on Dumbledore's mind, *especially* with Draco's lowered wand, which makes it necessary for Snape to take action ("if it seems Draco will fail"). Both of them know that LV will kill Draco if he fails--unless Snape can take the burden of Dumbledore's murder on himself. BTW, I hadn't thought about the (fake) Horcrux in his robes. *If* the exchanged glance involved Legilimency, could it have included the concealed Horcrux? That would be yet another reason for Snape to send DD's body over the battlements. The last thing DDM!Snape wants, assuming that he knows about the Horcruxes, is for the DEs to find one, even if they don't know what it is, and Harry would certainly have fought to rescue it as well as to avenge Dumbledore. One more reason for Snape to kill DD himself rather than risk his dying from the poison and himself dying from the broken UV. > Jen: > Snape would definitely think about the UV once his eyes sweep the room and he takes in what's happening and hears Draco can't go through with it thus activating the third clause in the Vow. Whether he sees the brooms when he first walks in or when he comes closer to DD it's hard to say. Either way at some point he realizes Harry is on the tower, too. > Carol: I agree that snape knew that Harry was on the tower in his IC. If Draco saw the brooms, then Snape saw them, too, as his eyes swept the room. And, unlike Draco, he'd have no difficulty understanding who the other person was or why he had disappeared. I think Snape knows within seconds of entering the room exactly what the situation is: Dumbledore is dying, Harry is there and will be killed if he comes rushing out to fight the DEs, Draco is failing and in danger of death, the UV is activated. And yet he hesitates, looking at Dumbledore when DD calls his name, but not raising his wand. Only when Dumbledore says "Severus, please" does he raise his wand, and the expression on his face shows that he hates what he has to do. But he takes the situation in hand, kills DD to save Draco, gets the body off the tower, saves the boys, and gets the DEs out of Hogwarts, with a few last-minute lessons for Harry into the bargain. Jen: > "Kill me" presumes both men have the UV uppermost in their minds. Carol: But DDM!Snape doesn't presume that "Severus, please" means "Kill me." It presumes something along the lines of "Do what you have to do," "Keep your vow," or "Remember your promise," all of which require Snape to kill Dumbledore (as does "Please save Harry"). I think it's the second: Snape did make a promise which he wanted to get out of; we just don't know what it is. We do know, however, that DD is dying and can't be saved (the DEs will kill him if the poison doesn't). And we know that Snape has, for a long time, been part of Dumbledore's plans. ("If you are ready; if you are prepared," and that he has chosen that role. He could have fled like Karkaroff or returned to Voldemort and remained with him, but he chose to stay with DD at Hogwarts.) Almost certainly, DD wants Snape to live, to go back to Voldemort and get as close to the Dark Lord as he can. And, of course, he also wants Snape to save the boys. There is no other way to save them than for Snape to kill Dumbledore. If Snape dies from the UV, the DEs or Voldemort will kill Draco for failing and Harry will rush out and try to take on all four at once. He couldn't even save himself from Greyback alone. Someone else (just possibly Snape) had to do it. So, paradoxically, Dumbledore's man can't defend Dumbledore, much less pull out a complex antidote from his pocket and save him. He has to kill him. What a terrible dilemma. No wonder Snape hesitated, preferring to die rather than bring such hatred and enmity on himself. Far from saving himself for the sake of living, as the miserable rat Peter Pettigrew would have done, he is saving himself to act as Dumbledore's agent in circumstances that no one will understand. Killing Dumbledore places him in greater peril than he has ever been in and strips away his allies in the Order. He's now wholly on his own, until and unless he gets Harry to understand his actions, which he can hardly explain under the circumstances. No wonder he reacted so strongly to Harry's "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!" (No, Pippin, I don't think that remark referred to James, whom Snape did not kill, helpless and unarmed, as Harry is and Dumbledore was. James died fighting Voldemort as a result of Snape's failure to protect him. Snape is not going to let the same thing happen to James's son no matter how much he hates him.) Jen: > This is hard for me to believe with Dumbledore. I think his > *greatest* fear is for the boy who holds the secret now to defeating > Voldemort and is the only person who knows about the Horcrux. Carol: Yes, of course. And DDM!Snape takes that into account. Harry's presence is wholly unanticipated, but Snape's actions and Dumbledore's "Severus, please" take it into account. But it's not the only reason that Snape has to kill Dumbledore. He would have had to do it to save Draco, get the DEs out of Hogwarts, and get close to Voldemort in any case. Harry's presence just makes his decision all the more urgent and all the more painful. Bad enough to murder Dumbledore in front of Draco, but with *Harry* as witness! No wonder he's enraged. Jen: > Dumbledore's faced with a man with hatred and revulsion on his face > who doesn't happen to think Harry is more valuable than Dumbledore > because he doesn't know or believe everything that Dumbledore does. Carol: Here's where our assumptions differ, and I realize that they are only assumptions. I can't tell how you read the look of hatred and revulsion (hatred of Harry? revulsion at what?), but I read it as hatred of himself and revulsion at the deed he has to do (and maybe temporary hatred of Dumbledore for wanting him to do it). I also think that Snape knows exactly how valuable Harry is (he knows the first part of the Prophecy, after all) and has been trying to get this "mediocre" boy to shape for six years, not to mention protecting and even saving him at every opportunity. Yes, he hates him, but the last thing he wants is for Harry to die. Otherwise, he would have just done nothing in SS/PS like everyone else, and would not have struggled to teach Harry Occlumency, would not have rescued him from the MoM or the Crucio, would not have yelled at him to "shut his mouth and close his mind" and stop casting Unforgiveables. Jen: > This same guy has let him down before in regards to Harry because of wounds that run 'too deep' and yet he's Dumbledore's only hope in this moment. Carol: I think that both Snape and Dumbledore knew that the Occlumency lessons weren't working and that they might even have been making matters worse. Dumbledore is certainly not upset with Snape, nor is there any indication that he feels "let down" by him. He still "trusts Severus Snape completely." The failure of the Occlumency lessons was as much Harry's fault as Snape's, but Dumbledore can hardly say that at the moment, so he uses Snape's antipathy for James as a cover story and takes the blame upon himself. You don't trust a man with your own life and that of the Prophecy Boy or give him the cursed DADA position unless you trust him *completely.* The Occlumency fiasco has no bearing whatever on Dumbledore's confidence in Snape, who after all, sent the Order to rescue Harry and company quite soon after the end of the Occlumency lessons. One or two more lessons would have made no difference. Harry *wanted* to have that dream, to see that vision in Professor Binn's class. He chose to believe the vision despite Hermione's commonsense objections. None of that is any fault of Snape's. Jen: Couldn't all that make Dumbledore plead for Harry's life? Why can't the decision to kill DD be Snape's alone because he doesn't see another way out of the situation and not because Dumbledore is pleading to be killed? Carol: Maybe others are arguing against this position, but I think that "save Harry" is *one* of the reasons for Dumbledore's pleading and *one* of the things that Snape--*as Dumbledore's man*--knows that he has to do. But it's not the only reason for his pleading. Snape has to save Draco, too, and he has to get the DEs out of Hogwarts, and he has to rejoin Voldemort under deep, deep cover. There's only one way to accomplish all that, and that's to keep the vow. After that, Snape is on his own to keep the situation under control to the extent that's possible, starting with getting Dumbledore's body off the tower, grabbing Draco like a drowning kitten, and ordering the DEs out of Hogwarts. "It's over! Let's go!" Jen: I don't think Dumbledore had to be worrying about ways and means while the life is draining out of him. It's more consistent to me that he would be thinking about Harry, Draco and the students below in his dying moments. > Carol: Exactly. Dumbledore is placing *everything* in Snape's hands. "Severus, please do what you have to do." Aside from killing Dumbledore and keeping the vow, it's up to Snape to figure out how to do that. Dumbledore isn't saying, "Severus, please kill me, send my body over the battlements, get the DEs off the tower before Harry rushes out to fight them, keep them from running rampant in Hogwarts, and don't let them kill or kidnap Draco." Snape, putting two and two together as only Snape can, knows that he has to do all that, and does it quite competently, even with Harry following him and getting himself Crucio'd in the process. But, on the tower, he hesitates to kill Dumbledore, to become a murderer for the cause (till now, he's always "slithered out of action" involving Unforgiveable Curses, IMO), to make his name anathema in the WW (hardly anyone even knew that he was a Death Eater). Killing Dumbledore costs him everything he had: freedom, employment, respect, the trust of the Order. In its place, he has the hatred of the WW, the increased peril of a fugitive, and service to the very Wizard he wants to destroy. But, for Dumbledore and for Draco and for the Chosen One he loathes and for the WW, Snape does what he has to do. OFH!Snape would never have taken the UV or rushed onto the tower. He'd have found a way to "slither out of action" for either side. Jen: > This idea works with the moment Harry says "Kill me like you killed > him" because Snape is both enraged and in deep pain. He can't > explain anything, he can't taunt Harry back about how worthless he > is, that HE should have died on the tower instead of Dumbledore. And > Snape knows once again he royally messed up just like he did when he > handed over the prophecy only he has no one to turn to this time. He > killed the one person who gave him a second chance and helped him > after his last big mistake. > Carol: I agree that Snape is in deep pain over killing Dumbledore and perhaps he does blame himself for taking the UV. And of course he can't tell Harry why he did it. But it's not *just* a matter of saving Harry. Snape had to keep his vow to save Draco and himself for his upcoming crucial role in helping Harry against the DEs. There was no way to save Dumbledore from death, though Snape did save his body from becoming "afters" for Fenrir Greyback. Only Snape could save Harry and Draco and get the DEs off the tower. And Snape had to return to Voldemort at the end of the year, as both he and Dumbledore would have known. That much they would surely have planned for. Snape is in agony because he just killed the only man who ever fully trusted him, in part to save the boy who is calling him a coward and in part to obey Dumbledore's last wishes (not orders) in other respects. He knows that his situation is in part his own fault, the consequence not only of the UV (which he took to save Draco and then found himself caught in that last unanticipated provision) and of joining the DEs in the first place and revealing the partial Prophecy to Voldemort. Despite his best efforts, he has again been responsible for a death that he wanted to prevent, but that death was necessary for the war on Voldemort to continue. If Snape had died on the tower along with Dumbledore, so would Draco, and, more important, so would Harry. Voldemort would have won. And Harry *must* come to understand that but, of course, he doesn't understand it now. Jen: > So I'm saying there doesn't have to be a logical equivalency to 'kill me' and 'save Harry and continue with our plan' if JKR is looking ahead when she wrote the tower scene instead of looking back. She knows what's in store for Snape and he may very well need blood on his hands for his mistake to get where she's taking him. Carol: Acutally, I think you *do* believe in DDM!Snape, who *chooses* to do Dumbledore's will rather than being bound to do it by, say, a Life Debt or a last-minute order that he must obey. That's exactly what I think, as well. The only difference between your view and that of other DDM!Snapers that I can see is that you think that "Severus, please" means "please save Harry," not "please kill me" or "please carry out our plan." I agree that there was no detailed plan beyond joining the DEs at the end of the year and making sure that Draco was neither a murder victim nor a murderer. Neither of them anticipated Draco's success in getting the DEs into Hogwarts or DD's wandless, dying state, much less Harry's presence, none of which could have been part of their plan (though Snape's promise implies a plan of *some* sort). And we agree that "Severus, please" didn't mean "Please don't kill me" or "Please don't split your soul." DDM!Snape does not require it to mean "Please kill me." I think it meant, in essence, "please do what you have to do." And that, of course, meant keeping the Vow and figuring out what else to do to save the boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts. We both think that the element of choice is involved. Dumbledore's *Man* doesn't mean Dumbledore's *Slave." Just look at Harry, "Dumbledore's man through and through," who nevertheless doesn't realize that snape is Dumbledore's man, too. Carol, now wondering if Snape knew about the supposed Horcrux in Dumbledore's robes From chrusokomos at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 17:51:41 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:51:41 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162609 Hi! Assuming that Snape is on the good side and killed DD for a good reason, how will he make his way back to the Order? I think that there aren't a lot of possibilities here. Either (a) he contacts a member of the Order and has suffcient proof to convince him/her to trust him again; or he (b) contacts a student; or (c) he contacts no one. Imo, in (a) possibility he'll be forced to go to McGonagall - if he contacts a member we know of, of course. Moody hates his guts; Shacklebolt and Tonks are Aurors; of Lupin I'm sure he's still afraid. Minerva Mcgongall has been his colleague for years, and she's probable the one who'll hear him out, especially if she's had a chat with DD's portrait beforehand. In (b) possibility, he'll probably use Draco somehow. He knows that Harry can testify about the boy's lack of blood thirst, and he knows that the Order wouldn't hurt an underage wizard anyway. Or, if JKR wishes to please fanfiction authors all over the world, he'll contact Hermione, the one most likely to hear him out. For (c) there is a prospect of huge duel scene at the very end, with Snape suddenly switching sides and allowing Harry's victory. We've seen this before (Last of the Mohicans, anyone?); it usually implies lots of blood, repentance of the hero for his own selfishness and great last words of the dying not-so-vilain. Do you think I'm on the right track? If so, which possibility do you think JKR will choose? chrus, who keeps her fingers crossed for Hermione involvement but secretly fears all will be known too late... From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 10 17:59:28 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 10 Dec 2006 17:59:28 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/10/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1165773568.8.95679.m33@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162610 Reminder from the Calendar of HPforGrownups http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 10, 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: From chrusokomos at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 18:06:49 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:06:49 -0000 Subject: EBA!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162612 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mjanetd" wrote: > I've seen people before say that there was no way Snape could know > what LV would do after he was told of the prophecy. But after hearing > the prophecy I can't believe anyone would not believe that LV would go > after every boy born in the past, current and future year. It would > only be "logical" for a psychopath who enjoys killing to kill > potential problems before they become big problems. I'm a big Snape > fan and this is the only thing that makes me doubt he's DDM. > chrusotoxos: If one beleives, as I do, that Snape is DDM, then it's true that hearing how he reacted after knowing part of the prophecy is disconcerting. But we have to keep in mind three things: one, he could have been forced to report to LV, or not skilled enough as an Occlumens to keep the information to himself (after all, he stumbled on that knowledge by mistake, as no one knew that ST was going to prophesy); two, maybe he hadn't realized to which ends LV would go for power; three, he could have understood only after the fact that his moral qualities wouldn't allow him to let children die, even it this would cause immense sorrow to his greatest enemies (the Potters). From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 10 18:15:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:15:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt References: <003201c71c76$c9f788f0$c0affea9@MOBILE> Message-ID: <00b701c71c87$1e664510$8eb4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162613 Cringing at typos... > Now Shelley's response: > I think that I agree with Sarah on this point. Let's face it, if we accept > the Snape/Lilly attraction (which I don't, btw), and we assume that Snape > truly tried to do a selfless, kind act (which I also don't think he did), > and then Harry finds out this, is this suddenly supposed to change ALL of > Harry's experiences with Snape so far? I don't think it would. Snakes > don't > change their nature; leopards don't change their spots. Harry sees Snape > as > something to be loathed, and it's because of Snape's actions that Harry > sees > him that way. To say that he "once" tried to do something good would just > be > unbelievable. Magpie: But Snape didn't "once" try to do something good. The point is that he's always been driven by that same guilt since Harry's known him. It's not something to change Harry's impression from Snape being a nasty git to Snape being a really nice guy. Not every new understanding has to change him from black to white. He can understand that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape without seeing Snape as a nice guy he wants to hang out with. Shelley: And to think that Snape had loved his mother- that is about on> par with having Draco, who's also been known to do some nasty name-calling > and ill-treatment to Muggleborns, to suddenly announce that he's in love > with Hermione. A Slytherin, going after a Gryffindor, after he's made it > clear that he doesn't like their kind? I think it would be enough to see > Snape as sick and demented- a pervert who was placing his affections > inappropriately. Magpie: Snape wouldn't have to be going after Lily because he's got a kink for people he finds inferior. The idea would be that Lily meant something to Snape outside of his DE beliefs, maybe before he had them (and perhaps after he no longer had them). If Snape/Lily turns out to be true I doubt it will have anything to do with lust. Shelley: Lilly married someone else- she had a child by someone > else. To have him STILL messing with their lives after they moved on is > just > sick- and I hardly think that Harry would see this as a good thing. Snape > would have been an obsessed stalker. I think Harry would "grossed out to > the > max, and hate Snape more than ever". Magpie: In trying to stop Voldemort going after Lily Snape was also protecting James, the man she loved, and their baby. If he was a stalker he'd want them dead so he could have Lily for himself. Trying to protect her family because they mean something to her is more like actual care for her over his own desires. Shelley: > I don't think we will have Rowling doing any about-faces with Snape- no > sudden changes of heart, no softening to become the good guy, no > hard-exterior Snape with this goody-ewey good center, no once heroic deeds > in his past that changes Harry's mind about him. His fate is forever > sealed > as the evil, self-centered git, the slimy guy to be loathed. The readers > have reason to hate him now that he's killed Dumbledore. There is NO > forgiving of that, no matter how he may plead, beg, or try to undo his > actions. Even if we assume that the two of them (DD and Snape) plotted > this > beforehand, I can't see Harry ever saying that this is "good", or "ok", or > ever forgiving Snape for it. Dumbledore is dead, all because of Snape. > Snape > did have a choice- he could have saved DD, fought the death eaters. That's > what Harry would have done, even at the risk of his own life. Magpie: Leaving aside that fighting for Dumbledore there might be heroic but also pointless, if Harry would never do something like that then why did he forcefeed Dumbeldore poison, thus rendering him unable to fight himself, earlier in the evening? Snape being revealed as DDM has nothing to do with making him suddenly a nice guy. It reveals that he's always been on the side fighting for Harry. Harry never has to like Snape personally, but to not acknowledge Snape doing things for his cause at great risk Harry wouldn't be too great either. Shelley: > I often hesitate to join this conversations about Snape's personality, > especially when so many of these theories about who Snape really is are > based upon a presumed Snape attraction for Lilly. I just don't think it > ever > happened. I just can't see Snape selflessly devoting his entire life to > doing anything for anyone else. Even if he served Dumbledore, I have to > think that he's got his own motives for it. DD provided him a job, kept > his > ass out of Azkaban, and Snape played along because it suited himself to do > so, for more than just those obvious reasons. Magpie: Except there's no explanation given in canon for how he's got to do this stuff to stay out of Azkaban. Dumbledore himself sees him as being loyal--and Dumbledore is someone who stands for letting people make their own choices, not someone who relies on people he thinks will find it in their best interest to pretend to be on his side. He says he trusts Snape "completely" and is not presented as a character so stupid he doesn't see Snape's just trying to stay out of Azkaban. DDM doesn't have to mean that all his behavior has been good, but nor does Snape being a jerk mean that he's incapable of doing anything right. Shelley: He was a double spy, and I > think that as so often as true with double spies, that they "play" loyal > to > both parties, and both end up thinking that "he's their man", but only > that > double spy knows which way he really will turn when the hand is forced. Magpie: But it might turn out that he turned to Dumbledore. Shelley: I > think Dumbledore was being wronged all this time, fooled by Snape, but he > should have seen the warnings. How he treated Harry was a true indicator > of > his real character. Magpie: The same can be said for Voldemort. If he was wrong all this time, how Snape has protected Harry has been a true indicator of his real character. Barty Crouch, who was definitely a true Death Eater, treated Harry like a favored pupil. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 18:22:45 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:22:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162614 Ginger wrote: > > I have wondered about the Dark Mark for some time. My opinion is > that the DEs can choose whether or not they want someone to see it. > > I started wondering about it when Snape showed his to Fudge at the end of GoF. Why (I wondered) didn't the Azkaban officials just check the arms of anyone accused of Death Eating? Why was Sirius sent there as a DE- and a high ranking one at that- if he didn't have the Mark? > > Which led me to wonder- why didn't the Aurors just do an arm check on any suspects? > > In GoF (right before Snape shows his) Fudge is quick to assert that Harry is just reiterating the names of people who were accused in VWI. He especially excuses Lucius. We know Lucius had the brand back then, because he answered its call to the Graveyard to greet his returned master. > > Lucius and the others who claimed Imperious could have claimed to > have been branded whilst under the Curse, but not everyone could have > used that defense. > > The clincher for me was that Snape had to explain to Fudge what the Dark Mark brand was. Of course Fudge was familiar with the Dark Mark in the sky, but he didn't seem to know about the brand. > > So I have come to the conclusion that the DEs can hide their Mark if > they choose. It may be the easy way, and perhaps a bit of a cop-out, but I don't think LV would have been stupid enough to make a mark that would have been so easy to find by his enemies. It was for his purposes. (See Snape's speech to Fudge in the hospital wing.) Carol responds: I agree that the Dark Mark is problematic, but I don't think that the DEs have any control over it. Only Voldemort does. He can touch the Dark Mark of any DE to summon the others, for example, and it fades or grows in intensity with his weakness or strength, which explains Karkaroff's panic in GoF. If he could have turned off his Dark Mark, he would have done so. Snape twice clutches his left arm as if he's in pain, once when Fake!Moody says "some spots don't come off" and once when Harry says Voldemort's name. (My theory has always been that the Dark Mark is sentient and knows that Snape is unfaithful.) Certainly, if Snape could turn it on and off, he would do so. No one on the Hogwarts staff (except Dumbledore) even knows that he was a DE until he shows the Dark Mark in GoF. As for Lucius Malfoy, et al., they claimed the Imperius Curse *after* Voldemort's fall. And Sirius Black was arrested after his supposed death as well. The absence of a Dark Mark would not have saved him even if Barty Sr. bothered to look for one. I don't think he did, and Black himself didn't know about the Dark Mark (see GoF), so he couldn't have exposed his left arm to claim innocence in any case. The DEs who were arrested before Voldemort's fall, however, would have had Dark Marks, and the evidence against the Lestranges and Barty Jr. was apparently so strong that they didn't need Dark Marks to prove their guilt. (Possibly Bellatrix proudly told the whole story, or maybe Gran witnessed it all.) It does appear that Fudge has never seen a Dark Mark before, and doesn't quite know how they work, but may indicate that he doesn't know about them in general. He's in a state of shock and trying to convince himself that Voldie isn't back, so it's hard to tell whether he, and the WW in general, know about them. It could simply be that the DEs have kept the secret to themselves and only people like Dumbledore, the real Moody, and Barty Sr. know about it. Snape says that his was darker an hour before but is still dark, meaning that it has faded from the painful state it was in when he was summoned and returned to the nevertheless clear and increasingly visible state that it's been in all year. ("It's getting darker. Karkaroff's, too.") So while I agree that it would be nice if the Aurors and judges could just force suspected DEs to roll up their sleeves, I don't think it's that simple. Once Voldemort fell, the Dark Mark either faded completely or was so faint as to be undetectable. And before that time, faithful DEs like Rosier and Wilkes fought to the death or till they were arrested and the OFH!DEs like Lucius Malfoy kept their cover as respectable citizens. By the time they were arrested, there was no Dark Mark to hide. (As for Snape, no one except the Wizengamot knew that he was a DE or even charged with being one. He had to keep his cover in order to keep spying. He may or may not have had a Dark Mark when he was arrested, but it didn't matter. It was DD's testimony that saved him and kept his name out of the papers.) I realize that this explanation isn't perfect, but I see no evidence that DEs can control their Dark Marks. Otherwise, all of them would do so, revealing them only to fellow DEs if then. And if the Dark Mark weren't always visible when Voldemort was strong, how could he use it to summon them? Also, I almost forgot. The faded or invisible Dark Mark was the reason that the DEs believed, or claimed to believe, that Voldemort was dead. Its return told them how wrong they were. (I think that Snape's faded Dark Mark was one of DD's clues to what happened at GH, but I've talked about that elsewhere.) Ginger: > With regards to Draco- perhaps it was still new when he was at Malkin's shop, and that it was either not yet set fully and was still tender, or that he was still focused on it, like when you get a tooth pulled and you can't help but stick your tongue in the empty socket until you get used to it. > > So that's my answer. Plain, simple and boring that it may be. > > Ginger, noting (in reference to another thread) that the s'mores on > this list are calorie-free. > Carol: I do think that Draco had a Dark Mark (which he showed to Borgin) and that it was still painful. After all, the Dark Marks appear to be *burned* into the DEs' skin. (If the Borgin and Malkin incidents were red herrings, we'd have some other explanation for them.) But I don't think he could have concealed it if he wanted to. Carol, who's built like Trelawney and doesn't care about calories but is glad to have Ginger's company at the s'mores party From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Dec 10 17:44:47 2006 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:44:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco's alleged dark mark References: Message-ID: <005d01c71c82$e2e1bf00$c0affea9@MOBILE> No: HPFGUIDX 162615 MQ asks: > In HBP Ch. 24, we all know how badly Draco is injured. > If Draco has the dark mark on his left arm as Harry suspects... > would Madam Pomfrey not have seen it when ministering to his wounds? Shelley: I see several possible options: - Madame Pomfrey is sworn to secrecy- kind of like the Hippocratic oath- about her patient's details. This means she saw it, but did not disclose to others that he had it. I am sure it shocked her and scared her if she did see it. - Madame Pomfrey saw it, and did tell Dumbledore. Harry wouldn't have been privileged to know this information, but DD would have used it in his planning and scheming to try and save Draco before the real harm is done. - As already mentioned, the Dark Mark is somehow invisible until it starts burning or coming back to show that the Dark Lord will be wanting that person's service. I imagine that in the first war, there was no need for them to be hidden, as all the DE were out in the open, but at times when someone is a stealth agent, like now, they would need to be muted somehow. More interesting to me, is the thought of how that Dark Mark was placed there. Did Voldemort do it himself? Can it be remotely placed if one takes a vow? Can a messenger deliver the mark for the Dark Lord? If Draco crying in the bathroom is any indication, I am sure he was pleased as punch to first get it, and then further meetings with Lord Volde really drove home the seriousness of what he had gotten himself into- that this was no little bullying game that he was used to playing- and that REAL lives were at stake, mainly his own and his parent's lives. I think he got it in the summer, between school years, maybe even before his parents knew what was happening, if he was at his aunt's house under the pretense of Occulemency training. I am sure that his mother freaked once she found out the reason why Lord Voldemort has chosen her son, and what his mission was. Thus, begin the beginning of Book 6, and the scene with Snape. Shelley From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 18:39:57 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 18:39:57 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162616 "justcarol67" justcarol67 at ... wrote: > Harry knows quite well that a > Cruciatus curse doesn't kill But the Cruciatus does make its victims wish they were dead. > He has felt it himself. He knows > exactly what he's protecting himself from. Indeed Harry does know what he's protecting himself from. The Cruciatus caused a 14 year old boy to wish he were dead. Think about that for a second, it's not a clich? or a meaningless phrase, Harry was in such pain he really and truly WISHED HE WAS DEAD! You don't forget something like that. > So Harry isn't protecting himself > from death or insanity. So you think that if Harry had done nothing he still might have left that bathroom with his life and sanity still intact. Well maybe, but would it be unreasonable for Harry to think otherwise, especially as he knows Draco has hated him with passion for 6 years? I think not. If I were Harry protecting myself would receive a bit more consideration than seeing that no harm came to my torturer. And Carol, do you really want your literary heros to be that wimpy, that politically correct? Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 19:39:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 19:39:47 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162617 chrusotoxos wrote: > > Assuming that Snape is on the good side and killed DD for a good reason, how will he make his way back to the Order? > > I think that there aren't a lot of possibilities here. > > Either (a) he contacts a member of the Order and has suffcient proof to convince him/her to trust him again; or he (b) contacts a student; or (c) he contacts no one. Carol responds: I think you've covered all the bases here. ;-) Or maybe you haven't. Maybe an Order member or a student witnesses Snape doing something that can only be explained by his being on their side--healing Luna, for example. Surely, Snape's healing skills will resurface in Book 7. chrusotoxos: > Imo, in (a) possibility he'll be forced to go to McGonagall - if he contacts a member we know of, of course. Moody hates his guts; Shacklebolt and Tonks are Aurors; of Lupin I'm sure he's still afraid. Minerva Mcgongall has been his colleague for years, and she's probable the one who'll hear him out, especially if she's had a chat with DD's portrait beforehand. Carol: McGonagall was quick to say that she trusted him only because of Dumbledore, which, I have to say, seems hypocritical of her since she was quite willing to follow his lead in CoS regarding Lockhart before she found out (through his own brave action in revealing his Dark Mark to Fudge) that he'd been a Death Eater. Certainly, Dumbledore's portrait could talk to her and explain that Snape is DDM! (but does a protrait know the circumstances surrounding its subject's death?), but I don't think that Snape would go to her. Certainly, he's not going to be walking into Hogwarts and if he sent her an owl message, assuming they're allowed, she'd probably tear it up. A Patronus message, maybe. But what could she do to help him? Harry's not going to be at Hogwarts. As for Mad-eye Moody, it was Fake!Moody who hated Snape as a DE who walked free. The real Moody only expressed distrust of him in the GoF Pensieve scene. I'm not sure that we've ever seen them interact or talk about each other other than that scene. But Moody is paranoid and trusts nobody, so I agree that Snape wouldn't go to him--or to Tonks and Shacklebolt, and not just because they're Aurors. He has no particular bond with them, and he did insult Tonks's Patronus--not the best way to get on good terms with her. Besides, I don't think he views either of them as particularly important or influential members of the Order. But Lupin? What makes you think that Snape, who tied Lupin up in the Shrieking Shack when he thought he was the murderer Black's accomplice, and has the upper hand over him by being able to make a potion Lupin can't make for himself, is afraid of Lupin? IMO, Lupin (assuming that Pippin is wrong about his being ESE!) is the very person most likely to figure out that the AK that sent DD over the wall wasn't a normal AK and start asking questions. He also knows Snape better than any of the others, having gone to school with him and been dependent on him for perfectly made Wolfbane Potions when they were colleagues. He, too, wants Dumbledore's approval. More important, he, too, has been a victim of the DADA curse. If anyone can understand the predicament Snape finds himself in at the end of HBP, it's Lupin, whose foolish decision to rush out on a full-moon night without his potion led to the escape of Peter Pettigrew and, ultimately, to the resurrection of Voldemort. (If Lupin isn't silently kicking himself for that blunder, he's as ESE! as Pippin thinks.) And Lupin is closer to Harry than any member of the Order besides the Weasleys and tends to be more rational than most. Another possibility is Arthur Weasley, who reacts to Dumbledore's death and to Greyback's attack on his oldest son but doesn't say a word about Snape. And how about Hagrid, the only person to put in a word in Snape's defense without making excuses for himself? > chrusotoxos: > In (b) possibility, he'll probably use Draco somehow. He knows that Harry can testify about the boy's lack of blood thirst, and he knows that the Order wouldn't hurt an underage wizard anyway. Or, if JKR wishes to please fanfiction authors all over the world, he'll contact Hermione, the one most likely to hear him out. > Carol: I do think there's a possibility that Snape will take Draco, who is also a wanted fugitive, under his wing. I'm certain that he protected Draco from Voldemort by pointing out that he'd fixed the cabinet and let the DEs in, making the murder of Dumbledore possible. I think that Snape will persuade the Malfoys that Voldemort is not their friend and will use them in some way to help him, and, of course, Harry, bring the Dark Lord down. I imagine him engineering a prison break with Bellatrix, all the while planning to subvert Lucius Malfoy, at least, and get him to join the fight against the Dark Lord who sent his son on a suicide mission. As for Snape reaching Hermione, I suppose there's some hope. She alone of the Trio believed Dumbledore that he was trustworthy, and (very oddly, given her year-long antagonism to the HBP) she tells Harry after learning his identity that "evil is a strong word" to describe the teenage inventor of Sectumsempra who grew up to kill Dumbledore. I don't think that Snape will contact Hermione, but she may start thinking about him and trying to get Harry to understand his motivations. Maybe he'll send a changed Patronus and she'll figure out whose it is and send him a message using her own. Redeemed!Hermione! (I don't like all the revenge she's been taking, so if she's the one who convinces Harry that Snape is on their side, or secretly works with him, I'll be happy.) chrusotoxos: > For (c) there is a prospect of huge duel scene at the very end, with Snape suddenly switching sides and allowing Harry's victory. We've seen this before (Last of the Mohicans, anyone?); it usually implies lots of blood, repentance of the hero for his own selfishness and great last words of the dying not-so-vilain. Carol: Or in LOTR? I think a Boromir-style repentance scene is what many fans are expecting. I very much doubt that JKR will give us one. Personally, I hope she finds a way to save Snape. But I don't doubt for a moment that he'll be instrumental in the Horcrux hunt, as well as in betraying Voldemrot to Harry at the last moment. > > chrus, who keeps her fingers crossed for Hermione involvement but secretly fears all will be known too late... > Carol, who hopes that either Lupin or Hermione will be the person who works with Snape and hopes that Snape will be the narrator of the obligatory expository scene near the end of Book 7 From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Dec 10 20:14:09 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:14:09 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162618 Carol: . Much as I would like to believe that DD died from > the poison and Snape cast some other spell disguised as an AK (I do > think there was an additional nonverbal spell that sent him over the > battlements, but that's beside the point), his agony is only > explicable if he really killed Dumbledore against his will, for the > cause, at the expense of his own soul and everything he had before--a > comfortable job, the respect of the WW, the trust of the Order > members, the freedom to go anywhere without fear of Azkaban. Nikkalmati But, Carol, Snape could be mistaken himself. When he was fleeing the castle, he presumably thought DD died solely as a result of his [SS's] mistakes (the prophecy, taking the UV, mot healing the cursed hand etc.). He had no way of knowing DD had drunk the poisoned goo in the cave. He could see DD was in a bad way, but he had no knowledge of what Draco might have done or where DD might have been. When he faced Harry, he was suffering emotional turmoil from having cast the AK, but he may feel differently when he realizes all the circumstances. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 20:21:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:21:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162619 Carol earlier: > > > Harry knows quite well that a Cruciatus curse doesn't kill > Eggplant: > But the Cruciatus does make its victims wish they were dead. > Carol earlier: > > He has felt it himself. He knows exactly what he's protecting himself from. > Eggplant: > Indeed Harry does know what he's protecting himself from. The > Cruciatus caused a 14 year old boy to wish he were dead. Think about > that for a second, it's not a clich? or a meaningless phrase, Harry > was in such pain he really and truly WISHED HE WAS DEAD! You don't > forget something like that. > > > So Harry isn't protecting himself from death or insanity. > Eggplant: > So you think that if Harry had done nothing he still might have left that bathroom with his life and sanity still intact. Carol: Now where did I say that Harry should do nothing? I don't expect him to realize that budding DE!Draco may be no better at casting Crucios than Harry himself is (being angry doesn't make an effective Crucio--quite the contrary--you have to be in control, enjoying causing someone else pain. As someone else pointed out, the DEs don't cast Crucios in battle. But I do expect him to realize that casting an unknown spell labeled "for enemies" is not the wisest or most effective move at this moment. A known defensive spell--a spell designed for Defense Against the Dark Arts, Harry's forte--would be a wiser move. I have my doubts about Protego in this instance, but Expelliarmus or Stupefy or Petrificus Totalus would work just fine. Better, in fact, than the unknown spell, which horrified Harry and could have resulted in his killing Draco. And Harry doesn't want to kill anybody, not even Voldemort, though he knows he has to do so in the end. (Unless JKR finds a way around it.) Like Snape with Harry, Harry hates Draco but doesn't want him dead, especially by his own hand. I think that if Draco had died, Harry would have felt terrible. If Ron or Katie had died, I'm not sure that Draco would have felt the same way. Why? Because Harry's the good guy, and Draco is a kid who at this point is just learning what death means and has not yet decided to join the good guys. Maybe he never will. Eggplant: Well maybe, but would it be unreasonable for Harry to think otherwise, especially as he knows Draco has hated him with passion for 6 years? I think not. If I were Harry protecting myself would receive a bit more consideration than seeing that no harm came to my torturer. Carol: that's not the point. He needs to use a good defensive spell that he knows will work to protect himself and prevent Draco from attempting a Crucio, not use some unknown spell designed to hurt an enemy. The good guys use defensive magic, the bad guys use offensive Dark Arts spells to attack and hurt. That's a lesson Harry has yet to learn even though DD keeps telling him that Love is more powerful than hate-based forms of torture and domination. > Eggplant" > And Carol, do you really want your literary heros to be that wimpy, that politically correct? Carol: Me? I don't want anybody to be politically correct. I can't stand political correctness in any form, which is probably why I hate the whole SPEW business so much. As for "wimpy," I guess we have to differ on that. I don't think being in the right, on the side of good, refusing to stoop to using the weapons of the enemy (or in this case, to try out unknown spells labeled "For Enemies" which could very well be Dark) is wimpy. Nor do I want Harry to turn the other cheek and allow himself to be Crucio'd (assuming that Draco can actually do it). I just want Harry to behave nobly. You know. Like a hero. There has to be a difference between evil and good, and I think that both Harry and Draco have yet to learn it. Carol, pretty sure that vengeance, hatred, and an eye for an eye are not the way to defeat Voldemort From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 20:35:08 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:35:08 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162620 > Carol responds: > I think you've covered all the bases here. ;-) Or maybe you haven't. > Maybe an Order member or a student witnesses Snape doing something > that can only be explained by his being on their side--healing Luna, > for example. Surely, Snape's healing skills will resurface in Book 7. wynnleaf, If Dumbledore knew ahead of time that Snape was likely to have to AK him and go deep into cover as a full-fledged (supposedly) Death Eater, then it would make sense for Dumbledore to have already arranged a trusted individual to be aware of Snape's status. Most likely, that would be an Order member. > Carol: > But Lupin? What makes you think that Snape, who tied Lupin up in the > Shrieking Shack when he thought he was the murderer Black's > accomplice, and has the upper hand over him by being able to make a > potion Lupin can't make for himself, is afraid of Lupin? IMO, Lupin > (assuming that Pippin is wrong about his being ESE!) is the very > person most likely to figure out that the AK that sent DD over the > wall wasn't a normal AK and start asking questions. wynnleaf, If Dumbledore did not tell anyone else what Snape might be called on to do, and instead someone on the Order's side figures it out on their on, then you're right that Lupin (IF he's not the 7th book traitor, which sorry, but he's perfectly positioned to become), could be a good candidate to start adding things up and realizing that Snape might have followed Dumbledore's order. Carol Another possibility > is Arthur Weasley, who reacts to Dumbledore's death and to Greyback's > attack on his oldest son but doesn't say a word about Snape. wynnleaf If Dumbledore let anyone else in the Order know the position that Snape might find himself in, the best person would probably be Arthur. Arthur is trusted by both many Ministry officials and Order members. He could therefore take information from Snape to select Ministry officials, who could assume it came via the Order. He could take information from Snape to the Order who would assume Arthur got it through Ministry contacts. Snape has no reason to distrust Arthur -- no bad past (like with Lupin or possibly with Aurors). More interesting are two scenes in HBP. When Harry talked to Arthur about Draco and Snape at Christmas, Arthur gave a brief answer on why Snape might have done spoken as he did to Draco. Lupin jumped into the conversation and talked a lot about why he trusted Snape. But if you look at how the characters were physically positioned in the scene, Arthur never left that conversation, he simply stayed silent until he finally stood up and called everyone's attention to something else. Arthur isn't the really quiet type. But he let Lupin take over the conversation and didn't add anything else for quite some time while Lupin went on about Snape. That could be coincidental. But it also could be the action of a person who knows a great deal more than they want to say and so leaves the topic of "why to trust Snape" to someone else who won't be in danger of revealing anything. Then in the hospital wing after Dumbledore had been AK'd, Arthur seemed the least distressed of practically anyone there. And he didn't say anything about being shocked about Snape. Later, when I started thinking who in the Order could be in on some plan, Arthur seemed the most likely. Best reason for Arthur -- everyone else in the Order, including Harry, trusts him. > Carol: As for Snape reaching Hermione, I suppose > there's some hope. She alone of the Trio believed Dumbledore that he > was trustworthy, and (very oddly, given her year-long antagonism to > the HBP) she tells Harry after learning his identity that "evil is a > strong word" to describe the teenage inventor of Sectumsempra who grew > up to kill Dumbledore. I don't think that Snape will contact Hermione, > but she may start thinking about him and trying to get Harry to > understand his motivations. Maybe he'll send a changed Patronus and > she'll figure out whose it is and send him a message using her own. wynnleaf I agree. I don't think Snape would contact Hermione. Fan fics aside, I just don't think Snape would willingly place his future in the hands of one of the Trio, including the "know-it-all" (Snape's opinion) Hermione. But Hermione could figure out that Snape was possibly following Dumbledore's order, and could help Harry in coming to terms with a loyal Snape. > Carol: > Or in LOTR? I think a Boromir-style repentance scene is what many fans > are expecting. I very much doubt that JKR will give us one. > Personally, I hope she finds a way to save Snape. But I don't doubt > for a moment that he'll be instrumental in the Horcrux hunt, as well > as in betraying Voldemrot to Harry at the last moment. wynnleaf I think Harry will have to get over his hatred for Snape *before* JKR lets him use that "power the Dark Lord knows not of" to defeat Voldemort. That would mean that Harry would have to deal with his hatred of Snape and forgive him before a final confrontation -- not because of it. wynnleaf, who very much hopes Harry has to deal with the tougher forgiveness of someone he'll have to work with and trust; not the "easier" forgiveness of someone who is dead and out of his life. From chrusokomos at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 20:41:44 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:41:44 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162621 Hi Carol, I'm flattered that you answered my mail, since I always read your posts and I think that what you have to say is really interesting. I'll jump on the occasion to ask you if you've studied Literature, or if you have just a natural flair in book theories? As for our bat friend, > Carol responds: > I think you've covered all the bases here. ;-) Or maybe you haven't. > Maybe an Order member or a student witnesses Snape doing something > that can only be explained by his being on their side--healing Luna, > for example. Surely, Snape's healing skills will resurface in Book 7. I agree that we'll se more of this light side he has, because we were intrigued by it, as Harry was, in the previous books and we don't really know much about it: where has Snape learned it all, for a start? If DD took him as a teacher so early (around the time Harry was born, right?) he couldn't have done much study after Hogwarts. And Healing is not something he would have learned from LV. Anyway, the reason I insisted in him contacting someone is that I don't think that at this point of the story a gesure may be enough for Harry to believe that he's innocent. In killing DD, Snape has gone too far. And Harry has by now learned, though he remembers it only when it's convenient to him, that a gesture left unexplained may have been done for several reasons. About the Order's members, I did hesitate between McGongall and Lupin - I certainly don't see him heading to the Burrow, for various reasons. I still think that Snape won't be the one going towards Lupin, but you're right saying that Carol: >IMO, Lupin > (assuming that Pippin is wrong about his being ESE!) is the very > person most likely to figure out that the AK that sent DD over the > wall wasn't a normal AK and start asking questions. He also knows > Snape better than any of the others, having gone to school with him > and been dependent on him for perfectly made Wolfbane Potions when > they were colleagues. He, too, wants Dumbledore's approval. More > important, he, too, has been a victim of the DADA curse. If anyone can > understand the predicament Snape finds himself in at the end of HBP, > it's Lupin, (snip) And > Lupin is closer to Harry than any member of the Order besides the > Weasleys and tends to be more rational than most. I mistrust the idea of Snape going to Lupin because this is one thing I'd do, and when I analyse my reasons I find that Snape couldn't have the same ones. Snape doesn't trust Lupin, never has, and Lupin has never given him a reason to trust him. He didn't protect him as a Prefect, he made a fool of him as a colleague. Lupin is, as Snape sees him, a weak creature; a creature, I say: not even human, with no ambition to free himself from his status, from his poverty, the contrary of Snape (I'm not judging here). Also, Snape has learned to fear him, and therefore to hate him more: he ran after him in PoA, but not to help him (he didn't carry him the potion), but to destroy him. He was also not his usual rational self that night, as we see from his reaction after Sirius' flight. He went after Lupin with the Cloak, ready to perform Unforgivables both on him and on Black. So if Lupin understands that Snape is somehow innocent and wants to claer him, imo he must be the one to find Snape, and not the other way round. > Carol: >I imagine him engineering a prison break with > Bellatrix, all the while planning to subvert Lucius Malfoy, at least, > and get him to join the fight against the Dark Lord who sent his son > on a suicide mission. Mmmh. If Barty Crouch could say 'I have no son' while Dementros dragged his son away, Lucius is likely going to do exactly the same. Any hope Draco has to survive reside in Narcissa, In Snape and possibly in the Order. Carol again: >As for Snape reaching Hermione, I suppose > there's some hope. She alone of the Trio believed Dumbledore that he > was trustworthy, and (very oddly, given her year-long antagonism to > the HBP) she tells Harry after learning his identity that "evil is a > strong word" to describe the teenage inventor of Sectumsempra who grew > up to kill Dumbledore. I think that this is a very important point. Hermione has grasped what Harry has not: there is always the possibility to redemption, there is always a cause for one's cruelty. This, of course, doesn't stretch very far, as we see from her treatment of Marietta. > Carol: > Or in LOTR? I think a Boromir-style repentance scene is what many fans > are expecting. I very much doubt that JKR will give us one. > Personally, I hope she finds a way to save Snape. But I don't doubt > for a moment that he'll be instrumental in the Horcrux hunt, as well > as in betraying Voldemrot to Harry at the last moment. Why do you doubt it? Please please please convince me, as this is exactly the kind of scenario I fear, a character left to die without explanation, some guessing and it's finished. And yet everything, imo, points to this: Snape is in hiding, and trust no one of the Order enough to contact them; excellent plot diversion a character switching sides at the last moment; powerful scene of a dying Potions master, surprise at Harry wishing Lv's death even more because LV killed Snape. I see only a small light at the end of the tunnel: Snape may be, as others have said, a 'training' for Harry before his duel with LV; in this case, Harry must learn to use his powerful weapon, his capacity to love and forgive, on Snape - in this case, we only have to worry about LV... > Carol, who hopes that either Lupin or Hermione will be the person who > works with Snape and hopes that Snape will be the narrator of the > obligatory expository scene near the end of Book 7 > This is something else that will earn you a golden star if you can convince me of it...Snape has not uttered more than a two sentences one after the other since his memorable speech in PS. chrus From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 21:12:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:12:30 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162622 Carol earlier: > Much as I would like to believe that DD died from the poison and Snape cast some other spell disguised as an AK (I do think there was an additional nonverbal spell that sent him over the battlements, but that's beside the point), his agony is only explicable if he really killed Dumbledore against his will, for the cause, at the expense of his own soul and everything he had before--a comfortable job, the respect of the WW, the trust of the Order members, the freedom to go anywhere without fear of Azkaban. > Nikkalmati responded: > > But, Carol, Snape could be mistaken himself. When he was fleeing the castle, he presumably thought DD died solely as a result of his [SS's] mistakes (the prophecy, taking the UV, mot healing the cursed hand etc.). He had no way of knowing DD had drunk the poisoned goo in the cave. He could see DD was in a bad way, but he had no knowledge of what Draco might have done or where DD might have been. When he faced Harry, he was suffering emotional turmoil from having cast the AK, but he may feel differently when he realizes all the circumstances. Carol again: I think Snape understood exactly what was happening. He didn't know the specific potion DD had drunk, but he did know that DD was dying and that under the specific circumstances--the activated UV and four DEs on the tower--that there was no saving him. He also knew that his own choices, from joining the DEs to revealing the Prophecy to taking the Unbreakable Vow, had led to that moment. So much easier to die heroically and end it all rather than taking the burden of murder on himself and, by doing so, saving the hated Harry Potter so he, not Snape, can defeat Voldemort. Granted, killing Dumbledore also accomplished other things, like saving Draco and allowing Snape under deep cover as Dumbledore wanted, but none of them, IMO, makes up for the anguish of being the one to commit the murder, of being regarded as a traitor and a coward instead of praise for his courage, with the only "glory" being whatever praise, if any, he'll receive from Voldemort, whom he hates more than he hates Harry. I don't think Dumbledore's being poisoned makes things any better for him (though he might, being Snape, taunt Harry with that knowledge if he finds it out). The poison was what brought them all to that final pass, what made it possible for Draco to disarm Dumbledore and left the great DD, who had so easily defeated Voldemort in the MoM and even more easily escaped from Fudge and his minions, at the mercy of four DEs, two of them idiots and one a mindless maniac. (Brutal!Face Yaxley is the only one with any common sense or sense of duty to Voldemort.) So thinking about the poison as the proximate cause of DD's death isn't going to give Snape any comfort. It was just one of the circumstances that made his hated action necesary. I think the only thing that will ease Snape's agony now is Harry's understanding that he did what he had to do, what Dumbledore wanted him to do, and that they have to work together to bring down Voldemort. Carol, seeing Snape as a tragic/ironic figure but still hoping for his redemption and survival From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 21:35:06 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:35:06 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF/ Hero vs Anti-Hero/Draco, Ginny, & Tom, oh my! In-Reply-To: <457C855F.3171.5BAE98C@drednort.alphalink.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162623 --- "Shaun Hately" wrote: > > On 7 Dec 2006 at 6:03, wynnleaf wrote: > > > > Now, what about the aftermath? JKR is careful > > > to point out that the boys did not drag Draco and > > > Co. out into the hall. They kicked, pushed and > > > rolled them out, and one of the twins was careful > > > to step on one of the unconscious boys. ... > Shaun" > > Yes, she did. And for me, when I read that, I was > utterly horrified at what they did. I condemn it utterly. > I could never ever condone it. > > But I understand it. And though I cannot and could never > condone it, I find myself able to forgive it. > bboyminn: Shaun, excellent to have you back again, always good to hear from you, and congradulations again on your degree. We can always count on you for insightful knowledge into school life, and again you have not disappointed us. I just want to add one comment on the 'Kicking' issue. Of course, my statements only reflect the way I read the scene, but I don't get any sense that 'kick' represents 'Blunt Force Trama'. They didn't kick Draco in the assaultive sense. They merely used their feet to push him out the door. This was one more form of disrespect and show of contempt for Draco, but under no circumstances do I see it in any way assaultive. These kick were really pushes with the feet. For some one they cared about and respected they may have taken the time and made the effort to bend over and use their hands to move the person. But who cares about a lout like Draco, so they don't even bother to bend over. The just use their feet to kick (meaning 'push') him out the door. People are applying a connotation to 'kick' that implies a horrible assaultive act, and I think that interpretaiton is completely inappropriate to the situation. True it wasn't very nice of them to 'kick' (meaning push) Draco out the door, but it wasn't an act that cause any physical harm. At least, not the way I read it. As to the Twins being bullies, well, I can't bring myself to say that you are wrong, but I'm having a lot of trouble agreeing that you are right. In one sense, we could be witnessing and experiencing being one of the cool kids as another cool kid bullies a nerd. We have a sense of kinship with the bully, and we don't see the harm. It's just good naturered teasing to everyone except the Nerd who is being bullied. On the other hand, there could be a real difference between what the Twins do and what Draco does. As an illustration, let's take the biggest Nerd in the Series, Neville, and look at a few of his encounters. Consider Neville's psychological state after an encounter with one of the Twins 'jokes'. No one likes to be the butt of a joke. We are all embarassed and uncomfortable when we are in that position. But Neville seems to take it in good humor, and doesn't seem to hold a grudge. It seems fair to say 'no damage done'. Now look at Neville after any encounter with Draco & Co, what is his mental state like? It strikes me that he isn't just embarassed but is humiliated, and suffers real emotional trama as a result. The Twins seem to know when to draw the line between a 'joke' and harassment. I'm not saying they alway succeed, but they do seem to apply some underlying sensitivity to when enough is enough, to when the joke stops being funny. That is the difference, I think, between annoying and embarassing pranksters like the Twins, and a real vicious bully like Draco. The Twins want to cause humorous embarassment, Draco wants to cause painful humilation and degradation. Again, on occassion the Twins might cross the line, but they are trying not to cross that line. Draco on the other hand is trying with all his might to do just that, cross the line. That is the objective of his brand of bullying. So, while being associate with the Twins can certainly cause painful embarassment, and even anger, it rarely causes harm. In that sense, I can see an /element/ of bullying since certain people are more susceptible to a pranks, like Neville, and those people probably already suffer enough trama. But I don't see the underlying viciousness in their actions to come right out and label them bullies. Yet, I can't deny that some of their pranks, like iching powered in your pajamas, invoke anger and pain. Personally, I don't think I am reluctant because the Twin are cool kids just like me (stop laughing!). I think as bad as some of their joke are, they just lack the viciousness of Draco, and they don't concentrate strictly on the weak and helpless. The Twin are equal opportunity jokers. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Dec 10 21:46:22 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:46:22 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162624 As regards a Boromir style repentence and death for Snape chrus said: > Why do you doubt it? Please please please convince me, as this is exactly the kind of > scenario I fear, a character left to die without explanation, some guessing and it's finished. > And yet everything, imo, points to this: Snape is in hiding, and trust no one of the Order > enough to contact them; excellent plot diversion a character switching sides at the last > moment; powerful scene of a dying Potions master, surprise at Harry wishing Lv's death > even more because LV killed Snape. wynnleaf I'm jumping in here although I know you're actually asking Carol and I really hope she gives her opinion! Let's use LOTR's Boromir and the Major in Last of the Mohicans as examples. In both cases, the character who dies is on the good side, but dislikes or is in competition with the protagonist. The character ultimately comes to the aide of others also on the good side and gives his life, in Boromir's case apparently sorry for his earlier actions. The big difference in those two stories and HP, is neither the Aragorn or Nathaniel hated the other character, and thus did not need to deal with forgiveness and hatred of their own, in order to complete their own mission. However, JKR has shown that Harry's great power is his ability to love. She also appears, in her interview comments, well satisfied that Harry now hates Snape more than ever. She specifically had Harry think in OOTP that if there's one thing he'd *never* do, it would be to forgive Snape. Yeah, right. It seems fairly clear that it's not so much Snape being set up to receive redemption, as Harry being set up to have to forgive and deal with his hate. Snape may certainly have to deal with *his* hatred as well (I hope he does), but the protagonist is Harry, so the development that *he* has to accomplish is even more important. I don't think that JKR is going to have Harry face Voldemort to destroy him, while *still* filled with his hatred of Snape. Therefore, she'll more likely find a way for Harry to forgive Snape *before* he faces Voldemort. Further, Dumbledore said over and over that he "trusts" Snape. I think JKR will probably have Harry not only have to *forgive* Snape, but *trust* him as well -- because that's what he refused to do all along. That's going to be a big hurdle for Harry. But my guess is that it's the Great Big Thing Harry will have to achieve before he gets to confront Voldemort. Oh, yes, he'll have to find and destroy those horcruxes, but that's more just adventure, it's not character development. Forgiving and trusting Snape is part of the character development Harry will have to achieve before facing Voldemort. So if he's going to have to forgive Snape *and* learn to trust him, all before he confronts Voldemort, then there's not much likelihood of a repentence/forgiveness/death scene a la Boromir. That doesn't mean that JKR won't still kill off Snape in a final confrontation. But hopefully, by then Harry would really be sorry to see him die, because by then he'd see the *full* Snape (the strengths as well as the weaknesses), not just the card-board cut-out villian he assumes Snape is. wynnleaf, who really hopes JKR won't kill Snape. Once Harry forgives and trusts Snape, there's not much reason for Snape to die. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sun Dec 10 22:04:58 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 17:04:58 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Sirius, Snape and werewolf incident/ Quote from PoA. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162625 >Alla: >Right the strange thing to me after the fact is not the line about Whomping willow, that I agree was meant to empathize connection with Lupin I guess, but games, broken eyes, as I said "name only" character and for some reason broomstick. Why is broomstick mentioned at all? Nikkalmati The broomstick is mentioned because Lupin is commiserating with Harry about the loss of his broomstick, which was torn to shreds by the WW in POA, when it was blown into the Willow when he fell off it because of the Dementor attack. BTW I don't see how Sirius could possibly come out of this story looking good. At best, if he did not plan to get SS killed, either he was incredibly stupid in failing to see SS could be killed or he didn't care. In the latter case, he risked almost certain exposure for Lupin and he did, of course, end up letting James risk his own life to undo what Sirius had done. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chrusokomos at gmail.com Sun Dec 10 22:12:43 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:12:43 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162626 hi wynnleaf, thank you for your answer. I agree with you on most points, and I'll just give two quick thoughts because it's late here and I'm going to bed (yawns). first, let's take boromir. I agree that he is the one growing emotionally because of his death, but Aragorn grows too. If I remember correctly, this is the first time that Aragorn accept his inheritance and behave like the king he is. He doesn't deny the truth when Boromir calls him 'my king'. So, because of the death of another, he's forced to look into himself. second, I don't think there's a mutual exclusion between forgiving Snape and Snape dying. Harry could understand the truth at the last moment, and think how horribly he would feel knowing that he had distrusted him all along. I mean, I totally agree that Harry has to discover his Love Power on Snape before he can fight LV properly, but this, imo, doesn't imply Snape surviving for a variety of reasons. Umph, look at the time. And tomorrow is Monday. Good night! chrus --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > Let's use LOTR's Boromir and the Major in Last of the Mohicans as > examples. In both cases, the character who dies is on the good side, > but dislikes or is in competition with the protagonist. The character > ultimately comes to the aide of others also on the good side and gives > his life, in Boromir's case apparently sorry for his earlier actions. > > The big difference in those two stories and HP, is neither the Aragorn > or Nathaniel hated the other character, and thus did not need to deal > with forgiveness and hatred of their own, in order to complete their > own mission. > > However, JKR has shown that Harry's great power is his ability to > love. She also appears, in her interview comments, well satisfied > that Harry now hates Snape more than ever. She specifically had Harry > think in OOTP that if there's one thing he'd *never* do, it would be > to forgive Snape. Yeah, right. It seems fairly clear that it's not > so much Snape being set up to receive redemption, as Harry being set > up to have to forgive and deal with his hate. Snape may certainly > have to deal with *his* hatred as well (I hope he does), but the > protagonist is Harry, so the development that *he* has to accomplish > is even more important. > > I don't think that JKR is going to have Harry face Voldemort to > destroy him, while *still* filled with his hatred of Snape. > Therefore, she'll more likely find a way for Harry to forgive Snape > *before* he faces Voldemort. > > Further, Dumbledore said over and over that he "trusts" Snape. I > think JKR will probably have Harry not only have to *forgive* Snape, > but *trust* him as well -- because that's what he refused to do all > along. That's going to be a big hurdle for Harry. But my guess is > that it's the Great Big Thing Harry will have to achieve before he > gets to confront Voldemort. Oh, yes, he'll have to find and destroy > those horcruxes, but that's more just adventure, it's not character > development. Forgiving and trusting Snape is part of the character > development Harry will have to achieve before facing Voldemort. > > So if he's going to have to forgive Snape *and* learn to trust him, > all before he confronts Voldemort, then there's not much likelihood of > a repentence/forgiveness/death scene a la Boromir. > > That doesn't mean that JKR won't still kill off Snape in a final > confrontation. But hopefully, by then Harry would really be sorry to > see him die, because by then he'd see the *full* Snape (the strengths > as well as the weaknesses), not just the card-board cut-out villian he > assumes Snape is. > > wynnleaf, who really hopes JKR won't kill Snape. Once Harry forgives > and trusts Snape, there's not much reason for Snape to die. > From adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu Sun Dec 10 22:34:41 2006 From: adescour at pirl.lpl.arizona.edu (abergoat) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 22:34:41 -0000 Subject: Lily's Eyes In-Reply-To: <3202590612050342j5042d48cv1c9832c797d84fbb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162627 Sarah wrote: > We don't know why Voldemort > ordered Lily to stand aside, but we do know she disobeyed a direct > order from him. He wasn't heard to utter the incantation, but it > seems he doesn't need one seeing by the number of times Harry has felt > himself magically compelled to obey a spoken order from Voldemort. > I'd even venture that Tom was developing his own version of the > Imperius curse before learning he was a wizard (Amy Benson and Dennis > Bishop, and "TELL THE TRUTH!" to Dumbledore). Abergoat writes: I'm (way) late to respond but the items you mention are excellent support for the imperius idea. Sarah wrote: > I don't know. Whatever is important about Lily's eyes, is something > she presumably shares with Harry. Harry is crap at Occlumency and > always will be because his personality just isn't suited for it. Abergoat writes: The thing is Lily could be horrible a Occlumency (or not know how, or even care to learn) but this doesn't affect her ability to help Snape learn Occlumency in the slightest. Snape simply needed a Legilimens to attempt to invade his mind so he could try to repel it, that's it. Lily could have been just as poor at Occlumency has Harry but still have been a useful partner. Sarah wrote: > Sirius thought Lupin was > the spy, and the Potters must have agreed with him or they wouldn't > have chosen Peter as the Secret-Keeper. I know what the movie says, > but I think it's in conflict with the book. If Lily saw some super > secret specialness in Lupin, why go along with a plan that pretty much > presumes Lupin is the spy? Abergoat writes: I know that Lily agreed to use Peter, but somehow I'm suspicious about how the suggestion was put to her. Sirius believed Lupin was a spy, we don't really know what James and Lily thought. I'll admit, I question whether Peter Pettigrew, the seriously underestimated friend, didn't cast imperius to help Sirius think of his 'clever plan'. And Peter might have used imperius on James to have him agree. James would want to trust Peter so it wouldn't be that hard...and we have evidence that James can be influenced by Sirius. Lily is the only person we've seen with true, steadfast, strength of character. She might not have questioned the switch to Peter, since she too wanted to trust him. Abergoat From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Dec 10 23:42:14 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:42:14 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162628 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol: >As for Snape reaching Hermione, I suppose > there's some hope. She alone of the Trio believed Dumbledore that he > was trustworthy, and (very oddly, given her year-long antagonism to > the HBP) she tells Harry after learning his identity that "evil is a > strong word" to describe the teenage inventor of Sectumsempra who grew > up to kill Dumbledore. I don't think that Snape will contact Hermione, > but she may start thinking about him and trying to get Harry to > understand his motivations. Maybe he'll send a changed Patronus and > she'll figure out whose it is and send him a message using her own. > > Redeemed!Hermione! (I don't like all the revenge she's been taking, so > if she's the one who convinces Harry that Snape is on their side, or > secretly works with him, I'll be happy.) Quick_Silver: Ok I've snipped a lot here to get to point at I wanted to respond to. I just have trouble seeing any character, be it Arthur, Lupin, Hermione, Hedwig, etc, knowingly influencing Harry about Snape at this point in novels (they may unknowingly influence Harry's view on the matter). I think that if Harry discovers Snape to be "good" it will probably be though either his own actions or the actions of Snape not an intermediary. In my mind (and I'm prepared to be wrong on this) having another character approach Harry about Snape (other then Snape himself) is too close to Dumbledore simply telling Harry to "trust" Snape (we call know how that went). Also I think it almost, cheapens, the redemption of Snape in Harry's eyes sure Snape is good but Harry needed someone to point everything out to him. It solves the problem but leaves the reasoning that led to evil!Snape unchallenged in Harry's mind (it's fixing the problem of Snape without fixing the problem that led to hating Snape in Harry). Harry figuring out on his own will require a fair amount of introspection whereas if Harry has it handed to him I fear he'll avoid the needed introspection. And to tie it in to Draco (I've been in a Dracoish mood lately) the new understanding of Draco that Harry has by the end of HBP (the pity etc) comes not from any plan of Dumbledore's (indeed the Harry vs Draco in HBP is interesting because Harry learns so much and Dumbledore doesn't seem to realize it but that is neither here nor there) but from Harry's own independent actions and observations. So I can see JK taking the same route with Snape Harry slowly piecing together the puzzle. Quick_Silver (prepared to be wrong about everything in this post) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 10 23:57:24 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:57:24 -0000 Subject: The Train Scene GoF / Draco's Crying (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162629 > >>bboyminn: > What we are doing now is dancing around the definition of > 'bully'. What you seem to be implying is that a 'bully' > is someone who DOES hit you. > Betsy Hp: I've not meant to be dancing. I'm trying to be very clear. When it comes to Harry, Draco is not a bully. He cannot be. It's not a question of the *type* of threat poised. It's a question of *can* a threat be poised. Draco Malfoy cannot threaten Harry Potter. Harry is too popular, too well-connected, too wealthy, and too athletic to be threatened by Draco. Ergo, Draco cannot play the role of "bully" in their scenes. Draco *tries* to play the bully. Or, to be more accurate, Draco tries to rebalance the scales. He tries to pull himself on a level equal to or above Harry. But he fails. Every single time. > >>bboyminn: > But Draco is the provocateur. He is the one that always > initiates the harassment and teasing of Harry & Co. > Harry would gladly spend his life ignoring Draco, if only > Draco would let him. Why does Draco 'wind Harry up'? > Answer: because it does wind Harry up. Betsy Hp: I like what Magpie has to say about this here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162566 > >>Magpie: > > You'd think that the only thing that would keep Draco in the game > after that would be his own efforts, but actually Harry keeps it up > all on his own, watching Malfoy and hating him. > > Oddly, noticing the way Harry describes Draco in those scenes in PS > added something to Draco's usual behavior for me, because I just > never buy the idea that Draco's just so stuck up he can't get it > through his head Harry always beats him because that's just not > Draco's character. Draco's *particularly* sensitive to getting hurt- > -twitching at the mention of Moody's name, getting jumpy in > Hagrid's class. There's no way he doesn't remember getting hit by > Harry and his friends; but his need to provoke is stronger. What > suddenly struck me in reading (with amusement) ickle!Harry's > immediate and true hatred of Malfoy was that I could actually > suddenly see what part of the appeal might be. Sure nobody likes to > get beaten up, but if you've got somebody who always seems so close > to blowing his stack around you, I can see making it into a show to > give yourself a little more control. > Betsy Hp: It's hard to put this clearly, so I *know* it'll be misinterperted, but something I've always admired about the character of Draco is that he *doesn't* give up. That even though Harry is definitely the bigger man on campus, Draco does his best to make sure Harry doesn't get a smooth ride, even while I like Harry. Also, the Trio don't ignore Draco. At least, not until OotP really, where they finally have their hands full. (Though IIRC, isn't there some point where Hermione dashes off page because she dislikes how Draco's handling his prefect duties? Plus, it's the Trio (and Hagrid?) who put all this pressure on Harry to beat Draco in the big quidditch final in... PoA?.) So it's not as if Draco is carrying the burden of their relationship here. > >>bboyminn: > > What matters is that Draco is threatening and intimidating the > gang, and he doesn't know when to stop. > > Most kids when faced with this type of intimidation just > bear it. > Betsy Hp: Were the trio *intimidated* by Draco? They seemed anything but. And I have an especially hard time seeing Harry in the role of intimidated victim, *finally* taking a stand. He's too aggressive to take on that role. > >>bboyminn: > As to whether this indicent will prey on anyone's > conscience in the future. I think not. Certianly, there > will always be an underlying emotional element to it, but > kids are resilient and incidences like this are typically > left behind and forgotten. Life goes on. > >>Quick_Silver: > Two points here...I think partly JK may be tying in Harry's reaction > in that scene to the overall character flaw that Harry has of being > reckless, hot-headed, heavy with the wand, etc...basically all the > things that Snape moans about. Secondly for Harry regretting that > scene specifically, I don't think he'll regret that scene > specifically unless it somehow comes up. On the other hand I think > that Harry will specifically regret the bathroom incident because > (if I remember correctly) he still gets a guilty squirm months (or > is it weeks?) later. Betsy Hp: I agree that it's unlikely any of the players will think back on this particular scene. As Quick_Silver pointed out, it plays true to character. But it is something, IMO, for Harry to grow beyond. And I agree that the bathroom scene is the more likely to be revisited. It's fresher and, I think it's more clearly something Harry is a bothered by in some fashion. And since the bathroom scene kind of carries through the ugliness of the train scene, I'm fine with that. > >>Betsy Hp: > > So, I'm not sure that book 7 will have Harry thinking back to the > > train scene in GoF and regreting his behavior once Draco was down. > > But perhaps there'll be a moment where he could behave in such a > > way again, and this time he chooses not to? And um, explains to > > Ron and Hermione why he's hesitating? > >>Quick_Silver: > I actually hopes that doesn't happen because I think there's no need > for Malfoy to be down in front of Harry...Harry is the only person > (aside from Malfoy obviously) that show the choice Malfoy made on > the Tower. That at least deserves a handshake between the two of > them in my mind. Betsy Hp: I'm not sure where Harry will be when he and Draco meet up in book 7. (Sometimes I assume a lesson has been learned, and come the next book, it hasn't been. Though granted, JKR has little time to work in now. ) But really, the downed enemy could be anybody. And it'd probably be more poignent if it were actually a downed *enemy*. Like Peter Pettigrew or something. Just something to show Harry has grown up. Betsy Hp From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 10 23:56:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:56:49 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162630 Rather than respond to everyone else's theories about why Snape took the Unbreakable Vow , I'm going to set forth a new one. To my surprise, it's something of a Gray!Snape theory. I'm calling it Blown!Snape because it starts with the realization that there are, or were, nine people who knew that Snape alerted the Order that Harry might have gone to the Ministry: Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, Sirius, Tonks, Mad-eye, Shacklebolt, Lupin and Kreacher. That's too many. Dumbledore can't possibly base any strategy on the assumption that Voldemort will never find out what Snape had done. That left Dumbledore only two choices: call Snape in from the cold, or make it look as though Snape's action had worked in the Dark Lord's interest. Fortunately, just as his every hostile action can be made to seem as if it was only meant to preserve DDM!Snape's cover, benign actions can be made to seem as if they were only meant to secure Dumbledore's trust. So before the vow was ever made, IMO, Dumbledore had a reason to trumpet his complete trust in Snape while all the while plotting secretly to make it seem that Snape had betrayed him. Of course the seeming betrayal will be the end of Snape's double agent mission to report to the Order about what the Death Eaters are doing. But surely that is not what set Snape's eyes aglitter when Dumbledore sent him back to Voldemort in the first place. No, Dumbledore was setting up his end game and the end game required that Snape be next to Voldemort. So all through HBP, Dumbledore goes about behaving as if his trust in Snape has reached a new level, handing him the long-coveted DADA post, letting him care for Katie, and telling anyone who will listen that he trusts Severus Snape completely. Voldemort will perceive that by daring to alert the Order of the DE attack, Snape was able to position himself to encompass the final downfall of his most feared enemy, and what is the loss of the prophecy and a few worthless DE's compared to that? This inverts the usual situation with regard to the vow. It can explain why Snape might, with a twitch of misgiving, agree to the last clause, but not the first two. We have not explained why DDM!Snape, no matter how much he cares about Draco, would pledge his life on a matter not directly related to his mission. But it's obvious if you look at it in the right way. Whose fault is it that Draco is to be scapegoated? Who is really responsible for the failure of the DE mission at the MoM? Who is the rightful target of Voldemort's wrath? Uh-oh. Once again, Snape's information has led to the targetting of an helpless child, not the son of an enemy this time but someone who seems to trust and admire Snape. The child is, IIRC, the only person that canon ever says Snape seems to like. The mother of that child, all unawares, now tearfully begs Snape to save him. No wonder Snape can't bear the sight. Now we have a reason for DDM!Snape to volunteer to help Draco, perhaps even to take the vow. He could certainly feel that he deserved to die if he failed and Draco was killed. But there's more. *Is* Narcissa unaware of Snape's guilt? I have felt from the first that Narcissa's begging was overwritten. But then I remembered overwritten Ginny sobbing her heart out at the end of CoS, and I began to wonder if it was meant to be a clue that Narcissa might be acting too. No doubt her fear for her son is real. But does she really expect Snape to be moved by pity, or is something else going on? I think what's going on is Blown!Snape. Snape has to know that Kreacher was in communication with Narcissa. He must know that Kreacher was unwatched between the time that the Order left to rescue Harry and Dumbledore arrived. Could Kreacher have told Narcissa what Snape had done? Is that why Narcissa has come to Snape? Theory: Though she pretends for Bella's sake that she's calling on Snape's regard for her family, Narcissa has something a little more weighty on the table and Snape knows it. That's why Narcissa offers nothing in return for the vow, and Snape asks for nothing from her. Their bargain is unspoken, a pretty piece of blackmail: swear on your life that you'll get Draco out of the mess you got him into, or the Dark Lord will find out the *real* reason that the prophecy mission failed. Gray!Snape and DDM!Snape now converge. If Snape refuses to aid Narcissa, Voldemort will learn of Snape's treachery before Dumbledore has made its value to the Dark Lord apparent, and Dumbledore's carefully laid plan will be in ruin. Thoughts? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 00:18:32 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 00:18:32 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162631 --- "chrusotoxos" wrote: > Hi! > > Assuming that Snape is on the good side and killed DD > for a good reason, how will he make his way back to > the Order? > bboyminn: This is probably one of the greatest mysteries to be resolved in the next book. Harry has an impossible task and his the most knowledgable person at his disposal, Snape, is now thought to be firmly in the enemy camp. How to bridge the gap? I'm thinking of a storyline that somewhat models HBP. I think Snape will contact Harry annonymously with valuable information. Say the locations of one of the Horcruxes. Perhaps, he may even follow that up with some information on some of the traps Harry is likely to encounter when he goes after the Horcrux. This will happen a few times and gradually Harry will be lured into a meeting with the annoymous stranger, only to find out it is Snape. Perhaps, the purpose of the meeting will be to enlist Harry's help in getting Draco out of the DE's. That is also another great msytery that needs resolving. At the meeting, hostilities will be high, perhaps even dueling, but Snape will either plant the seeds in Harry's mind that Snape had no choice and that he acted to win the total war and not just that one battle, or perhaps he will convince Harry that Dumbledore was already dying. Whether Harry is convinced on the spot or not, Harry will eventually come around, and accept Snape's help. My alternate theory is the Voldemort captures Harry early on, and after the classic 'reveals all' rant by the evil overlord, Snape and perhaps Peter will help Harry escape. Maybe this will happen after Voldemort takes over Hogwarts and Harry goes in for the rescue. In any event, knowledge Harry gains here, will help him in the ultimate defeat of Voldemort. Snape will redeem himself, and in the broadest and most general sense, Peter may redeem himself too. I don't see Snape contacting an intermediary. Harry wouldn't trust anyone who claimed Snape was really a good guy. So, the resolution has to be between Harry and Snape directly. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 01:03:22 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:03:22 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162632 > bboyminn: > Perhaps, the purpose of the meeting will be to enlist > Harry's help in getting Draco out of the DE's. That is > also another great msytery that needs resolving. > > At the meeting, hostilities will be high, perhaps even > dueling, but Snape will either plant the seeds in Harry's > mind that Snape had no choice and that he acted to win > the total war and not just that one battle, or perhaps he > will convince Harry that Dumbledore was already dying. > Whether Harry is convinced on the spot or not, Harry > will eventually come around, and accept Snape's help. zgirnius: My own gut feeling is that, somehow, during the hostilities in a hypothetiocal meeting such as the one you propose, Harry will gain the upper hand. I think this is the only way he'll listen, and the only way Snape will get riled up enough to say what he really thinks. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 11 01:06:58 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:06:58 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162633 Zgirnius: > If Snape makes his choice on the Tower because he sees it as the > only way he can save Harry and continue his spying mission, he's > not Grey in my eyes, he's DDM. Carol: > Acutally, I think you *do* believe in DDM!Snape, who *chooses* to do > Dumbledore's will rather than being bound to do it by, say, a Life > Debt or a last-minute order that he must obey. That's exactly what I > think, as well. The only difference between your view and that of > other DDM!Snapers that I can see is that you think that "Severus, > please" means "please save Harry," not "please kill me" or "please > carry out our plan." We both think that the element of > choice is involved. Dumbledore's *Man* doesn't mean Dumbledore's > *Slave." Just look at Harry, "Dumbledore's man through and > through," who nevertheless doesn't realize that snape is > Dumbledore's man, too. Jen: The reason I continue to stubbornly carve out a place for Grey Snape even though it looks like splitting hairs is because DDM has become this huge umbrella that covers every explanation of Snape unless it's in direct opposition such as the Life Debt or Evil! Snape. But JKR takes great pains to make distinctions in her characters and their choices because she appears to be saying that the reason *why* characters choose a particular action is as important as the action itself, that how they get to a certain point matters for Who They Are. For me, Harry will always be the gold standard for Dumbledore's man through and through and Snape is not Harry. The point of Grey is to say that Snape and Harry are not the same on the inside with different skins, they are not opposite but equal. Harry would never, ever find himself in the position of having to kill Dumbledore and the fact that Snape did **matters**. Not proving to be evil or out- for-himself is a long way from Snape earning the title of Dumbledore's Man in my book. Zgirnius: > The tactical situation on the Tower was materially different > because of the Unbreakable Vow, for which I believe Snape would > blame on himelf. He has blood on his hands, no question. Jen: The UV led diretly to what happened on the tower and therefore the reason Snape took the Vow matters greatly. I just looked at the list again while writing this and saw Pippin's post about Blown!Snape which I will read with great interest because I haven't come up with a satisfactory answer for the UV myself. Carol: > But, on the tower, he hesitates to kill Dumbledore, to become a > murderer for the cause (till now, he's always "slithered out of > action" involving Unforgiveable Curses, IMO), to make his name > anathema in the WW (hardly anyone even knew that he was a Death > Eater). Killing Dumbledore costs him everything he had: freedom, > employment, respect, the trust of the Order. But, for > Dumbledore and for Draco and for the Chosen One he loathes and for > the WW, Snape does what he has to do. Jen: Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so. Choosing to save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts could have even been Snape's way of making up for his huge blunder taking the UV and having to kill Dumbledore in the first place. I've mentioned the Lightning Struck Tarot card before and two people falling from the tower, one representing the literal fall of Dumbledore and other Snape's fall from grace. I used to feel some sympathy for Snape's fall but not anymore. His 'worst' came out in HBP and led to his own downfall just like it did when he handed over the prophecy to Voldemort. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 01:41:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:41:38 -0000 Subject: Is Draco a bully? WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Some mention of Grey Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162635 > > >>bboyminn: > > What we are doing now is dancing around the definition of > > 'bully'. What you seem to be implying is that a 'bully' > > is someone who DOES hit you. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I've not meant to be dancing. I'm trying to be very clear. When it > comes to Harry, Draco is not a bully. He cannot be. It's not a > question of the *type* of threat poised. It's a question of *can* a > threat be poised. > > Draco Malfoy cannot threaten Harry Potter. Harry is too popular, too > well-connected, too wealthy, and too athletic to be threatened by > Draco. Ergo, Draco cannot play the role of "bully" in their scenes. > > Draco *tries* to play the bully. Or, to be more accurate, Draco > tries to rebalance the scales. He tries to pull himself on a level > equal to or above Harry. But he fails. Every single time. Alla: Erm... No, sorry. In your view he may not be a bully, in my - he is one and very clear bully at that. Bullies come in all shapes or forms and sometimes bullies who just talk can hurt you just as badly IMO. And Harry is more popular, more well connected, etc is something I could never understand and still don't. Draco's father, not Harry's is able to buy or blackmail anybody under the moon and at least temporarily to throw Dumbledore out of Hogwarts. Draco's father is able of getting into the best graces of Minister of Magic no less and to make sure that Buckbeak is going to be executed, etc. Draco's social connections is in my view so much higher than Harry ever will be. Somebody some time ago said something that I totally support - Harry may be a celebrity, but he is **not** popular, he never was, never will be. IMO of course. The fact that people want to know more about celebrity does not mean that they like him or want to be friends with them, etc. Harry has very limited amount of friends, the ones who cherish and love him as a person - that does not equal good social connections in my view. ETA: Jen: Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so. > Choosing to save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts > could have even been Snape's way of making up for his huge blunder > taking the UV and having to kill Dumbledore in the first place. Alla: Hmmmm, Jen I find your Grey Snape more and more yummy ;) Golden words "Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so" Unless we learn that Voldemort somehow forced Snape to make the UV, I will continue to hold him and only him responsible for doing that, and accordingly hope that if he is any variety of decent human being (HAHA) he will pay for his stupidity. Again IMO. Alla, who digs any variety of OFH!Snape and Greyish and still has tiny hope for Evil one. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 11 01:43:57 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 20:43:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <457CB7DD.5010406@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162636 Jen Reese wrote: Jen: > Jen: Noble Snape willing-to-die-for-the-cause is difficult to take, > including willingness to die for Draco. And while I'm on the > subject, any version of Snape as misunderstood, diamond in the rough > or scapegoated, any version where the outside is one way and the > inside is another makes DDM ring false for me, I find myself wanting > him to be evil just so he doesn't have to suffer what I see as a > makeover. I'm opinionated on this one...no one can tell, right? Actually, under my EBA theory, it's fairly easy to take. Snape considers himself to be quite heroic. Look at his attitude towards Harry, and consider it under the following thought-form: "I'm 100 times the hero this stupid kid ever was, yet, just like his father, everybody gives him all the glory, when he would be nowhere if it weren't for people like me." True, his jealousy is never explicitly stated, but I would appreciate if someone could give me a more logical thought-form behind it. Jen: > I'm thinking the awful thing Snape has to do is choose Harry's > life over Dumbledore's. Dumbledore is pleading for Snape to save the > boys and carry out his plan for Harry from the inside and *Snape* > decides what must be done. The only thing that bothers me about this > scenario is DD lands on the tower under the Dark Mark and tells Harry > to get Snape. Dumbledore knows the death that night will be his own > and he doesn't ask Harry to get heroic willing-to-die-for-the-cause > Order members, he asks for Snape. But still I like the idea that > Snape's redemption will have added value if he wasn't just following > an order, that he made a choice and has to live with it. Live with > the resentment toward Dumbledore, Harry and even Draco and still > follow Dumbledore's plan at the same time. Bart: Given the supplemental theory that Dumbledore was already living on borrowed time when HPB started (and the not illogical step that he was being kept going by Snape's "death stoppering" potions), Snape would have been useful to help fix him up OR kill him, the latter if the time was right. One thing which I have mentioned before is to think of Snape's comments to Harry while running away, and think of WHY Snape is saying what he's saying. Because if you consider what he's saying, it comes down to, "This is what you need to do if you want to beat Voldemort." Now, there are two logical possibilities I can think of behind this. The first, which is the obvious one, which I do not believe stands up under scrutiny, is, "This kid is so stupid that I can give him the method to beat Voldemort right in his face, and he STILL won't use it." The problem with this is that Snape is a Slytherin, not a Gryffindor. That kind of bravado is more a Gryffindor trait; from a Slytherin viewpoint, what he was saying only made sense if he's making a last-ditch effort to give Harry what he needs, without blowing his cover. If JKR runs true to form, Hermoine will be the one to point it out to Harry, who will not want to believe it, but will eventually accept it. Bart From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 11 02:21:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 21:21:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco's alleged dark mark/The Train Scene References: Message-ID: <017701c71ccb$15066d30$8eb4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162637 > Carol: > I do think that Draco had a Dark Mark (which he showed to Borgin) and > that it was still painful. After all, the Dark Marks appear to be > *burned* into the DEs' skin. (If the Borgin and Malkin incidents were > red herrings, we'd have some other explanation for them.) But I don't > think he could have concealed it if he wanted to. Magpie: Draco's Dark Mark is a weird thing for me, because it seems perfectly logical and I can see lots of reasons he has one...yet I find it impossible to just take it for granted. In the next book I can't imagine Draco will be able to get through the whole thing without showing his Mark if he has one, so I'm willing to just wait for confirmation, but here's the reasons that after HBP I can confidently say he might have one, but just don't feel 100% sure yet. First, I was probably pre-disposed to be skeptical about it because when I read the book the first time, when Harry said Draco "jumped a mile" when Malkin tried to touch his arm I thought it was classic Rowling misdirection since Harry didn't remember that Draco had said he was stuck with a pin--and he'd been complaining about the pins already. I can't remember feeling like it was written in a way that indicated Draco was covering (like he jerked his hand away and then came up with the pin story). Fandom makes more allowance for the pin by saying that the Dark Mark is tender and so Draco actually was hurt when she got near it. Harry, iirc, only thinks he didn't want Malkin to see it (though he pulls off his robe a moment later). Canon seems to show the Dark Mark hurting only for Voldemort related reasons, and JKR shows these dramatically by Snape clutching his arm. So I was kind of waiting for Harry to be wrong on that. Then there's the Borgin scene, and I figured that would be wrong too. Only the Borgin scene is never given any other explanation and Harry isn't proven wrong about the Mark. So maybe Harry was right and I should just take the ultimate revelations about Draco in the Tower as confirmation of the Mark as well. I think the only reason I still waver is that it seems very unRowling to not actually make it part of the revelation. She surely could on the Tower. I would think if Draco had the Mark it would be a character thing there--he's talking about Voldemort's hold on him, etc. Harry could easily actually see the Mark at this time so we'd know he was right. It just doesn't seem like the kind of dramatic reveal JKR would forget about. But it is forgotten about. After the Borgin scene I don't think there's a single reference to whether or not Draco has the Mark. We know Draco's acting as a DE from chapter two, before Harry, but that's it. Draco doesn't show the Mark to his friends to prove he's telling the truth, and never touches his arm when thinking about his being chosen. Is that just so that it's still a mystery? If so, why not eventually show the Mark? And is it really that much of a mystery since we the audience know long before Harry that Draco is working for Voldemort and so working as a DE? The trouble, of course, is if he isn't marked then what's up with the Borgin scene? What did he show him? Since there's no other explanation given it seems like maybe I should just take that one for granted and assume that for some reason JKR dropped the ball on showing the actual mark. Or maybe she's waiting until the next book because it's first appearance will mean something. But since I'm already waiting for that I can't help but think it's possible that it was Draco showing something to Borgin that was the set up for the next book and that it will be revealed as something else, while Draco's lack of Mark will be the surprise. So I'm stuck feeling like I should assume he's got the Mark, but still having something that keeps me back from assuming it. There just seems something, well, *sloppy* about the way it was brought up and dropped and I don't think JKR is sloppy about things like that. If it turns out I should just take HBP as having confirmed that Harry was correct and Draco had the Dark Mark and that's what he showed to Borgin my hesitation will have been wrong-headed, but it will probably still stand out in my mind as a strange fumble for JKR. Steve: > Personally, I don't think I am reluctant because the Twin > are cool kids just like me (stop laughing!). I think as > bad as some of their joke are, they just lack the > viciousness of Draco, and they don't concentrate strictly > on the weak and helpless. The Twin are equal opportunity > jokers. Magpie: I think the issue for some with the Twins-and I don't hate them myself but I do feel this-is that however we feel about them they really don't stand out as being the bullies who lack viciousness, don't go after the weak and don't cause real harm. Which is not to say they are Draco Malfoy. But I think this is the type of thing JKR seems to be aware of in her writing. I don't know whether she's always seeing the same easy distinctions between bullying as her characters see and sometimes enjoys having the "fun" bullying turn on the bullies as much as the bad kind of bullying. I find it hard to believe that I wasn't supposed to react to Harry's saying that the Marauders in the Pensieve were "like the Twins" by saying, "Aren't they?" even while seeing the differences in the characters. -m From gloworm419 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 01:50:44 2006 From: gloworm419 at yahoo.com (Gloria) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 01:50:44 -0000 Subject: A couple of opinions & a topic for discussion -- Lily & Harry's eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162638 Gloria writes... Hi all, I'm not new; but I don't post very often either. With the fifth movie & last book coming out next year (can't come any sooner for me), I've been thinking about some things. IMO, I believe that JKR will sacrifice Hagrid and Snape, trying to protect Harry. I'm hoping Harry 'makes it' of course. I also believe that Harry needs to get LV into the Love Room somehow to defeat him. I truly don't believe that JKR would want to make a murderer out of her young hero. This whole thing with Lily & Harry's eyes being alike and having something important to do with the 7th book really perplexes me. Any inventive ideas out there? Happy Holidays to all! Gloria aka gloworm419 From klotjohan at excite.com Mon Dec 11 02:03:04 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:03:04 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162639 Hi all, I'm working on a college paper (about 25 pages) in literature about the Harry Potter books. The purpose is to establish if and how these books can be evaluated on a literary basis and, more importantly, if and how these values are affected by the communities surrounding J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter series. What I'm after especially is the interaction between reader and writer, to see if the feedback from fans and critics has had any influence on Rowling's work. It would be a tremendous help if all of you took the time to reflect on this matter and try to answer a few questions. Hopefully, your contributions will form the empirical core of my paper and result in some nice scientific research as well. Please try to be as concise as possible and to not stray from the topic. Also bear in mind that english isn't my first language, so feel free to correct any mistakes or to ask about obscurities in my writing. So, without further ado, here are the questions: 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have any.) 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by whom? Lastly I'd like to offer some food for thought and spark to a possible debate (but please refrain from flaming of any kind). Most of you have probably encountered some form of criticism against Rowling and/or her books, more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that children's literature represents one of the most significant sources of commercial homogenization. He has some strong points though I sometimes feel that he's too broad in his statements; what interests me is his labeling of the Harry Potter series as sexist, conventional, and too mainstream. However, he bases his arguments on the first four books (Sticks and Stones was published in 2001) and points to the similarity of the plot points in the different stories, as well as the lack of real female heroes or villains. Hermione is categorized as more of a helper, which is fair, but the appearance of Bellatrix Lestrange in OotP renders this argument invalid. The stories diverge more from the formula in the latest two books as well, interestingly enough; especially important is the death of major characters at the end(s). So, what I'd like to hear is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an improvement or not. Hopefully we can delve further into this if a discussion gets going. There are other questions concerning this I'd like to adress, but I feel this post is already a bit long. All feedback and contributions are much appreciated, and since I'm Swedish I'd like to encourage those that'd rather answer in Swedish, Norwegian or Danish to do so. If necessary I can help to summarize and translate those posts to facilitate discussion. Now people, please chime in on this - in my opinion - fascinating subject! klotjohan From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 03:50:08 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:50:08 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162640 > Jen: > For me, Harry will always be the gold standard for Dumbledore's man > through and through and Snape is not Harry. The point of Grey is to > say that Snape and Harry are not the same on the inside with > different skins, they are not opposite but equal. Harry would never, > ever find himself in the position of having to kill Dumbledore and > the fact that Snape did **matters**. Not proving to be evil or out- > for-himself is a long way from Snape earning the title of > Dumbledore's Man in my book. zgirnius: Well, I can see not liking the name of the theory because it seems to equate Snape and Harry. If nothing else, Harry has never done anything evil like joining the DEs and reporting the prophecy. Also, your statement about Harry seems incorrect. If the potion in the Cave was indeed a deadly poison (as it seems we both believe, correct me if I misunderstood/confused you with someone else, I thought in the post to which I responded you were suggesting that Dumbeldore's mental faculties might have already been affected by that deadly poison), then Snape's action is one of the things standing between Harry and that killing. If Dumbledore were less amazingly resilient, that could have caused his death. Of course, Harry didn't *know* it was a poison. But if we are going to blame Snape for the UV, he did not know it would lead to his killing Dumbledore either, because he believed he and Dumbledore could manage Draco so as to avoid the issue. Sure, it was a possible outcome, and was in a sense the most straightforward, but then, the most straighforward outcome of drinking an unknown potion concocted by Voldemort to protect one of his Horcruxes is also death. > Jen: The UV led diretly to what happened on the tower and therefore > the reason Snape took the Vow matters greatly. I just looked at the > list again while writing this and saw Pippin's post about Blown! Snape > which I will read with great interest because I haven't come up with > a satisfactory answer for the UV myself. zgirnius: For the UV/Tower to represent a fall from grace by Snape, the reason can't be connected to Snape's spying mission. That's a 'good' motive for the Vow. The Vow led to the killing, but not in a direct way, there were other factors involved, some entirely beyond Snape's control. If he took the Vow as part of a bid to re-establish his bona fides with Voldemort, in order to still be useful to Dumbledore's side, it was at worst a miscalculation (as opposed to a sin, an evil deed, whatever word it is that I am looking for here). > Jen: > His 'worst' came out in > HBP and led to his own downfall just like it did when he handed > over the prophecy to Voldemort. zgirnius: Is this your guess about the UV that you are referring to here? My bottom line difference with Grey, though, comes down to what we think we have been shown about the character. You insist he is not 'noble'. That's a big shiny word, on which I would not insist use to describe Snape, but I disagree that he would never risk his life for another individual or a cause. In my understanding of canon, he already did, when he embarked on the whole double-agent mission at the end of GoF. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Dec 11 03:54:50 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 03:54:50 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162641 > Jen: > For me, Harry will always be the gold standard for Dumbledore's man > through and through and Snape is not Harry. The point of Grey is to > say that Snape and Harry are not the same on the inside with > different skins, they are not opposite but equal. Harry would never, > ever find himself in the position of having to kill Dumbledore and > the fact that Snape did **matters**. Not proving to be evil or out- > for-himself is a long way from Snape earning the title of > Dumbledore's Man in my book. wynnleaf Yet Harry *did* find himself in the position of agreeing to do whatever Dumbledore said regardless of how much it endangered Dumbledore. He found himself having to obey that promise even though it included pouring liquids down Dumbledore's throat that could have killed him. So Harry, Gold Standard for DD's Man that you think he is, *still* could agree to actions that could kill Dumbledore. And make no mistake, Harry *knew* he was pouring something terrible down Dumbledore's throat. > Jen: Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so. > Choosing to save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts > could have even been Snape's way of making up for his huge blunder > taking the UV and having to kill Dumbledore in the first place. wynnleaf You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did not need to include Dumbledore's death. But there was no way to remove Harry and Draco without highly significant risk of death *unless* he AK'd Dumbledore first and allowed the DE's to think he was on their side. The alternative was a fire-fight of spells on the tower while Harry was completely vulnerable and Draco -- well, we don't even know which side Draco might have fired on, if any. And then Snape could easily end up dead, alongside Dumbledore and Harry. But hey, so what? At least Snape wouldn't have killed Dumbledore! Is that really *all* that mattered on the tower? All the good guys as die, as long as Snape doesn't AK Dumbledore, it was a good decision? And I can't believe the number of people who think Snape had excellent chances of taking down 4 death eaters, while protecting frozen and invisible Harry, and somehow protecting Draco who might have fired on Snape, or been fired upon by the Death Eaters if he tried to stay neutral. Please explain where the canon is that Snape is *this* powerful a duelist? Who have you seen him duel? Harry??? Lockhart??? Where's the canon evidence that Snape had any chance (much less a really good chance) to take care of all those Death Eaters while protecting two teenagers? wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 04:17:10 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:17:10 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162642 Klotjohan's questions: > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise > nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for > objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you > have any.) zgirnius: I am not a literary critic, just a lifetime voracious reader. I love the books for the humorous touches in the invented world, the characters, who seem unusually vivid and engaging to me, and the stories. One thing that stands out to me compared to some other series I have read is the way things hang together, in the sense that rereading a book, I tend to catch a lot of things that stand out more once I know the ending; and this even extends between books (Book 6 has materially altered how I think about Book 3, for example). > 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre > (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne > Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? zgirnius: I would pull Tolkien out of that list as different, and superior, to the others on the list that I am familiar with. I think Rowling's work seems as good to me as Lewis's, Jones's, and Dahl's, to the extent that I have read them. On a non-literary level, I prefer her to all the above except Tolkien. Tolkien's work, with its invented world (including millenia-long history and languages, plural (!) ) is something unique in my experience. > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? zgirnius: No. > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her > books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by > whom? zgirnius: I doubt she has made major changes to the books based on outside influences. However, I think, for example, the particular way she shows the uselessness of the Minitry in combating Death Eaters in Book 6 is different than it would have been in an alternate reality in which the events of 9/11 never happened. >klotjohan: > Most of you have > probably encountered some form of criticism against Rowling and/or her > books, more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently read parts > of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of > Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he > argues that children's literature represents one of the most significant > sources of commercial homogenization. He has some strong points though I > sometimes feel that he's too broad in his statements; what interests me > is his labeling of the Harry Potter series as sexist, conventional, and > too mainstream. zgirnius: I think that, if one were to adopt as a goal the utter homegenization of children's literature, then the way to do it would be to mandate that in every work, there be an equal number of important male and female characters, split evenly among the good and evil characters; that these characters further be of various ages, and that they represent the ethnic and racial compositions of the authors' home countries. I think I have left out some categories that ought to be included, but you get the picture, I am sure. I think TV is the big course of commercial homgenization, anyway, not children's literature. And if he wants to pick on children's books for this reason, he ought to pick on Goosebumps and its ilk. Rowling chose to write a series about a boy hero, not a girl heroine. I'm afraid I am one of the hordes of female readers that have no trouble enjoying the adventures of, a male character. I think, if I read his book, I would probably disagree with his views on Hermione. Yes, she is a helper. So is Ron. It's not a gender thing, it is because she is a friend of the hero. > klotjohan: > The stories diverge more from the formula in the > latest two books as well, interestingly enough; especially important is > the death of major characters at the end(s). So, what I'd like to hear > is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think > Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an > improvement or not. zgirnius: What, Cedric doesn't count? I think I would retroactively group GoF with the later books, and not the earlier ones, if what makes a book 'conventional' is nobody good dying. HBP is my favorite, but I also like all of OotP, GoF, and PoA very much as well. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 04:21:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 04:21:06 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162643 > wynnleaf > Yet Harry *did* find himself in the position of agreeing to do > whatever Dumbledore said regardless of how much it endangered > Dumbledore. He found himself having to obey that promise even though > it included pouring liquids down Dumbledore's throat that could have > killed him. So Harry, Gold Standard for DD's Man that you think he > is, *still* could agree to actions that could kill Dumbledore. And > make no mistake, Harry *knew* he was pouring something terrible down > Dumbledore's throat. Alla: Terrible, yes. One could hardly watch DD in the cave and not see that this potion was terrible. Deadly? Could you refer me to canon where Harry thinks that DD is dying before the Tower? He is getting sick, yes, but dying? I am not sure I remember that and that makes a difference for me. > wynnleaf > You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the > DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did not > need to include Dumbledore's death. Alla: I have more respect of Snape's fighting abilities. wynnleaf: But there was no way to remove > Harry and Draco without highly significant risk of death *unless* he > AK'd Dumbledore first and allowed the DE's to think he was on their > side. The alternative was a fire-fight of spells on the tower while > Harry was completely vulnerable and Draco -- well, we don't even know > which side Draco might have fired on, if any. Alla: Oh, I don't know. It seems as Neri argued earlier that Snape is alone on the tower because he chose to be so. He does not call for help, he does not deal with barrier, etc, etc. So if Snape is good and he chose to arrive alone and we assume that there was no master plan, I would say that yeah, he is probably able of dealing with several DE IMO. wynnleaf: And then Snape could > easily end up dead, alongside Dumbledore and Harry. But hey, so what? > At least Snape wouldn't have killed Dumbledore! Is that really *all* > that mattered on the tower? All the good guys as die, as long as > Snape doesn't AK Dumbledore, it was a good decision? Alla: Snape or Dumbledore? Not difficult choice for me. Snape would have brought all of that upon himself IMO by taking the UV in the first place. As to Harry and Draco, well if Snape is that concerned with their wellfare and he came to tower alone, as I said above I am guessing that he had some confidence in his abilities. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Dec 11 04:22:42 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 23:22:42 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162644 >Pippin There's plenty of dynamic in this version, because this Snape has never felt that his atonement was sufficient, and Harry is the only one who can make him see that it is, or tell him what he needs to do to complete it. Nikkalmati IMHO Because SS believes he contributed to LV's initial rise, he feels he must see his way through until LV's ultimate downfall and nothing less will cleanse him >Sydney >He [Snape]also doesn't get any scene that would establish a goal or motive that he's be out for himself *for*. There are only a few things we see him wanting in canon. The DADA job, which is famous being so cursed it's almost impossible for Dumbledore to find someone who'll take it. Vengeance on Sirius-- so long as he thought he was a Death Eater. And for his students to pass their exams! There's a whiff of his being pleased to be offered the Order of Merlin, but that's not exactly consistent with him simply being interested in which side will win. Nikkalmati: Agreed, he should at least have been feathering his own nest during the 13 or so years before LV returns, but we do not see that he has taken any steps to assert himself or establish a network during that time. >Neri >My point is that, if JKR goes for LID!Snape as I think, then Snape finally repaying his Debt and saving Harry's life should come as a big surprise in the climax of book 7 (at least surprise to anyone who hasn't read the Life Debt theories). If at this point most readers still believe in DDM!Snape, then there's no surprise, only disappointment (when it turns out he's only LID and not DDM). So I predict that during the first half of Book 7 we will get much more compelling evidence that Snape isn't Dumbledore's Man. Nikkalmati LID!Snape depends on a complicated construct built around the life debt about which we know very little. The only canon we have is that the life debt doesn't prevent PP from trying up Harry and cutting his arm open to get his blood. Yes, and standing around while LV tries to kill Harry. We don't know Snape had a life debt with James, we don't know a life debt can be transferred to another person. It also appears the gods of the life debt should be satisfied by the incident in PS/SS where he kept Harry from falling off his broom. Quirrell himself thought he could have killed Harry, if he had only had a few more moments. It also makes no sense for Snape to be motivated primarily by a life debt to Harry as though once he had saved Harry all his problems were over and he was free. The overriding purpose of SS's life since he returned to DD is the destruction of LV. Saving Harry is not enough. This overriding purpose is compatible with LID ESE or DDM!Snape, although for different reasons, of course . Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Mon Dec 11 05:32:09 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:32:09 -0000 Subject: HouseElf/Muggle/Fiction/Kappa/Goblins/CHAPDISC/Flitwick/WorldClass/Bullies/Sn Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162645 Steve bboyminn wrote in : << Next, take a faithful companion like a Dog; just an ordinary dog. ... Though, I hardly think we consider dogs to be slaves. >> On 12/3, my friend e-mailed me: << an idea from the LJ of a filker acquaintance of mine: House Elves in the Wizarding World All the discussion I've read about house elves in Rowling's universe start with the same assumption Hermoine Granger does - that they have a human psychology, which is to say, a primate one. Suppose that, although they are people, they are not human people, but are hard-wired to find out who is boss and follow him and her? To want and need a master and to love and serve a master? There is one sort of being that already fits that description whom we all know and many of us love dearly. That is .... Suppose their psychology is canine? >> Are you my friend's friend on LJ? Altho' all this talk of House Elves as dogs obscures a previous theory that House Elves symbolize House Wives, who also often dislike being freed (divorced). A listie offered that explanation of House Elves before we even met Winky. Inge wrote in : << Hermione's parents somehow got into The Leaky Cauldron (and I'm sure there's been quite a few explanations as to how *that* happened on here; I just forgot what they were) >> We just know that the Leaky Cauldron has a spell on it so that Muggles won't see its front, not that Muggles can't enter it or can't see its interior. I assume Hermione's parents simply closed their eyes and followed as their daughter led them by the hand into the Leaky Cauldron. (As Mike Crudele mentioned in passing in , where I don't agree with him that being Unplottable makes a place invisible to Muggles.) Betsy Hp wrote in : << IIRC JKR stated in an interview that there are no fiction authors in the WW. (I believe she said something about having to write charms instruction books if she lived there.) >> My recollection is that she didn't directly state that there are no fiction authors in the WW, but she did say that all she ever wanted to be was a writer, so she would be a writer of spell books. That struck me as odd, because even if there are no fiction authors, there ARE story authors. For example, October '05 Wizard of the Month Fifi LaFolle, author of the 'Enchanted Encounters' series of what we would call 'trashy romance novels, at least from her visual resemblance to Barbara Cartland. Potioncat wrote in : << He disputes the imformation about Kappas (is it Kappas?) Most of us thought he had made a mistake. But, given his "improvement" on the potions from the potions text, do we think he's correct on this issue? >> Kappas are real -- I mean, JKR didn't make them up. They're from Japanese folklore, where their fondness for cucumber is well-enough known that a kind of sushi roll is named kappa roll. They live in rivers and streams, and have a depression on the top of their head that is full of water, and if you trick one into bowing to you, the water falls out and the kappa loses its strength and can't harm you. Whether some kappas emigrated to Mongolia and established a large population there I do not know, but I don't think of Mongolia as a place with lots of rivers and streams for them to live in. Nikkalmati wrote in : << The goblin rebellions are mentioned more than once in the books in connection with History of Magic. I am not sure we will ever know more about them but I wonder did they win? It would seem the goblins are not under the control of wizards and play an vital and independent role in WW finance, ergo, they must have won? >> In OoP chapter 5, during the dinner conversation at 12 Grimmauld Place, Lupin and some Weasleys were speaking of which side the goblins will choose to be on. 'I think it depends what they're offered,' said Lupin. 'And I'm not talking about gold. If they're offered the freedoms we've been denying them for centuries they're going to be tempted.' If wizards are still limiting the freedoms of goblins, then the goblins haven't won. Yet. One of the OWL questions was 'In your opinion, did wand legislation contribute to, or lead to better control of, goblin riots of the eighteenth century?' I suspect that means that owning/using a wand is one of the freedoms that wizards have denied to goblins. Zgirnius discussed Chapter 26 in : << 14) Does the chapter title "The Cave" have any special significance? Is its setting in a cave important? (Important events at the ends of PS/SS, CoS, and PoA involve subterranean settings, as well). >> Do you want us to associate the chapter title with Plato's metaphor of the Cave? He said that people in the world are like people in a cave watching shadows move around on the wall and believing that the shadows are the real things, because they don't realize that the shadows are only cast by the real real things outside the cave mouth in the sunlight. The experience of our senses is all illusion. Carol wrote in : << Flitwick (who could no more have been a duelling champion in his youth than I could given his size) >> Being small just makes him a smaller target. It doesn't make him slower and (as Scarah wrote in ) it doesn't make his spells less powerful. Eggplant wrote in : << Harry is world class at Defense Against the Dark Arts >> For his age group. Katie wrote in : << My three-year-old came home from nursery school last week with a bite mark on his arm from another child. Did I tell him to bite back, or punch the child? Of course not. We went and spoke with his teacher, arranged a meeting with mom and the little boy, and worked it out like civilized people. That's real life - Potter books are about wizards! Fiction! I think different rules apply. >> This is *so strange* to me. A parent complains to a teacher about her child being bitten and the teacher doesn't scold the parent for being 'overprotective'. I was a child a very long time ago (I'm 49 now), and in those days, if a child reported to an adult (teacher, parent) about being bullied, some adults would punish the child for 'tattling' and others would mock the child for being a 'crybaby', but all would express similar opinions to those expressed by Steve bboyminn and QuigonGinger: that being bullied is your own fault for being weak and it is your duty to hit him back. Jen wrote in : << Noble Snape willing-to-die-for-the-cause is difficult to take, including willingness to die for Draco. >> I think Snape would kind of like to die. Because it can't be pleasant to be Snape, with all that nastiness churning inside him, and death would be a release. But something forbids him from obvious suicide, so doing risky jobs is his suicide attempt. Chrus wrote in : << Assuming that Snape is on the good side and killed DD for a good reason, how will he make his way back to the Order? >> Maybe he will send them helpful information anonymously by owl, in notes written in disguised handwriting that looks like Dumbledore's (or like RAB's), Pippin wrote in : << Blown!Snape ... a new ... Gray!Snape theory. >> I like the name. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Dec 11 05:34:15 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:34:15 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162646 > > wynnleaf > > You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the > > DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did > not > > need to include Dumbledore's death. > > > Alla: > > I have more respect of Snape's fighting abilities. wynnleaf Your respect notwithstanding, where's the canon evidence? I did not see that you produced an ounce of it. So he could win against Harry or Lockhart in one-on-one combat. Where's the evidence he had a *good chance* of winning against 4 death eaters, while protecting teens at the same time? And remember, the ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape theories require that Dumbledore think there's a good chance he'll win, too, otherwise Dumbledore's "Severus please... (anything other than 'AK me')" is asking Snape to seriously risk Harry and Draco's lives. > wynnleaf: > But there was no way to remove > > Harry and Draco without highly significant risk of death *unless* > he > > AK'd Dumbledore first and allowed the DE's to think he was on their > > side. The alternative was a fire-fight of spells on the tower > while > > Harry was completely vulnerable and Draco -- well, we don't even > know > > which side Draco might have fired on, if any. > > > Alla: > > Oh, I don't know. It seems as Neri argued earlier that Snape is > alone on the tower because he chose to be so. He does not call for > help, he does not deal with barrier, etc, etc. So if Snape is good > and he chose to arrive alone and we assume that there was no master > plan, I would say that yeah, he is probably able of dealing with > several DE IMO. wynnleaf Surely it did not escape your notice that Snape is not alone on the tower? As regards the barrier -- do we have *any* canon evidence that Snape knew how to take it down? Any? Lupin (supposedly a DADA expert) couldn't take it down. Neither could McGonagall. So where's the evidence that Snape knew how? The notion that Snape intentionally went to the tower alone with either an intent to kill Dumbledore or expecting to *possibly* kill DD for ulterior purposes (other than DD's orders) presupposes that Snape knew Dumbledore was up there. But where's the evidence of that? It fits if Snape and DD planned or expected to be on the tower, but not if they neither expected it. > wynnleaf: > And then Snape could > > easily end up dead, alongside Dumbledore and Harry. But hey, so > what? > > At least Snape wouldn't have killed Dumbledore! Is that really > *all* > > that mattered on the tower? All the good guys as die, as long as > > Snape doesn't AK Dumbledore, it was a good decision? > > Alla: > > Snape or Dumbledore? Not difficult choice for me. wynnleaf You missed my point. If Snape chose to fight the DE's, then Snape, Dumbledore, and Harry -- as well as possibly Draco -- would most likely die. That's the choice -- DD,Harry,Snape,maybe Draco OR just DD. Oh yeah, with no canon evidence, you think that Snape had a good chance of winning against 4 death eaters while protecting Harry and Draco and Dumbledore (the object was to keep him alive, right?). Oh, and one more thing -- the Not To Be Forgotten Vow. All of this *also* presupposes that Snape won't die an immediate death if he doesn't fulfill the Vow. So not only does he have to be SuperDuellist!Snape (no canon evidence remember), we also have to assume that the Vow will leave him alive to have time to take down all those Death Eaters. And you're also assuming that Dumbledore expects Snape to be able to stay alive long enough to do so as well. Alla Snape would have > brought all of that upon himself IMO by taking the UV in the first > place. wynnleaf Possibly. But once on the tower, that's no longer the question. The question is what did Dumbledore want him to do about it up there on the tower. Alla > As to Harry and Draco, well if Snape is that concerned with their > wellfare and he came to tower alone, as I said above I am guessing > that he had some confidence in his abilities. wynnleaf How do you know he could have brought help with him??? But if he couldn't have brought help with him, does that mean he should simply not have gone at all? Perhaps he should have thought, "Hm, I don't know who all is up there. Maybe I can't handle them on my own. So I just shouldn't go up. After all, if someone is up there in trouble, they can take care of themselves." Oh, another big argument against your notion that Snape's not taking anyone along means he was oh-so-confident of his own capabilities. If Snape thought he was going to find Dumbledore up on the tower -- we have no canon evidence that he would have expected anything less than a Dumbledore fully capable of fighting just as powerfully as he did at the end of OOTP. Unless Snape was working *closely* with Dumbledore and *knew* he was likely to be drinking those cave liquids that night, Snape should have expected Dumbledore to be quite capable of defending himself. wynnleaf From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 05:39:06 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:39:06 -0000 Subject: Draco's alleged dark mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162647 First off, Carol, thanks for reminding me that the Mark faded after LV's fall. I had forgotten that and stand corrected. > Carol responded to Ginger: > I agree that the Dark Mark is problematic, but I don't think that the > DEs have any control over it. Only Voldemort does. He can touch the > Dark Mark of any DE to summon the others, for example, and it fades or > grows in intensity with his weakness or strength, which explains > Karkaroff's panic in GoF. If he could have turned off his Dark Mark, > he would have done so. Snape twice clutches his left arm as if he's in > pain, once when Fake!Moody says "some spots don't come off" and once > when Harry says Voldemort's name. (My theory has always been that the > Dark Mark is sentient and knows that Snape is unfaithful.) Certainly, > if Snape could turn it on and off, he would do so. No one on the > Hogwarts staff (except Dumbledore) even knows that he was a DE until > he shows the Dark Mark in GoF. (snip) Ginger says: I think I may have not been clear. I hadn't meant that the DEs could turn it on and off, or even put it on vibrate or have LV's touch forwarded to an automated answering service. (Please leave your name, location and a brief message after the beep, and I'll apparate to you as soon as possible.) I had meant that they could make it visible or invisible to whomever they chose. The Mark would still be there, just not seen by those who they didn't want to see it. It would still burn, and, in their eyes, fade and vanish or come back according to the varying strength of LV's presence. I just meant that they could make it so that they were branded only to LV and not to the prying eyes of Aurors, the Ministry, and general busybodies. I don't think they could just get rid of it even if they wanted to. Sorry if I was unclear on that. Ginger, built like Umbridge, only taller. Pass the calorie-free s'mores. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 06:09:03 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:09:03 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162648 Carol: > > Carol, who hopes that either Lupin or Hermione will be the person who > > works with Snape and hopes that Snape will be the narrator of the > > obligatory expository scene near the end of Book 7 > > chrus: > This is something else that will earn you a golden star if you can convince me of it...Snape > has not uttered more than a two sentences one after the other since his memorable > speech in PS. zgirnius: While I tend to share your worries about Snape's ultimate fate at the end of Book 7, he does talk more than you remember. In PoA in the chapter "Snape's Grudge", he talks at some length about Harry, James, and the circumstances under which James saved his life. WHen he appears from under the Invisibility Cloak, he gives another little speech several sentences long. In OotP we have the Occlumency lessons, in which he again does a lot of talking. And not merely about technicalities of how Occlumency is performed. He talks about what it is, and discusses with Harry why he needs to learn it, during the first lesson. He of course talks up a storm in HBP's "Spinner's End" chapter, but I suppose you meant 'when Harry is around'. However, his DADA introductory speech is also on the long side, as are his snide comments to Harry when he arrives late at the school after being attacked by Draco. From quigonginger at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 06:12:22 2006 From: quigonginger at yahoo.com (quigonginger) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:12:22 -0000 Subject: Bullies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162649 > Katie wrote: > << My three-year-old came home from nursery school last week with a > bite mark on his arm from another child. Did I tell him to bite back, > or punch the child? Of course not. We went and spoke with his teacher, > arranged a meeting with mom and the little boy, and worked it out like > civilized people. That's real life - Potter books are about wizards! > Fiction! I think different rules apply. >> To which Rita (Catlady) responded: > This is *so strange* to me. A parent complains to a teacher about her > child being bitten and the teacher doesn't scold the parent for being > 'overprotective'. I was a child a very long time ago (I'm 49 now), and > in those days, if a child reported to an adult (teacher, parent) about > being bullied, some adults would punish the child for 'tattling' and > others would mock the child for being a 'crybaby', but all would > express similar opinions to those expressed by Steve bboyminn and > QuigonGinger: that being bullied is your own fault for being weak and > it is your duty to hit him back. Ginger now says: Whoa! Let's back up a second here. I didn't say that being bullied is your own fault. I don't recall Steve saying that either, although I do remember someone (probably Steve) saying that bullies tend to pick on those who they perceive as weak. Being less than a decade your junior, I was also raised that it was up to you to handle things on your own. That you had to be strong, if you will. This doesn't mean that you were weak to begin with, only that you had to find or use the strength within yourself to handle things. Actually the first time I hit someone, I went home and confessed to my dad that I had slapped a boy who was in the process of beating the crap out of me for the second time that week. I hadn't hit back before because I had been taught not to hit people back (specificly my younger sisters). After I hit him, he decided I wasn't worth the quarter he was paid to beat me up by a girl who didn't like me. Is it your duty to hit back? No. If you reference my post, I said that I was told not to if there was an adult around to intervene. Is it an option if there is no one else to defend you? Absolutely. Like I said before, some may not opt to fight back. Some may take it and take it some more. I did that myself on a few occasions where I was grossly outnumbered. I also used humour to counter them if a verbal attack happened in front of a crowd. If they gave it, I gave it back, and I ended up making a few friends out of the bullies that way. They liked my wit, such as it was. I am only saying that a person has every right to defend themselves, and that if one is faced with the sort of bully who can only be stopped by brute force, then brute force is a valid option for those who wish to stop the bully. I agree with a lot of what Shaun said about the best situation being one where the adults won't tolerate it. The next best is where the other kids won't tolerate it. I would add that those not being the case in a particular situation, it is up to the individual to decide how much and what type of crap they are willing to put up with and to what extent they are willing to go to stop it. I realize I am straying from canon on this post, but I did want to make myself clear as my words seem to have been misconstrued. Ginger, who is really not a violent person, but has learned to be if needed. From rduran1216 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 07:43:33 2006 From: rduran1216 at yahoo.com (rduran1216) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:43:33 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162650 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > Assuming that Snape is on the good side and killed DD for a good > reason, how will he make his way back to the Order? > > I think that there aren't a lot of possibilities here. > > Either (a) he contacts a member of the Order and has suffcient > proof to convince him/her to trust him again; or he (b) contacts a > student; or (c) he contacts no one. > > Imo, in (a) possibility he'll be forced to go to McGonagall - if he > contacts a member we know of, of course. I think Option A is the most plausable. NOBODY gets along with snape except Dumbledore and McGonagall by the looks of it, so his contact will have to be with her, unless someone knows more than they're telling. I think Hagrid may be the offender on this, as his reaction to Dumbledore's death seems surreal given the amount of death he's dealt with in his life. The only other possibilities are the issues of Regulus Black and also I think it's believable that Dumbledore has sent Harry on a kind of treasure hunt that will lead him to the truth about Snape. rduran From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Dec 11 13:58:47 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:58:47 -0000 Subject: FILK: Sev'rus Got Run Over by a Hippogriff Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162651 In 162394, Caius Marcius wrote: Here's my first 2006 HP Xmas Carol - if you post an Xmas song here between now and 12-25, I will immediately upload it to the Very Harry Christmas page (with your permission, of course): Potioncat: Potioncat enters. She is wearing fuzzy snowman slippers; a sweater decorated with reindeer, one of which has a red nose that blinks; springs of holly as earrings and a Christmas-Elf cap with a little silver bell that jingles every time she moves her head. OK, everyone, where's the songs? You're a bunch of creative people and it's the holidays! We need parodies. We need music. We need firewhiskey! I know CM and Ginger have set the musical bar very high. Don't worry, I just lowered it. I can't carry a tune in a bucket and this has to be the most annoying carol in America. So, after you read this, you will be able to say with confidence, "I can do better than that!" To the tune of "Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer." Sev'rus Got Run Over by a Hippogriff http://members.aol.com/cdickent2/xmas/grandma.html Draco is singing: Sev'rus got run over by a hippogriff Running from the castle late one night. Albus says it's all about our choices, Now Snape and I sure hope we'll make them right. I had Albus on the tower. I thought I was in control. But he wielded all the power, And then Potter was consumed with vitriol. Snape came rushing through the doorway The headmaster made his plea. Then Snape cast'ed a Kadavra, And he headed down the passageway with me. Sev'rus got run over by a hippogriff Running from the castle late one night. Albus says it's all about our choices, Now Snape and I sure hope we'll make them right. Snape he took a vow for Mother. I thought he was there for me. He was watching out for Hogwarts, Making sure the castle was Death Eater free. Sev'rus had his eye on Potter Making sure he wasn't harmed. Sev'rus tried to give instruction, But the stupid Gryffindor, he wasn't charmed. Sev'rus got run over by a hippogriff Running from the castle late one night. Albus says it's all about our choices, Now Snape and I sure hope we'll make them right. The dark wizards were so happy, at the death of Dumbledore. They think we will be the winners, If we all choose to obey Lord Voldemort. It's our choices that determine How we spend our destiny Take your time and be real careful Or you'll end up on the dark side just like me. Sev'rus got run over by a hippogriff Running from the castle late one night. Albus says it's all about our choices, Now Snape and I sure hope we'll make them right. From scarah at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 14:00:42 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 06:00:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612110600qa23c24bm168fc09bfbf7c5e4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162652 Magpie: But it's the self-eviscerate that's the problem, not agreeing to kill Dumbledore. If he doesn't want to eviscerate himself why is he taking a suicide pact? Sarah: I know there's a lot to read here, but as I've been on about quite consistently, I believe that something as bad or worse will happen to Snape if he doesn't follow along. Like if you had to go to work on Monday, but had already taken a death pact that you would go to work on Monday, so what's one more? Magpie: The way DDM actually answers these questions is that Snape is driven by remorse over the events at Godric's Hollow, which fuels both his desire to protect Harry and his hatred of him. It made him switch sides, and he became loyal to Dumbledore. Sarah: Remorse, which is almost impossible absent Snape/Lily, which won't happen narratively because Harry would be in the bucket puking the rest of the book. It is exactly this line of thinking which led me to plot device/Life Debt reasoning. Magpie: The Debt itself, if it's the kind of magical contract you describe here, wouldn't hop over to Harry. It would play out on Snape at James' death and he would die or something worse. He didn't. Sarah: Well, Dumbledore is Dumbledore. He can do a lot of things. A lot of things are not canon. Life Debt has a lot more potential than Snape/Lily, in my opinion. And, I didn't originate the "upgraded Life Debt" idea, that was someone else. Jen: Whatever the point of connection I hope it's not Lily. Her empathy of Snape leading to Harry recognizing empathy in himself and Snape's love for Lily is fine as long as Harry and Snape never have to have a *conversation* about it! Ick, ick. Sarah: Haha, yes, it would be terrible. I also think it would be terrible if Harry had to find it out second hand though. One way or the other, he would be grossed out. Carol: >Sarah: > Another thing Snape can do is attempt to revive or cure Dumbledore. >Carol: >With four DEs right there on the tower? They'd kill him if the UV >didn't. And besides, I doubt that he would know the antidote to a >complex poison without carefully examining Dumbledore, adn he >certainly didn't have it in his pocket. A bezoar won't cure all >poisons, and some--probably including this one, compounded by Voldemort himself--have no antidotes. Not an option. Besides, he has >to keep his cover. >Sarah: > If Dumbledore > has been working to establish Snape's DE status better than ever > before, as I believe, then doing this in front of the witnesses > present would not be good for just about anyone involved. Sarah: I see what you did there. My original text without the commentary in the middle was making the same exact same point as you were. No, I'm not crazy, I was making the same point as you. Sarah From scarah at gmail.com Mon Dec 11 13:23:38 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 05:23:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? Snape with Lifedebt In-Reply-To: <00b701c71c87$1e664510$8eb4400c@Spot> References: <003201c71c76$c9f788f0$c0affea9@MOBILE> <00b701c71c87$1e664510$8eb4400c@Spot> Message-ID: <3202590612110523n38edce06u1f878461ad3aef9a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162653 Magpie: Except there's no explanation given in canon for how he's got to do this stuff to stay out of Azkaban. Sarah: But there is. He has to do all the stuff Dumbledore wants him to. Magpie: Dumbledore himself sees him as being loyal--and Dumbledore is someone who stands for letting people make their own choices, not someone who relies on people who just have no other choice but to do what he says. Sarah: Dumbledore tells Harry that he believes Snape is 100% loyal. Harry, Occlumency failure. I'm sure Dumbledore did let Snape make a fully informed choice about what he was about to do with the Life Debt. I'm sure Dumbledore reminds Snape of choices regularly. Magpie: In trying to stop Voldemort going after Lily Snape was also protecting James, the man she loved, and their baby. If he was a stalker he'd want them dead so he could have Lily for himself. Sarah: Many people have used Snape/Lily to theorize about exactly this. (Or even, Voldemort. I think that was called something like TEW EWW TO BE TREWWW or something.) If anyone did that, I still nominate Peter. Sarah From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 14:03:29 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:03:29 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162654 > Pippin: > I'm calling it Blown!Snape because it starts with the realization that there > are, or were, nine people who knew that Snape alerted the Order that > Harry might have gone to the Ministry: Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, Sirius, > Tonks, Mad-eye, Shacklebolt, Lupin and Kreacher. Neri: Then it's obvious Voldemort already knows that Snape alerted the Order, isn't it? ESE!Lupin would tell him that immediately, of course . So the only question is: why is Snape still alive? > Pippin: > This inverts the usual situation with regard to the vow. It > can explain why Snape might, with a twitch of misgiving, > agree to the last clause, but not the first two. Neri: Are you saying that Dumbledore's plan from the beginning was for Snape to kill him in order to gain Voldemort's trust? And that Snape decided to accept the third term of the vow because he was going to kill Dumbledore anyway? (I have to ask to make sure because you don't state it explicitly). Leaving aside the moral issue in this, Snape decision to make the third part of the vow still looks really stupid to me, because it effectively leaves the critical timing of The Plan in Draco's unpredictable hands. The moment Draco makes an irrevocable move, Dumbledore must be killed, or Draco's mission had failed, Snape is dead and the plan is kaput. What if Draco would have made his move already in November rather than waiting until June? And yet it doesn't appear at all like Dumbledore is waiting for the axe to fall any moment during the whole year. He takes his sweet time telling Harry about the Horcruxes, for example. > Pippin: > Once again, Snape's information has led to the targetting of an > helpless child, not the son of an enemy this time but someone who > seems to trust and admire Snape. The child is, IIRC, the only person > that canon ever says Snape seems to like. The mother of that child, > all unawares, now tearfully begs Snape to save him. No wonder > Snape can't bear the sight. > Neri: I think the chain of events leading from Snape (especially DDM!Snape) alerting the Order to Draco being sent to a suicide mission is too long and arbitrary to saddle Snape with any responsibility. By the same logic you could say that it was Harry's responsibility or Dumbledore's responsibility, since they had an even greater share in preventing Voldemort from putting his hands on the prophecy. But of course, all three of them (assuming DDM!Snape for a minute) are fighting *against* Voldemort and Lucius, so none of them can be really held responsible for Voldemort arbitrarily deciding to punish Draco for his father's failures. What had happened with the Potters, OTOH, was a much clearer case of responsibility. In that case Snape was fighting on Voldemort's side, and Voldemort was acting on the very information Snape brought him when he attacked the Potters. > Pippin: > Snape has to know that Kreacher was in communication with > Narcissa. He must know that Kreacher was unwatched between the > time that the Order left to rescue Harry and Dumbledore arrived. > Could Kreacher have told Narcissa what Snape had done? > Is that why Narcissa has come to Snape? > > Theory: Though she pretends for Bella's sake that she's calling > on Snape's regard for her family, Narcissa has something a > little more weighty on the table and Snape knows it. > > That's why Narcissa offers nothing in return for the vow, > and Snape asks for nothing from her. Their bargain is unspoken, > a pretty piece of blackmail: swear on your life that > you'll get Draco out of the mess you got him into, or the Dark > Lord will find out the *real* reason that the prophecy mission > failed. > Neri: Spinner's End really doesn't vibe to me like Narcissa *blackmailing* Snape. I can't think of any sentence there that even suggests such an interpretation. For example, if Snape is aware that Narcissa knows about him alerting the Order, then he has some nerve explaining to her in detail how it is all *Lucius's* fault. In fact, think about all this from Narcissa's point of view: she found that her dear Lucius is in Azkaban and wrongly accused by the Dark Lord because he was in effect stabbed in the back by Severus Snape, and now Draco is also in great danger because of it. Would she fall on her knees in front of such a man and kiss his hand? Much more likely she'd go straight to Voldemort and tell him what Kreacher had told her, stressing that it's all Snape's fault, not Lucius's, and if anybody should be sent to suicide missions now, it's Snape and not Draco. Also, the timeline of this theory seems problematic. If, even before Dumbledore arrives to 12GP in OotP, Kreacher informs Narcissa that Snape had just alerted the Order, what would she do? Lucius and his friends are still there in DoM and haven't been caught yet! Narcissa would contact Voldemort on the spot and warn him to send reinforcement, wouldn't she? And Voldemort would never think of taking revenge of Draco in the first place, because the onus would be on Snape. Hmm. Unless Narcissa *wanted* to get rid of her husband? Maybe she hoped Lucius would get killed in the DoM, and she will end up a rich widow, free to hook with a certain Potions master? It seems Blown!Snape converges with ACID POPS even better than it converges with Grey!Snape . Neri From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Dec 11 13:57:41 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 08:57:41 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Trio's Morality Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162655 >Pippin >HBP makes clear that the Marauders were punished time and again for picking on other students. We also know that Snape was in the habit of retaliating. But something changed James all the same. We don't know what it was, but I'm betting it was not punishment or retaliation. Nikkalmati Maybe Lily found out and asked James to save Snape. After he did, she changed her mind about James, gave him a chance, and fell in love with him eventually. That would certainly gall Snape regardless of how he felt about Lily and, if he liked her, he would really be teed off! Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 11 14:04:04 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:04:04 -0000 Subject: HouseElf/Muggle/Fiction/Kappa/Goblins/CHAPDISC/Flitwick/WorldClass/Bullies/Sn In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162656 > Jen wrote: > Noble Snape willing-to-die-for-the-cause is difficult to take, > including willingness to die for Draco. Catlady: > I think Snape would kind of like to die. Because it can't be > pleasant to be Snape, with all that nastiness churning inside him, > and death would be a release. But something forbids him from > obvious suicide, so doing risky jobs is his suicide attempt. Jen again: You and Sydney are sharing digs in the Suicide Snape camp, lol. I tell you what though, I'm beginning to wonder if you guys don't have a point there. I could see a big scene with Harry like the revelation of the HBP, only you know, better, about Snape's death wish and how he thought the UV would finally be the thing to get the job done if not for having to save *Potter* (with spit flying of course since that's the only way Snape can say Potter's name). Jen, musing over the possibilities... From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 13:30:15 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 13:30:15 -0000 Subject: JKR dealing with Moral Issues (was Re: Hogwarts detentions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162657 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > I'm not sure what JKR's point is here, perhaps that punishment is > different from discipline, which actually teaches a lesson. And that > seems to be the same point she's making with the bullies--no matter > how often you hex them, they don't learn their lesson. > Well, that raises a dangerous assumption, which is that JKR has a point at all on most occasions. Frankly, I rather doubt she does. True, it would be much better if she did -- it would help her avoid putting her foot solidly in her mouth on many occasions and certainly would help avoid putting her hands on any number of moral tar babies. But frankly, I don't think she's thinking of any of that most of the time --because, as phoenixgod and others have pointed out, those types of things don't figure into her outlines. JKR's interviews are the source of much of her trouble, and she really would be better off to think before opening her mouth. But they do give insight onto several things -- including how she means certain characters and situations to come off, even if all too often they don't come across the way she wants them to. Thus, on a matter of meta-punishment, JKR seemed genuinely astonished that anyone would think Harry is going to die -- i.e. "Harry's suffered enough..." I also think she is genuinely baffled and astonished at the moral problems many people have with the books from any number of angles. I just don't think she thinks that deeply or that thoroughly, and when she does deal with such issues it's when she's forced to do so by things blowing up in her face (i.e. the infamous OOTP!Dumbledore speech). So, we may see something dealing with all these various issues (Dumbledore's policies, Snape's abuse of Harry, the Dursleys, the Trio's methods, etc.). I wouldn't be at all surprised if all of these things don't get a (very) brief nod. I wouldn't even be terribly surprised if all sides come down about evenly (dis) satisfied. But I strongly suspect it will be in much the same vein as we saw in HBP -- a paragraph here and a scene there, often put in for the obvious purpose of quelling a fire, answering a popular quandary, or throwing out fan-favorite plot developments as afterthoughts (Remus/Tonks, anyone?). Lupinlore, who suspects that the last book will complete the utter trainwreck begun in OOTP, but who thinks the blood may spatter in amusing patterns From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 14:23:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:23:20 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162658 zgirnius wrote: > My own gut feeling is that, somehow, during the hostilities in a > hypothetiocal meeting such as the one you propose, Harry will gain > the upper hand. I think this is the only way he'll listen, and the > only way Snape will get riled up enough to say what he really thinks. > Carol responds: Since Snape can use Legiliency and nonverbal spells, easily outduelling Harry after running down eight or so flights of stairs and clear across the castle grounds, I think the only way that Harry could have Snape at his mercy is to Stun him from behind or have his friends surround him at wandpoint. I can just see/hear Snape saying, "You're a fool, Potter! If you want help with those Horcruxes. . . ." Then Harry might just listen. (Imagine Shrieking Shack redux, with Snape in Sirius Black's role. Would Lupin step in again and make Harry listen because he, too, wants to know what really happened on the tower and why Snape took the UV?) Actually, I have absolutely no idea how JKR will get Harry to listen to Snape, but I really think that Harry at Snape's mercy is more likely than the reverse. (Petrificus Totalus, where Harry has no choice but to listen, might work. Or Incarcerus, the rope-binding spell, combined with Silencio.) Carol, who wants to see Neville have Bellatrix at his mercy and choose *not* to Crucio her but instead turn her over to the Aurors From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Dec 11 14:35:27 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:35:27 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162659 > > > Carol responds: > > Actually, I have absolutely no idea how JKR will get Harry to listen > to Snape, but I really think that Harry at Snape's mercy is more > likely than the reverse. (Petrificus Totalus, where Harry has no > choice but to listen, might work. Or Incarcerus, the rope-binding > spell, combined with Silencio.) wynnleaf Carol, you've been saying that we should expect to see Healer!Snape at work again. And Harry is going to be searching for those dangerously protected horcruxes. I wouldn't be surprised if what we'll see is Harry or one of the Trio in desperate need and somehow ending up not only at Snape's mercy, but needing Snape to heal them from the Dark Magic of a horcrux. Just a possibility, of course, but if we're going to see Healer!Snape, he'll have to have somebody to heal and probably in circumstances for us to see it through Harry's point of view. wynnleaf From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 14:59:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 14:59:34 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162660 chrustoxos wrote: Hi Carol, > > I'm flattered that you answered my mail, since I always read your posts and I think that what you have to say is really interesting. I'll jump on the occasion to ask you if you've studied Literature, or if you have just a natural flair in book theories? > Carol: Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I have a PhD in literature though I no longer teach college English and am now a copyeditor. chrustoxos: > As for our bat friend, I agree that we'll se more of this light side he has, because we were intrigued by it, as Harry was, in the previous books and we don't really know much about it: where has Snape learned it all, for a start? If DD took him as a teacher so early (around the time Harry was born, right?) he couldn't have done much study after Hogwarts. And Healing is not something he would have learned from LV. Carol: Interesting question. I think that DD taught him Occlumency and that he taught himself a great deal, maybe while he was a DE having self-doubts. I've wondered when he learned or invented the Sectumsempra countercurse as well. Maybe DD taught him some Healing skills, but Snape seems to know more about healing Dark magic than DD does. One reason for DD's trust in him, maybe? chrustoxos: Anyway, the reason I insisted in him contacting someone is that I don't think that at this point of the story a gesure may be enough for Harry to believe that he's innocent. In killing DD, Snape has gone too far. And Harry has by now learned, though he remembers it only when it's convenient to him, that a gesture left unexplained may have been done for several reasons. Carol: Ah, yes. Harry's selective memory. You may be right. But I still think it will take Snape doing something that Harry doesn't expect, like healing one of his injured friends instead of killing him/her or taking him/her to Voldemort, to persuade Harry to at least consider shutting up and hearing what Snape has to say. Or, as I said at another post, Snape tying Harry up and forcing him to listen. (Pictures snape casting Muffliato all around and then sitting with a tied and Silencio'd Harry under the Invisibility Cloak as the tells all. ;-) ) > chrustoxos: > About the Order's members, I did hesitate between McGongall and Lupin - I certainly don't see him heading to the Burrow, for various reasons. I still think that Snape won't be the one going towards Lupin, but you're right saying that "Lupin . . . is the very person most likely to figure out that the AK that sent DD over the wall wasn't a normal AK and start asking questions. More important, he, too, has been a victim of the DADA curse. If anyone can understand the predicament Snape finds himself in at the end of HBP, it's Lupin . > Carol: Thanks. chrustoxos: > I mistrust the idea of Snape going to Lupin because this is one thing I'd do, and when I analyse my reasons I find that Snape couldn't have the same ones. Snape doesn't trust Lupin, never has, and Lupin has never given him a reason to trust him. He didn't protect him as a Prefect, he made a fool of him as a colleague. Lupin is, as Snape sees him, a weak creature; a creature, I say: not even human, with no ambition to free himself from his status, from his poverty, the contrary of Snape (I'm not judging here). Also, Snape has learned to fear him, and therefore to hate him more: he ran after him in PoA, but not to help him (he didn't carry him the potion), but to destroy him. He was also not his usual rational self that night, as we see from his reaction after Sirius' flight. He went after Lupin with the Cloak, ready to perform Unforgivables both on him and on Black. Carol: I still don't think that Snape *feared* Lupin (or Sirius Black). You don't fear someone you think is weak and Snape seldom shows fear--or feels it, IMO. (He did know what he faced in returning to Voldemort and his pale face and glittering eyes showed a fear that he had mastered, outweighed by what he had to do. and he was afraid for Draco in HBP, "Unbreakable Vow" chapter. But I see no sign that he feared Lupin in PoA or anywhere else. He just thought that Lupin was the werewolf accomplice of the man who intended to murder Harry. And he knows, as you say, that Lupin is and always has been weak. I don't think he intended to perform any Unforgiveables on Lupin, whom he tied up with cords cast from his wand, and he resisted the temptation to kill Sirius Black, whom he intended to turn in to Fudge, who would give him to the Dementors. No fear there, but no understanding, either. Still, maybe they understand each other better now. Trust, I'm not so sure. (BTW, Snape couldn't have run to the Shrieking Shack with a goblet full of potion. His goal at that point, IMO, was to catch the murderer and his accomplice, not to keep the werewolf from transforming.) Chrustoxos: So if Lupin understands that Snape is somehow innocent and wants to claer him, imo he must be the one to find Snape, and not the other way round. Carol: I don't know. I picture Snape sending him a message using his new Patronus, something Dumbledoreish that would persuade Lupin of his loyalties. But that could be what I want to happen rather than what will happen. I do think that Lupin might figure a few things out if he starts thinking about the holes and contradictions and oddities in Harry's version of events, but I wonder how he would find Snape, who probably won't be hiding in Spinner's End these days. > > Carol earlier: > >I imagine him engineering a prison break with Bellatrix, all the while planning to subvert Lucius Malfoy, at least, and get him to join the fight against the Dark Lord who sent his son on a suicide mission. > chrustoxos: > Mmmh. If Barty Crouch could say 'I have no son' while Dementros dragged his son away, Lucius is likely going to do exactly the same. Any hope Draco has to survive reside in Narcissa, In Snape and possibly in the Order. > Carol: I'm not so sure. I think that Lucius does love his son. Otherwise, what would be the point in Voldemort's seeking to punish him by killing Draco (I mean, assigning him a task that he thought Draco couldn't complete and then killing him for his failure)? I think that Snape's and Lucius's friendship will come into play, along with Narcissa's gratitude. And Draco, if he has any sense, will realize that Snape saved him twice, and not out of loyalty to the Dark Lord. Carol earlier: > >As for Snape reaching Hermione, I suppose there's some hope. She alone of the Trio believed Dumbledore that he was trustworthy, and (very oddly, given her year-long antagonism to the HBP) she tells Harry after learning his identity that "evil is a strong word" to describe the teenage inventor of Sectumsempra who grew up to kill Dumbledore. > chrustoxos: > I think that this is a very important point. Hermione has grasped what Harry has not: there is always the possibility to redemption, there is always a cause for one's cruelty. This, of course, doesn't stretch very far, as we see from her treatment of Marietta. Carol: Exactly. It's odd that she's always been Dumbledore's Woman with regard to Snape and came back around to something close to that position, even researching the HBP nickname at a time when Harry felt nothing but hatred for Snape and regret that he'd been attracted to the HBP as a friend. But Hermione often sees other people more clearly than she sees herself. (Cho Chang and Sirius Black, for example.) If nothing else, maybe she'll stop seeking vengeance on others. I do hope, though, that she helps Harry to see that he might be wrong about Snape--as he was wrong, to some extent, about Draco. Not that Harry is likely to listen, but maybe he'll hear and remember things that he rejects at the moment of hearing them. And his own mind keeps coming back to Snape healing Draco. Carol earlier: > > Or in LOTR? I think a Boromir-style repentance scene is what many fans are expecting. I very much doubt that JKR will give us one. Personally, I hope she finds a way to save Snape. But I don't doubt for a moment that he'll be instrumental in the Horcrux hunt, as well as in betraying Voldemrot to Harry at the last moment. [Carol notes her own typo, "Voldemrot" and deliberately leaves it unaltered.] > chrustoxos: > Why do you doubt it? Please please please convince me, as this is exactly the kind of scenario I fear, a character left to die without explanation, some guessing and it's finished. Carol: My primary reason for doubting a Boromir-style death for Snape is that JKR likes to surprise the readers, and she seems to think that no one will guess what she's up to with Snape, so the obvious way of dealing with her repentant anti-hero--dying after performing a heroic deed--is unlikely to be her choice. It's too predictable. And there's no way that she'll leave Snape unexplained. Harry's been asking questions about him, and Dumbledore has been giving him partial answers or refusing to answer him, for six books now. She's not going to leave Harry's questions, or the reader's, unanswered. Snape is too important a character, and too loved or hated forby the fans, for her to neglect. Everyone on all sides wants him explained, if only so they can say "I told you so!" And since there's no Dumbledore to do the customary wrap-up scene near the end of the novel, why not have the character whose motives and actions most require explanation do it? chrustoxos: > And yet everything, imo, points to this: Snape is in hiding, and trust no one of the Order enough to contact them; excellent plot diversion a character switching sides at the last moment; powerful scene of a dying Potions master, surprise at Harry wishing Lv's death even more because LV killed Snape. Carol: I don't quite understand you here. Yes, snape will be in hiding with no one trusting him, which we all agree is an obstacle to be surmounted if he's DDM. (I think a changed Patronus is his most likely means of communication with the Order, but he'll only be able to use it when he's out of Voldemort's sight.) But if a character switches sides, it won't be DDM!Snape, who is already on Harry's side. Harry just doesn't know it. I expect a reversal revealing that the seeming villain of Book 6, Severus Snape, is really Dumbledore's man, but the revelation of his loyalties is not the same as a change in loyalties, which, if we're right, happened about seventeen years before the end of Book 7. Nor do I understand why Snape would be surprised thy Harry's killing LV; that's what he wants him to do and why he's been protecting him this whole time. And if LV kills Snape (rather than Snape helping to kill or defeat him), there won't be time for a redemption scene in which Snape asks forgiveness and explains the motives that require understanding rather than forgiveness. With an AK, you die on the spot. No Snape in Harry's arms confessing his sins a la Boromir and Aragorn (unlikely in the first place, and as someone pointed out, Boromir doesn't die in the arms of Frodo, the character he betrayed. He'd have to die in DD's arms for the parallel to work, and obviously, that can't happen now). That type of scene just wouldn't work with Harry and Snape--though if Harry dies (or seems to die) along with Voldemort, I can actually imagine a dead (or seemingly dead) Harry in the arms of a weeping Snape, who feels that he's failed yet again.) chrustoxos: I see only a small light at the end of the tunnel: Snape may be, as others have said, a 'training' for Harry before his duel with LV; in this case, Harry must learn to use his powerful weapon, his capacity to love and forgive, on Snape - in this case, we only have to worry about LV... Carol: Yes, that's more or less what I believe. At least in some scenes, Snape has been standing in loco inimicis, acting as Harry's enemy to prepare him to fight the real enemy, Voldemort, and Harry has to forgive him in order to use his ultimate weapon, Love. I'm not in the least worried about Snape's redemption, which has been set up since the beginning of the books. I *am* worried about his survival, but JKR can pull it off if she so chooses. > > > Carol, who hopes that either Lupin or Hermione will be the person who works with Snape and hopes that Snape will be the narrator of the obligatory expository scene near the end of Book 7 > > chrustoxos: > This is something else that will earn you a golden star if you can convince me of it...Snape has not uttered more than a two sentences one after the other since his memorable speech in PS. > Carol: Ah, but I think that, like Petunia with her two outbursts (in SS/PS and OoP), he's dying to tell his story. He's keeping a lot inside and imagine the thrill he'll feel in being able to reveal to the Chosen One that despite hating him as an arrogant and dishonest little mediocrity and preserving his own cover as DD's Man, he's been helping and protecting Harry all along. Carol, feeling that she hasn't earned her golden stars yet but thinking that this post is too long already From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 15:08:02 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:08:02 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162661 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Actually, I have absolutely no idea how JKR will get Harry to listen > to Snape, but I really think that Harry at Snape's mercy is more > likely than the reverse. (Petrificus Totalus, where Harry has no > choice but to listen, might work. Or Incarcerus, the rope-binding > spell, combined with Silencio.) > LOL! And since when does mere consistency have anything to do with what happens in the Potterverse?! Although in this case, I suppose there is plenty of precedent either way (i.e. Snape bests Harry after the Tower, but Harry sends Snape reeling in DADA class). Also, I suppose there is a case to be made that group action (i.e. all of them ringing Snape at wandpoint) is precisely Harry's strength and Voldy's weakness, as well as Snape's weakness. Snape having one last moment to inflict abuse on Harry would be utterly morally contemptible, but might well happen. Of course Harry having a moment to abuse Snape would be believable as well. Neville handing Bellatrix over to the Aurors would be silly and unbelievable, and a complete mirror of Harry's single greatest mistake -- not letting Sirius and Remus kill Wormtail, thus avoiding this whole mess. But I could see that happening as well. Lupinlore From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 15:39:11 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:39:11 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162662 Jen wrote: > The reason I continue to stubbornly carve out a place for Grey Snape even though it looks like splitting hairs is because DDM has become this huge umbrella that covers every explanation of Snape unless it's in direct opposition such as the Life Debt or Evil!Snape. But JKR takes great pains to make distinctions in her characters and their choices because she appears to be saying that the reason *why* characters choose a particular action is as important as the action itself, that how they get to a certain point matters for Who They Are. > > For me, Harry will always be the gold standard for Dumbledore's man > through and through and Snape is not Harry. The point of Grey is to > say that Snape and Harry are not the same on the inside with > different skins, they are not opposite but equal. Harry would never, ever find himself in the position of having to kill Dumbledore and the fact that Snape did **matters**. Not proving to be evil or out-for-himself is a long way from Snape earning the title of Dumbledore's Man in my book. Carol responds: I understand your reluctance to use the label, but AFAIK, the one thing that distinguishes DDM!Snape in all his varieties from Grey!Snape is that his loyalties really do lie with Dumbledore and that he killed Dumbledore out of that loyalty. The irony and tragedy of DDM!Snape is that his own choices, which I've already specified in another post and don't want to repeat, led him to this pass. But Harry, too, came very close to killing Dumbldore--close enough that he ought to be able to see the parallels. No one is saying that DDM!Snape is Harry's equal in goodness, but Harry, too, has been tempted by Dark magic. If Sectumsempra, clearly labeled "For Enemies," doesn't count when he used it on Draco, how about when he tried to use it on Snape, knowing perfectly well what it is and does? How about his two attempted Crucios, one of which actually caused temporary pain even though he couldn't sustain it? But my question is simply, if Snape isn't Out for Himself and he isn't Voldemort's Man and he *is* genuinely loyal to Dumbledore, genuinely remorseful for the eavesdropping and its consequences, genuinely protective of Harry though he hates him and views him as inadequate, why not concede that he's Dumbledore's Man? That, IMO, is where his loyalties lie, and that's all that DDM!Snape means. It doesn't mean Good!Snape or Loving!Snape or Nice!Snape. Snape wouldn't be Snape if he weren't sarcastic and supercilious. Carol: > > But, on the tower, he hesitates to kill Dumbledore, to become a murderer for the cause (till now, he's always "slithered out of action" involving Unforgiveable Curses, IMO), to make his name anathema in the WW (hardly anyone even knew that he was a Death Eater). Killing Dumbledore costs him everything he had: freedom, employment, respect, the trust of the Order. But, for Dumbledore and for Draco and for the Chosen One he loathes and for the WW, Snape does what he has to do. > Jen responded: Killing Dumbledore cost him everything because he made it so. Choosing to save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts could have even been Snape's way of making up for his huge blunder taking the UV and having to kill Dumbledore in the first place. I've mentioned the Lightning Struck Tarot card before and two people falling from the tower, one representing the literal fall of Dumbledore and other Snape's fall from grace. I used to feel some sympathy for Snape's fall but not anymore. His 'worst' came out in HBP and led to his own downfall just like it did when he handed over the prophecy to Voldemort. > Carol responds: Can you please explain what choice Snape had once he was on the tower? He couldn't save Dumbledore, thanks to Harry's feeding him the poison and the presence of the Death Eaters. He couldn't allow Draco to die for failing to do it and he chose not to force Draco to do it, instead taking the burden on himself and making sure that DD's body was sent over the battlements so that Greyback couldn't ravage it. (Whether he knew it or not, he also kept what DD thought was a Horcrux from the DEs. *And* he saved Harry, as no other action or inaction could have done. I guess what bothers you is not so much what happened on the tower, which was virtually inevitable given the way events fell out, but the UV, which you think was Snape's own fault. And, indeed, it could have been his hamartia, the tragic flaw or error that brings about his down though I personally hope not. I do see it as the instrument of the DADA curse, which uses a secret or flaw within the character to cause him to lose his position. I personally don't think the DADA post brings out the evil in him, which I think he left behind when he returned to Dumbledore (though he still has his unpleasant personailty). Snape is still Snape throughout HBP, and yet he's constantly saving or healing people, a new facet of his character, an indication, IMO, that he isn't evil and that he's genuinely loyal to Dumbledore. He could easily have killed Harry or kidnapped him or let him suffer from he Crucio, and yet he didn't, all inexplicable to me unless his loyalties are with Dumbledore. Why not pity him as a tragic character who supports the right cause but is trapped by his own past, his own choices, especially if the anguish he feels is genuine remorse for killing his mentor? Carol, thinking that Dumbledore would want us to show mercy and compassion for Snape From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 15:40:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:40:38 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? /Could Snape take on four DE on the Tower? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162663 > > > wynnleaf > > > You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the > > > DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did > > not > > > need to include Dumbledore's death. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > I have more respect of Snape's fighting abilities. > > wynnleaf > Your respect notwithstanding, where's the canon evidence? I did not > see that you produced an ounce of it. So he could win against Harry > or Lockhart in one-on-one combat. Where's the evidence he had a *good > chance* of winning against 4 death eaters, while protecting teens at > the same time? > > And remember, the ESE!Snape or OFH!Snape theories require that > Dumbledore think there's a good chance he'll win, too, otherwise > Dumbledore's "Severus please... (anything other than 'AK me')" is > asking Snape to seriously risk Harry and Draco's lives. Alla: Do I have direct canon scene showing Snape fighting off four people? Of course not, but have I seen enough of Snape skills to make an assumption that he would indeed have a good chance to do so? Yes, I believe I do. I pretty much agree with what Quick Silver says here about Snape's skill, quoted by Carol ( Yahoomort messed up threading, so cannot find the post itself). Keep in mind, I am not saying that this was a 100% chance, but big chance, yes, I believe so and even if it was not a 100%, I believe **good** Snape owed it to Dumbledore and Harry and Draco to try. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162317 Quick_Silver: > I disagree that Snape couldn't have saved Dumbledore on Tower (in the context of their being to many Des). On the Tower we have 3 wizards (and the brother sister > pair are not exactly amazing duelists...I think Harry beats the > brother twice during the chase sequence?), a werewolf, and Draco. > What's more the Death Eaters, even the werewolf, are described as > being cowed by Snape. Snape's supposed to be a master of Defense > against the Dark Arts, skilled at non-verbal magic, has his own > spells (including Sectumsempra), the Death Eaters are fixated on > Dumbledore (Amycus's eyes and wand don't even leave Dumbledore when > he talks to Snape), and the Death Eaters seem genuinely intimidated > by Snape. > > So Snape doesn't have to duel the Death Eaters on the Tower he could > simply crush them. It's not like their expecting him to turn on them. > Alla: Now, as you see Quick silver makes a different conclusion from that and believes that Snape could not have saved DD anyways, but since we are talking about Snape's skills, that part of his/her post I agree with. JMO, Alla From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 15:51:28 2006 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:51:28 -0000 Subject: JKR dealing with Moral Issues (was Re: Hogwarts detentions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162664 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Lupinlore, who suspects that the last book will complete the utter > trainwreck begun in OOTP, but who thinks the blood may spatter in > amusing patterns > Oh, Lupinlore, I'm afraid that I agree with you! I was one of those who were sadly deluded, and so much of HBP didn't jibe with what I thought was going to happen. I think part of the problem may lie in the state of postmodern literature, rather than only with the HP saga. It seems like most novels these days are more interested with tearing the characters/premise apart, and less interested in resolution. For example, Franzen's The Corrections was a huge tome about how 4 people's lives were destroyed by their father who was (gasp!) emotionally unavailable. The problem was torn apart and dissected ad infinatum, (there's a spell that HP needs!) but there was resolution or attempt to put it back together in a new equilibrium. In HP, the first four books were Harry learning about the whole Voldemort problem, and ended with the return of Voldy (the climax or fulcrum of the overall series). That's the dissection of the problem. The last 3 books should, according to basic 5 act plot structure, be the falling action and resolution, which means reestablishing a new equilibrium. JKR has ver little precendent to work with, and she's feeling her way through it. I agree that OotP and HBP were like watching a slow motion train wreck with the conductor throwing us knowing little asides. I hope that HP7 won't be the final fiery crash of the series that I absolutely love. There was so much philosophy and deeper questions in the first 4 books, it makes me wonder if she just dug her hole too deep and can't get out in merely 3 more books (2500 pages). TK Kenyon -- TigerPatronus! www.tkkenyon.com Rabid: A Novel, coming in April, 2007 Available to pre-order now from your favorite local bookstore or Amazon http://recommendedreading.suite101.com http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/blog.cfm/still_waiting_for_har ry_potter_7 http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/article.cfm/great_books_like_h arry_potter From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 11 15:48:26 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:48:26 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162665 Zgirnius: > Of course, Harry didn't *know* it was a poison. But if we are going > to blame Snape for the UV, he did not know it would lead to his > killing Dumbledore either, because he believed he and Dumbledore > could manage Draco so as to avoid the issue. Sure, it was a > possible outcome, and was in a sense the most straightforward, but > then, the most straighforward outcome of drinking an unknown potion > concocted by Voldemort to protect one of his Horcruxes is also > death. Jen: There's no equivalent for the UV in Harry's scenario. In fact, the more I think about the comparison of the cave and the tower (which I've always liked), the more it seems like a false analogy. In the strictest sense you would have to say Snape wasn't sure if the AK would kill Dumbledore just as Harry wasn't sure if the potion would kill him, but both trusted Dumbledore completely and agreed to follow orders so they did. I'm thinking now this comparison requires more of a symbolic analogy. Even then there's no UV for Harry so the situations aren't completely symmetrical. > zgirnius: > For the UV/Tower to represent a fall from grace by Snape, the > reason can't be connected to Snape's spying mission. That's > a 'good' motive for the Vow. The Vow led to the killing, but not in > a direct way, there were other factors involved, some entirely > beyond Snape's control. If he took the Vow as part of a bid to re- > establish his bona fides with Voldemort, in order to still be > useful to Dumbledore's side, it was at worst a miscalculation (as > opposed to a sin, an evil deed, whatever word it is that I am > looking for here). Jen: If any of this turns out to be true, I agree. There are many things we could learn that would make me re-think the UV. So far the explanation is that all three people at Spinner's End were going behind Voldemort's back and Narcissa and Bella were on the outs with Voldemort. I've tried to see something Snape gained for Dumbledore's side by entering into the UV which he couldn't obtain without it and don't see anything at the moment. Watching over Draco was a given without the UV, Snape and Dumbledore would try to protect him while he was under their care at Hogwarts. > Jen before: > His 'worst' came out in HBP and led to his own downfall just like > it did when he handed over the prophecy to Voldemort. zgirnius: > Is this your guess about the UV that you are referring to here? Jen: Yes, I was thinking about the DADA curse bringing out the worst in the other professors and how since the reasons Snape joined Voldemort are shrouded perhaps those are his worst attributes that led to the Vow. Or rather weaknesses I should say, negative character traits. Now if the DADA jinx wasn't already activated, then I'm really stumped! zgirnius: > My bottom line difference with Grey, though, comes down to what we > think we have been shown about the character. You insist he is > not 'noble'. That's a big shiny word, on which I would not insist > use to describe Snape, but I disagree that he would never risk his > life for another individual or a cause. In my understanding of > canon, he already did, when he embarked on the whole double-agent > mission at the end of GoF. Jen: In the instance of returning to Voldemort all of his choices were grim and those grim choices were a result of his previous actions. Not to say I don't agree with you about the 'risking his life' part because Snape himself taunts Sirius with that fact in OOTP. I'm just waiting to hear how Snape would characterize his risk, what he would say he was risking his life *for* and why it meant so little to him that he undermined his hard work to take a no- benefit, high-risk Vow. Or why the Vow was more important than what he was out there risking his life for. wynnleaf: > Yet Harry *did* find himself in the position of agreeing to do > whatever Dumbledore said regardless of how much it endangered > Dumbledore. He found himself having to obey that promise even though > it included pouring liquids down Dumbledore's throat that could have > killed him. So Harry, Gold Standard for DD's Man that you think he > is, *still* could agree to actions that could kill Dumbledore. And > make no mistake, Harry *knew* he was pouring something terrible down > Dumbledore's throat. Jen: The onus is on Dumbledore in the cave. He tells Harry, a minor is his care, that the potion won't kill immediately and even a Horcrux would not be worth leaving Harry alone in the cave if Dumbledore dropped dead. Well, and it wouldn't even be for a Horcrux because Harry wouldn't be able to drink the rest of the potion alone to get to the Horcrux. So all Dumbledore dropping dead would accomplish is Harry having to leave the cave alone and that's not impossible, it just doesn't seem like Dumbledore would go so far for that outcome. Re: the tower, if we find out Dumbledore gave orders to Severus along the lines of "Your word, Severus, you will AK me if Draco fails and you are present" then I see the partial analogy that both were following orders. The onus is a shared one though because Snape set up those terms to begin with by taking the UV. wynnleaf: > You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the > DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did > not need to include Dumbledore's death. But there was no way to > remove Harry and Draco without highly significant risk of death > *unless* he AK'd Dumbledore first and allowed the DE's to think he > was on their side. But hey, so what? At least Snape > wouldn't have killed Dumbledore! Is that really *all* that mattered > on the tower? All the good guys as die, as long as Snape doesn't AK > Dumbledore, it was a good decision? Jen: I've never argued for Snape playing the hero on the tower, I don't see how that would accomplish anything and it seems out of character for Snape to me. He's not the type to take an almost futile action with a high risk of failure. So, I don't remember exactly what I was going for there but I'm sure this wasn't it, I think it was sort of a last second throwaway thought that would have been better cut out. Jen R. From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 11 16:10:24 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:10:24 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: <3202590612110600qa23c24bm168fc09bfbf7c5e4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162666 > Magpie: > But it's the self-eviscerate that's the problem, not agreeing to kill > Dumbledore. If he doesn't want to eviscerate himself why is he taking a > suicide pact? > > Sarah: > I know there's a lot to read here, but as I've been on about quite > consistently, I believe that something as bad or worse will happen to > Snape if he doesn't follow along. Like if you had to go to work on > Monday, but had already taken a death pact that you would go to work > on Monday, so what's one more? Magpie: So the deadly pact isn't as big a deal it seems? Doesn't that undercut the drama? How would the fact that Snape's already frantically trying to get out of a completely different (vaguely worse) magical deadly thing make this no big deal? Doesn't the UV, by restricting his movements, make it harder for him to act on his own behalf? And since the UV is about something totally different how can it just fall under the same umbrella as the Life Debt? Also, I know you've consistently claimed that the Life Debt threatens Snape with something very bad, even worse than death, but this still flies in the face of all evidence in canon where Snape is described as feeling in debt to James, who died and left Snape okay. Everything we've seen points to the opposite idea, that the Life Debt doesn't lead to that kind of punishment at all. > Magpie: > The way DDM actually answers these questions is that Snape is driven by > remorse over the events at Godric's Hollow, which fuels both his desire to > protect Harry and his hatred of him. It made him switch sides, and he became > loyal to Dumbledore. > > Sarah: > Remorse, which is almost impossible absent Snape/Lily, which won't > happen narratively because Harry would be in the bucket puking the > rest of the book. It is exactly this line of thinking which led me to > plot device/Life Debt reasoning. Magpie: Remorse is not impossible without Snape/Lily. DD has said that Snape felt great remorse and left the reason for that mysteriously unsaid, indicating that we're going to get some reason for it, even if it isn't Snape/Lily. But I don't believe Snape/Lily would necessarily lead to Harry puking. Why would he puke over the idea that someone thought his mother was wonderful and cared about her? It might make many readers puke, but that doesn't give any evidence to the Life Debt. I don't think Dumbledore's line about remorse is a lie or ironic, which it seems it is in the LiD scenario. > Magpie: > The Debt itself, if it's the > kind of magical contract you describe here, wouldn't hop over to Harry. It > would play out on Snape at James' death and he would die or something worse. > He didn't. > > Sarah: > Well, Dumbledore is Dumbledore. He can do a lot of things. A lot of > things are not canon. Life Debt has a lot more potential than > Snape/Lily, in my opinion. And, I didn't originate the "upgraded Life > Debt" idea, that was someone else. Magpie: Snape/Lily does not have any evidence in canon as of yet. Some of us feel like it's going that way so we're going to hear evidence later (whether we like it or not), but we can't take it as a given at all. But it is at least connected to canon in that it's an answer to the question of "why was Snape so remorseful over giving LV the prophecy?" which Dumbledore waving his hands and transfering the Life Debt doesn't if you think, as I do based on the character and how the line is written, that Dumbledore is referring to actual remorse and not a magical trap where "remorse" is ironic. That kind of magical trap seems to go against Dumbledore's character because when he says he trusts Snape completely what he means is that he put a whammy on him so he's got to try to protect Harry (which of course doesn't make him trustworthy at all, so why claim to trust him?). I don't think Dumbledore would describe that as trusting someone completely--I also don't think he would put that kind of whammy on someone to force them to do what he wanted (while also threatening him with Azkaban?). Plus the Life Debt as ancient magic is completely undercut. It's now something a smart Wizard can play with. Dumbledore couldn't even, as far as we know, undo the TriWizard contract. Magpie: Except there's no explanation given in canon for how he's got to do this stuff to stay out of Azkaban. Sarah: But there is. He has to do all the stuff Dumbledore wants him to. Magpie: That's not an explanation. I think it's circular logic. It says that Snape doing stuff for Dumbledore because otherwise he'll go to Azkaban is proved by the fact that Snape is doing stuff for Dumbledore. Where's the independent signs of blackmail or a fear of Azkaban? In canon I think everything we see shows Snape perfectly free of his past. He shows his own Dark Mark to Fudge. Dumbledore's never shown signs of threatening him with some kind of punishment that I recall. He seems to be doing the opposite, as usual. Sarah: Dumbledore tells Harry that he believes Snape is 100% loyal. Harry, Occlumency failure. I'm sure Dumbledore did let Snape make a fully informed choice about what he was about to do with the Life Debt. I'm sure Dumbledore reminds Snape of choices regularly. Magpie: So you are suggesting that when Dumbledore says that Snape is 100% loyal he is referring to something that he knows is hanging over Snape's head and not actual loyalty? How is Snape's refusal to continue the Occlumency lessons connected to the LD? Shouldn't Snape have to do the lessons regardless of how he feels to protect Harry? And doesn't Dumbledore's compassionate description of Snape's wounds being too deep to heal become kind of smarmy if he's reminding him that if he steps too far out of line he'll lose his soul? Or go to Azkaban? Snape seems to be hemmed in by different dreadful fates here, because none them explain his behavior well enough. There's little room left for him to be motivated by his own personality. Magpie: In trying to stop Voldemort going after Lily Snape was also protecting James, the man she loved, and their baby. If he was a stalker he'd want them dead so he could have Lily for himself. Sarah: Many people have used Snape/Lily to theorize about exactly this. (Or even, Voldemort. I think that was called something like TEW EWW TO BE TREWWW or something.) If anyone did that, I still nominate Peter. Magpie: Okay, that's a version of Snape/Lily I don't agree with, then, but it's not necessary for Lily to have motivated Snape. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 16:41:05 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:41:05 -0000 Subject: Is Draco a bully? WAS: Re: The Train Scene GoF / Some mention of Grey Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162667 Alla wrote: > > Erm... No, sorry. In your view he may not be a bully, in my - he is one and very clear bully at that. Bullies come in all shapes or forms and sometimes bullies who just talk can hurt you just as badly IMO. Carol wrote: I agree that Draco is a bully in the sense of a blustering braggart who sometimes uses his father's power and money to hurt people (usually Hagrid). However, he seldom hurts anybody himself (when the kids hex each other in the hallway, they're on pretty much equal terms), and in the GoF train scene, he clearly is not threatening to harm HRH. He's just predicting, maliciously and boastfully, what he thinks will happen when Voldemort comes to power. Stupid on his part to insult them and push their buttons, but it's provocation, not a threat of harm by him or his thuggish friends. HRH are in no immediate danger and they are not intimidated by Draco. They're just angry. IMO, Harry should have followed his "Get out!" with "or I'll hex you!" which would have given Draco et al. the choice of either leaving or pulling their own wands and fighting on equal terms. I don't think HRH/Twins' conduct can be justified using the Code of the Playground. They were not in danger. They were not intimidated. Their action was not self-defense. Hexing unarmed opponents, and stepping on them afterwards, was unchivalrous and, IMO, just plain wrong. (On a side note, Barty Sr. is in the books to show what happens when the conduct of the good guys is indistinguishable from that of the bad guys. I don't think that's what JKR wants for HRH. They need to learn how good guys behave. The mercy that Dumbledore showed Draco on the tower was as much a lesson for Harry as a gift to Draco, who also, I hope, will learn a lesson from it beyond not killing a helpless old man.) Alla: > And Harry is more popular, more well connected, etc is something I > could never understand and still don't. Draco's father, not Harry's is able to buy or blackmail anybody under the moon and at least temporarily to throw Dumbledore out of Hogwarts. Draco's social connections is in my view so much higher than Harry ever will be. > > Somebody some time ago said something that I totally support - Harry may be a celebrity, but he is **not** popular, he never was, never will be. IMO of course. Carol: I don't think anyone is denying that Lucius Malfoy is a bully or that Draco uses his father's power and money to achieve his ends (though I don't think he needed his father buying brooms to get himself on the Quidditch team--Draco is a good player in his own right.) But I do think that Draco, regardless of his social status and his father's wealth and power (up until Lucius's arrest, that is) is jealous of Harry. True, celebrity is not the same as popularity, and Harry goes from being gawked at to hated to virtually worshipped (he *is* popular as a Quidditch champion in HBP, for example, and look at all the girls who ask him to the Yule Ball in GoF) and back again, with intervals of being, or seeming to be, just an ordinary kid who gets a lot of detentions. But I don't think Draco sees it that way. He's jealous that Harry is clearly Dumbledore's favorite (look at all the House points Harry and his friends have won, taking the banner from Slytherin in SS/PS and winning the House Cup virtually on their own again in CoS. And then Harry becomes a Tri-Wizard Champion at fourteen despite the Age Line, so Draco, out of jealousy, makes his Support Cedric Diggory/Potter Stinks" badges. As Magpie has pointed out, the antipathy between Harry doesn't start out because Draco is a DE's son with a pureblood ideology. It starts out with Draco making what for him is ordinary conversation, trying to find out who this new boy is ("What's your surname?" doesn't give Harry the clue it gives us that Draco is interested in Wizarding families vs. Muggleborns), whether he's interested in Quidditch, what House he wants to be in, etc. Harry just doesn't like him because he reminds him of Dudley, talking about bullying his father into buying him a broomstick (As if!) and briefly referring to "the other kind" whose parents aren't witches and wizards in a way that makes Harry feel defensive. ("They were a witch and a wizard, if that's what you mean.") And, as Magpie says, Draco makes Harry feel inadequate because he knows so much more about the WW than Harry does, so when Draco says, "I say! Who's that man!" Harry seizes the opportunity to identify him as Hagrid. Draco again lowers himself in Harry's esteem by asking if Hagrid is "some sort of servant." So before they meet again on the train and Draco, now knowing who Harry is (and having presumably been advised by Daddy that Harry Potter, the Boy Who Defeated the Dark Lord, just might be a Dark Lord in the making, in which case it would be prudent to be civil to him) offers to be his friend, Harry is already predisposed to dislike him. Draco's sneering attitude toward Ron cements the matter. Harry refuses the offer of friendship, leaving Draco seething and resentful. As I said in another post, Harry at first sees Draco as dangerous but later learns to view him mostly with contempt despite all his pitiful attempts to cause trouble for Harry and his friends. And even in the train scene, after Harry has seen Voldemort return and Cedric die, he still knows that Draco is essentially powerless, just a wizard kid with a big mouth, a bad attitude, and the wrong loyalties. It was downright nasty of Draco to say that Voldemort would go after the "Mudbloods" and "Muggle lovers" (a clear reference to Hermione and Ron and possibly to Harry himself and Dumbledore), but the reference to Cedric Diggory was an afterthought, not in itself deliberate provocation (Well, diggory was the first") though Harry takes it as such. Still, the speech is intended to push Harry's (and Ron's and Hermione's) buttons (the Weasley/Malfoy feud is an old one, and Draco has resented "Mudblood" Hermione for outperforming him in his classes for a long time), but the only thing that's changed for Draco is that his side seems to be winning now. But while Crabbe/Goyle and Daddy will personally back him up, he can hardly say the same of Voldemort. He isn't *threatening* to call Voldemort to kill them. He's simply warning them, particularly Harry, what's going to happen and experiencing the thrill of having what he thinks is the upper hand. HRH, having no words to answer with, use wands. If they'd been Muggles, they'd have used fists. Hardly fair to Crabbe and Goyle, who haven't even spoken and are just playing the role of loyal and not very bright sidekicks/bodyguards. Wands are the great equalizers unless you're a Muggle, but they seem to predispose kids to hexing instead of thinking. BTW, Alla, what does ETA mean? (Every time I see it in your posts, I think "Estimated Time of Arrival.") Carol, imagining Hermione slapping Goyle and getting punched in the mouth for it From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 11 16:46:46 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:46:46 -0000 Subject: Harry, Draco and bathroom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162668 "justcarol67" justcarol67 at ... wrote: > Harry knows quite well that a Cruciatus > curse doesn't kill But the Cruciatus does make its victims wish they were dead. > He has felt it himself. He knows > exactly what he's protecting himself from. Indeed Harry does know what he's protecting himself from. The Cruciatus caused a 14 year old boy to wish he were dead. Think about that for a second, it's not a clich? or a meaningless phrase, Harry was in such pain he really and truly WISHED HE WAS DEAD! You don't forget something like that. > So Harry isn't protecting himself > from death or insanity. So you think that if Harry had done nothing he still might have left that bathroom with his life and sanity still intact. Well maybe, but would it be unreasonable for Harry to think otherwise, especially as he knows Draco has hated him with passion for 6 years? I think not. If I were Harry protecting myself would receive a bit more consideration than seeing that no harm came to my torturer. And Carol, do you really want your literary heros to be that wimpy, that politically correct? Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 11 16:58:56 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 16:58:56 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162669 > > Pippin: > > I'm calling it Blown!Snape because it starts with the > realization that there > > are, or were, nine people who knew that Snape alerted the Order that > > Harry might have gone to the Ministry: Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, Sirius, > > Tonks, Mad-eye, Shacklebolt, Lupin and Kreacher. > > Neri: > Then it's obvious Voldemort already knows that Snape alerted the > Order, isn't it? ESE!Lupin would tell him that immediately, of course > . So the only question is: why is Snape still alive? Pippin: Lupin and Snape are old enemies. The Dark Lord would doubtless prefer to have some confirmation before he acts on Lupin's information. > Neri: > Are you saying that Dumbledore's plan from the beginning was for Snape > to kill him in order to gain Voldemort's trust? Pippin: I'm saying Dumbledore's plan from the beginning was to place Snape near the Dark Lord when Harry confronts him for the last time. As part of that, DD knew that it might be necessary to make it *appear* that Snape had betrayed and killed him, just as he, IMO, made it *appear* that Snape had betrayed and killed Emmeline Vance. Snape accepted the last term of the vow because he knew he was going to have to make it seem as if he'd killed Dumbledore anyway, regardless of Draco. Since the murder Snape plans is fake, no moral issue arises, and there is no problem with Draco's timing, because there is never any need to wait for Draco. Dumbledore's fake murder could be staged at any time, but Dumbledore (IMO) insisted on waiting until his business with Harry was complete. It was Harry who took his sweet time getting the memory from Slughorn and forced a delay in the plan. But as far as the good guys are concerned, it was never anticipated that it would be necessary to kill Dumbledore in order to save Draco, so the third clause will be inoperative or so Snape hopes. In the event Snape was forced to choose between trying to save a dying Dumbledore and carrying out his mission, with the additional complication that he had to make it look good for the DE's. As you know, I don't believe he killed Dumbledore. Dead men don't bleed. There is even a clue to remind us: "But though gashes appeared in their sodden rags and their icy skin, they had no blood to spill". > Neri: > I think the chain of events leading from Snape (especially DDM!Snape) > alerting the Order to Draco being sent to a suicide mission is too > long and arbitrary to saddle Snape with any responsibility. By the > same logic you could say that it was Harry's responsibility or > Dumbledore's responsibility, since they had an even greater share in > preventing Voldemort from putting his hands on the prophecy. Pippin: No. If Snape had not alerted the Order, then the DE's, despite bobbling a bit, would have recovered the prophecy, Voldemort would have no reason to be angry at Lucius, and Draco would not be in peril. You might as well say that Snape couldn't be held responsible for Voldemort's arbitrary decision that the Potters were the people mentioned in the prophecy and should be murdered. After all, he was fighting on Voldemort's side at the time and bears no more responsibility than any other DE. > > > Neri: > Spinner's End really doesn't vibe to me like Narcissa *blackmailing* > Snape. I can't think of any sentence there that even suggests such an > interpretation. For example, if Snape is aware that Narcissa knows > about him alerting the Order, then he has some nerve explaining to her > in detail how it is all *Lucius's* fault. Pippin: But he doesn't. Snape merely explains that the Dark Lord is blaming Lucius because Lucius was in charge, got himself captured and failed to retrieve the prophecy into the bargain. It's Bella who says it's all Lucius's fault. Snape says what's done is done and there's no point in apportioning blame (which is a lovely irony since he knows the lion's share of the blame is his.) Neri: > In fact, think about all this from Narcissa's point of view: she found > that her dear Lucius is in Azkaban and wrongly accused by the Dark > Lord because he was in effect stabbed in the back by Severus Snape, Pippin: Well, that disposes of your theory that Snape shouldn't feel any great responsibility for what happened... Neri: > and now Draco is also in great danger because of it. Would she fall on > her knees in front of such a man and kiss his hand? Pippin: She said there was nothing she wouldn't do any more. She would have begged Voldemort herself if she thought it would help her, why not Snape? Anyway, for the purposes of explaining why Snape agreed to the vow, the mere possibility of blackmail is enough. I didn't get vibes that Ginny was lying, just that her tears went on a little too long. Logic reveals the lie: she did in fact know that the Diary was dangerous. Logic reveals the weakness in Snape's position, Snape must be aware of it, he can only fear that kisses or no kisses, vibes or no vibes, Narcissa knows too much. Neri: Much more likely she'd go straight to Voldemort and tell him what Kreacher had told her, stressing that it's all Snape's fault, not Lucius's, and if anybody should be sent to suicide missions now, it's Snape and not Draco. Pippin: But without Kreacher she can't prove it (she doesn't know Lupin is ESE! ) and anyway there's no guarantee that Voldemort will let Draco off. He hasn't admitted it's a punishment mission, after all, it's been presented to her as a great honor the Dark Lord has bestowed on her son. Of course he'll know that she's not lying, she must believe that Kreacher told her Snape was responsible. But the Order is very cunning. Perhaps Dumbledore no longer trusts Snape and wants to stick Voldemort with the job of getting rid of him. Neri: > Also, the timeline of this theory seems problematic. If, even before > Dumbledore arrives to 12GP in OotP, Kreacher informs Narcissa that > Snape had just alerted the Order, what would she do? Lucius and his > friends are still there in DoM and haven't been caught yet! Narcissa > would contact Voldemort on the spot and warn him to send > reinforcement, wouldn't she? And Voldemort would never think of taking > revenge of Draco in the first place, because the onus would be on Snape. Pippin: We don't know whether Narcissa is a marked DE. If not, she probably couldn't contact Voldemort instantly or get hold of Lucius in time to warn him and if she went to the Ministry she'd only be captured herself. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 11 17:04:52 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:04:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Blown!Snape Message-ID: <14581088.1165856692710.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162670 Pippin: >> I'm calling it Blown!Snape because it starts with the >realization that there >> are, or were, nine people who knew that Snape alerted the Order that >> Harry might have gone to the Ministry: Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, Sirius, >> Tonks, Mad-eye, Shacklebolt, Lupin and Kreacher. > >Neri: >Then it's obvious Voldemort already knows that Snape alerted the >Order, isn't it? ESE!Lupin would tell him that immediately, of course >. So the only question is: why is Snape still alive? Bart: I'm not so sure that all of them are the ones who know that Snape alerted the Order. Without looking back, the only ones who I believe we KNOW knew who alerted the Order are Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, and at least one of the rest (excluding Kreacher), and if it was only Sirius, he's not going to be telling anybody anyhow. > Pippin: >> This inverts the usual situation with regard to the vow. It >> can explain why Snape might, with a twitch of misgiving, >> agree to the last clause, but not the first two. > >Neri: >Are you saying that Dumbledore's plan from the beginning was for Snape >to kill him in order to gain Voldemort's trust? And that Snape decided >to accept the third term of the vow because he was going to kill >Dumbledore anyway? (I have to ask to make sure because you don't state >it explicitly). Bart: How about: Dumbledore was already dying, Snape was the one who was keeping him alive, and Snape had already (reluctantly) agreed with Dumbledore to "pull out the plug" when necessary? Which brings up an interesting question: if you make an Unbreakable Vow to do the impossible (such as kill someone who is already dead), what happens? Is it physically possible to do so? I suspect that this is one of the aspects that JKR did not think through all the way. Of course, we don't have 100% reliable testimony on the effects of an Unbreakable Vow. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 11 17:29:27 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:29:27 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162671 Carol: > But my question is simply, if Snape isn't Out for Himself and he > isn't Voldemort's Man and he *is* genuinely loyal to Dumbledore, > genuinely remorseful for the eavesdropping and its consequences, > genuinely protective of Harry though he hates him and views him as > inadequate, why not concede that he's Dumbledore's Man? That, IMO, > is where his loyalties lie, and that's all that DDM!Snape means. It > doesn't mean Good!Snape or Loving!Snape or Nice!Snape. Snape > wouldn't be Snape if he weren't sarcastic and supercilious. Jen: It's not about winning some point, it's about truly having a difference of opinion given the information we have so far. It's about seeing distinctions between Harry and Snape in how their loyalty plays out regarding the actions they take and why. I believe Snape's loyalties are with Dumbledore *and* I don't understand why he chose to undermine everything they have worked for with the UV. Saying I am DDM is therefore false because DDM by necessity says there is a good reason Snape took the UV, that it furthered Dumbledore's cause and was taken out of Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore. And if DDM doesn't propose there is a good reason for the UV then I believe it should, so my objection to Snape being Dumbledore's Man Through And Through remains and I prefer to think of him as Grey. Carol: > I guess what bothers you is not so much what happened on the tower, > which was virtually inevitable given the way events fell out, but > the UV, which you think was Snape's own fault. And, indeed, it > could have been his hamartia, the tragic flaw or error that brings > about his down though I personally hope not. I do see it as the > instrument of the DADA curse, which uses a secret or flaw within > the character to cause him to lose his position. I personally don't > think the DADA post brings out the evil in him, which I think he > left behind when he returned to Dumbledore (though he still has his > unpleasant personailty). Jen: I'd like to find out if the DADA is involved or not and how it operates. At this point judging from how the other professors were affected it doesn't change who a person is, but does rely on bringing forward a person's weakness or flaws in order to force the terms of leaving the job. It's hard for me to imgaine Voldemort placing an innocuous jinx/curse such as a person simply being forced to leave the post. Although he does keep using DADA teachers for his plans and so far none of them have failed to get him to the point he wanted even though *he* failed to bring his plan home. That may be evidence for a more innocuous curse. I'm not sure what that would mean for Snape and the UV though, whether that means Voldemort was using Snape for his plans via Bella/Naricissa or if it wasn't even his idea for Snape to take the position and the UV was a lucky break or ??? Carol: > Why not pity him as a tragic character who supports the right cause > but is trapped by his own past, his own choices, especially if the > anguish he feels is genuine remorse for killing his mentor? Jen: Can't I pity him and hold him responsible for his choices at the same time? Feel compassion and contempt? Understand his anguish and explore how he got to that point at the same time? I'm not trying to dog Snape, I'm trying to make sense of the tower given all the information in HBP and understand where JKR is headed with his story. In any event, there's no moral obligation to view a fictional character a certain way especially when the author shadows said character for her own convenience in order to further her plot. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 18:03:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:03:42 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162672 Alla wrote: > > Terrible, yes. One could hardly watch DD in the cave and not see > that this potion was terrible. Deadly? Could you refer me to canon > where Harry thinks that DD is dying before the Tower? He is getting > sick, yes, but dying? I am not sure I remember that and that makes a > difference for me. > Carol responds: How about Harry's question, "But what if--what if it kills you?" and DD's response? At first DD says that Voldemort wouldnt want to kill the person who reaches the island, and after Harry's protest "This is *Voldemort* we're talking about!" DD amends the remark to, "I should have said, Voldemort would not want to *immediately* kill the person who reached this island," after which he presents the untenable or mistaken idea that LV would want to interrogate the drinker. Then DD says that the potion may paralyze him, cause forgetfulness, cause intense pain, or incapacitate him in some other way. So even if Harry doesn't know that it's deadly, he knows that it's very, very dangerous, and he himself suggested the idea that it might be deadly.He asks himself if he has been invited along "to forcefeed Dumbledore a potion that might cause him unendurable pain. Dumbledore has to remind him of his promise to follow any command that DD gave him. When Harry asks why he can't drink the potion instead, DD answers, "Because I am much older, much cleverer, and much less valuable." (Implication: If one of them is to die, it has to be Dumbledore.) DD then insists on Harry's word that he'll do everything in his power to make DD keep drinking. After ten gobletsful, Dumbledore is screaming, "I want to die! I want to die! . . . . KILL ME!" and Harry says, "This--this one will! Drink this . . . .It'll be over. . . . All over!" Whether Harry believes thes words or not (I don't think he does, but he certainly knows that DD is in agony), when DD drains the last drop, he rolls over on his face "with a great rattling gasp." Harry rolls him over. His eyes are closed, his mouth is agape, his glasses are askew. He looks, in short, dead. Harry shouts, "No! No! you're not dead! You said it wasn't poison, wake up, wake up--*Rennervate!" First of all, DD never said that the potion wasn't poison. He said that he didn't think it would kill the drinker immediately, which I think was merely incentive to make sure that Harry gave him all of the potion despite the agony it would cause him. And second, if Harry hadn't known the Rennervate spell, which he has to use twice, DD would almost certainly have died. And again, when Harry is trying to conjure the water to cure DD's agonizing thirst, DD is lying on his side drawing "great, rattling breaths that sounded agonizing." After Harry sprinkles him with water, he revives enough (being Dumbledore) to cast a ring of fire to fight off the Inferi, but Harry is alarmed by the faintness of his voice, his "extreme pallor," and his "air of exhaustion. And Dumbledore tells him that "one alone couldn't have done it"--"IOW, he would have died without Harry, who provided the water and the Rennervate. Later, as they enter the freezing water, he's more worried by Dumbledore's silence than by his weakened voice. (All quotations and paraphrases from HBP, "The Cave.") So I'd say that more than once, especially before DD is temporarily revived by the Rennervate spells and the water thrown in his face, Harry thinks that DD is dying, and at one point, he thinks he's dead. wynnleaf: > > You speak as though the choice to "save Harry and Draco and get the DE's out of Hogwarts" was something within Snape's grasp, and did not need to include Dumbledore's death. > > > Alla: > > I have more respect of Snape's fighting abilities. Carol: I also hold Snape's fighting abilities in great respect, but even if he could hold off four DEs, protecting a dying man and two boys, one of them invisible, there's also the UV, which could strike him down at any moment. The only way to get the DEs off the tower and away from both boys is to kill DD himself and send DD's body over the battlements. Also, though perhaps this is less important, DD *wants* Snape to go with the DEs, which he can't do if he gives away his loyalties, not to mention if he's dead from the broken UV. Dumbledore is going to die no matter what, but the others can be saved and Snape's spy cover protected if it's Snape and not the poison or Draco or the DEs who kills him. Alla: > > Snape or Dumbledore? Not difficult choice for me. Snape would have > brought all of that upon himself IMO by taking the UV in the first > place. Carol: But it isn't a matter of Snape *or* Dumbledore. Dumbledore is dying of the poison (even Amycus has figured that out) and surrounded by DEs who will kill him if Snape doesn't. And even if Snape had an antidote to the poison with him, which he can't possibly have because he couldn't have anticipated these events or known what the poison was, he couldn't administer it without giving away his loyalties and being killed along with Dumbledore by the vow or the DEs. *There is no saving Dumbledore.* There is only save himself and the boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts or die futilely along with Dumbledore and the boys, handing the victory over to Voldemort without even fighting a war. Carol, who agrees that Snape is trapped by the consequences of his own choices but thinks that is part of the anguish he's suffering now Carol > > As to Harry and Draco, well if Snape is that concerned with their > wellfare and he came to tower alone, as I said above I am guessing > that he had some confidence in his abilities. > From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 18:14:07 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:14:07 -0000 Subject: JKR dealing with Moral Issues/Adult guidance/Trainwreck In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162673 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "TK Kenyon" wrote: > There was so much philosophy and deeper questions in the first 4 > books, it makes me wonder if she just dug her hole too deep and > can't get out in merely 3 more books (2500 pages). > > TK Kenyon -- TigerPatronus! > I think this does get at the heart of the problem. The first four books set up an enormous number of questions/issues/problems and launched any number of emotional/dramatic arcs. And then over the next two books it all just ... stopped. Or rather, it stopped most of the time only to lurch forward violently at some points. First there was OOTP, an 800 page book in which one spent about 700 pages going 1) what's the point? 2) are these idiotic clueless adults ever going to get off their behinds and act responsibly for once? 3) what's the point? 4) okay, I've had it with the wheel spinning, 5) yeah, yeah, yeah, yadda, yadda, yadda, 6) oh, something might actually happen, 7) and once again, what's the point? Then there was HBP, a 650 page book where one spent about 550 pages going 1) okay did OOTP actually happen?, 2) what's the point?, 3) okay, but did OOTP actually happen?, 4) what's the point?, 5) you mean THAT'S what the prophecy/horcruxes/whatever is all about?, 6) Did OOTP actually happen? To add insult to injury, we now have a prophecy that is 1) blatantly obvious, 2) evidently not actually a prophecy at all, but rather a cosmic fortune cookie that gave Voldy a stomach ache. We also have the introduction, at the eleventh hour, of horcruxes, which are 1) time consuming McGuffins, 2) unnecessary McGuffins, and 3) annoying McGuffins. So, heading into the last book we have, at minimum, the following with which to deal (taken either from absolute plot necessity or JKR's own statements): 1) Finding and destroying four horcruxes; 2) Destroying Voldy; 3) Harry's fate; 4) Ron/Hermione; 5) The conclusion of Snape; 6) The conclusion of Wormtail; 7) The conclusion of Draco; 8) The fate of Bellatrix; 9) The fate of Hogwarts post-Dumbledore; 10) The fate of the Dursleys; 11) An appearance from Umbridge; 12) An appearance from Krum; 13) Explication of the Night at Godric's Hollow; 14) A Weasley Wedding; 15) The fate of Lupin; 16) Seeing Sirius again; 17) Further explication of Hogwarts (Celtic site, etc.) 18) Clearing up the Mystery of the Tower 19) The end of Neville's story arc In addition, there are the following questions still hanging: 1) The fate of Percy 2) The fate of Regulus Black 3) The Prank 4) Harry/Ginny (does anybody REALLY think it's over)? 5) The future of Hagrid 6) House elves 7) The Hogwarts House System 8) Hermione and Marietta 9) Dumbledore's policy about allowing Harry to be abused 10) Harry's temper 11) The exact agreement between DD and Petunia 12) The Twins 13) Muggle relations And any number of others. So, it is no surprise that JKR herself has indicated that the last book was getting longer as she worked at it. It is also no surprise that we've yet to hear hide nor hair of a release date (although I would think we will get something on that soon, Amazon has already started an email notification list). And it will be no surprise that many of the moral issues of the series, which are after all the most complicated and difficult ones (but also probably the most important ones) will get short shrift. A nod here and a nod there is about all one can expect on most of this. JKR has spent about 1250 pages accomplishing almost nothing. Now, in the eleventh hour, what can one hope for? Let us take one of the issues that have cropped up lately -- adult guidance. Okay, I can go with that. But where is this guidance supposed to come from? And why, on Earth, should it appear now, with time waning rapidly and the trio already adults under wizarding law? Where was it during those 1250 pages of wheel spinning, not to mention through all of the first four books? How could any adult (pick your favorite) step forward as a guide and mentor now without setting up massive contradictions and issues very similar to those set up by HBP!Dumbledore at the Dursleys? I.E. many people object to that scene on the basis of timing. DD waits fifteen years, until Harry is on the point of adulthood, and NOW he decides he wants to get things off his chest? Where was he when such intervention might actually have done some good, especially if backed up by promises of time as a mushroom? Similarly, if Remus/Arthur/Snape/Portrait!Dumbledore/Whoever decides to provide guidance to the trio, that raises an important question -- where the everloving wandsplinters were you when it counted? Why didn't you decide to intervene during Harry's first/second/third/fourth/fifth/sixth years? And oh (from Harry), by the way I do have these scars on my hand that all you loving adults have seen fit to ignore, you know? And oh (from Hermione) where were all you loving adults when Umbridge needed to be restrained? And oh, (from Ron),.... . Such are the holes JKR has dug, largely, I think, without intention. But the blood spatter patterns are likely to be lovely. Lupinlore From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 19:22:08 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:22:08 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162674 > Jen: I'd like to find out if the DADA is involved or not and how it > operates. Sydney: It seems to me we have good reason in canon to believe that the Vow led to Snape getting the DADA job, not the other way around: -- Snape complains to Bellatrix that D-dore won't give him the job in Spinner's End. Of course he could be concealing that he has it for some reason, but it would be public knowledge in a couple of weeks and then she'd know he'd lied about something. Maybe there's some angle where Dumbledore just hasn't told him yet, but it would just be messy storytelling, IMO, plus, I can't see the curse activating until the job has been both officially offered and officially accepted. So, Snape does *not* have the DADA job ergo the DADA curse in the Spinner's End chater, IMWSO (that's, "in my well-supported opinion" ). Jen: > It's hard for me to imgaine Voldemort placing an innocuous jinx/curse > such as a person simply being forced to leave the post. Sydney: Well, whatever the DADA jinx is it's not innocuous! Barty Jr. got his soul sucked out, Quirrel died, Lockhart lost his mind. I do dislike the idea, though, of their fates being forced by the DADA curse by actually *acting* on their personalities. Lockhart did what he would have done under the same circumstances with or without the DADA curse. And when JKR shows a character in the grip of a personality-affecting enchantment, it tends to be visible and you can see exactly when it kicks in. It's sort of pointless storytelling, IMO, if Lupin's wishy-washiness or Umbrige's control-freakery were 'boosted' or something by the curse and they weren't really responsible for them. I mean, what's the point of the whole character then? Jen again: You and Sydney are sharing digs in the Suicide Snape camp, lol. I tell you what though, I'm beginning to wonder if you guys don't have a point there. I could see a big scene with Harry like the revelation of the HBP, only you know, better, about Snape's death wish and how he thought the UV would finally be the thing to get the job done if not for having to save *Potter* (with spit flying of course since that's the only way Snape can say Potter's name). Sydney: LOL! Yeah, I'm not totally married to it, but I do LOVE the irony if Snape's wanted the DADA job all along so he could have a heroic death or something, and then he arrives at the top of the tower and he's like, "D'oh!" I should stress though that suicidal!Snape is more important to me for explaining why he wants the DADA job, than why he took the vow (serious, that line of Harry's, "as if you haven't been watching them all come and go, hoping you'd be next" is just so freakin', "Harry, get a *clue*). A few more words about the Vow... really rehashing, I'm afraid, stuff I wrote several months ago but I don't have any new thoughts on it in particular. As I see it, there's a very limited list of reasons for Snape to take it: -- He was goaded/seduced/drunk/or otherwise making an emotional mistake. Can't see this at all, because then JKR would have written the scene completely differently. When the Vow comes up, Snape's expression is "blank, unreadable". He says "Certainly, Narcissa, I shall make the Unbreakable Vow" quietly. I know there's other opinions on this but JKR really does prefer to *show* it when people are in the grips of an emotion (even with a 'single tear' or a little choking voice or *something*). Snape would have to be having some pretty powerful emotions to make a mistake like that. -- There's some unknown reciprocity aspect to the Vow and he wants something from Narcissa. That's veering into fanfic, making up extra stuff on spells in order facilitate a theory, IMO. Ron gave the UV Exposition and it would have been covered then. -- There isn't magical reciprocity but Snape's still hoping to get something out of the Malfoys. This doesn't work, IMO-- he could get 95% there by delivering Draco safe-and-sound at the end of the year, and the extre 5% just doesn't sound worth wrapping himself up in a suicide pact. Plus, I think there would have been some sort of playing up by Snape of the gratitude now owed to him. Why not give him a line of dialogue about it? Even a mysterious line of dialogue? Okay, so those are the ones I don't like... the one's I'm currently entertaining in my boudoir are: -- Suicidal!Snape, who took the Vow in order to break it. Fits with Snape's enigmatic demeanor here. Also, quite a good plan. Plus, I'm really sick so I find Suicidal!Snape kind of hot. Except: he WAS swearing to protect Draco who I think he has some affection for, so it sounds more like he was planning on carrying out the Vow than breaking it. Let us all bear in mind that the "carry out the task" part was the fine print, as when Narcissa was originally pitching the concept what she says is: "Would you look after him? See that he comes to no harm?" "I can try" "If you are there to protect him.. Severus, will you swear it? Will you take the Unbreakable Vow?" So that's what Snape primarily has in mind at this point. -- Practical!Snape, who realizes that the only way Draco will not be killed by Voldemort is if Snape magically lashes the two of them together. He knows Voldemort will definitely kill Draco (because that's just the sort of guy he is, plus the kill-Dumbledore thing isn't going to happen). But now he can't without taking Snape with him (because that doesn't go with "protect Draco from all harm"). This is actually also the only logical reason Narcissa would venture to ask him. If she's really a wingnut of course she might expect him to make a suicide pact just to make her feel better, but it makes more sense if there's actually a practical "protect Draco" payoff. This has many good aspects. It makes sense that there wouldn't be a reveal at this point because it can't be made too, too obvious that Snape is being heroic here, putting his life on the line for somebody else (although it's already, IMO, pretty obvious). It's in character with Snape thematically because he's always trying to do the correct thing and then always getting screwed by it, because the god/author just loves to torture him that way! It's a Dark Magic mirror of the Love Magic that Lily used to save Harry. It fits with DDM!Snape because seeing as it WAS the only way to protect a child it's the sort of thing a good guy would do that just had unfortunate consequences, and Dumbledore would view it as a benign error and hence continue to trust Snape completely. Plus if I get my Christmas wish and there's a Snape/Draco/Voldemort scene at the start of Book VII there's a nice juicily dramatic way of exposing it. Actually, now that I've written that up, my favorite would be a mash-up suicidal!practical!Snape. He takes the Vow for the above, 'protect Draco' reasons. He doesn't hesitate because he doesn't mind dying in the process-- you'd have to be a little suicidal any way you slice it to take a UV. His hand jerks because the kill Dumbledore part is a bad spanner in the works (plus he can't get out of it because he's bound with snakes of fire by now), but he continues coolly because he's thinking, "Oh well, at least I can teach DADA this year and then check out heroically not killing Dumbledore." Or possibly he's starting to think about what this is all going to mean in terms of Horcrux Dumbledore, or whatever. Anyways, he contacts Dumbledore and tells him what happened, and Dumbledore gives him the DADA post because anyways Snape's out, and goes to offer Potions to Slughorn. At some point, for some reason, Snape killing Dumbledore winds up on the table. It's the most obvious solution to the forest argument, and I really think it's necessary for it at least to have been discussed as a possibilty for "Severus... please... " to make plain sense with Snape immediately getting a handle on 'please, what'. And of course the DADA curse finished it off by making it the most hideous outcome for Snape possible, as he would much rather have died and now he's stuck a villain again. Ta da! Okay, that's definitely my working Vow theory. And suicidal!practical!Snape is smokin' hot. Bonus! -- Sydney, piling on the melted 70% Dark Chocolate, homemade fresh-baked graham cracker, and juuuuust the right amount of carmelized gooey marshmallow center, not too sweet. Lots o' gourmet bittersweet smores over here in the DDM!Snape camp, people! From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 19:50:20 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 19:50:20 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162675 > Pippin: > Since the murder Snape plans is fake, no moral issue arises, > and there is no problem with Draco's timing, because there > is never any need to wait for Draco. Dumbledore's > fake murder could be staged at any time, but Dumbledore > (IMO) insisted on waiting until his business with Harry was > complete. Neri: So, according to this plan, if Draco decides to assassinate Dumbledore already in November, he is of course expected to fail, then say Dumbledore arranges for Draco and Narcissa to be "killed" and hidden away. How does Snape then explain to Bella and Voldemort that the assassination had failed, Draco is dead, and yet Snape is still alive? > > Neri: > > I think the chain of events leading from Snape (especially DDM! Snape) > > alerting the Order to Draco being sent to a suicide mission is too > > long and arbitrary to saddle Snape with any responsibility. By the > > same logic you could say that it was Harry's responsibility or > > Dumbledore's responsibility, since they had an even greater share in > > preventing Voldemort from putting his hands on the prophecy. > > Pippin: > No. If Snape had not alerted the Order, then the DE's, despite > bobbling a bit, would have recovered the prophecy, Voldemort > would have no reason to be angry at Lucius, and Draco would not > be in peril. Neri: You can say the same thing about Harry. If Harry had fought less well or given up a minute earlier, the DEs would have had the prophecy, even with Snape alerting the Order. And yet Harry is hardly responsible for Draco being issued with a suicide mission. So I don't see why would DDM!Snape be responsible. > Pippin: > You might as well say that Snape couldn't be held > responsible for Voldemort's arbitrary decision that the Potters > were the people mentioned in the prophecy and should be > murdered. After all, he was fighting on Voldemort's side at > the time and bears no more responsibility than any other DE. Neri: Indeed, if Snape is Voldemort's man, and if he wouldn't have been indebted to James, then he wouldn't be morally responsible for his information on the Potters. He'd certainly be responsible generally for being a DE, but not specifically for his information regarding the Potters. He was merely fighting for his side. The information regarding the Potters only became a moral problem because Snape *was* indebted to James and assuming Snape *is* DDM. In any case, it was Snape's very information on which Voldemort had acted when he attacked the Potters, while in HBP Snape's information when he alerted the Order was not related to Draco in any way. > Neri: > > In fact, think about all this from Narcissa's point of view: she found > > that her dear Lucius is in Azkaban and wrongly accused by the Dark > > Lord because he was in effect stabbed in the back by Severus Snape, > > Pippin: > Well, that disposes of your theory that Snape shouldn't feel > any great responsibility for what happened... > Neri: No, it doesn't. You are mixing two different kinds of responsibility from two different points of views and in different moralities. From his point of view, DDM!Snape is definitely not morally responsible if, because he stabbed an enemy in the back (even if that enemy believed Snape to be his friend at the time), then as a result *another* enemy arbitrarily decides to send the son of the first enemy to a suicide mission. But from Narcissa's point of view, she would definitely want revenge on Snape for stabbing Lucius (enemy or friend, in the back or in the front). Here, I'll present you with a simpler example: Harry is not morally responsible, from his point of view, for putting Lucius in Azkaban. They were enemies in a war, they fought and Lucius lost. But this hardly prevents Narcissa from wanting revenge on Harry for that very deed. > Pippin: > > We don't know whether Narcissa is a marked DE. If not, she probably > couldn't contact Voldemort instantly or get hold of Lucius in time to warn > him and if she went to the Ministry she'd only be captured herself. > Neri: Narcissa is Kreacher's contact woman (it must be her because she's a Black), Kreacher is a key agent in Voldemort's plan in OotP, and timing is crucial to the success of this plan. How realistic it is that Narcissa wouldn't be able to contact Voldemort immediately? Even if she didn't have such a connection, she'd still do everything she can to warn him and prevent Lucius's capture. So the information about Snape warning the Order might reach Voldemort too late for Lucius, but it would reach him. Neri From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 21:18:30 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:18:30 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162676 Sydney: > -- Practical!Snape, who realizes that the only way Draco will not be > killed by Voldemort is if Snape magically lashes the two of them > together. He knows Voldemort will definitely kill Draco (because > that's just the sort of guy he is, plus the kill-Dumbledore thing > isn't going to happen). But now he can't without taking Snape with > him (because that doesn't go with "protect Draco from all harm"). zgirnius: I love the concept, but it does not make that much sense to me at the time Snape takes the Vow. Yes, Voldemort wants to kill Draco, but there are less dangerous ways to prevent this, which I imagine are familiar to Snape. The offer Dumbledore made to Draco on the Tower, for one. I would think that Snape was aware of that as a theoretical possibility for dealing with the Malfoys' problem, and it is more effective than tying his fate to Draco's. No need to make the Vow, in such a case. However, I do agree with you that this is a possible way that Snape might use to protect Draco from Voldemort in Book 7, supposing his credit with Voldmemort is good enough after the killing of Dumbledore. Sydney: > Plus if I get my Christmas wish and there's a > Snape/Draco/Voldemort scene at the start of Book VII there's a nice > juicily dramatic way of exposing it. zgirnius: *sighs* Well, yes, that would be nice and dramatic... There's always fanfiction, if Santa's not that good to us! Sydney: > I really think it's necessary for it at least to have been discussed > as a possibilty for "Severus... please... " to make plain sense with > Snape immediately getting a handle on 'please, what'. zgirnius: Alternatively, Snape's reaction to Dumbledore addressinghim on the Tower is to approach him and make eye contact. > HBP: > Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and > hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. > "Severus...please..." > Snape raised his wand... zgirnius: This suggests Legilimency. The emotional change in Snape could be a reaction to an unspoken suggestion that is new (and unpleasant) to him. Dumbledore sees the reaction and says 'please', and Snape kills him. Works for me... Of course, this would mean there is no hard evidence of Dumbledore's wishes (as a Pensieve memory of Hagrid, Snape, or Dumbledore of the Forest argument would be, were it about killing Dumbledore.) It's just the sort of thing the author like sto do to Snape, as you say. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 21:28:24 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:28:24 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162677 > Neri: > No, it doesn't. You are mixing two different kinds of responsibility > from two different points of views and in different moralities. From > his point of view, DDM!Snape is definitely not morally responsible > if, because he stabbed an enemy in the back (even if that enemy > believed Snape to be his friend at the time), then as a result > *another* enemy arbitrarily decides to send the son of the first > enemy to a suicide mission. But from Narcissa's point of view, she > would definitely want revenge on Snape for stabbing Lucius (enemy or > friend, in the back or in the front). zgirnius: It's not so clear-cut. Yes, DDM!Snape is an enemy of Lucius in the sense that he is in the anti-Voldemort group, and Lucius is in the pro-Voldemort group. But Lucius does not know this, and may view Snape as a friend (Cissy claims he does, I figure she probably knows). Also, Snape may view Lucius as a friend, based on whatever sort of relationship they may have had for all these years. (It may well predate Snape's 'return', or evn his hjoining of hte DEs int he first place, after all). Even if at the 'war' level Snape is acting properly in his role on his side of the war, this does not prevent him, necessarily, from experiencing what he did to Lucius as a personal betrayal at the same time. As someone pointed out, this is a civil war. This hypothetical feeling did not prevent him from doing it in the first place, but it makes psychological sense to me that if he thinks he can make it up to Lucius in some way without hurting 'his' side in the war, he'd go for it. Not saying I agree with Pippin's idea, but it makes sense to me. From klotjohan at excite.com Mon Dec 11 17:57:56 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:57:56 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162678 Thank you for participating! I really hope to get an interesting discussion going since I love the books, although I try to remain impartial in the academic context of the paper. > zgirnius: > I am not a literary critic, just a lifetime voracious reader. I love > the books for the humorous touches in the invented world, the > characters, who seem unusually vivid and engaging to me, and the > stories. One thing that stands out to me compared to some other > series I have read is the way things hang together, in the sense that > rereading a book, I tend to catch a lot of things that stand out more > once I know the ending; and this even extends between books (Book 6 > has materially altered how I think about Book 3, for example). I agree with everything you say. May I ask what your age is and when you started reading the books? Would you say that you as an adult get something else from the series than children could? What I'm after here is the labeling of some literature as "children's literature", an abstract and uncertain classification that Zipes questions strongly since "children" is a social construct. C.S. Lewis resisted the label of his Narnia books as "children's literature" and I personally think that this categorisation may easily lead to excluding other readers. I feel that the books are well suited for children (though Zipes offers many intriguing arguments against this) but can and should be read by adults as well. I've met slightly resenting attitudes about reading HP since "it's for children", as if this was detrimental to the literary value. What are your views on this? > zgirnius: > I would pull Tolkien out of that list as different, and superior, to > the others on the list that I am familiar with. I think Rowling's > work seems as good to me as Lewis's, Jones's, and Dahl's, to the > extent that I have read them. On a non-literary level, I prefer her > to all the above except Tolkien. > > Tolkien's work, with its invented world (including millenia-long > history and languages, plural (!) ) is something unique in my > experience. My sentiments precisely. In the case of Tolkien one may take the example of The Hobbit as more aimed towards children and therefore (?) scaled down in mythological complexity. The question is if simplicity and even conventionality (which doesn't have to be a bad thing) goes hand in hand with "children's literature". There are many facets of literary value and criticism which I've yet to explore, but I think this question is intricately connected to the subject of "high" vs. "low" literature. One theory argues that complexity - among other things - renders a higher "value" to the text. > > > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? > > zgirnius: > No. > OK, just a follow-up question: would you say that Rowling is more or less open to her readers compared with the average author? From what I've seen her webpage is unusually active and maybe interactive as well. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to look into this properly, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. > > zgirnius: > I doubt she has made major changes to the books based on outside > influences. However, I think, for example, the particular way she > shows the uselessness of the Minitry in combating Death Eaters in > Book 6 is different than it would have been in an alternate reality > in which the events of 9/11 never happened. > Nice observation, some measure of allegory and/or references to the modern world can be expected in most books, especially one as postmodern as HBP. The pop culture references and intertextuality of the series is a strong property I feel, that makes the reading more fun. > > zgirnius: > I think that, if one were to adopt as a goal the utter homegenization > of children's literature, then the way to do it would be to mandate > that in every work, there be an equal number of important male and > female characters, split evenly among the good and evil characters; > that these characters further be of various ages, and that they > represent the ethnic and racial compositions of the authors' home > countries. I think I have left out some categories that ought to be > included, but you get the picture, I am sure. > On the other hand, the classic model of storytelling and character development is firmly rooted in our consciousness and has proven extremely effective. The similarity between, say, LOTR, Star Wars, and Harry Potter is no coincidence. To deviate too much from the pattern can make the story less accessible and engaging, although it's of course easy to drift too far into the predictable. Here's a nice model of this phenomenon. My point is that it's difficult to decide which concept is better suited for homogenization since universal or close to universal appeal depends on how well the text communicates with our subconcious. Still, your argument is wellfounded, I'm just trying to broaden the discussion. > > I think TV is the big course of commercial homgenization, anyway, not > children's literature. And if he wants to pick on children's books > for this reason, he ought to pick on Goosebumps and its ilk. > I agree, but I think Zipes has a good point in warning about reading just for the sake of reading, a common attitude among parents today. > Rowling chose to write a series about a boy hero, not a girl heroine. > I'm afraid I am one of the hordes of female readers that have no > trouble enjoying the adventures of, a male character. I think, if I > read his book, I would probably disagree with his views on Hermione. > Yes, she is a helper. So is Ron. It's not a gender thing, it is > because she is a friend of the hero. I don't agree with Zipes about the sexism either, although I think it's an important aspect since children pick up quickly on gender stereotypes. Rowling does alright with these issues in my opinion, so it's not a problem for me. > > > klotjohan: > > The stories diverge more from the formula in the > > latest two books as well, interestingly enough; especially important is > > the death of major characters at the end(s). So, what I'd like to hear > > is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think > > Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an > > improvement or not. > > zgirnius: > What, Cedric doesn't count? I think I would retroactively group GoF > with the later books, and not the earlier ones, if what makes a > book 'conventional' is nobody good dying. HBP is my favorite, but I > also like all of OotP, GoF, and PoA very much as well. > Good point about Cedric, though I guess Zipes feel that everything returns to normal at the end, and that the pattern from the earlier books is repeated. I agree with you in drawing some form of line between PoA and GoF since the latter results in a distinct difference in the status quo of the Potterverse. After the death of Cedric, all characters seemed much more mortal than before, at least to me. I guess this can be considered a good thing since it heightens the tension and excitement of the books. Thanks again for the exemplary response, I eagerly await the contributions of you and other members! klotjohan From sydpad at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 22:34:27 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:34:27 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162679 > Sydney: > > -- Practical!Snape, who realizes that the only way Draco will not be > > killed by Voldemort is if Snape magically lashes the two of them > > together. zgirnius: > I love the concept, but it does not make that much sense to me at the > time Snape takes the Vow. Yes, Voldemort wants to kill Draco, but > there are less dangerous ways to prevent this, which I imagine are > familiar to Snape. The offer Dumbledore made to Draco on the Tower, > for one. I would think that Snape was aware of that as a theoretical > possibility for dealing with the Malfoys' problem, and it is more > effective than tying his fate to Draco's. Sydney: Yes, but then he would have had to out himself as being on the other side, wouldn't he? It's like they're in the mafia and one of the wise guys sidles up and says he can put them under witness protection. Neither Draco nor Narcissa could know that the DE protection program was on the table, without Snape either telling them himself which is a dead giveaway, or someone else telling them and thus revealing that Snape revealed Voldemort's plans to Dumbledore so it's still a dead giveaway. I mean, if someone came to Draco's bedroom in the middle of the night and said, "A mysterious spy has told us that you're trying to kill Dumbledore, and we're here to help...", there's only two people that mysterious spy could be, and the other one is Bellatrix. Dumbledore can only offer it when he has Draco alone and actively trying to kill him, for the same reason he wasn't able to approach Draco privately at all throughout the year. Because then Voldemort would find out and kill Draco ("Why didn't you stop me?" "Because I knew you would have been murdered if Lord Voldemort realized that I suspected you"), and in the middle of killing Draco he would realize that someone who knew the plan told Dumbledore. I know it's not airtight, but then neither is Dumbledore's explanation for why he didn't try stopping Draco to be honest. I think it's more important to JKR though that she puts the characters through the mill, than that all other logical possiblities are exhausted (*cough*triwizard cup portkey *cough*). > Sydney: > > I really think it's necessary for it at least to have been discussed > > as a possibilty for "Severus... please... " to make plain sense with > > Snape immediately getting a handle on 'please, what'. > > zgirnius: > Alternatively, Snape's reaction to Dumbledore addressinghim on the > Tower is to approach him and make eye contact. Sydney: First of all, I don't think Legilimency is a clear enough communications medium to get that much information across. It goes in images, it's not like (AFAWK) hearing voices in your head. I totally agree there's Legilimency going on in that scene, but I really think it makes more sense as a reminder, a farewell, and a comfort-- a single image from their past perhaps-- than as this conversation that suddenly happens from scratch. It's not like they're staring at each other for five minutes and anybody has time to think, "what's going on?". Snape only stared at Dumbledore for a *moment*. Plus, Dumbledore goes directly into the pleading. Pleading just seems like a really unusual tone for him, and I think he would only use it if he was actually mostly sure that Snape would *not* do what he was asking him to do. The whole scene makes so much more sense in terms of how quick and how established and how transitionless both characters reactions are, if this is a continuation of something they have both already discussed before, and disagreed on before. And we have a disagreement, a heated disagreement already in the book, over something Snape 'promised' to do that Dumbledore says he should do and Snape says he doesn't want to. I'm fairly sure JKR is going to give is this conversation (with Hagrid and a Pensive, I guess), and that's when she can show everything those characters were going through emotionally that she can't show us now. zgirnius: The emotional change in Snape could be a > reaction to an unspoken suggestion that is new (and unpleasant) to > him. Dumbledore sees the reaction and says 'please', and Snape kills > him. Works for me... Sydney: Actually, reading over this, I realize I have the exact same objection to this scenario as to the "Dumbledore is suddenly betrayed" scenario. There's just no transition at all in either of them. Snape's face goes maybe from 'whu..' to 'hatred and revulsion', but we don't even see it change onscreen (I think he was already dreading exactly what D-dore was going to ask as he was pounding up those steps and had the expression ready, as it were). There's no 'take'. He'd have to do a 'take' of some description-- an eye-widen, a start, a sudden tension, spitting out a glass of water.. any kind of take, really. Heck, even a teeny little 'twitch of the hand'. I'm not asking for huge cartoon take. Just any little authorial indication that there's anything *new* here for these people. zgirnius: > Of course, this would mean there is no hard evidence of Dumbledore's > wishes (as a Pensieve memory of Hagrid, Snape, or Dumbledore of the > Forest argument would be, were it about killing Dumbledore.) It's > just the sort of thing the author like sto do to Snape, as you say. Sydney: A Pensive memory of Hagrid, of course, is exactly what I have in mind! JKR will let the question dangle for a *while*, but when she wraps things up it's with a big bow, generally. It's not like there's a huge ambiguity about "Did Sirius betray the Potters to Voldemort". If we left it to some "so roughly here was my reasoning" explanation by Snape about what was going through his head, how would the reader (or Harry!) even believe him? And I don't see how a Pensive memory lets Snape off the hook in terms of juicy character torture, unless it's in terms of maybe opening a possibility of him surving past the end of the book. Snape's hook isn't that he can't prance about in sunny confidence that he'll be exhonorated, any more than Sirius' was really that he hadn't cleared his name. It's that he killed him mentor and has to go make nice with Voldemort and crawl around in a pit of despair. I think that's enough to be going on with! -- Sydney From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Dec 11 23:05:34 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:05:34 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162680 > Neri: > So, according to this plan, if Draco decides to assassinate > Dumbledore already in November, he is of course expected to fail, > then say Dumbledore arranges for Draco and Narcissa to be "killed" > and hidden away. How does Snape then explain to Bella and Voldemort > that the assassination had failed, Draco is dead, and yet Snape is > still alive? Pippin: Draco isn't supposed to make any attempts until he's managed to get DE's into the castle, which DD thinks is impossible. IMO, they expected Draco to realize this eventually and turn to Snape for aid. Then Snape could 'assassinate' Dumbledore, Draco and his mother could be 'killed' by the vengeful Order *after* DD 'died', (Voldemort would expect this since the Malfoys were so closely associated with Snape) and it would look to Bella and Voldemort as though Snape fulfilled all the terms of the vow. He watched over Draco as he attempted to carry out the Dark Lord's wishes, he protected Draco to the best of his ability (too bad it wasn't enough) and in so far as it was necessary, if it seemed Draco would fail, he carried out the task. What's to explain? > > Neri: > > > In fact, think about all this from Narcissa's point of view: she > found that her dear Lucius is in Azkaban and wrongly accused by the Dark Lord because he was in effect stabbed in the back by Severus Snape, > > > > Pippin: > > Well, that disposes of your theory that Snape shouldn't feel > > any great responsibility for what happened... > > > > Neri: > No, it doesn't. You are mixing two different kinds of responsibility > from two different points of views and in different moralities. > Here, I'll present you with a simpler example: Harry is not morally > responsible, from his point of view, for putting Lucius in Azkaban. > They were enemies in a war, they fought and Lucius lost. But this > hardly prevents Narcissa from wanting revenge on Harry for that very > deed. Pippin: But Harry thinks Lucius deserves to be in Azkaban. I bet you he would feel guilty if he thought an innocent person was there for something that Harry had done, even if Harry had nothing to do with fingering the innocent person. > Neri: > Narcissa is Kreacher's contact woman (it must be her because she's a > Black), Kreacher is a key agent in Voldemort's plan in OotP, and > timing is crucial to the success of this plan. How realistic it is > that Narcissa wouldn't be able to contact Voldemort immediately? Pippin: They don't live in a world of instantaneous secure communications. They just don't. Score one for Muggle technology over magic. If Voldemort was so easy to get hold of, the Ministry would've tracked him down by now. Look at it this way, Narcissa knows that the Order has already left for the Ministry and that Dumbledore will be arriving at Order HQ any minute. Voldemort has never been willing to take Dumbledore on, so she has no reason to expect he'd show up, at the Ministry of Magic, no less, to save anyone's bacon even if she can reach him in time. It's too late for her to save Lucius's mission. OTOH, she has a very valuable piece of information about Snape. But how to use it? If Lucius survives, he'll be in Azkaban and safer there under the Ministry's rule than under Voldemort's. Hmmmm. Bart (162670) I'm not so sure that all of them are the ones who know that Snape alerted the Order. Without looking back, the only ones who I believe we KNOW knew who alerted the Order are Snape, Harry, Dumbledore, and at least one of the rest (excluding Kreacher), and if it was only Sirius, he's not going to be telling anybody anyhow. Pippin: The text plus JKR's comments indicates that Snape used his patronus to contact the Order. That means anyone who saw the message come in would know it was from Snape, regardless of whether they actually heard it. (How does that work anyway? Some how I can't imagine a patronus talking.) Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 23:13:18 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:13:18 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162681 > >>klotjohan: > Hi all, > I'm working on a college paper (about 25 pages) in literature about > the Harry Potter books. The purpose is to establish if and how > these books can be evaluated on a literary basis and, more > importantly, if and how these values are affected by the > communities surrounding J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter series. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, this should be interesting! > >>klotjohan: > So, without further ado, here are the questions: > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise > nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for > objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you > have any.) Betsy Hp: Hmm... The Potter books have never struck me as particularly gifted when it comes to language. I've read prettier books, IOWs, that really illustrate the beauty and poetry of the English language. JKR isn't a sensual writer at all, IMO. (I don't know what Hogwarts' smells like, what Harry's dorm bed feels like, the sounds and smells and visuals of a Scottish fall, etc.) But I don't think that's what JKR was going for, so it's not something I fault her for. Just, I wouldn't use the Potter books as an example of great English literature. JKR has formed an interesting plot, and created an interesting (though far from fully fleshed) world. She's also created some interesting characters. And though many of her plot lines and characters are derivative, she pulls them together in an interesting way. But I honestly think a complete judgment of the Potter series as a whole will have to wait until the last book it out. Once the last word is read, will the urge to reread remain? Personally, I've been troubled by some of the actions of the main characters, and have gotten to a point where I don't like some of them. At this point I can't see wanting to spend time with them again. But book 7 may well change that. > >>klotjohan: > 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the > genre (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, > Diana Wynne Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary > level? Betsy Hp: Since I've only read Lewis, Tolkien, and Dahl, I can only comment on them. At this point, I think JKR isn't at their level. She's not quite as funny as Dahl, as magical as Lewis, nor as genre expanding as Tolkien. (Though to be fair, I've really only read Tolkien as an adult. Perhaps the lack of innocence on my part makes me a harsher critic. Both Dahl and Lewis benefit from the nostalgic glow of my childhood.) > >>klotjohan: > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? Betsy Hp: I haven't. (Going quickly to your follow up question, given to zgirnius...) > >>klotjohan: > OK, just a follow-up question: would you say that Rowling is more or > less open to her readers compared with the average author? From what > I've seen her webpage is unusually active and maybe interactive as > well. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to look into this > properly, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Betsy Hp: Actually, I think she's probably a bit less open than today's average author because of her fame. (Though probably about equal to authors of her level of popularity.) I've run across other authors who maintain blogs where readers can post questions and comments, and they respond fairly regularly. I doubt JKR could do something like that, because of the amount of her fans. However, I think she's done her best to be available with her website. She does a question answer thing based on votes (vote for your favorite question), and she'll post about her writing progress every once in a while. > >>klotjohan: > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in > her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of > influence and by whom? Betsy Hp: Oh, fandom is *full* of suggestions that one thing or another in the books was directly influenced by fan input. I tend to take such claims with a whopping big pinch of salt. IIRC, however, I think JKR said something about her personal experience with the press influencing the Rita Skeeter stuff in GoF. (I've no idea where that interview is located -- if it even exists. ) > >>klotjohan: > Most of you have probably encountered some form of criticism > against Rowling and/or her books, more or less constructive and > sensible. I've recently read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks > and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from > Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that children's > literature represents one of the most significant sources of > commercial homogenization. He has some strong points though I > sometimes feel that he's too broad in his statements; what > interests me is his labeling of the Harry Potter series as sexist, > conventional, and too mainstream. > Betsy Hp: Does "mainstream" mean popular? Because the books are popular. Or does it mean there's no interesting bits of culture in them. Which, I suppose if you're British, it could all seem ho-hum. But I think JKR did a good job fixing Harry into a specific place. He and his fellow characters act like British children, IMO. "Sexist"... Yeah, I cringe at that label. I certainly wouldn't say Hermione represents a typical girl. Honestly, Ron is more likely to fit into the old-fashioned "girl figure" mold. Ron is much more stand by his man, go Harry go, help I need a rescue, than Hermione is. (There was (is?) a particularly icky trend where if a female character showed the slightest bit of weakness someone would scream sexism. I rather dislike JKR's views of women, but I don't think I'd go so far as to call her sexist.) "Conventional" is a bit too pat, IMO. I mean, JKR depends on a great many "conventions", but she brings them together in an interesting fashion, with combinations not usually seen together. > >>klotjohan: > So, what I'd like to hear is what you think of Zipes assessments > and also whether you think Rowling's less conventional stories > (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an improvement or not. > Betsy Hp: I've been thinking about this ever since Mike Smith finished his PoA read through and expressed surprise and dismay that *this* was the fans' favorite book. (Quick background info: Mike read HBP to see what the fuss was about, posting his (hilarious!) impressions on his LJ, and ended HBP still wondering what the fuss was about. http://pages.prodigy.net/mike_p_smith/hbp/intro.html Fans suggested he check out PoA. http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/tag/prisonerofazkaban ) So I've been wondering to myself, what's *my* favorite Potter book, and I've narrowed it down to either PS/SS (which pulled me in but good) or CoS which, without the benefit of having an entirely new world to explore, set up what I think is a juicy little mystery, and ended with an interesting face off between Harry and Tom Riddle. Um... I'm not sure this really answers your question, klotjohan, but there it is. Betsy Hp From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Dec 11 23:34:32 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:34:32 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162682 > Sydney: > I know it's not airtight, but then neither is Dumbledore's explanation > for why he didn't try stopping Draco to be honest. I think it's more > important to JKR though that she puts the characters through the mill, > than that all other logical possiblities are exhausted zgirnius: Fair enough. > Sydney: > First of all, I don't think Legilimency is a clear enough > communications medium to get that much information across. It goes in > images, it's not like (AFAWK) hearing voices in your head. zgirnius: Yes. All it takes is one image: Snape gazes at Dumbledore, and sees hiself AK Dumbledore. Perhaps with Harry covered by a misty cloak standing on the Tower. Sydney: > Plus, Dumbledore goes directly into the pleading. Pleading just seems > like a really unusual tone for him, and I think he would only use it > if he was actually mostly sure that Snape would *not* do what he was > asking him to do. zgirnius: Right. If they never discussed it, what would Dumbledore expect Snape to do when he showed up on the Tower? A definite option would be, seize the element of surprise and attack the Death Eaters there...which Dumbledore, having had all kinds of time to think about his predicament, knows would be a disaster. Sydney: > The whole scene makes so much more sense in terms of how quick and how > established and how transitionless both characters reactions are, zgirnius: Dumbledore's reactions are transitionless, not Snape's. We do not have a description of his expression before the 'hatred and revulsion', but I take that to mean it was neutral. Otherwise, Dumbeldore's immediate reaction could be because he has just understood himself to be betrayed based on Snape's expression. Sydney: > this is a continuation of something they have both already discussed > before, and disagreed on before. And we have a disagreement, a heated > disagreement already in the book, over something Snape 'promised' to > do that Dumbledore says he should do and Snape says he doesn't want > to. zgirnius: Obviously, I need an explanation for this. I think the thing Snape agreed to is letting Dumbledore handle Draco his way. And I think he is pushing for a more aggressive approach. If someone kidnapped Draco and Cissy and hid them away, that would be a violation of their human rights, but it would also save their necks. In the meantime, it is Snape's job to prevent a disaster liek the closely averted one with Katie Bell. That he can, might be what Du,mbeldore is taking for granted. (Has Snape figured out why Draco disappears for hours at a time? If not, it must be making him nervous...Harry has been thinking about this for weeks at thetime of the argument.) And of course investigations in Slytherin House fit right it to this conversation. > Sydney: > And I don't see how a Pensive memory lets > Snape off the hook in terms of juicy character torture, unless it's in > terms of maybe opening a possibility of him surving past the end of > the book. Snape's hook isn't that he can't prance about in sunny > confidence that he'll be exhonorated, any more than Sirius' was really > that he hadn't cleared his name. It's that he killed him mentor and > has to go make nice with Voldemort and crawl around in a pit of > despair. I think that's enough to be going on with! zgirnius: Oh, but he needs to convince Harry too. Not just to be exonerated, but for his sacrifice to actually make a difference. Being without the means to 'prove' anything could certainly make things worse. I mean, killing Dumbledore for the cause, because one swore to a Vow, there was no better way, etc. is awful. But if it ends up not helping the cause because noone will take Snape's help? That's gotta be worse. Also, dropping Snape for a minute...it makes it harder for Harry too. He'd actually have to trust Snape (as opposed to verifying the facts of his story). From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 12 00:25:32 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:25:32 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_She=92s_In_The_Riddle_House_Now_?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162683 She's In The Riddle House Now (HBP, Chap. 10) To the tune of He's In the Jailhouse Now by Jimmie Rodgers (1928) A You-Tube rendition here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEisFhLY5MI Dedicated to Pippin THE SCENE: Chez Gaunt, just outside Little Hangleton. MARVOLO GAUNT, in his first solo, returns from Azkaban to find his that his daughter Merope has abandoned the family cottage. note: "Merope" is here sung with two syllables (so that it rhymes with "mope" MARVOLO: I had a kid who I called Merope A lazy gal who would mumble & mope I thought she was the dumbest lass around But she then saw a Muggle With whom she liked to smuggle A rich kid from a mansion way up town She's in the Riddle House now, she's in the Riddle House now I told her more than once to quit actin' like some trashy dunce She's in the Riddle House now She loved the lad named Thomas, I thought he had no promise He rode about, his nose stuck in the air. She felt a strong emotion and so whipped up a potion They say in love and war all things are fair. She's in the Riddle House now, she's in the Riddle House I told that little vamp, "Don't you be no Muggle-lovin' tramp!" She's in the Riddle House now There came a guy named Odgen, my footsteps he was doggin' Had me and Morfin sent to Azkaban Whilst we was in absentia She made some Amortentia That's how my daughter got herself a man She's in the Riddle House now, she's in the Riddle House now I think she is awful unjust to leave this note in an inch of dust She's in the Riddle House now - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 12 00:24:31 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:24:31 -0000 Subject: FILK: We Came Upon A Dark Mark Here Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162684 More yuletide spirit! We Came Upon A Dark Mark Here (HBP, Chap. 27) To the tune of It Came Upon a Midnight Clear Here's a MIDI: http://www.links2love.com/christmas_songs_a_midnight_clear.htm THE SCENE: High Street, Hogsmeade. HARRY reacts to the sighting of the Dark Mark over Hogwarts. HARRY: We came upon a Dark Mark here The skull and snake's green glow "A screaming comes across the sky," Like Gravity's Rainbow. Straight from the cave we hence arrived Where fierce Inferi did spook And Dumbledore became quite ill I hope he will not puke. Lord Voldemort attacks our school Our towers lightning-struck Tonight, perhaps, we'll lose this war - Of all the rotten luck. We cannot dial 9-1-1 To halt this threatened doom I'll use the famous Accio spell And fetch Rosmerta's brooms "Once more into the breach, dear friends!" As good King Henry said. I vow I will the people save, Unless they're already dead. Now Dumble says when we return To bring him Snape, and quick! I hope that Snape restores his health, Though he still makes me sick. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From marklb2 at comcast.net Mon Dec 11 18:44:27 2006 From: marklb2 at comcast.net (det_okse) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:44:27 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162685 OK- so the title is mostly just to grab your attention, but really one of the things that has really puzzled me throughout the series is the lack of some really decent offensive and defensive spells.Does anyone else feel that the spells that are out there that are known and in common use seem a little....tame? There are the Unforgiveable curses (which are banned), and Sectumsempra, some kind of a fire spell (like the one that was used to set hagrid's hut on fire...). But I guess I was wondering, if in a fight, what spells would someone like Mad-eye know and use? I doubt he would be casting Impedimenta or Petrificus totalus. This really is just a symptom of my biggest overall criticism of the series: Harry, (and Hermione, who undoubtedly is one of the brightest students at the school) just don't seem to have gained as much personal power as they really should have. They have done some amazing things, but Look at some of the things other students have created in the way of magical items and accomplishments while they were there: the maurauders map, the ability to change form, etc. It is almost as if Harry is completely average ability-wise, but makes up for it with bravery. Does anyone else feel the same? Wouldn't we all feel better if Harry was just a bit more powerful? det_okse From klotjohan at excite.com Tue Dec 12 02:00:54 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 02:00:54 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162686 Yay, more answers! > > Betsy Hp: > Hmm... The Potter books have never struck me as particularly gifted > when it comes to language. I've read prettier books, IOWs, that > really illustrate the beauty and poetry of the English language. JKR > isn't a sensual writer at all, IMO. (I don't know what Hogwarts' > smells like, what Harry's dorm bed feels like, the sounds and smells > and visuals of a Scottish fall, etc.) But I don't think that's what > JKR was going for, so it's not something I fault her for. Just, I > wouldn't use the Potter books as an example of great English > literature. > While I don't see Rowling's language as a weak point, when compared to some of the best English novels I've read it's admittedly fairly flat, but gets the job done nicely. Although I wouldn't say that she writes overly simple prose, it's just more of a mundane style than a poetic one. Perhaps a more elaborate text would only hinder the story, who knows? > JKR has formed an interesting plot, and created an interesting > (though far from fully fleshed) world. She's also created some > interesting characters. And though many of her plot lines and > characters are derivative, she pulls them together in an interesting > way. > > But I honestly think a complete judgment of the Potter series as a > whole will have to wait until the last book it out. Once the last > word is read, will the urge to reread remain? Personally, I've been > troubled by some of the actions of the main characters, and have > gotten to a point where I don't like some of them. At this point I > can't see wanting to spend time with them again. But book 7 may well > change that. > Interesting remarks I'd say. I think what pulled me in was the simple yet magical stories, but what made me really into the books was the characters. While I can see how some of them can be perceived as annoying or dislikable, I find them engaging and pretty human. As you point out, the series isn't ended yet, so the jury's still out one some things. > > Betsy Hp: > Since I've only read Lewis, Tolkien, and Dahl, I can only comment on > them. At this point, I think JKR isn't at their level. She's > not quite as funny as Dahl, as magical as Lewis, nor as genre > expanding as Tolkien. (Though to be fair, I've really only read > Tolkien as an adult. Perhaps the lack of innocence on my part makes > me a harsher critic. Both Dahl and Lewis benefit from the nostalgic > glow of my childhood.) > I agree partly here, since my opinion is that Rowling combines the strongest elements of Dahl and Lewis, but I don't think I could actually put her above them just yet. Tolkien is untouchable in my book, though. Still, this means that we both hold Rowling in quite high esteem I guess. > > >>klotjohan: > > OK, just a follow-up question: would you say that Rowling is more or > > less open to her readers compared with the average author? From what > > I've seen her webpage is unusually active and maybe interactive as > > well. Unfortunately I haven't had the time to look into this > > properly, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. > > Betsy Hp: > Actually, I think she's probably a bit less open than today's average > author because of her fame. (Though probably about equal to authors > of her level of popularity.) I've run across other authors who > maintain blogs where readers can post questions and comments, and > they respond fairly regularly. > > I doubt JKR could do something like that, because of the amount of > her fans. However, I think she's done her best to be available with > her website. She does a question answer thing based on votes (vote > for your favorite question), and she'll post about her writing > progress every once in a while. > You're probably right. It may well be that she's a not a very good example of reader-writer interaction. OTOH, what she's done on her website is fairly remarkable considering the vastness of the HP phenomenon. > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, fandom is *full* of suggestions that one thing or another in the > books was directly influenced by fan input. I tend to take such > claims with a whopping big pinch of salt. IIRC, however, I think JKR > said something about her personal experience with the press > influencing the Rita Skeeter stuff in GoF. (I've no idea where that > interview is located -- if it even exists. ) > OK, sounds likely that that could have influenced her. I'll keep an eye out for the interview, thanks for the tip. > > Betsy Hp: > Does "mainstream" mean popular? Because the books are popular. Or > does it mean there's no interesting bits of culture in them. Which, > I suppose if you're British, it could all seem ho-hum. But I think > JKR did a good job fixing Harry into a specific place. He and his > fellow characters act like British children, IMO. > Agreed about the characters. I'd say mainstream means, at least in the context of Zipes' book, a conventional and somewhat broad piece of pop culture that panders to a large crowd. There's also an implicit association made I feel between mainstream and commercialism, and further down the road between the popular and the "lowbrow". To use popular as a derogatory term is pretty elitist, although I wouldn't say Zipes goes that far. My viewpoint is that the books aren't particularily groundbreaking or unconventional, but there's definately enough to keep me more than interested. There shouldn't be any need to reinvent the wheel, just tweak it a bit and maybe make it spin differently. Obviously Rowling's after entertainment rather than art, and there's nothing wrong with that since it's an important aspect of good literature IMHO. > "Sexist"... Yeah, I cringe at that label. I certainly wouldn't say > Hermione represents a typical girl. Honestly, Ron is more likely to > fit into the old-fashioned "girl figure" mold. Ron is much more > stand by his man, go Harry go, help I need a rescue, than Hermione > is. (There was (is?) a particularly icky trend where if a female > character showed the slightest bit of weakness someone would scream > sexism. I rather dislike JKR's views of women, but I don't think I'd > go so far as to call her sexist.) > Well thought of, I haven't considered Ron from that point of view before. It illustrates how Rowling seems to like playing around with expectations and stereo/archetypes. Would you care to elaborate on why you dislike her views of women? I'm very curious about this. > "Conventional" is a bit too pat, IMO. I mean, JKR depends on a great > many "conventions", but she brings them together in an interesting > fashion, with combinations not usually seen together. > I agree, she's good at operating within the confines of the genre. Many of her twists I find refreshing and plain old fun, since I enjoy postmodern playfulness. > > >>klotjohan: > > So, what I'd like to hear is what you think of Zipes assessments > > and also whether you think Rowling's less conventional stories > > (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an improvement or not. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I've been thinking about this ever since Mike Smith finished his PoA > read through and expressed surprise and dismay that *this* was the > fans' favorite book. > > (Quick background info: Mike read HBP to see what the fuss was about, > posting his (hilarious!) impressions on his LJ, and ended HBP still > wondering what the fuss was about. > http://pages.prodigy.net/mike_p_smith/hbp/intro.html > Fans suggested he check out PoA. > http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/tag/prisonerofazkaban ) > Good stuff, but insanely long! I gave up after the introduction, perhaps I'll dive into it some other time. It's both amusing and intriguing to read criticisms from a hater, although I'm not too sure I can use any of it in my paper :) > So I've been wondering to myself, what's *my* favorite Potter book, > and I've narrowed it down to either PS/SS (which pulled me in but > good) or CoS which, without the benefit of having an entirely new > world to explore, set up what I think is a juicy little mystery, and > ended with an interesting face off between Harry and Tom Riddle. Right, but would you say that the level of conventionality (let's use the term even though it's problematic) and the shifting complexity of the books have anything to do with your opinion of them? Or is it more dependant on other factors? If I were blunt I'd say that the series have become increasingly more adult with each new book, mirroring the growth of the characters. I'd like to know how old you are, if you don't mind (I guess most everyone in here is above 18, but still). I'm 23 myself and mostly drawn to the combination of myth, magic, fantasy and modern real life displayed in the books, a fictional world I find captivating. The gravity of real life seems to be increasing as the series progresses. Am I wrong in guessing that you're more inclined towards the innocence and purer sense of magic in the first books? Very understandable, if that's the case. > Um... I'm not sure this really answers your question, klotjohan, but > there it is. > > Betsy Hp > I'm very thankful for your answers Betsy, and I hope you'd like to continue contributing to the topic! klotjohan From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 12 03:16:57 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:16:57 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts detentions (Was: The Trio's Morality) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162687 > Carol responds: > Very good point. Which brings up the whole question of punishment in > the HP books. Setting aside the Dursleys, who of course don't teach > Harry anything except to stay out of their way when possible, what, > exactly, do the Hogwarts detentions accomplish? > > What all these detentions have in common is that they're ineffectual. > None of the students involved is taught any lesson. Pippin: Not so. Most of the kids, most of the time, have a healthy respect for detentions and losing points. In PS/SS, Harry's response to his detention and the crushing loss of 150 points is "Harry swore not to meddle in things that weren't his business from now on." He keeps to that pretty well, though his definition of what is Harry Potter's business is more elastic than the school authorities would like. The kids learn that they can get away with a fair amount of mischief: lying, pilfering, hexes and the like, but when it comes to lasting damage there's an expectation that the culprit will be found and punished. JKR shows us that the system works by having it break down under Umbridge, whose rank unfairness and er, draconian punishments cause the whole school, not just Harry, to lose respect for the rules. The aftermath of this is not pretty. Harry doesn't even consider that he might get detention if he's caught making toenails grow in HBP, much less that a non- approved spell might hurt somebody. But I think the task he was given for punishment shows that Snape and McGonagall had a pretty good idea of what he'd been up to all along. Harry doesn't tell himself so, but we can see that he doesn't like the idea of being remembered as the human equivalent of Peeves. I think that's an appropriate result though Draco fans may find it inadequate. Harry didn't mean to wound Draco so drastically. OTOH, he did mean to go around trying out unknown spells, sneaking up on people and hexing them for fun, and it was becoming a habit. We don't see him beat himself up with remorse, but we do see that his behavior changes. He stops hexing people, or daydreaming of doing it, and he doesn't long for the day when it's safe to retrieve the Prince's book. I think that between remorse and altered behavior, JKR prefers altered behavior by far. Lupin has, unfortunately, become as enured to his guilty feelings as Fred and George are to detentions -- they're not his favorite thing but they don't get him to change his ways either. JKR is concerned with patterns of behavior, IMO. She shows that punishments and a sense of remorse can keep bad habits from forming, but once they've set, punishments and guilty feeelings won't be enough to change them. As far as the Twins are concerned, we see that detentions and lost points are treated like a cost of doing business. They've decided how much they can afford to lose and that's that. There are some people who are supposed to have given up destructive habits by choice: James, Snape, Regulus and Merope. I suspect Rowling means to show us that this *only* happens by choice, which is why giving Draco his choice was so important, though it's too soon to tell whether he's going to make any lasting change in his ways. Umbridge shows what happens when the authorities resort to cruel and unusual punishment instead: respect for the law as a whole breaks down and things only get worse. As Star Wars puts it, the more she tightens her grip, the more slips through her fingers. All the posts about the code of the playground and rules of engagement for bullies are fascinating, but I can't apply them to things like the train scene because the kids aren't obeying any code, they're just reacting in what JKR calls an animal way. There's no thought or decision to obey a code or to break it. JKR shows the limitations of this kind of thing. It may work as a last resort, but Harry's overkill with Draco and ineffectual response to the Inferi in HBP show that as Harry's power grows, his choices are growing also. His ability to choose wisely now depends on gaining enough self-control to choose at all, IMO. JKR often leaves it debatable for a while whether her protagonists' behavior is meant to be a good example or a cautionary tale. That's what keeps the books from being preachy, much to the disgust of those who prefer preaching to seeing their particular view up for debate. I trust that when she says these are moral books, she means that her views of what is moral and why will come through clear enough in the end. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 00:44:49 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:44:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP again WAS: Re: Cohesion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162688 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol responds: > Come on, now, Lupinlore. We all know how you feel about Snape and > Dumbledore, but there's no need to resort to sarcasm or to revile JKR > because she doesn't share your views. Well, once again we are back to JKR trying to get across a clear moral message, and failing in a dismal way. Not, I think, because she has any great plan or ace up her sleeve, but because she doesn't think things through before she opens her mouth and firmly inserts her foot. I did not come up with that infamous "epitome of goodness" comment. But since she made it, I do hold JKR to it. And frankly, if she believes Dumbledore's behavior and policies are consistent with being an epitome of goodness, then she needs to make a stringent defense of that, since child abuse is never a good thing. And yes, the issue of Harry being abused, and Dumbledore allowing it and evidently approving of it, is the very heart of the problem. Actually, I don't really think that JKR thinks very much about selling her moral message, since her time is spent trying to work out her plots and outlines. And therein comes many of her most egregious mistakes, since she assumes the moral themes are clear in the plots, when in fact they are often unclear and sometimes border on the contemptible. Thus Dumbledore the "epitome of goodness" approves of Harry being abused because JKR wants Harry's life to be a challenge, DD the "very wise man" lets Draco get away with attempted murder because she wants to set up a particular scene, Ron's status in the trio waxes and wanes according to what she needs him to do, Harry's emotional reactions are bungled and unbelievable because she doesn't want to deal with them, the issue of parents in the wizarding world is rarely brought up because no parent in their right mind would tolerate what goes on at Hogwarts, Hermione acts in -- controversial -- ways because it helps move the plot along, no one acts to defuse the obviously disfunctional attitude of Snape toward Harry because she wants the plot to build to a certain point, the plots Voldy engage in are contrived and incompetent beyond all belief, etc. It will all be over before too long and we will see how she handles it all. Personally, I suspect we'll have several nods in multiple directions which, like those of HBP, will only make things worse, by and large. But I notice she has been much more circumspect in her last two or three interviews. Maybe she has finally come to learn wisdom in this regard. Lupinlore, still looking forward to the lovely spray patterns the blood from the coming train wreck will make From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 12 03:49:25 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:49:25 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162689 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thinmanjones1983" wrote: > So, without further ado, here are the questions: > > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise > nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for > objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have > any.) Pippin: They're fascinating entertainment. I think we'll have to wait for the judgement of the ages on whether they're art. James Branch Cabell's books were wildly popular and far more literary than the Oz books which were popular around the same time, but aside from a brief revival in the sixties, you don't hear much about Cabell anymore, while The Wizard of Oz is now deathless and continues to be influential. > > 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre > (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne > Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? Pippin: Rowling's style is an art that conceals art. The adverbs which drive style addicts crazy make her characters accessible to children who would have to work too hard to decode emotions from dialogue alone. There's a poetry in simple clear language which I think is under appreciated. > > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? Pippin: Well, aside from having my WOMBATs graded, no. > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her > books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by > whom? Pippin: I know she changed a CoS witch who had a harelip into one with a hairy chin, apparently after being told that this was insensitive. She has also responded to fans by correcting the famous wand order glitch in Goblet of Fire, as well as numerous other errors of logic or consistency that fans have pointed out (though many remain, or are they clues?) Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before Rowling developed a fandom of her own. It's difficult to respond to the Zipes critique without having read it. But I'd say that JKR introduces what seem to be stock characters and situations, then does something unexpected with them, exposing in the process how much we prefer relying on convention to keeping an open mind. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 00:23:20 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:23:20 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162690 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sydney" wrote: > > h > > I know it's not airtight, but then neither is Dumbledore's explanation > for why he didn't try stopping Draco to be honest. I think it's more > important to JKR though that she puts the characters through the mill, > than that all other logical possiblities are exhausted > (*cough*triwizard cup portkey *cough*). ROTFLMAO!!! Oh yes, yes, yes! JKR has many weaknesses as a writer, but this is one of her great ones, the glaring illogic in many of her plot points. That an "epitome of goodness" would sit back and let Draco get away with attempted murder is absolutely absurd. It is a triumph of plot over character. Snape's hook isn't that he can't prance about in sunny > confidence that he'll be exhonorated, any more than Sirius' was really > that he hadn't cleared his name. It's that he killed him mentor and > has to go make nice with Voldemort and crawl around in a pit of > despair. I think that's enough to be going on with! > Oh my heavens, no, no, and NO! Snape has abused Harry from day one, and unless that is dealt with clearly and decisively, in the form of clear punishment for Snape and clear and humble apologies from both Snape and the dead Dumbledore (perhaps through his portrait) then JKR will have clearly approved of the abuse of children, and will have failed in a way beyond contempt. No action Snape takes will substitute for the clear and humble apology he owes Harry -- including offering up his life. Lupinlore, who agrees that the Triwizard Portkey was absurd, but thinks that any defense of DD and his policy toward Draco is even more so From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 03:55:31 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:55:31 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162691 klotjohan: > I agree with everything you say. May I ask what your age is and when you > started reading the books? Would you say that you as an adult get > something else from the series than children could? zgirnius: I am presently 37. I read my first HP book, Sorceror's Stone, maybe 4 years ago? I'm not the right person to ask about whether kids get less out of the books than I do as an adult. At the age the series is targeted at (older kids, say 11+), I am pretty confident I would have gotten most everything, as I was reading anything from YA books to 'classics' to fantasy/SF from the adult section of the library, to spy novels. (Perhaps I would have found Molly Weasley annoying and overprotective instead of sensible, but that's about it!) klotjohan: > What I'm after here > is the labeling of some literature as "children's literature", an > abstract and uncertain classification that Zipes questions strongly > since "children" is a social construct. C.S. Lewis resisted the > label of his Narnia books as "children's literature" and I > personally think that this categorisation may easily lead to > excluding other readers. zgirnius: Its classification as a children's series definitely delayed my trying it, both because it was not on the shelf where I normally shop for books, and because I assumed I would not like it. (I still occasionally walk through the fantasy/SF section of the bookstore and note with shock when I reach the R's that not a single book by Rowling is there! until I remember that she's in the children's section.) I eventually talked myself into trying HP with the reasoning that some of the stuff I did love as a kid (like Tolkien, including the Hobbit, his 'kiddiest' book) I still love as an adult. klotjohan: > I feel that the books are well suited for children (though Zipes offers many intriguing arguments against this) but can and should be > read by adults as well. I've met slightly resenting attitudes about > reading HP since "it's for children", as if this was detrimental to > the literary value. > What are your views on this? zgirnius: I would agree the books are well-suited for children. I will be pitching them to mine, when they are old enough (the elder is persently 4), and I support my nephew's interest in the series, which I believe he started reading when he was 7. (He is now 10). Personally, if an adult reader recommended a children's book, and I generally respected his/her opinions, I would try it. I don't agree they are necessarily less 'good'. klotjohan: > but I think this question is > intricately connected to the subject of "high" vs. "low" literature. One > theory argues that complexity - among other things - renders a higher > "value" to the text. zgirnius: I find genre to be a high/low culture issue as well. HP, in addition to being for children, is a fantasy, (in the sense that it contains in it magical creatures, wizards, etc.) and in the minds of people who care greatly about high/low culture, this makes them automatically suspect it is 'less'. (This annoys me most when it is Tolkien they look down on.) klotjohan: > Unfortunately I haven't had the time to look into this properly, but I'd > like to hear your thoughts on this. zgirnius: I wonder if she looks at the results of the Wombat and that other test. (She had these two mutliple choice quizzes about her world on her website, which fans could fill out, and they were graded according to her instructions.) klotjohan: > Good point about Cedric, though I guess Zipes feel that everything > returns to normal at the end, and that the pattern from the earlier > books is repeated. I agree with you in drawing some form of line between > PoA and GoF since the latter results in a distinct difference in the > status quo of the Potterverse. After the death of Cedric, all characters > seemed much more mortal than before, at least to me. I guess this can be > considered a good thing since it heightens the tension and excitement of > the books. zgirnius: It also is the book in which Voldemort returns fully, in a physical body. When I read it, I saw it as an important turning point, and was actually shocked to find school going on as usual in OotP afterwards. I expected a 'war' atmosphere. (Silly me, I never considered that Fudge would continue to insist on his version of events). From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Dec 12 04:17:53 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 23:17:53 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162692 >Nikkalmati said: I am much more with Julie and Debbie here and I believe in DDM!Snape. I have said before, and I stick with it, that SS did not have a clue what Draco's task was before he took the vow. (No one else seems willing to jump on the bandwagon, however). SS wanted and needed to know that information and promising to protect Draco was a small price to pay. >Magpie: If he needed that information why didn't he just let Narcissa tell it to him like she was going to before he himself jumped in and said, "Don't tell me?" Nikkalmati: Because Bella was there. SS was taken by surprise by the visit and he didn't know what Bella was doing there. Cissy was obviously very upset and he didn't want her to get reported to LV as a traitor. (Why he cares about her or Draco or Lucius, we don't know, but it must play into his motivation). He also wanted to appear before Bella to be a loyal DE. [Of course, one must never go against the wishes of the Dark Lord!] That protects himself too. He then turns away and thinks things over while gazing out the window. He figures out how he can handle this and declares "I already know all about it." Witness shock on the part of Bella. This lie protects Cissy, she is not a traitor if LV has already told Snape. It also makes him appear to be not only a loyal DE, but a favorite of LV. In that short time he must have decided there was little chance that Bella was going to report the meeting to LV and, of course, after Bella helps with the UV, she cannot report them without betraying herself too. Regardless, of whether SS knows the plan, they are all thwarting LV in his attempt to destroy Draco. It is also not clear that Cissy knows exactly what Draco is supposed to do either- only that it is likely to be outright fatal or unsuccessful and therefore fatal. >Nikki: >There is a question as to when DD and SS figured out exactly what SS promised to do. It must have become clear by the time Katie Bell was cursed. >Magpie: >So the vow really was completely useless. Why did Snape take it if he still had to figure out what Draco's task was by just hanging around school and waiting to see what Draco did? If he'd only not taken the vow he would have gotten his information without putting his and Dumbledore's life in danger. Nikkalmati: SS's plan was that with a recommendation from Cissy, Draco would confide in him willingly. It appears that Bella interfered and convinced Draco that Snape was not on Draco's side. "you are out to take my glory" is probably her idea. We see that Draco will not even come to Snape's office to talk to him and that he has learned Occlumency, presumably to use against Snape. Snape never did learn what Draco's plan was by hanging around the school and there was no way to predict that Draco would partially tip his hand by attempting murder. Clearly, SS and DD never got the information they needed or they would not have been taken by surprise on the tower. Yes, the vow Snape intended to take - to protect Draco- has so far been useless. The additional vow - to do the deed- was a disaster. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 05:41:19 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 21:41:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612112141w6297b883pb18a0c8ecbcd8b9a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162693 det_okse: Harry, (and Hermione, who undoubtedly is one of the brightest students at the school) just don't seem to have gained as much personal power as they really should have. They have done some amazing things, but Look at some of the things other students have created in the way of magical items and accomplishments while they were there: the maurauders map, the ability to change form, etc. It is almost as if Harry is completely average ability-wise, but makes up for it with bravery. Does anyone else feel the same? Wouldn't we all feel better if Harry was just a bit more powerful? Lynda: My best guess is that Harry's had other things to do than delve into the mysteries of more complicated spells; "enough to be getting on with" as DD said in OOTP. And also that most of the more powerful spells are probably learned outside of school, at least as wizards and witches take whatever training is required to advance in their careers after they graduate. It doesn't seem to me that finishing up their schooling at Hogwarts prepares kids for their specific career goals, but that they either recieve more training (when its necessary to their jobs) from their jobs, or pursue more knowledge on their own. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 12 05:04:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:04:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) References: Message-ID: <008601c71dab$04a89a40$a586400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162694 >Magpie: > If he needed that information why didn't he just let Narcissa tell it to > him > like she was going to before he himself jumped in and said, "Don't tell > me?" > > Nikkalmati: > > Because Bella was there. SS was taken by surprise by the visit and he > didn't know what Bella was doing there. Cissy was obviously very upset > and he > didn't want her to get reported to LV as a traitor. Magpie: But Snape's goal was, I thought, finding out what Draco's task is. I can understand him wanting to protect Narcissa, but it still seems completely silly to have Snape literally shut Narcissa up (instead of letting her go on for the second more it would take for him to give him the basic idea) just so that he can do something incredibly stupid that endangers more people trying to find out the information he just cleverly kept her from telling him--oh, and btw, doesn't even give him the information he's looking for. He's like the world's worst spy. Plus if Snape doesn't actually know what he's talking about in the scene his lines all become less meaningful. Nikki: (Why he cares about her or > Draco or Lucius, we don't know, but it must play into his motivation). > He > also wanted to appear before Bella to be a loyal DE. [Of course, one > must > never go against the wishes of the Dark Lord!] Magpie: But taking the Vow is supposed to be his way of trying to find out what Draco's task is--which it still doesn't. (And doesn't the Vow potentially fall under going against the wishes of the Dark Lord more than Narcissa spilling the beans? It even implies it to LV later.) Nikki: That protects himself too. He > then turns away and thinks things over while gazing out the window. Magpie: The Death Pact kind of undermines any superficial protection he's gotten elsewhere, though. Nikki: He > figures out how he can handle this and declares "I already know all about > it." > Witness shock on the part of Bella. This lie protects Cissy, she is not > a > traitor if LV has already told Snape. It also makes him appear to be not > only a > loyal DE, but a favorite of LV. In that short time he must have decided > there > was little chance that Bella was going to report the meeting to LV and, > of > course, after Bella helps with the UV, she cannot report them without > betraying herself too. Regardless, of whether SS knows the plan, they are all > thwarting LV in his attempt to destroy Draco. Magpie: Right, I can see that part of the reading. But it makes Snape's lines less meaningful because he's just faking it the whole time, so the whole conversation carries less weight. And he's still supposed to be taking the Vow to get information that the Vow doesn't give him (so he winds up vowing to die if he doesn't do something unknown to himself). He's also gone against Voldemort by taking the Vow quite possibly (Narcissa knows that she's going against Voldemort's orders by going to him at all), which Bellatrix could tell Voldemort about (which she may not do because she herself is protecting Narcissa). With the vow Snape isn't exactly proving that he follows Voldemort's orders, just that he's anti-Dumbledore. In this case he's proving something by agreeing to kill Dumbledore, but he's not following Voldemort's orders, is he? As you say, they're all thwarting Voldemort's plan. Nikki: > It is also not clear that Cissy knows exactly what Draco is supposed to do > either- only that it is likely to be outright fatal or unsuccessful and > therefore fatal. Magpie: So now nobody knows what's actually going on? How sad. I read it as this really dramatic scene where everyone (including me, even the first time reading) knew that 16-year-old Draco Malfoy had been given the suicide mission of trying to kill Dumbledore. Snape's thoughtfully realizing Voldemort wants him (Snape) to do it in the end, Narcissa is rightfully frantic and seeing it as an attempt to get Draco killed, Bellatrix is crazily claiming it's an honor. But really it's just a bunch of people who have the feeling Voldemort has told Draco to do something--could be anything--and they're running for help and taking Vows and accepting Vows without having any idea what they're vowing about? But having a conversation that makes it seem like they know they're going to talk about? What would Narcissa have said to Snape if Snape hadn't shut her up if she doesn't know any more than he does? What does she think "even the Dark Lord" can't do? (And how does Snape not figure it out from that clue?) > >>Magpie: >>So the vow really was completely useless. Why did Snape take it if he >>still > had to figure out what Draco's task was by just hanging around school and > waiting to see what Draco did? If he'd only not taken the vow he would > have > gotten his information without putting his and Dumbledore's life in > danger. > > Nikkalmati: > > SS's plan was that with a recommendation from Cissy, Draco would confide > in > him willingly. It appears that Bella interfered and convinced Draco that > Snape was not on Draco's side. "you are out to take my glory" is probably > her > idea. We see that Draco will not even come to Snape's office to talk to > him > and that he has learned Occlumency, presumably to use against Snape. > Snape > never did learn what Draco's plan was by hanging around the school and > there > was no way to predict that Draco would partially tip his hand by > attempting > murder. Clearly, SS and DD never got the information they needed or they > would > not have been taken by surprise on the tower. Yes, the vow Snape > intended to > take - to protect Draco- has so far been useless. The additional vow - > to > do the deed- was a disaster. Magpie: But the Vow has nothing to do with any of this. There's nothing in the Vow that gives Snape the information he's looking for. The only way it would have done that would be if the Vow had to contain specific language, like, "You will watch over Draco as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes to [insert secret information]." Snape's plan of trying to get Draco to confide in him didn't need the Vow. Since Narcissa was about to tell him about the plan he could probably more easily have sent them away and then just set up a secret meeting with her anyway. Or just talk about how he was going to do this thing and get her to talk about the details of the plans that way. Once Bellatrix thinks Snape knows the plan there's no reason for anyone to worry about talking about it openly. I don't think an author would write Snape cutting Narcissa off and then continuing on the conversation the way he does and taking the Vow if he really didn't know what he was doing. I don't see any beats in the scene the flag (as JKR would flag, imo) that Snape is actually just speaking vaguely hoping what he's saying matches up with the information he doesn't know. Plus I don't see any moment of shock and horror for Snape when he realizes what he's agreed to do--a moment I don't think JKR would hide from us if it happened, since it's Snape's tragic mistake. The vagueness of the scene still reads more logically to me as three people who know what they're talking about who are hiding it from the reader, not two people who are pretending they know what they are talking about. -m From theillussiveone at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 06:30:46 2006 From: theillussiveone at yahoo.com (theillussiveone) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:30:46 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0612112141w6297b883pb18a0c8ecbcd8b9a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162695 Lynda: > My best guess is that Harry's had other things to do than delve into the > mysteries of more complicated spells; "enough to be getting on with" as DD > said in OOTP. And also that most of the more powerful spells are probably > learned outside of school, at least as wizards and witches take whatever > training is required to advance in their careers after they graduate. It > doesn't seem to me that finishing up their schooling at Hogwarts prepares > kids for their specific career goals, but that they either recieve more > training (when its necessary to their jobs) from their jobs, or pursue more > knowledge on their own. TheIllusiveOne: I don't think that's good enough of an excuse. Snape was inventing spells and modifying potions in his sixth year. James Potter was casting silent spells in his fifth. Voldemort was IMMORTAL by his sixth year. Harry's had Voldemort after him for years, yes, but you'd think that would make him even more motivated to learn useful and powerful spells, and to work hard in school. Hermione has been with Harry most of the time, and yet she manages to learn advanced stuff early (The charm on the fake Galleons in OotP). That's been my biggest problem with the last two books, Harry went from a powerful, motivated (the Patronus charm, the spells for the Triwizard Tournament, etc) young wizard, into a completely average, unmotivated kid (Not learning Occulemency, being tricked easily by Voldemort, cheating in potions, etc) and really not doing much of anything. My opinion on the subject, anyway. -TheIllusiveOne From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 12 07:01:24 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:01:24 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162696 "lupinlore" wrote: > Well, once again we are back to JKR > trying to get across a clear moral > message, and failing in a dismal way. I don't believe JKR is trying to send a moral message clear or otherwise, nor should she. Like any novelist her first responsibility is just to write a good story. Therefore in her books we have no reason to assume good will always be rewarded or evil always punished. Fortunately. > I don't really think that JKR thinks > very much about selling her moral message, > since her time is spent trying to work > out her plots and outlines. I think that is true and I think that's one reason her books are so good. If you want to send a moral message send a Email, if you want to tell a story write a book. > yes, the issue of Harry being abused, > and Dumbledore allowing it and evidently > approving of it, is the very heart of the problem. Well, I suppose Dumbledore though Harry being abused was better than Harry being dead. I tend to think pretty much the same thing myself. > I did not come up with that infamous > "epitome of goodness" comment. But > since she made it, I do hold JKR to it. Why? History will remember the books not the interviews. When she was writing OOP she said it would be shorter than GoF, she was wrong and I don't care. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 12 07:45:52 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 07:45:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162698 Sorry for posting the original message in this thread twice, a mild case of brain lock. "justcarol67" wrote: > I do expect him [Harry] to realize that > casting an unknown spell labeled "for > enemies" is not the wisest or most > effective move at this moment. But as it turned out the curse was very effective indeed, because of it Draco was unable to finish the Cruciatus aimed at Harry. Harry's greatest strength is that in a emergency he seems to know instinctively what to do. > A known defensive spell--a spell designed > for Defense Against the Dark Arts, Harry's > forte--would be a wiser move. Why, so your attacker has a second chance to take a shot at you? Harry's spell defended him just fine thank you very much. It's just a pity Harry hadn't killed him as he had every moral right to do, if he had Dumbledore would still be alive. > The good guys use defensive magic, > the bad guys use offensive Dark Arts spells "The best defense is a good offense" is a clich? but the fact is most clich?s are largely true. If I were Harry and thought a defensive spell was 98% likely to be successful and a offensive spell 99% I would not hesitate to take the offensive and if a literary hero were to make the other choice I would feel nothing but contempt for him. > Harry doesn't want to kill anybody, not even Voldemort I certainly hope both Harry and JKR get over that bit of squeamishness, this is after all a war. > the DEs don't cast Crucios in battle. Bellatrix did. Voldemort did. Eggplant From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Dec 12 10:56:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:56:52 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162699 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thinmanjones1983" wrote: > In the case of Tolkien one may take the example of The Hobbit as more aimed towards > children and therefore (?) scaled down in mythological complexity. The question is if > simplicity and evenc onventionality (which doesn't have to be a bad thing) goes hand in > hand with "children's literature". There are many facets of literary value and criticism > which I've yet to explore, but I think this question is intricately connected to the subject > of "high" vs. "low" literature. One theory argues that complexity - among other things - > renders a higher "value" to the text. Geoff: I think you need to consider "The Hobbit" as being different from other "children's" literature. It was never originally intended for publication and was also probably aimed at a target age group lower than any Jo Rowling may have considered. It was a story written to be read to Tolkien's family and was not connected to the larger themes which had been taking shape in the "Silmarillion" which had then been in gestation for about twenty years by this time. There are nods in the direction of JRRT's mythology, as the author himself acknowledges in the foreword. It was only when work started on "The Lord of the Rings" that he began to tie the story in as part of the Third Age of Middle-earth. I believe that JKR had mapped out the general direction in which Harry would travel when she began her books. They are, as one contributor has pointed out, not in the same class as Tolkien, - who is anyway? - whose descriptive English paints such a clear picture of his story's surroundings but her books do delineate more of the structure of the Wizarding world when compared with C S Lewis' almost breathless rush through his world as depicted in the Narnia books which appeared at almost annual intervals although it should be remembered that these were written when he was still involved in lecturing. From chrusokomos at gmail.com Tue Dec 12 13:03:45 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:03:45 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162700 Why is it that raising a question gives nobody an asnwer, but instead rises a thousand more questions? I just hate these books sometimes...Seems so cruel tht we're forced to wait...but at the same time, the Potter books are again an example of our modern world going backwards, as Umberto Eco says (he's written this clever book lately, arguing that modern inventions and political situations are bringing our world back in the XIX, or even farther: think about Crusades, but also Ipod...); the last time so many people were eagerly waiting to know whether their hero would survive or die has probaly been set at the end of the nineteenth century, when all those great novels - Dickens, Dumas, Hugo etc - were published weekly, one chapter after the other. Ok, after this outburst which doesn't clear Snape's mess, let's see how carol has earned her star: > Carol: > Thank you very much. As a matter of fact, I have a PhD in literature > though I no longer teach college English and am now a copyeditor. I knew it! (grins) > Carol: > Ah, yes. Harry's selective memory. You may be right. But I still think > it will take Snape doing something that Harry doesn't expect, like > healing one of his injured friends instead of killing him/her or > taking him/her to Voldemort, to persuade Harry to at least consider > shutting up and hearing what Snape has to say. Or, as I said at > another post, Snape tying Harry up and forcing him to listen. I rather think that Harry may listen to him in the opposite situation, as someone else here said. As we've seen, when Harry is forced to submit he can only think about revenge, about how he'd like to boil/disembowel/beat up his opponent. But if he had the upper hand, as he had in the Shrieking Shack, he'd felt it as his moral duty to listen before pronouncing a judgment. > Carol: > I still don't think that Snape *feared* Lupin (or Sirius Black). You > don't fear someone you think is weak and Snape seldom shows fear--or > feels it, IMO. (He did know what he faced in returning to Voldemort > and his pale face and glittering eyes showed a fear that he had > mastered, outweighed by what he had to do. and he was afraid for Draco > in HBP, "Unbreakable Vow" chapter. But I see no sign that he feared > Lupin in PoA or anywhere else. He just thought that Lupin was the > werewolf accomplice of the man who intended to murder Harry. And he > knows, as you say, that Lupin is and always has been weak. I don't > think he intended to perform any Unforgiveables on Lupin, whom he tied > up with cords cast from his wand, and he resisted the temptation to > kill Sirius Black, whom he intended to turn in to Fudge, who would > give him to the Dementors. No fear there, but no understanding, > either. Still, maybe they understand each other better now. Trust, I'm > not so sure. Mmmh. Probably you have a point, and I've read too many fanfics. But all the same, Snape wouldn't go to someone he despises. And maybe (claps her hands excitedly) what Snape dislikes so much in Lupin is what he's afraid to find within himself: a surrender to his darkest feelings. I mean, obviously Lupin cannot help it, but Snape's rational part could certainly prevent him from joining the DE, and didn't. So he sees himself trapped, and there's no potion that would help him to be a better person. > Carol: > I don't know. I picture Snape sending him a message using his new > Patronus, something Dumbledoreish that would persuade Lupin of his > loyalties. Ok, THIS is the point we all should be debating (and probably have, except I missed it). JKR said that Snape's Boggart and Snape's Patronus would be very very important, so maybe this solves all our problems. A Boggart can't lie, as far as we know. Maybe if Harry sees it he'll be convinced at once of Snape's loyalties. But *what* is is? As we've seen, adults' Boggarts are serious problems: Molly sees her children dead, Lupin the moon, which makes him uncontrollable and dangerous.Harry, as the true warrior he has to be, sees Fear iself. And Snape? Maybe, after all, he'll see DD dead, the death of his only possibility of redemption. But now he's dead...what if he sees himself? Urgh, going a bit Freudian here... > Carol: > I'm not so sure. I think that Lucius does love his son. Otherwise, > what would be the point in Voldemort's seeking to punish him by > killing Draco (I mean, assigning him a task that he thought Draco > couldn't complete and then killing him for his failure)? I think that > Snape's and Lucius's friendship will come into play, along with > Narcissa's gratitude. 'Slippery friend' indeed. I'm still not convinced that Lucius would openly disobey LV, but maybe he'll do it, turn his coat at the last moment and be honored as a hero by the Ministry...what a lesson this would be for all the kids! And it would avoid the danger of a sirupy end to book 7, with all the good ones drinking and the bad ones in prison, as in Asterix' cartoons. > Carol: > Exactly. It's odd that she's always been Dumbledore's Woman with > regard to Snape and came back around to something close to that > position, even researching the HBP nickname at a time when Harry felt > nothing but hatred for Snape and regret that he'd been attracted to > the HBP as a friend. But Hermione often sees other people more clearly > than she sees herself. This is indeed one of the features which make her character so well-constructed. I do think it's normal, for a bright teenager, to see everything clearly - except oneself. I wonder if she'll continue in her investigations and find out more about Snape's mum. After all we've never seen Snape at Christmas (am I right here?) and JKR did point out that some of the teachers had families of their own. > Carol: > My primary reason for doubting a Boromir-style death for Snape is that > JKR likes to surprise the readers, and she seems to think that no one > will guess what she's up to with Snape, so the obvious way of dealing > with her repentant anti-hero--dying after performing a heroic deed--is > unlikely to be her choice. It's too predictable. Ok, I partly agree. But as surprised as we all are at her creativity, we should bear in mind that this kind of books have a pre-defined plot. The Fellowship, the Quest, the Mentor... This predictability of novels is what makes myths, fairytales and books, even the Potter serie, so adored by everyone. And I don't think this is a weakness: we all knew (the adults, at least) that DD was going to die; we knew it since Book 1. But it was still shocking and suprising when it actually happened, because JKR is good enough a writer to make it so. Carol: >And there's no way > that she'll leave Snape unexplained. Harry's been asking questions > about him, and Dumbledore has been giving him partial answers or > refusing to answer him, for six books now. She's not going to leave > Harry's questions, or the reader's, unanswered. Snape is too important > a character, and too loved or hated forby the fans, for her to > neglect. Maybe you're right and I become cynical with old age. But still, a voice in my head keeps saying, "She's going to answer all our questions, uh? And what about how DD got back Marvolo's ring? She kept us wondering about that story for PAGES, and in the end the guy just died!" > > chrustoxos: > > And yet everything, imo, points to this: Snape is in hiding, and > trust no one of the Order enough to contact them; excellent plot > diversion a character switching sides at the last moment; powerful > scene of a dying Potions master, surprise at Harry wishing Lv's death > even more because LV killed Snape. > > Carol: > I don't quite understand you here. Yes, I was powerfully unclear. I was trying to see the thing from the point of view of the plot, and not of the character, but failed. Must re-think it. > But if a character switches > sides, it won't be DDM!Snape, who is already on Harry's side. Harry > just doesn't know it. Well, that's the point. We follow Harry's point of view, after all. >Nor do I understand why Snape would be surprised thy > Harry's killing LV; that's what he wants him to do and why he's been > protecting him this whole time. Yes, that was an unclear part, sorry for my English. I meant that WE're going to be surprised, because, after years of wishing and plotting Snape's death (or at least suffering), Harry will find himself hating LV even more *because* he killed Snape, and not *despite* it. >That type of scene just > wouldn't work with Harry and > Snape--though if Harry dies (or seems to die) along with Voldemort, I > can actually imagine a dead (or seemingly dead) Harry in the arms of a > weeping Snape, who feels that he's failed yet again.) Mmh. You're possibly right about the fact that a Boromir scene is not suitable in the Potterverse, but I see even less likely the other way round. Snape crying over Harry' body?? I mean, he may be an intersting character and it may be amusing to have him as a guest (in full body bind, though, and with his eyes closed), but he's still a bastard. He doesn't scare the hell out of his students to prepare them to future life; he doesn't secretly keep Harry's pictures in his drawers, nor Lily's; and he most certainly won't be sorry if Harry dies. He wants him to stay alive long enough to destroy LV, and he's angry at the boy for not trying hard enough, but that's all. Snape protects Harry for self-preservation, as he partly admits to Bellatrix and Narcissa. And we still don't know how a Life's Debt works, how binding it is, and when it's considered paid. So maybe that's the simple reason why DD trusted Snape: he's still indebted to James Potter, and thus cannot, mentally or physically, harm Harry, but is bound to protect him, even unwillingly, until Harry himself release him from his debt. Only Harry doesn't know this, and Snape is too much humiliated by this fact to admit it to him. Snape may plot Emmeline Vance's death, but he cannot touch Harry. How about this? > Carol: > Ah, but I think that, like Petunia with her two outbursts (in SS/PS > and OoP), he's dying to tell his story. He's keeping a lot inside and > imagine the thrill he'll feel in being able to reveal to the Chosen > One that despite hating him as an arrogant and dishonest little > mediocrity and preserving his own cover as DD's Man, he's been helping > and protecting Harry all along. I hadn't seen this part of him, but you're right. A life like that must lead to the need of outburst, of finally telling it all, mustn't it? > > Carol, feeling that she hasn't earned her golden stars yet but > thinking that this post is too long already > chrus, who has her certainties splattered around but nonetheless looking for a golden star from her secret closet. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 08:11:25 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:11:25 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162701 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > I don't believe JKR is trying to send a moral message clear or > otherwise, nor should she. Like any novelist her first responsibility > is just to write a good story. Therefore in her books we have no > reason to assume good will always be rewarded or evil always punished. > Fortunately. And yet self-admittedly she IS trying to send a moral message, hence the "epitome of goodness." Note, not "Dumbledore tries," but "epitome of goodness." That reveals an enormous amount about what her intentions are. And once you reveal your intentions, then you are liable for how well those intentions come across. Actually, I think what you outline is a very good answer, IF the author herself had made it. That is, if she had said "I'm not interested in the moral status of my characters but rather in telling a good story" then fair enough. But ultimately, despite her professed "horror of preaching," that isn't what she's said. > > > > yes, the issue of Harry being abused, > > and Dumbledore allowing it and evidently > > approving of it, is the very heart of the problem. > > Well, I suppose Dumbledore though Harry being abused was better than > Harry being dead. I tend to think pretty much the same thing myself. If that's what JKR thinks, she needs to make a much better case for it than she has to this point. Otherwise she has an epitome of goodness who stands by and allows Harry to be abused by his guardians and his teachers -- which mucks up the moral message she very much IS trying to send. > > Why? History will remember the books not the interviews. When she was > writing OOP she said it would be shorter than GoF, she was wrong and I > don't care. History is not what we are dealing with. History will take care of itself -- and indeed will change its mind multiple times. Or rather, since there is no such thing as history per se but only what people say about the past, people who speak about these things in the future will say multiple things and change there minds multiple times. We are dealing with the messages JKR is trying to send and whether or not they are getting across. And in many cases, particularly with regard to Dumbledore and the abuse of Harry Potter, her message sending is a catastrophic failure. Lupinlore From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 12 15:41:16 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:41:16 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162702 Carol: > > the DEs don't cast Crucios in battle. Eggplant: > Bellatrix did. Voldemort did. Magpie: No, they didn't. Carol's point is that they cast Crucio's to torture other people, not in battle. Bellatrix isn't battling with Neville, she's teasing him, just as Voldemort is tormenting Harry. It's Harry and Draco who throw the spell when they're agitated and panicked. Eggplant: It's just a > pity Harry hadn't killed him as he had every moral right to do, if he > had Dumbledore would still be alive. [snip] If I were Harry and thought a defensive > spell was 98% likely to be successful and a offensive spell 99% I > would not hesitate to take the offensive and if a literary hero were > to make the other choice I would feel nothing but contempt for him. > > > Harry doesn't want to kill anybody, not even Voldemort. Magpie: But, err, to be frank...if anyone actually followed the rules for living you consistently post they'd have a hard time leaving the house without ending up in jail. Usually when someone sees any act of violence he might be inclined to commit as not only morally right but something for which not a jury in the world would convict him, he's a criminal (and there actually are juries in the world who would convict him). Harry didn't even reason the way you are here at the time. He saw no reason to take Draco out permenantly and wasn't trying to do so. He didn't, imo, have a moral "right" to take Draco out at all, any more than Draco had a moral right to take him or Dumbledore out. I also think that Draco's not being killed will turn out to be the bigger advantage. As will not killing Peter. One that Voldemort can't see coming because he follows the mindset you're laying out here. The kind of mindset that, imo, eventually weakens your own side, no matter what the short term advantages are. It's not about being wussy, it's about good having more imagination and the values of the good actually making them stronger than the values of the bad. Compassion isn't a weakness. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 12 16:00:57 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:00:57 -0000 Subject: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162703 > chrustoxos wrote: > Why is it that raising a question gives nobody an asnwer, but instead rises a thousand > more questions? I just hate these books sometimes...Seems so cruel tht we're forced to > wait... Potioncat: I've followed this thread with interest, without much to contribute, but this might be the time for some general observations. I've compared this series to raising kids. On the one hand I can't wait for them to grow up, on the other, I'm not looking forward to their moving away. (Can't wait for next book, but don't want it to end.) I've read one other series like this (OK 2). The first was Mary Stewart's "Merlin" trilogy (ended up being 4 books). That was nothing like this, no groups to discuss it with, no great anticipation of the release date. (The second series is Unfortunate Events, which I enjoy very much but cannot wait to have it done! We're on book 12.) I've had the pleasure of anticipating the "next" book on this site and of going back to read the anticipation of books. It's pretty cool to see what the list membership thinks "will have to happen" and then to see what JKR really had in store. One of the big ideas was that Snape and Black would have to get along and work together in OoP. Well, that didn't exactly pan out. Another was that Spinner's End would be about Big-Hairy-Spider's death---close but no cigar. (Can't remember his name, don't like spiders, can barely type this.) So while I really enjoy reading and discussing what we think will happen between Snape and Harry, I also can't wait to see how JKR plays it out. Back in the first post you asked about possible contacts for Snape.I don't think we should eliminate Moody. Moody isn't the same crusty character that Crouch!Moody was. Besides, as far as Harry goes, Moody is closer to Snape's opinion than to others. He's the one who says, "Yeah, well, there's something funny about the Potter kid, we all know that." (OoP chp 22) He may not think Harry struts, but he isn't about to adopt him any more than Snape is. Also to his favor, he tried to bring Dark Wizards in alive. He would listen to Snape---might stun him pretty good first. > chrustoxos > Ok, THIS is the point we all should be debating (and probably have, except I missed it). JKR > said that Snape's Boggart and Snape's Patronus would be very very important, so maybe > this solves all our problems. Potioncat: I could suggest his Boggart might have been himself killing Dumbledore. Or it might be LV triumphant. Many of us think his Patronus would reflect Dumbledore, but it would seem important to know what it had been if it will change. (Nothing says it will change.) But, based on the way I remember JKR's comment, I'm not sure we'll ever know what they are. She said it would give too much away to tell us, but she didn't say they would play a role in the story. Actually, Boggarts could be bad news for Snape. Imagine if there was one at DE-HQ? "Oh, Severus, could you take care of the Boggart for us? It's right over there...." > > > Carol: > > Exactly. It's odd that she's always been Dumbledore's Woman with > > regard to Snape and came back around to something close to that > > position, even researching the HBP nickname at a time when Harry felt > > nothing but hatred for Snape and regret that he'd been attracted to > > the HBP as a friend. But Hermione often sees other people more clearly > > than she sees herself. Potioncat: Hermione even seems a bit hesitant about Snape being a murderer--or at least that was the way I saw it---when she produced the picture of Eileen after DD's death. I doubt Snape would contact her, but she might play a role in getting Harry to listen. chrustoxos (I thnk) After all > we've never seen Snape at Christmas (am I right here?) and JKR did point out that some of > the teachers had families of their own. Potioncat: We've seen Snape at Hogwarts several years, and a couple it isn't mentioned one way or another. But it isn't a "given" that he stays the entire break. chrustoxos He doesn't > scare the hell out of his students to prepare them to future life; he doesn't secretly keep > Harry's pictures in his drawers, nor Lily's; and he most certainly won't be sorry if Harry > dies. He wants him to stay alive long enough to destroy LV, and he's angry at the boy for > not trying hard enough, but that's all. Snape protects Harry for self-preservation, as he > partly admits to Bellatrix and Narcissa. Potioncat: OK, I agree to the part about the photos, but I think he would be sorry if Harry died. He seemed pretty upset about Ginny and the Chamber. And I do think he wants and expects his students to learn. Who knows how he feels about Black's death, but I suspect he's angry that Black didn't listen to him and stay put. That's pretty much Snape's attitude, "the world would be a better place if more people would listen to me." Potioncat, all I want for Christmas is a spellcheck on Yahoo. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 16:01:23 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:01:23 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162704 Sydney earlier: > > > I really think it's necessary for it at least to have been discussed as a possibilty for "Severus... please... " to make plain sense with Snape immediately getting a handle on 'please, what'. > > zgirnius responded: > > Alternatively, Snape's reaction to Dumbledore addressing him on the Tower is to approach him and make eye contact. > Sydney again: > > First of all, I don't think Legilimency is a clear enough communications medium to get that much information across. It goes in images, it's not like (AFAWK) hearing voices in your head. I totally agree there's Legilimency going on in that scene, but I really think it makes more sense as a reminder, a farewell, and a comfort-- a single image from their past perhaps-- than as this conversation that suddenly happens from scratch. It's not like they're staring at each other for five minutes and anybody has time to think, "what's going on?". Snape only stared at Dumbledore for a *moment*. Carol responds: I agree that there's some sort of communication in that glance, but even though the single clear instance of Legilimency by eye contact (instead of via the scar link) that we've seen, the image of the HBP's Potions book rising to the forefront of Harry's mind, is purely visual, I'm not sure that mutual Legilimency between two skilled wizards cna't involve an exchange of words as well. There's no clear indication whether the memories evoked by the Legilimens spell in the Occlumency lessons included sound as well as sight, but Harry does try to communicate in silent words with Snape in OoP: "Snape looked back at Harry, who stared at him, frantic to communicate without words. *Voldemort's got Sirius in the Department of Ministries,* he thought desperately. *Voldemort's got Sirius--*" (OoP Am. ed. 745). Even though the narrator says "without words," Harry is thinking in words. Granted, Snape probably doesn't need this message--his eyes have already been "boring" into Harry's and Harry has been "concentrating hard on what he had seen in his dream, willing Snape to read it in his mind, to understand" (744-45), and just to make sure that Snape gets the message, Harry yells, "He's got Padfoot! He's got Padfoot at the place where it's hidden!" (745). One way or another, Snape gets the message, and given the fact that he's a skilled Legilimens trying to see into Harry's mind and Harry is *willing* him to read his thoughts, there's little doubt, at least in my mind, that Harry's shouted words were superfluous. the only question is whether Snape "heard" Harry's silent words or whether they conveyed themselves in a visual image of Sirius Black being tortured by Voldemort in the MoM. Still, if Snape and Harry can communicate in this way, as it seems that they do, I have no doubt that Dumbledore can communicate similarly to Snape, either in words or in images, in an equally short time. Exactly what he conveyed is, of course, a mystery, but it clearly was some indication of what DD wanted Snape to do, and "Severus, please!" was required to make him do it. And the only thing that makes sense to me is that he wanted Snape to save the boys by keeping his vow (and/or whatever promise he had made stemming from the vow). The look of hatred and revulsion occurs simultaneously with whatever he sees in Dumbledore's eyes: "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face" (595)--revulsion and hatred that had not been there a moment before when Snape's eyes scanned the room or when DD spoke his name, prompting the exchanged glance. And even then, Snape doesn't raise his wand until Dumbledore says, "Severus, please. . . ." So there's an understanding at that moment, conveyed by Legilimency, but whether it relates to a contingency plan or simply to the vow and what Snape must do under these unforeseen circumstances is unclear. I'm not taking away Snape's freedom of choice--he could have chosen to ignore Dumbledore's wishes and die with him--but he clearly didn't want to follow Dumbldore's orders. He either had to figure out, in an instant, exactly what was required or nerve himself to do it or both. I think, for example, that sending DD over the battlements was Snape's own idea, an excellent one under the circumstances since it would have been impossible to get the DEs out of the tower ahead of Harry otherwise. Sydney: > Plus, Dumbledore goes directly into the pleading. Pleading just seems like a really unusual tone for him, and I think he would only use it if he was actually mostly sure that Snape would *not* do what he was asking him to do. Carol: The sequence of events is Snape looking around the room, Amycus telling him that the boy can't do it, DD speaking Snape's first name, Snape pushing Draco out of harm's way, the exchanged glances and look of revulsion/hated, the pleading, and the raised wand and (highly unusual) AK. I think we all agree that pleading is highly unusual for DD (otherwise it wouldn't frighten Harry so badly), and I agree that he wouldn't do it unless he wanted Snape to do something that Snape didn't want to do, but I think the first "Severus" merely means "Look at me." Then there's the exchanged message, which I agree is a reminder of what's at stake and may include the necessity of saving Harry into the bargain. Then we get the look of hatred and revulsion, almost rebellion on Snape's part(?), and finally the "Severus, please" that pushes him to do the terrible deed, to choose what's right (or at least, the lesser of two evils which will also enable him to do some good) over what's easy (but futile and only seemingly good), killing DD but saving the boys over dying with him and ensuring the victory of the DEs. Sydney: > > The whole scene makes so much more sense in terms of how quick and how established and how transitionless both characters reactions are, if this is a continuation of something they have both already discussed before, and disagreed on before. And we have a disagreement, a heated disagreement already in the book, over something Snape 'promised' to do that Dumbledore says he should do and Snape says he doesn't want to. I'm fairly sure JKR is going to give is this conversation (with Hagrid and a Pensive, I guess), and that's when she can show everything those characters were going through emotionally that she can't show us now. Carol: I actually agree with you here, I think. They must have discussed the worst-case scenario--what if Draco succeeds in getting DEs into the castle and the UV is activated? But I don't think either of them really expected that to happen. I also think that Snape's joining the DEs had been part of DD's long-range plan since at least the time when Snape's Dark Mark started to become more vivid and that he was waiting to give Snape the DADA class until the most opportune time for Snape to do so. I disagree that the choice to give him the DADA class occurred *after* and as a result of the UV. The timing of the first four chapters is extremely precise for a reason: they occur virtually simultaneously. And Dumbledore would never have approached Slughorn to become Potions Master, as he had done *before* the night that DD showed up on his doorstep, without consulting with Snape in advance. Snape did not yet know that Slughorn had said yes, or was about to say yes, when he told Narcissa and Bella that he still had not received the DADA job, but I'll bet anything he knew that it was in the works. DD wanted Slughorn, and specifically Slughorn, not only to take Snape's place as Potions Master this year (and later), but to fill in the empty position of Head of Slytherin House the following year. Yes, he needed that memory, but he could have obtained it without giving Slughorn Snape's teaching position. Unless he needed, and wanted, Snape as DADA teacher that year. Given all this, and given the precise timing of the first four chapters, I'm pretty sure that Slughorn's acceptance of the Potions position, which made Snape DADA teacher by default and probably by previous arrangement, occurred at precisely the same instant as the Unbreakable Vow, or at least the fateful third provision. Sydney: > > A Pensive memory of Hagrid, of course, is exactly what I have in mind! JKR will let the question dangle for a *while*, but when she wraps things up it's with a big bow, generally. And I don't see how a Pensive memory lets Snape off the hook in terms of juicy character torture, unless it's in terms of maybe opening a possibility of him surving past the end of the book. Snape's hook isn't that he can't prance about in sunny confidence that he'll be exhonorated It's that he killed him mentor and has to go make nice with Voldemort and crawl around in a pit of despair. I think that's enough to be going on with! Carol: I'm not sure that it's Hagrid's memory that we'll see in the Pensieve. I can imagine Snape on trial and his memories presented in some new way we haven't yet seen, so that Harry as witness and the judge and jury could all see the evidence. Or Snape, having shown himself loyal, explaining to Harry exactly what happened. At any rate, regardless of how it's done, we're going to see more of the argument in the forest, a classic bit of misdirection on JKR's part that has to be cleared up. And it has to fit in with the UV/Draco plot somehow, whether or not it involved a prearranged plan for Snape to kill DD "should it prove necessary." I agree that no Pensieve memory, Hagrid's or Snape's or a bottled memory of DD's, is going to ease Snape's anguish. It's Harry who'll benefit by learning, finally, to understand Snape. Carol, agreeing that Snape's pit of despair is more than enough to be going on with! From klotjohan at excite.com Tue Dec 12 14:37:07 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:37:07 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162705 Great to see so many answers to the post, I can't seem to get a discussion going on the other communities I've tried. > > zgirnius: > I am presently 37. I read my first HP book, Sorceror's Stone, maybe 4 > years ago? I'm not the right person to ask about whether kids get > less out of the books than I do as an adult. At the age the series is > targeted at (older kids, say 11+), I am pretty confident I would have > gotten most everything, as I was reading anything from YA books > to 'classics' to fantasy/SF from the adult section of the library, to > spy novels. (Perhaps I would have found Molly Weasley annoying and > overprotective instead of sensible, but that's about it!) > klotjohan: OK, of course it depends on what kind of child we're talking about. Most of them seem to be doing very well indeed with the books. I'd say that at least the earlier books were easy to pick up without any prior knowledge of the genre, but they've gotten slightly more esoteric along the way, or rather referential. > zgirnius: > Its classification as a children's series definitely delayed my > trying it, both because it was not on the shelf where I normally shop > for books, and because I assumed I would not like it. (I still > occasionally walk through the fantasy/SF section of the bookstore and > note with shock when I reach the R's that not a single book by > Rowling is there! until I remember that she's in the children's > section.) > > I eventually talked myself into trying HP with the reasoning that > some of the stuff I did love as a kid (like Tolkien, including the > Hobbit, his 'kiddiest' book) I still love as an adult. > klotjohan: My experience is similar to yours, I was well aware of the series but hesitant to read it as it seemed like a fad. Eventually I got recommendations from a few friends and so I gave it a go, fortunately. > zgirnius: > I would agree the books are well-suited for children. I will be > pitching them to mine, when they are old enough (the elder is > persently 4), and I support my nephew's interest in the series, which > I believe he started reading when he was 7. (He is now 10). > > Personally, if an adult reader recommended a children's book, and I > generally respected his/her opinions, I would try it. I don't agree > they are necessarily less 'good'. > klotjohan: Sounds like a reasonable attitude. I've always tried not to be hindered by genre categorisations, whether it's literature, film, music or any other form of culture/art/entertainment. > zgirnius: > I find genre to be a high/low culture issue as well. HP, in addition > to being for children, is a fantasy, (in the sense that it contains > in it magical creatures, wizards, etc.) and in the minds of people > who care greatly about high/low culture, this makes them > automatically suspect it is 'less'. (This annoys me most when it is > Tolkien they look down on.) > klotjohan: It's interesting that fantasy has become intertwined with childhood in such a negative way. Further back in history fairy tales and myth formed the basis of oral - and later on written - storytelling. Take the Illiad for example: most likely it was carried on orally until it was written down, and today it's a fundamental piece of literature. At its core it's fantasy in epic form. Tolkien makes a very strong case for the value of fantasy in his essay "On Fairy-Stories", where he argues its importance to the process of "sub-creation" of a "secondary world". It's well worth a read if you haven't checked it out already. > > zgirnius: > I wonder if she looks at the results of the Wombat and that other > test. (She had these two mutliple choice quizzes about her world on > her website, which fans could fill out, and they were graded > according to her instructions.) > klotjohan: Hadn't heard about this before, just checked out a thread on it on another forum. Seems complicated. The mixing of the fictional and the real at play here is of course noteworthy. > klotjohan: > > Good point about Cedric, though I guess Zipes feel that everything > > returns to normal at the end, and that the pattern from the earlier > > books is repeated. I agree with you in drawing some form of line > between > > PoA and GoF since the latter results in a distinct difference in the > > status quo of the Potterverse. After the death of Cedric, all > characters > > seemed much more mortal than before, at least to me. I guess this > can be > > considered a good thing since it heightens the tension and > excitement of > > the books. > > zgirnius: > It also is the book in which Voldemort returns fully, in a physical > body. When I read it, I saw it as an important turning point, and was > actually shocked to find school going on as usual in OotP afterwards. > I expected a 'war' atmosphere. (Silly me, I never considered that > Fudge would continue to insist on his version of events). > klotjohan: Yes, seems like Rowling isn't too keen on simple polarity and prefers to keep the moral alignment of some characters difficult to establish. When Dumbledoore died I felt that the firmament of "good" in the fiction came down, who knows if it's definite or if Rowling decides to twists some more. If he can die, anything can happen I guess. /Klotjohan, who'd rather have MrJones as a nickname but screwed up :) From klotjohan at excite.com Tue Dec 12 15:47:00 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:47:00 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162706 Welcome to the discussion, Pippin, and thank you for answering! > > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise > > nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for > > objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have > > any.) > > Pippin: > They're fascinating entertainment. I think we'll have to wait for the > judgement of the ages on whether they're art. James Branch Cabell's > books were wildly popular and far more literary than the Oz books > which were popular around the same time, but aside from a brief revival > in the sixties, you don't hear much about Cabell anymore, while > The Wizard of Oz is now deathless and continues to be influential. > Yes, history is written by the victors, perhaps even in literature. The "problem" with HP is that it might not bring enough new things to the table. But who knows? > > Pippin: > Rowling's style is an art that conceals art. The adverbs which drive > style addicts crazy make her characters accessible to children who > would have to work too hard to decode emotions from dialogue alone. > There's a poetry in simple clear language which I think is under > appreciated. > klotjohan: Nicely put. Personally I really enjoy the homely and anglo-saxon feel the language and especially the dialogue gives me. A matter of taste, naturally. > > > > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? > > Pippin: > Well, aside from having my WOMBATs graded, no. > klotjohan: I should try this WOMBAT thing :) > > > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her > > books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by > > whom? > > Pippin: > I know she changed a CoS witch who had a harelip into one with a hairy > chin, apparently after being told that this was insensitive. > She has also responded to fans by correcting the famous wand order > glitch in Goblet of Fire, as well as numerous other errors of logic > or consistency that fans have pointed out (though many remain, or > are they clues?) > klotjohan: Good observations, they may come in handy. Could you point me to places where I could learn more about this? > Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but > Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her > teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before > Rowling developed a fandom of her own. > klotjohan: In what way do they remind you of fan fiction? I'm not too familiar with it I'm afraid. > It's difficult to respond to the Zipes critique without having read it. > But I'd say that JKR introduces what seem to be stock characters > and situations, then does something unexpected with them, > exposing in the process how much we prefer relying on convention > to keeping an open mind. > > Pippin klotjohan: That's my sentiments as well. I'll try to expand a bit on Zipes later on, but for now I'd like to hear what you think about the "conventionality" and adherence to a pattern of the first books in the series. I agree that the expected can be soothing to the mind, but as you say it can be detrimantal as well. Did you experience any difference in this respect between the books, and if so was it a positive or negative change? /Klotjohan From klotjohan at excite.com Tue Dec 12 15:20:06 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:20:06 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162707 Hi Geoff, thanks for joining in! > > Geoff: > I think you need to consider "The Hobbit" as being different from > other "children's" literature. It was never originally intended for > publication and was also probably aimed at a target age group > lower than any Jo Rowling may have considered. > > It was a story written to be read to Tolkien's family and was not > connected to the larger themes which had been taking shape in > the "Silmarillion" which had then been in gestation for about twenty > years by this time. There are nods in the direction of JRRT's > mythology, as the author himself acknowledges in the foreword. > It was only when work started on "The Lord of the Rings" that he > began to tie the story in as part of the Third Age of Middle-earth. > > I believe that JKR had mapped out the general direction in which > Harry would travel when she began her books. They are, as one > contributor has pointed out, not in the same class as Tolkien, > - who is anyway? - whose descriptive English paints such a clear > picture of his story's surroundings but her books do delineate more > of the structure of the Wizarding world when compared with C S Lewis' > almost breathless rush through his world as depicted in the Narnia > books which appeared at almost annual intervals although it should > be remembered that these were written when he was still involved > in lecturing. > klotjohan: You're right of course, I never considered those factors since my biographical knowledge of Tolkien is a bit spotty. Still, today the same people that labels Narnia "children's literature" would probably do the same with The Hobbit. The question of what defines literature written for children is a difficult one, and fairly peripheral to my paper, although fascinating. As for the comparison of Tolkien and Rowling, I seem to recall him having only a generel idea of what path the story was going to take in LOTR. Once finished, he had to rewrite all of his text to make it all fit together. It reminds me of a wild animal in that way, unpredictable and disobedient. I'm impressed with Rowling's ability to keep everything reasonably consistent and coherent. /Klotjohan From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 12 16:24:18 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:24:18 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162708 "sistermagpie" wrote: > Bellatrix isn't battling with Neville But she was certainly battling with Harry, I don't know what else to call it when 2 people aim unforgivable curses at each other. Fortunately Bellatrix missed. > Voldemort is tormenting Harry. Both had wands and they were dueling, sounds like a battle to me. > if anyone actually followed the rules > for living you consistently post they'd > have a hard time leaving the house > without ending up in jail. If I was about to torture you would your primary concern be my well being, or would your primary concern be stopping me? > Compassion isn't a weakness. Compassion in a war for somebody who is a split second away from killing you or driving you insane is most certainly a very severe weakness, it's a fatal weakness. It is also a literary weakness; in war thousands of people every bit as nice as Harry end up doing dreadful things. I think that would make a far more interesting story than the further adventures of Mr. Goody Twoshoes. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 16:48:38 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:48:38 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162709 Pippin: > The text plus JKR's comments indicates that Snape used his patronus to contact the Order. That means anyone who saw the message come in would know it was from Snape, regardless of whether they actually heard it. (How does that work anyway? Some how I can't imagine a patronus talking.) Carol: But unless Lupin is ESE!, it doesn't matter to Blown!Snape which Order members saw the Patronus. The informer, according to your hypothesis, is Kreacher. And we have no evidence that Kreacher saw Snape's Patronus, or recognized it if he did. Also, we know that Kreacher was under orders to wait for Dumbledore. Most likely, he was also under orders not to report what he had seen, if anything. And even if Sirius Black didn't care about protecting Snape's cover, Dumbledore would. Considering that he's not Kreacher's master, he has an unusual amount of control over him. I see no indication that Voldemort knew or suspected that Snape had alerted the Order. If he did, and Snape couldn't come up with an alibi, Snape would be dead. Nor do I see any suspicion on Bella's or Narcissa's part that he's the informer. Bella merely accuses him of "slithering out of action again" and places the blame for the failure of the DoM project squarely on Lucius's shoulders, just as Voldemort does. Narcissa resents this remark, but doesn't attempt to apportion the blame. Snape, of course, does know the part he played, and may be sorry on some level, that he has betrayed Lucius, but I doubt that it's his primary motive in taking the UV. After all, he's been opposing Voldemort and the Death Eaters all this time while pretending to be one of them. And yet, paradoxically, his affection for the Malfoys is real, as close to friendship as any relationship in Snape's life except that with Dumbledore. In this instance, I think his affection for Draco and Narcissa, along with whatever ambivalence he feels about having helped to send Lucius to prison (where, ironically, he's safer from LV than he would be if he were free), combines with his loyalty to Dumbledore, who also knows that Draco is trying to kill him because (DDM!)Snape has already told him and wants Snape to protect Draco at all costs. That being the case, a UV to protect Draco would be in line with DD's wishes and not worth arguing about because he wants to keep Narcissa's trust and not arouse Bella's suspicions, which he's gone to so much trouble to minimize. She still doesn't trust him, no doubt thinking that he's loyal to himself rather than Voldemort, but she can't be allowed to see that he's Dumbledore's man. Agreeing to the third provision, assuming that he has any choice, preserves his position--loyal to the Malfoys, willing to kill Dumbledore for Voldemort if it should prove necessary, "obviously" disloyal to Dumbledore. It also, of course, puts him in a terrible bind, symbolized by the ropes of fire. Did DD already know or suspect that he was going to die, even before the UV? Both he and Snape thought that Draco would fail, but if DEs succeeded in getting into the castle, he might, considering his injured wand hand, be unable to hold them off, and if Snape joined him, he'd blow his cover. There's no question that Voldemort wanted DD dead even more than he wanted Draco dead to punish Lucius, DD was the only one he ever feared, and he had just dealt LV a humiliating defeat in the MoM. And, of course, there's the ring Horcrux curse, which might still be operating, and whatever might happen if he went after other Horcruxes. And if Snape already suspected that Voldemort "expect[ed] him to do it in the end" and told Dumbledore as much, perhaps the third provision of the UV was only confirmation of what they had already anticipated and discussed. None of which makes the decision any less painful for Snape, but it does perhaps explain why he could agree to the third provision while still remaining Dumbledore's man. Not that he wanted to kill Dumbledore, not that there was any pre-existing plan for him to do so or pretend to do so, only that both Snape and DD knew in advance that it might come to the point where DD had to die, and DD would rather be killed by Snape than by anybody else--certainly, better Snape than Draco. So I think that he was already under orders from DD to do what he had to do to protect Draco--and his cover--even if it meant risking his own life and Dumbledore's, both of which were already at risk. (But I still think that the third provision was the DADA curse falling into place, trapping Snape into facing the consequences of his own choices.) Carol, still struggling like everybody else to make sense of the UV and not buying Blown!Snape as an alternative to DDM! From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 16:51:49 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:51:49 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162710 > Eggplant: > It's just a pity Harry hadn't killed him as he had every > moral right to do, if he had Dumbledore would still be > alive. Well, yes, he would. But unfortunately that would have led to Harry being in Azkaban, which wouldn't have been good for Harry or anyone else (other than Voldy). On the other hand, there IS a situation where one can, I think, argue pretty strongly that wrong-headed compassion messed up everything, and that is the situation with Wormtail in PoA. If Harry had kept his trap shut, Wormtail's death would have neatly foreclosed the route of Voldy's return, Sirius and Dumbledore would both still be alive, and even the child-abusing Snapey-poo would still be safely ensconced in his reprehensible practices. Lupinlore, thinking that if Harry should feel guilty for anything, THAT is what he should worry about From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 12 17:36:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:36:09 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162712 Magpie: > > Bellatrix isn't battling with Neville Eggplant: > > But she was certainly battling with Harry, I don't know what else to > call it when 2 people aim unforgivable curses at each other. > Fortunately Bellatrix missed. Magpie: > > Voldemort is tormenting Harry. Eggplant: > > Both had wands and they were dueling, sounds like a battle to me. Magpie: Bellatrix has a whole speech about "teaching" Harry to use Crucio before she throws it. Voldemort's "duel" with Harry is a sham, like a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it. Their state of mind is imo easily differentiated from the boys throwing it. That's the distinction Carol was making as well. Eggplant: > > if anyone actually followed the rules > > for living you consistently post they'd > > have a hard time leaving the house > > without ending up in jail. > > If I was about to torture you would your primary concern be my well > being, or would your primary concern be stopping me? Magpie: Yes, stopping you. But if you and I were fighting, and you did something that would have caused me great temporary pain, I would not necessarily be justified in killing you. I wouldn't necessarily think of killing you. Harry does not want to kill Draco. He's a boy fighting with another boy in school. He's not trying to murder him. He would have been just as happy stopping him with Levicorpus (happier, probably). Eggplant: > > Compassion isn't a weakness. > > Compassion in a war for somebody who is a split second away from > killing you or driving you insane is most certainly a very severe > weakness, it's a fatal weakness. It is also a literary weakness; in > war thousands of people every bit as nice as Harry end up doing > dreadful things. I think that would make a far more interesting story > than the further adventures of Mr. Goody Twoshoes. Magpie: Harry was not a split second away from being killed or made insane. Being hysterical in war can be a weakness too. (Not that Harry is fighting a war in the bathroom.) Nobody's advocating that Harry not have stopped Draco, as you know. Nor has anybody said anything about Harry not doing anything hard or being a goody-two-shoes. That's your false dilemma. Harry can do difficult things, even violent things, without adopting the policy you're suggesting. Sometimes leaders in war take risks that pan out as well--I think Rowling's plot is going to turn on a lot of those risks, and that they are ultimately the most interesting part of the story-far more than somebody just killing somebody else. (Harry doesn't really show compassion for Wormtail when he tells the others not to kill him. He is planning on him being basically killed, just killed according to law instead of by vigilantes. I don't think sending someone to the Dementors can be considered a failure of having too much compassion. Though that, too, will no doubt wind up contributing to the actual defeat of Voldemort.) If reading about the adventures of Mr. Goody Twoshoes isn't interesting, neither is reading about a thug who may kill a lot of people, but is really just as one-dimensional, flat and perfect as Twoshoes. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 17:37:31 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:37:31 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162713 Lupinlore: > On the other hand, there IS a situation where one can, I think, argue > pretty strongly that wrong-headed compassion messed up everything, > and that is the situation with Wormtail in PoA. If Harry had kept > his trap shut, Wormtail's death would have neatly foreclosed the > route of Voldy's return, Sirius and Dumbledore would both still be > alive, and even the child-abusing Snapey-poo would still be safely > ensconced in his reprehensible practices. > > > Lupinlore, thinking that if Harry should feel guilty for anything, > THAT is what he should worry about Alla: While I think that JKR will do Gollum like thingie with Peter and will show that sparing his life was okay in the long run, I do agree with you in a sense that but for leaving Peter alive several things that already happened may not have happened. Of course again this is not a guarantee, but pretty big chance IMO. I mean, even if Peter plays a part in helping Harry at the end, whether he does it or not, Sirius and Dumbledore are dead, and if Peter would have died, that may not have happened. On the other hand, it is not like Harry showed sympathy for Peter, really. He was worrying about not letting Sirius and Remus be murderers and was quite okay with Peter being kissed, too bad Harry could not predict what JKR had in mind, hehe. So, in short, I really cannot blame Harry for saving Sirius and Remus souls from being ripped apart, even though I agree with you about preferring Peter being dead already. I think here is actually plot dictated reasons and character dictated reasons meshed up very nicely ( as in Peter needed to eb alive for the plot and Harry sparing him) JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 18:41:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:41:13 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162714 klotjohan wrote: > > I'm working on a college paper (about 25 pages) in literature about the Harry Potter books. The purpose is to establish if and how these books can be evaluated on a literary basis and, more importantly, if and how these values are affected by the communities surrounding J.K. Rowling and the Harry Potter series. What I'm after especially is the interaction between reader and writer, to see if the feedback from fans and critics has had any influence on Rowling's work. > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise > nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for > objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have any.) Carol responds: Help. Even though I'm a copyeditor who critiques manuscripts to make them more saleable as part of her job, and even though I have a PhD in literature and am, erm, somewhat addicted to literary criticism, I prefer *analyzing* a work of literature to *evaluating* it. In terms of the semiobjective criteria I use in editing, the books are wonderful. True, there are a few grammatical errors and typos, some sentences that strike me as awkward, a number of inconsistencies, not all of which have been corrected (is anyone ever going to tell JKR that the wand echoes still come out in the wrong order in Harry's retelling of the graveyard incident?), but compared with the manuscripts by wannabe authors that I edit every day, JKR's work is, well, literature. That is, despite the inconsistencies and some stylistic blunders that jar me when I read them (too much exposure to Jane Austen's dangling modifiers?), I find the books enjoyable for their intriguing characters, their humor, and for the emotions they arouse even on a rereading. I like the questions that remain unanswered and keep us reading on tenterhooks for the last book, but that alone is not a criterion for a work of lasting literary value. What if I don't like the answers provided by the last book? Will I still want to reread them? Will others? If we're considering the book as children's literature, will child readers want to reread the whole series? At this point, it's too early to say. Will the books appeal to new readers twenty or a hundred years from now? I have no clue. But if saleability, readability, and enjoyment for readers of all ages are the criteria we're suing for literature, children's books or otherwise, then the HP books are literature. Are they good literature? I suppose that depends on your criteria. I'm not about to pass moral judgment on the books or the author and only to some extent on the characters. All that matters is consistency iwithin JKR's moral universe. My final judgment in that regard will depend on Book 7: If, after using Barty Crouch Sr. to show what happens when the "good guys" fight Dark wizards with the Dark side's own weapons, JKR has Harry cast a successful Crucio or use Avada Kedavra to kill Voldemort, I will consider the book a moral failure by the standards the author herself has established. If the moral standards epitomized by Dumbledore--Love, trust, second chances, mercy, etc.--prove to be mistaken, if Harry doesn't come to accept Dumbledore's judgment of snape or does not use Love to defeat Voldemort, I'll again consider the book to be a failure in terms of its own moral universe. By the same token, I anticipate some resolution to the problems of inequality among the magical creatures in the WW. My own feelings have no bearing on the matter. She's raised the issue; she needs to resolve it, or at least acknowledge in the Epilogue that it remains unresolve (a bit of a cop-out). My own feelings (and my politics and educational philosophy are very different from JKR's) have no bearing on the matter. klotjohan wrote: > 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? Carol: As I said, I don't like evaluating literary works. I like to analyze them. I don't place Tolkien's varied works in the same genre as the HP books, in any case. LOTR is fantasy/heroic quest on a grand scale; "The Hobbit" the same genres intended for a younger audience and with simplified themes--until we get to the Arkenstone and the Battle of Five Armies, where we see more complex themes emerging and Tolkien struggling and failing to bring the work back down to what he sees as a child's perspective. C.S. Lewis has, perhaps, a clearer grasp of his intended audience and purpose, but I never liked the Narnia books--too derivative, too overtly moralistic and allegorical. The small taste I've had of Roald Dahl left me with no interest in his works at all; no realism, no real moral quandaries, excessive violence and abuse of children by caricatures of adults. Perhaps I'm judging unfairly because I stopped reading too soon, but I didn't like what I read. (The other authors I haven't read and have no opinion about.) The HP books are in some respects almost sui generis because they combine so many genres: fantasy/heroic quest with detective story and Bildungsroman/boarding school tale. The "secondary world," to borrow Tolkien's term, is set within the primary world, invisible to ordinary people, as in, say, "The Borrowers" and the Narnia books, not a long ago, mythical world that is and isn't our own like Tolkien's Middle Earth. Comparing Tolkien and Rowling is like comparing Dostoevsky and Louisa May Alcott. I don't think it can be done, at least not with any degree of fairness to Alcott. klotjohan: > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? Carol: No. klotjohan: > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by whom? Carol: I'm not sure. I think she may have responded to complaints that Frank Longbottom was an Auror and Alice wasn't in GoF by making Alice an Auror in OoP. Otherwise, I see no way to account for the inconsistency. It's possible that Dumbledore's scolding of the Dursleys for mistreating Harry in HBP is the same sort of thing. I'd have been more comfortable if that scene had been omitted, but maybe it was planned all along. I can't think of any other examples. I'm sure that she planned the female baddies Bellatrix and Umbridge all along. > klotjohan wrote: Most of you have probably encountered some form of criticism against Rowling and/or her books, more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that children's literature represents one of the most significant sources of commercial homogenization. Carol: Define, please? Can you quote him to save me the trouble of looking at Zipes to figure out what he means by this postmodern-sounding term? klotjohan: what interests me is his labeling of the Harry Potter series as sexist, conventional, and too mainstream. However, he bases his arguments on the first four books and points to the similarity of the plot points in the different stories, as well as the lack of real female heroes or villains. Hermione is categorized as more of a helper,which is fair, but the appearance of Bellatrix Lestrange in OotP renders this argument invalid. Carol: any judgment of a seven-book series based on its first four books is, if not invalid, at least premature. And Bellatrix appears in GoF as the spokeswoman for the four DES arrested for Crucioing the Longbottoms, clearly foreshadowing her larger role in later books. Umbridge, as I said, appears in OoP as the main villain of that book (with Voldie in the background plotting the theft of a Prophecy and Crucioing his own DEs). Harry's HoH, and one of the sterner figures in the books, is female; she's also the assistant headmistress. JKR has taken care to have equal numbers of male and female students and teachers (not to mention a scattering of nonwhite students treated as absolute equals of all the other students). What is Zipes complaining about? The only real inequality in the books, despite all the fuss about purebloods and "Mudbloods," is between Wizards and Muggles, a situation peculiar to the WW that can't really mirror the RW except as the mind of the reader chooses to see applicability. But JKR has to create her own world, and sexual equality is not a prerequisite for imaginary worlds, especially those that are as medieval in some respects as the WW. I personally deplore film adaptations of, say, "Little Women" or "Huckleberry Finn" or the 1990s(?) TV series "Dr. Quinn, Medicinewoman," which make the characters' attitudes more politically correct than they were in the books or would have been at that time period in RL. If the standard of literary value is sexual equality or any other form of political correctness, we'd better burn all the classics, including Jane Austen's works. klotjohan: > The stories diverge more from the formula in the latest two books as well, interestingly enough; Carol: Which formula? Please clarify. klotjohan: > especially important is the death of major characters at the end(s). Carol: Possibly Cedric isn't a major character, but his death certainly foreshadows others to come, as both Firenze ("Always the innocent die first") and Draco point out. (Though I could be wrong about the specific Centaur and specific book.) klotjohan: So, what I'd like to hear is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an improvement or not. Carol: Since I don't judge by Zipes's standards, I can't comment on this point. The last two books are more complex and OoP is perhaps flawed by trying to cram in too many plots and themes, but unless we examine characterization and plot structure and foreshadowing and narrative technique and other aspects of literature, as opposed to books as indoctrination or reflections of a culture, I really have nothing more to say regarding their respective "value." Carol, who thinks that any form of literary criticism that imposes its own standards on what a book "should" be misses the point of analyzing the work in the first place From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 18:33:21 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 18:33:21 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162715 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > I think here is actually plot dictated reasons and character dictated > reasons meshed up very nicely ( as in Peter needed to be alive for the > plot and Harry sparing him) > That I will certainly grant. In this particular case, although Harry's decision was arguably extremely foolish, it did arise from consistent and long-standing aspects of his character. And you are right that it does set up certain extremely interesting possibilities. If Harry does find himself moved with compassion for Wormtail, it would certainly be believable, most especially as a spontaneous act on Harry's part. Similarly, if Wormtail were to make a spontaneous effort to help Harry, it would create a rather believable mirror, in that Harry's gut-instinct sparing of Peter would be matched by a similar impulsive act on Wormtail's part. We shall see. Lupinlore From jhenderson at ithaca.edu Tue Dec 12 17:17:05 2006 From: jhenderson at ithaca.edu (jhenderson9) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:17:05 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162716 TheIllusiveOne: > I don't think that's good enough of an excuse. Snape was inventing > spells and modifying potions in his sixth year. James Potter was > casting silent spells in his fifth. Voldemort was IMMORTAL by his > sixth year. Harry's had Voldemort after him for years, yes, but > you'd think that would make him even more motivated to learn useful > and powerful spells, and to work hard in school. Hermione has been > with Harry most of the time, and yet she manages to learn advanced > stuff early (The charm on the fake Galleons in OotP). That's been my > biggest problem with the last two books, Harry went from a powerful, > motivated (the Patronus charm, the spells for the Triwizard > Tournament, etc) young wizard, into a completely average, > unmotivated kid (Not learning Occulemency, being tricked easily by > Voldemort, cheating in potions, etc) and really not doing much of > anything. I think Rowling's point is that Harry, the Everyman, must defeat the lord of darkness and save the world. In the cave, Dumbledore tells Harry,"I am much older, much cleverer, and much less valuable." Dumbledore knows full well of certain magical mediocrity found within Harry, such as his inability to master Occulemency, but he still knows, even if he downplays prophecy, that Harry is indeed the Chosen One. I too wish that Rowling had shown an expanded curriculum in the upper levels at Hogwarts and more evidence of growth in magical skills by Harry and Ron. That could have added another 100 pages to the later books, however. Harry at least does come off better than Ron. A motivated Harry doesn't leave out important ingredients when following HBP recipes as he routinely did when Snape had written things on the blackboard [in different handwriting?], so he actually is not just learning potions but growing as a wizard through Snape's indirect tutalage. While Neville has progressed enormously in a couple subjects, Ron through much of the HBP seems to have regressed to almost squib-like proportions. jhenderson9 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 19:38:08 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:38:08 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: <008601c71dab$04a89a40$a586400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162717 Magpie: > So now nobody knows what's actually going on? How sad. I read it as this really dramatic scene where everyone (including me, even the first time reading) knew that 16-year-old Draco Malfoy had been given the suicide mission of trying to kill Dumbledore. Snape's thoughtfully realizing Voldemort wants him (Snape) to do it in the end, Narcissa is rightfully frantic and seeing it as an attempt to get Draco killed, Bellatrix is crazily claiming it's an honor. Carol responds: Although I originally started out with something like Nikkalmati's reading (Snape is faking his knowledge of Draco's task), I don't think the rest of the book bears this out. So I agree with you that all three of them knew the overall mission--to kill Dumbledore--and at least two of them (Snape and Narcissa) expected Draco to fail. Snape may not have been told by LV himself that the mission is *supposed* to fail, that LV is punishing Lucius, but he doesn't dispute Narcissa when she states that this is her view. ("Then I'm right!") LV certainly hasn't told either Narcissa or Bella, who as you say thinks it's an honor, that he expects Draco to fail or that he's punishing Lucius--that's her own (correct0 deduction. However, I don't think any of the three knows about the *specific* mission: to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and let the DEs into Hogwarts. Snape obviously doesn't know or he wouldn't be interrogating Draco after the necklace incident. And Bellatrix knows that Snape doesn't know the specifics of the plan, only the goal of killing Dumbledore, or she wouldn't take the trouble to teach Draco Occlumency to prevent Snape from knowing it. She alone of the three wants the mission to succeed and wants Draco, not Snape, to do it. It's just possible that Draco tells her she doesn't know about the cabinet at this point but Draco tells her later when she offers to help him. It's certainly Bellatrix who plants the idea in Draco's mind that Snape is trying to "steal his glory," an idea that Snape immediately reacts to as childish but which nevertheless fits with Bella's neively fanatical belief that the Dark Lord will reward his faithful followers. ("He will honor us above all others.") IMO, she really wants Draco, not Snape, to win the "glory" of killing Dumbledore. And if Draco dies in the process, at least he died gloriously for the cause. If she had sons, she'd sacrifice them, too. (And I don't think that's just talk.) Carol, not disagreeing, just pointing out that Snape doesn't know the whole plan (If he had, he might have found the vow unnecessary.) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 19:46:45 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:46:45 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162718 --- "thinmanjones1983" wrote: > > Hi all, > > I'm working on a college paper ... in literature about > the Harry Potter books. The purpose is to establish if > and how these books can be evaluated on a literary > basis and, ... > > So, without further ado, here are the questions: > > 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? > (... I'm aiming for objectivity here. Don't hesitate to > offer literary criticism if you have any.) > bboyminn: First let me say that I have no idea what 'literature' or 'literary' means. Apparently, to some, it means dull boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he is smarter than you. And that by reading and approving of his book, you are simply trying to bask in the glow of the author's towering intellect. As far as 'criticism', I am equally baffled. Apparently, a critic is someone who compains about everything, and especially about whatever his area of alledged expertise is. So, on that front, I'm afraid I won't be much help. Is JKR a great writer, not necessarily, but she IS a great storyteller. I think of many 'folk' storytellers in the oral tradition; the gramma suck, they use regional idioms, and speak in lower than common language. In other words, they do it all wrong, yet they manage to hold their listener's spellbound. That is that magic of a great story teller, and I think JKR has that magic. The most technically and literarily perfect book can be dull as paste, while the most technically flawed book can be a captivating read. It's all in the story. Though certainly a book that give due consideration to technique as well as tells a good story is a much easier read. JKR, believe it or not, has a very compact writing style. Yes, the huge tomes she produces might belie that, but what other author writes in tight two and three word sentences, and equally writes such spare descriptions? JKR is a master of turning the KEY of imagination. I've brought this up before and have used Ron as an example. How many of us have a crystal clear picture of Ron in our mind? Yet, if you go back through the books and add up all the descriptions of Ron, you will be very disappointed. He is describe in only the most basic way, yet JKR tells us just enough to turn the Ron 'key' in our mind, and from behind that magical door a fully formed complete in detail Ron springs. When Harry first walks into the Gryffindor common room, instead of the long endless elaborate 'painting a picture with words' description, we get the basics, and from that basic key, Gryffindor common room springs fully formed into out mind. JKR hasn't created Hogwarts and the rest of Harry's world, we have, it has sprung from the magic well of our imaginations, and that creates a very compelling reading experience. Further, JKR has created flawed charaters, we see Harry as lazy, withdrawn, unreasonable, forgetful, and any number of other characteristics that we also see in ourselves. These books would be loved by the religious right, but gathering dust on bookstore shelves if JKR has tried to force a moral message into the story. She has a story to tell, a story of characters who make mistakes. She doesn't put moral messages into the story, she just tells the story of people as they exist in her imagination, and lets what ever moral message we might derive spring forth from the story. If her moral messages were hard and fast, there would be little room for debate in this group. It is because we can see the good and bad in each character, that we can find ourselves in each one of them. Draco, for example, is a miserable human being, though one that we have all met, yet we can see a bit of humanity in him. We can see a bit of the underlying cause of Draco being Draco, so as miserable as he is, we can have a bit of sympathy and understanding for him. We can be furious at Dumbledore for not stepping in to protect Harry, but in real life adults are rarely there to step in until it's too late. We love him and we hate him, because that's how life is. I think it is the very moral imperfection in JKR's world that brings the moral message forward. Harry struggles to do the right thing, and ultimately when it counts, he makes the right decision; the greater, compassionate, selfless decision. Yet, in the small things he struggles, just like each and everyone of us struggles to know and do what is right, and that is why we so deeply identify with Harry, because we see our daily struggle for what is right reflected in him. JKR does more by illustrating the perils of life, than she ever could by preaching the morals of life. > 2.How would you say the series compare to similar books > in the genre (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, > Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne Jones, Philip Pullman, > Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? > bboyminn: Sadly, I can't help you much there, I wasn't much of a reader in my youth. Even in later years, I read mostly science fiction short stories. Now that I have discovered reading for the joy that it is, I deeply regret that. I think reading a good stories like Harry Potter, or Ender's Game can expand your mind, and make you a morally and intellectually better person. Even a more superfical, yet equally enjoyable, books like Artemis Fowl can bring about growth in human character and values amoung it's young readers. Some of the books you've mention either don't appeal to me, or appeal to me far less, because the authors were trying much harder to force a moral message into the story. I think that takes away from the message far more than it re-enforces it, and makes the story far more dull. Personally, though I only gave it one try, I found Tolkein to be as dry as yesterday's toast. I need a story to move much faster than that and to be far less of a struggle. Which brings me back to JKR's compact writing style. If the story is a bit dull, don't worry, in a few pages the story will have made huge leaps and will have certainly moved on to something more interesting. > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, > of interaction with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the > nature of the interaction? > bboyminn: Being a financially challenged person from the heartland I've never had occassion to meet JKR. > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed > something in her books because of outside influence? > If so, what kind of influence and by whom? > bboyminn: No, JKR knows her story to the very end, and I don't think anything can cause her to change course. The story is what the story is, and that is the story that will be told. If we all hate her for (theoretically) killing Harry at the end, then so be it. Besides, she a billionare now, what would her motivation be to please fans? That said, in small ways, I think fan response as added to the story. Question that are raise by fan, especially it they are very popular and relecant questions, could get answered because fans raised them, but the overal course of the story and it's ending, for better or worse, are, in my opinion, immutable. I have often suspected Snape's revealing dialog at Spinners End was prompted by fans. Many of us have debated how and why Snape was able to return to Voldemort when it seemed that Voldemort had every intension of killing Snape. That perhaps seemed a mystery worth resolving, and Spinners End gave Snape and JKR the perfect opportunity. So, minor fan question might get answered in the books, but the overal course of the story is fixed. If Harry is dead, then Harry is dead. > Lastly ... criticism against Rowling and/or her books, > more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently > read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones: > The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from > Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that > children's literature represents one of the most > significant sources of commercial homogenization. He has > some strong points though I sometimes ... too broad ...; bboyminn: Regarding 'commercial homogenization' and the Harry Potter books, let's remember that careful planning and marketing strategy did not make these books the success they are. First the books became successful on their own merits, then the marketing potential kicked in. 'Commercial homogenization' is a very real problem in our modern world. Once corporations discover a working profit making formula, they work hard to duplicate it. This can especially be seen in TV entertainment and in the Music industry. There are many musical acts that are far more 'formula' then talent. TV sitcoms used to be about picture perfect families, but since FOX's success with disfunctional families, it has pretty much become the norm. They are simply repeating a workable formula. In the publishing industry, we have the same, it's true. Some of the formula work actually has merit, and the formula simply serves to bring that merit to the public attention. Other books are simply mediocre books that are cashing in on a trend. As far as Harry Potter and JKR, I think they are far more likely to have broken the existing 'commercial homogenization' and created a new standard and a new trend, than to have followed any existing trend. What marketing executive would have believed little kids would read a 800 page book? So, if anything, the existance of Harry Potter is breaking the homogenization of literature, and leading to the discover, by a new generation of readers, of the old tried and true classics. > ... what interests me is his labeling of the Harry > Potter series as sexist, conventional, and too > mainstream. ... bboyminn: Were does this crazy ill-conceived idea come from that it is every author's responsibility to create a picture prefect model of the world? JKR is telling a specific story about specific characters, and these characters are who they are and do what they do. Her job is to tell the story and nothing else. It is certainly not her job to appease every politically correct wacko's idea of that utopian world should look like. Hermione is Hermione, love her or hate her, she is one individual in one story, not an unrealistic unlikely model of some critics fantasy 'every girl'. Stories are much much more about modeling reality, than they are about modeling a totally unrealistic and equally uninteresting perfection. That's just crazy talk. What the criticism leveled against JKR is really about is publicity. It is about creating a media buzz about your your cause or your next book, or just because you like seeing your name in the paper. As too the idea that JKR's books are too mainstream, again, crazy talk. What is she suppose to do, intentionally write her books poorly so they won't be popular, just so she can sit around in poverty and obscurity extolling the literary merits of her failed books? A book that is homogenous and mainstream is not a book that appeals to the greatest number of people, but a books that offends the fewest. That is the marketing goal of corporate Americe today, to create bland uninteresting products that offend the fewest number of people and are merely accepted by the rest. JKR wrote a story, just as it came to her, people liked the story. It is only 'mainstream' because it was a story that struck a chord with so many people. The key in her case is that the popularity came long before the hype. > The stories diverge more from the formula in the latest > two books as well, interestingly enough; especially > important is the death of major characters at the > end(s). ... bboyminn: In modeling the story arc of the series, I like to think of two funnels or two cones with their large ends placed together. Up until GoF, JKR's world is expanding, as is the story with it's many subplots and mysteries. Now we have gone past the middle, and JKR's world is contracting. She is funneling the story down to a single climactic point, and I think that is what we are feeling in the change of the tone and direction of the story. JRK simply can't run off on fanciful expansion of a world that, for story purposes, is already too big. I think that compression and contraction bears heavily on the stories in the last two books (OotP/HBP). We want to know more about the world; we want the expansion to go on forever until we know every detail. But she has to tell us less of the world, and concentrate on taking the story to that final point. That is inevitable. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 20:02:16 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:02:16 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162719 Carol earlier: > > the DEs don't cast Crucios in battle. > Eggplant: > Bellatrix did. Voldemort did. Carol: Not really. Bellatrix doesn't cast them in battle with Order members. She waits till she has Neville at her mercy, held captive with his arms pinned by another DE (OoP Ame. ed. 800). She's not duelling with Neville; she's torturing him for sport. And Harry, injured and surrounded by DEs, is at Voldemort's mercy in GoF. Voldemort strikes before Harry has a chance to raise his wand. When Voldie tries it again, after Harry is ready, he escapes the Crucio by rolling behind a tombstone (GoF Am ed. 660-62). It doesn't work as a battle tactic on an alert and prepared opponent. The DE who Crucios Harry before Snape rescues hits him when his attention is elsewhere: he's trying to jinx Snape (HBP Am. ed. 603). A Crucio requires a downed or helpless or distracted opponent/victim whom you can hold at wandpoint without any danger of the opponent or his friends fighting back. It also needs to be sustained by the desire to inflict pain, which is why Harry can't do it and why it didn't work as a weapon against Bellatrix even though she wasn't expecting it. It's not an offensive or defensive weapon. It's a form of punishment or torture, one that Harry in particular needs to learn not to use. As movie!Hermione says, those curses are Unforgiveable for a reason. Carol, knowing we'll never agree on this point but thinking that the relevant canon should at least be cited From xcpublishing at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 20:50:17 2006 From: xcpublishing at yahoo.com (Cheryl) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 20:50:17 -0000 Subject: What is it with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162720 det_okse wrote: ...one of the things that has really puzzled me throughout the series is the lack of some really decent offensive and defensive spells.Does anyone else feel that the spells that are out there that are known and in common use seem a little....tame? Cheryl: I'm writing my own fanfic version of Book 7 and I'm finding the same thing! I have a few battles with the Death Eaters and I feel like an idiot having them try to scream "Petrificus Totalis!" Who could get that out mouthful out in time? I want some good Dungeons and Dragons type spells. Sleep, Magic Missile, Charm Person, Fireball, Cone of Cold, Energy Drain, etc. Jelly-Legs just doesn't cut it against Avada Kedavra. det_okse: But I guess I was wondering, if in a fight, what spells would someone ike Mad-eye know and use? I doubt he would be casting Impedimenta or Petrificus totalus. Cheryl: I had him go straight for Crucio. Can you really see Mad-Eye holding back against a Death Eater? JKR got around it by having a bunch of zapping jets of light in the last few fights. No explanation about what many of them were. det_okse: This really is just a symptom of my biggest overall criticism of the series: Harry, (and Hermione, who undoubtedly is one of the brightest students at the school) just don't seem to have gained as much personal power as they really should have. Cheryl: I agree, especially in contrast with Fred and George, who have developed more "brand new" magic than, apparently, any wizard for the past hundred years or more. They are making a mint selling personal protection devices, apparently because there are, like three personal protection spells? det_okse: Wouldn't we all feel better if Harry was just a bit more powerful? Cheryl: I keep wondering why Ron, since he's known Harry is the target of Voldemort since age eleven, hasn't gone to Fred and George and said, "You know, you guys love to invent things and we could use some secret weapons in the little war against Voldemort..." I've been wondering if the Canary Creams spell can be cast from a wand. Now that would be a useful spell in a fight! Turn Bellatrix into a cute little bird. And send Crookshanks after her. From marklb2 at comcast.net Tue Dec 12 21:31:25 2006 From: marklb2 at comcast.net (det_okse) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:31:25 -0000 Subject: What is it with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162721 > > Cheryl: I want some good Dungeons and > Dragons type spells. Sleep, Magic Missile, Charm Person, Fireball, > Cone of Cold, Energy Drain, etc. Jelly-Legs just doesn't cut it > against Avada Kedavra. My Response is a Big AMEN!! It might just be because I am an American, but I was thinking along the lines of a "Curse Grenade" or severe cursed booby-traps, or a fanged frisbee that really bites..... Even if they aren't individually strong enough to come up with something along the lines of defence, they could compile something together. It scares me a little that the most powerful weapon Harry has is the ability to love.... that might be great and all, but in a pinch I'd rather be able to cast a fireball. det_okse From jhenderson at ithaca.edu Tue Dec 12 19:22:09 2006 From: jhenderson at ithaca.edu (jhenderson9) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:22:09 -0000 Subject: OFH, Life-debt and Snape/Lily-no-way In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162722 > Neri wrote: > > 2. We might learn some unpleasant things about Snape's schooldays, > especially regarding his part in "The Prank", his dabbling with the > Dark Arts and his connections with Lucius, Narcissa and "the > Slytherin gang". > > Carol: > Indeed we may and probably will. After all, JKR has promised us more > information on the Prank--primarily James's motives, I think. Sirius > won't look very good, either, I suspect. But regardless of what we > see of Severus's school days, all that will be revealed there is his > motives for becoming a Death Eater, which we already know he did. I think Harry's questioning of his father's noble character is loose end that will be resolved in Book 7 by a revisit of the Prank. I think a key to understanding the Prank came in Lupin's comment about the Levicorpus spell. He said that the Levicorpus spell was very popular when he was at school. If indeed the HBP invented the spell, Snape likely popularized by using it on classmates he didn't like. However, since it can be nonverbal, he may have even gotten away with it for a long time unsuspected. James, cleverer than your average wizard, not only figured out the spell's who, but how, and biding his time, he gave Snape his comeupance. Nothing in the pensieve contradicts this, even if James is shown as a bored and arrogant show off at the time. That would only fill Snape with even more hatred of James and make it even more likely that the Prank would become a worst memory. Just as eavesdropping has been used by Rowling to mislead her readers with partial, out-of-context information, the pensieve, even with its true picture, can also create an inaccurate picture. Lupin in the same scene questions Harry about feeling sorry about Snape. Lupin without the pensieve has a fuller understanding of event. jhenderson9 From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 12 21:42:12 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:42:12 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162723 Mr. Jones/klotjohan: 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have any.) Ceridwen: Background: 51 yr old female. U.S. Married. Four children. Some college. I like the books or I wouldn't read them. My main reason for reading books is to enjoy myself. I am not looking for social commentary or to be informed of some cause or plight. I am an "escapist" reader. The Harry Potter books provide something for grown-ups who read them along with their children. Aside from the magic, the school situations are familiar: bullies, dreary homework, failed romances, nasty teachers, situations that seem to happen by themselves but that negatively impact the hero, and so on. The pleasure of reading them as an adult is that they don't talk down to the reader, and they offer an insight that kids don't always see. The undercurrents in certain situations, such as the nasty teacher and the situations that seem to happen by themselves, are different to an adult who has more life experience than children, and JKR doesn't play these currents down when she writes. I didn't read the books when I first heard of them. They were 'trendy', and that often means a book has some transient morality or some other politically correct viewpoint that I don't want shoved down my throat. I did break down and get HP & The Philosopher's Stone when the movie was about to come out, because my youngest wanted to see the movie and I thought we should read the book first. Hee! Completely hooked. Mr. Jones/klotjohan: 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level? Ceridwen: I didn't read most of these. Not as a child, and not as an adult. I did read Tolkien as an adult, both The Hobbit and LOTR, and enjoyed the stories. I tried to read The Hobbit when I was thirteen, but couldn't get past the first page. It moved like molasses and bored me to almost immediate yawns. I read more popular children's books: The Bobbsey Twins, Nancy Drew, various fairy stories - Pinocchio without Disney's influence was amazingly and gratifyingly dark when I was ten. I liked mysteries, so that is what I read. I moved on to Sherlock Holmes when I was in my early teens. The Harry Potter series is no Lord of the Rings. I wouldn't expect it to be. Both have their elements of fantasy, but Rowling is going for a different audience and a different effect than Tolkien. Frodo's journey is more blatantly a hero's journey and quest, while Harry is at school and suffering the same sorts of problems kids have faced since schools began. The stories have a resonance on the level of a familiar story told by friends, not on some epic scale. Mr. Jones/klotjohan: 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction? Ceridwen: No. Mr. Jones/klotjohan: 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by whom? Ceridwen: Others have mentioned the order of the spirits coming out of Voldemort's wand in GoF. JKR got the order wrong, and it was changed in subsequent editions. But I have also heard of an interview where JKR states that she is writing the books to please herself. If that is so, then criticism wouldn't play as much of a part as it would to a writer who wants to write to please his or her audience. Mr. Jones/klotjohan: Most of you have probably encountered some form of criticism against Rowling and/or her books, more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that children's literature represents one of the most significant sources of commercial homogenization. Ceridwen: I've read other people's opinions that JKR's books are sexist. I think these people are reaching. People with agendas seem to want everything to reflect their own philosophy, despite what it would do to a story. McGonagall is not Headmistress, Hermione serves Harry like a good woman ought to, only the boys seem to do any adventuring while Hermione is more sedentary in the library, and so on. And, there have been comments about the way Harry is treated by various other characters. I really hate children's stories that think they have to move in and teach. I really, really do. That was an idea that came in during the 1970s, and hasn't quite left. There is no pure good story. These stories *have* to have a moral. Is this what Zipes means by "commercial homogenization"? Or is he talking about societal mores? It's really hard to talk about his comments without knowing what he means. Of course, I did look up his book on-line, and am reading excerpts. He seems to think that children's books are written by adults, for adults (page 63). So I am guessing, without reading further, that he is saying that children's books are there to provide cultural indoctrination for children. I really haven't heard that criticism leveled at the Harry Potter series. But, what is so bad about writing within a particular cultural viewpoint? Even Science Fiction stories set on different planets have some sort of cultural background. Homogenization? Is that another term for 'brainwashing'? Mr. Jones/klotjohan: However, he bases his arguments on the first four books (Sticks and Stones was published in 2001) and points to the similarity of the plot points in the different stories, as well as the lack of real female heroes or villains. Ceridwen: This isn't new. The article I'm thinking of, from Salon.com, said about the same thing (http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/13/potter/index.html Harry Potter's Girl Trouble by Christine Schoefer). This article was also written before OotP. Personally, I think the characters change from book to book, take on new roles, and that McGonagall didn't start out as Headmistress never meant that she wouldn't become one. She wasn't permanently slotted in the supporting role. Headmasters leave, deputy heads move up. Mr. Jones/klotjohan: So, what I'd like to hear is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an improvement or not. Ceridwen: I like that the stories have not stayed fluffy. PS/SS had a fairy-tale quality to it that didn't carry over. Each book seems to grow older with Harry and his friends. I do like the darker tones of the later books. But that was no surprise, since the books were progressing and the storyline was leading toward a darker place. My favorite books are HBP and CoS. I can't say much about Zipes, since I haven't read his book. Ceridwen. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 21:49:58 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:49:58 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162724 > >>Carol: > > However, I don't think any of the three knows about the *specific* > mission: to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and let the DEs into Hogwarts. > Betsy Hp: Right, so I'm focusing in on this one little nit, but it's a nit I just can't help picking. There is nothing in canon to suggest that Draco has been given a mission to get DE's into Hogwarts. In fact, canon is there to support that the Vanishing Cabinet scheme is thought up by Draco, on his own, as a means to accomplish his one and only task: killing Dumbledore. I know we've been round and round on this particular issue, but I cannot let any comment that reads like Voldemort assigning Draco the task of fixing the cabinet and getting Death Eaters into Hogwarts is established canon slide by. I just can't. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 22:27:07 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:27:07 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162725 --- "det_okse" wrote: > > ... > one of the things that has really puzzled me ... is > the lack of some really decent offensive and defensive > spells. ... > > ... my biggest overall criticism of the series: Harry, > ... just don't seem to have gained ...much personal > power.... ... Look at some of the things other students > have created ... while they were there: the maurauders > map, the ability to change form, etc. It is almost as > if Harry is completely average ability-wise, but makes > up for it with bravery. Does anyone else feel the same? > Wouldn't we all feel better if Harry was just a bit more > powerful? > > det_okse bboyminn: We have several characters in the series that could very easily fall into the profoundly gifted catagory; certainly Dumbledore, but also, Tom Riddle, Snape, James, and Sirius. There abilities were far above and beyond any of the other students who came through Hogwarts, and with the proper motivation, they could all accomplish stunning things. Yet, the important thing to remember is that they could do things average students could not, even things top students could not. They were profound geniuses and we can't really compare them to other students, not even Hermione. Sadly, few of them were ever allowed to reach their full life potential, kind of sad really. So, from a academic perspective, it is reasonable that Harry and Hermione do not have any of these accomplishments, but let us not forget that Harry has faced and defied Voldemort more times than anyone in the known wizard world. He certainly does have his accomplishments. True, he just scrapped by by the skin of his teeth, drawing on luck more than skill, but he none the less has done what better wizards could not. As to Hermione, while she may not have any great accomplishments like the Marauders Map, it's clear from the books that she is performing far above her grade level. That should not be discounted. As to the level of spells that Harry & Co know, I think part of that is intentional. JKR has given Harry crappy DADA teachers every year. In the last books, Snape certainly knows his stuff, but Harry's animostity toward Snape gets in the way of him learning anything. Part of the reason is to make Harry the extreme underdog. To make Voldemort appear to be an overwhelming force when compared to Harry. Also, I don't think the school ever intended any student to go directly from school to fighting Dark Wizards. School is intended to give them a basic foundation upon which they can expand their knowledge of magic on their own. Certainly, most wizards and witches seem to know magic that isn't taught at Hogwarts. Personally, I could never understand why their wasn't a class in magical first aid. Lots of people are getting hurt, and lot of potential to get hurt, yet they are given no tools to deal with it. So Hogwarts, like high school, is really very basic studies. I suspect with advanced students and a consistent string of competent to excellent DADA teachers, the students would be much farther ahead than they are. But that is not the case. I will be very disappointed if this attitude on the part of Harry and his friends continues in the next book. I fully expect to see Harry trying to make up for lost time with respect to curse breaking, and offensive and defensive spells. He certainly has the people available who can teach him these things, and he would have to be completely adle minded to not use them. In the end it may be love that saves Harry, but Harry is not at the end yet, and if, from his current perspective, he plans to win then he better start working for it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 12 22:43:02 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:43:02 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162726 "justcarol67" wrote: Me: >>It's just a pity Harry hadn't killed >> him as he had every moral right to do, >> if he had Dumbledore would still be alive. Lupinlore Wrote: > Well, yes, he would. But unfortunately > that would have led to Harry being in Azkaban, I don't see why, even in the wizard world self defense is not a crime. According to the law Draco is the one who should go to Azkaban for life not Harry. > On the other hand, there IS a situation > where one can, I think, argue pretty > strongly that wrong-headed compassion > messed up everything, and that is the > situation with Wormtail in PoA. Yes I agree. As I've said before, of all the mistakes Harry has made in 6 books that was the worst. SisterMagpie Wrote: > Voldemort's "duel" with Harry is a sham, like > a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it. A sham!? Harry won that duel with Voldemort! > He's a boy fighting with another boy in school. One boy is attacking another boy without provocation with one of the 3 worst spells known to the wizard world, a spell that can permanently disable its victims and make them wish they were dead. This is not playtime, this is life and death, and I see no reason Harry should give the well being of a thug like Draco ANY consideration. > Harry was not a split second away > from being killed or made insane. It sure seemed that way to me and from Harry's point of view it must have seemed even more intense. And if Harry had not successfully defended himself and had received the curse how could Draco let him live and tell what had happened? It would mean life in Azkaban for Draco. Harry might have just disappeared with no body ever found. Perhaps Draco wouldn't really have done that, I don't know, but I'll tell you one thing, it's not unreasonable for Harry to think he might, not unreasonable at all. I certainly wouldn't bet my life that Draco would do the right thing, I'd rather just blast the SOB. > Being hysterical in war can be a weakness too. Yes but that's not Harry problem, he always seems to know what do to in a emergency and if Draco lost a few pints of blood as a result well boo hoo. > Not that Harry is fighting a war in the bathroom. Both came very close to killing each other, looks like a war to me. > Nor has anybody said anything about Harry > not doing anything hard or being a goody-two-shoes. When Harry entered that bathroom if he didn't have his full concentration on protecting himself, if he gave even one thought to the well being of his attacker then he is a hopelessly wimpy goody-two-shoes who doesn't deserve to be leader of the DA, or even leader of the Hogwarts Stamp Collectors Club. Justcaro Wrote: > A Crucio requires a downed or helpless > or distracted opponent Victor Crumb, just a boy, used the spell effectively against Cedric Diggory and he was not helpless downed or distracted. > It also needs to be sustained by the > desire to inflict pain And Draco probably does enjoy inflicting pain, at any rate I'm certain Harry believes he does. > which is why Harry can't do it and why > it didn't work as a weapon against Bellatrix > even though she wasn't expecting it. I don't know why people keep saying that. Harry's spell wasn't perfect but what spell is the very first time you try it? Harry's spell was good enough to make Bellatrix scream and stop that stupid baby talk. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 12 23:12:31 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:12:31 -0000 Subject: Blown!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162727 > Carol: > But unless Lupin is ESE!, it doesn't matter to Blown!Snape which Order > members saw the Patronus. The informer, according to your hypothesis, > is Kreacher. And we have no evidence that Kreacher saw Snape's > Patronus, or recognized it if he did. Also, we know that Kreacher was > under orders to wait for Dumbledore. Most likely, he was also under > orders not to report what he had seen, if anything. And even if Sirius > Black didn't care about protecting Snape's cover, Dumbledore would. > Considering that he's not Kreacher's master, he has an unusual amount > of control over him. Pippin: Blackmailing!Narcissa is only one possible variant of Blown!Snape. The informant doesn't have to be Kreacher, and there does not need to be proof or knowledge that the news has reached Voldemort. The problem for Dumbledore and Snape is that they can't be sure. Here's the canon: "[Snape] alerted certain order members at once.[...] Alastor Moody, Nymphadora Tonks, Kingsley Shacklebolt, and Remus Lupin were at headquarters when he made contact. All agreed to go to your aid at once. Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had happened." Kreacher must have been told that the news came from Snape. Since Kreacher was under orders to tell Dumbledore what happened, he could hardly have been given a blanket prohibition not to speak of it. But the bigger problem is that Voldemort is very good at extracting information, and he's going to be wondering how it was that the Order showed up so inconveniently. Draco himself heard Harry say "He's got Padfoot! He's got Padfoot at the place where it's hidden" in Snape's hearing. Even with Kreacher safely under wraps there are too many others who might be tricked, jinxed or blackmailed into giving up the information. Voldemort is a Slytherin and not temperamentally inclined to hasty action, but his patience is not infinite and eventually he will put two and two together and decide to eliminate Snape, unless Snape has done something by that time to justify what happened in the MoM. I agree that Bella has no suspicions that Snape was the informer. Whether Narcissa does or not, she would be the first person Kreacher would tell if he told anybody, so Snape can't be sure she will never find out/doesn't know already. As for Snape's sense of responsibility for Draco, when has he failed to take the safety of his students seriously? He defied (apparently) Dumbledore once before to warn them about Lupin, so I think we know what he would do if he thought his loyalty to Dumbledore was putting his students in danger. Carol: > Did DD already know or suspect that he was going to die, even before > the UV? Pippin: Of course. Once Voldemort had tried to kill him, he couldn't have expected to survive for long, unless he could hide himself more thoroughly than Voldemort imagines. Can you tell me why Dumbledore wouldn't plan to take advantage of this means of escape if it exists and he could use it without putting others in peril? And canon does want us to know it exists, though perhaps JKR's American editors gave away a few more details than she would have liked. The peril of caring for one child more than a crowd of nameless faceless individuals has already been presented to us and seems to be a fault that Dumbledore would forgive, since he himself has been guilty of it. It would go a long way to humanize Snape in Harry's eyes to see that. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 23:20:21 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:20:21 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162728 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Hmm... The Potter books have never struck me as particularly > > gifted when it comes to language. > > > >>klotjohan: > While I don't see Rowling's language as a weak point, when compared > to some of the best English novels I've read it's admittedly fairly > flat, but gets the job done nicely. Although I wouldn't say that > she writes overly simple prose, it's just more of a mundane style > than a poetic one. Perhaps a more elaborate text would only hinder > the story, who knows? > >>Pippin: > Rowling's style is an art that conceals art. The adverbs which drive > style addicts crazy make her characters accessible to children who > would have to work too hard to decode emotions from dialogue alone. > There's a poetry in simple clear language which I think is under > appreciated. > >>bboyminn: > > JKR, believe it or not, has a very compact writing style. > Yes, the huge tomes she produces might belie that, but > what other author writes in tight two and three word > sentences, and equally writes such spare descriptions? > Betsy Hp: Hemmingway? I think he's an author who made much of sparsity, IIRC. Mary Renault also springs to mind. I do agree that JKR is a good story-teller (for the most part, see below), and I think she's a master of puns. But I've never felt moved by a sentence of hers, by a simple, spare, perfect bit of writing that shows the power of the English language. But keep in mind, I'm comparing her to an awfully grand pantheon. It's not really fair treatment of a writer on her very first set of books. I'll also add that it's very rare I hit upon a writer that I think meets that sort of standard, even while I'm completely enjoying the story being told. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Does "mainstream" mean popular? Because the books are popular. > > Or does it mean there's no interesting bits of culture in them. > > Which, I suppose if you're British, it could all seem ho-hum. > > But I think JKR did a good job fixing Harry into a specific > > place. He and his fellow characters act like British children, > > IMO. > >>klotjohan: > Agreed about the characters. I'd say mainstream means, at least in > the context of Zipes' book, a conventional and somewhat broad piece > of pop culture that panders to a large crowd. There's also an > implicit association made I feel between mainstream and > commercialism, and further down the road between the popular and > the "lowbrow". > Betsy Hp: Well, I do know for a fact that JKR had a very hard time finding a publisher for SS because it was set in a boarding school (a major "no- no" at the time ). So she certainly didn't start out by pandering. And honestly, I don't think JKR is tweaking her books in an attempt to reach the most readers possible. I think she's been as surprised by their massive popularity as anybody. I would say books that have tried to build off of JKR's popularity ("A Series of Unfortunate Events" is one example, IIRC) are more an example of pandering. Though honestly, anything that gets kids excited about reading is fine with me. Pander away. So the question is, why did these books become so popular? They weren't created to be, obviously. IMO, I think there's probably a similarity to the surprise popularity of Star Wars back in the '70's. And I think a good classic tale is at the heart of it. People love the old hero's journey. They love good versus evil. And while the self-appointed culture police tend to sneer at such familiar tropes, they're familiar for a reason. > >>klotjohan: > > Would you care to elaborate on why you dislike her views of women? > I'm very curious about this. Betsy Hp: Eek! I just got *out* of a thread on this very topic. Here's a link to an earlier discussion. Hopefully it'll give you enough to work with. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160350 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So I've been wondering to myself, what's *my* favorite Potter > > book, and I've narrowed it down to either PS/SS (which pulled me > > in but good) or CoS which, without the benefit of having an > > entirely new world to explore, set up what I think is a juicy > > little mystery, and ended with an interesting face off between > > Harry and Tom Riddle. > >>klotjohan: > Right, but would you say that the level of conventionality (let's > use the term even though it's problematic) and the shifting > complexity of the books have anything to do with your opinion of > them? Or is it more dependant on other factors? If I were blunt I'd > say that the series have become increasingly more adult with each > new book, mirroring the growth of the characters. I'd like to know > how old you are, if you don't mind (I guess most everyone in here > is above 18, but still). I'm 23 myself and mostly drawn to the > combination of myth, magic, fantasy and modern real life displayed > in the books, a fictional world I find captivating. > The gravity of real life seems to be increasing as the series > progresses. Am I wrong in guessing that you're more inclined > towards the innocence and purer sense of magic in the first books? > Very understandable, if that's the case. Betsy Hp: I'm 34. And it's not the innocence of the first books, it's the clarity. Because while JKR may have attempted to make her later books more adult and complex, I don't think she's done a great job on that front. Remember the discussion about language at the beginning of this post and the suggestion that JKR's strength lay in her simplicity? I think her story-telling skills lie in the same thing. And as she's gotten more complicated I think the story has become more needlessly padded and repetitive. The Trio spend much of the books doing nothing, figuring out nothing. And they'll sometimes even repeat a previous adventure or lesson. (Hermione's control issues, Ron's quidditch worries are good examples. They've not been allowed to change from OotP through HBP.) But the first two books are tighter, I think. And I think JKR's talents are more apparent within a tighter tale. There are still good elements to her later books, but they're surrounded by a lot of wasted pap, IMO. I sometimes wonder if her 7 year structure hasn't harmed her story telling. Are there times where she has to keep a character from growing in an organic manner so as to keep them to her time table? Betsy Hp From tigerpatronus at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 23:19:56 2006 From: tigerpatronus at yahoo.com (TK Kenyon) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:19:56 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162729 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "det_okse" wrote: > > one of the things that has really puzzled throughout the series is > the lack of some really decent offensive and defensive spells.Does > anyone else feel that the spells that are out there that are known > and in common use seem a little....tame? I've considered this, and I'm glad you brought it up. On one hand, when the DA was in the MoM in OotP, they had an honest-to-G-d wizard firefight. Neville used the "stupefy" spell ("STUBEFY!" p798) and the DEs used the same stunning spell. (To drift over to the Vorkosigan universe for a minute, it looks like these guys brought stunners to a plasma rifle fight.) Even evil DE Dolohov used the dreaded Tarantallegra spell on Neville (p802) instead of something that, you know, might hurt somebody. I can see not teaching vicious spells at Hogwarts. Even though I attended a notorious inner-city high school during the rise of the drug gangs in the 1980s, no one taught pistolcraft in school. You had to join a gang to learn urban guerilla tactics like, um, the DA. > This really is just a symptom of my biggest overall criticism of the > series: Harry, (and Hermione, who undoubtedly is one of the brightest > students at the school) just don't seem to have gained as much > personal power as they really should have. They have done some > amazing things, but Look at some of the things other students have > created in the way of magical items and accomplishments while they > were there: the maurauders map, the ability to change form, etc. It > is almost as if Harry is completely average ability-wise, but makes > up for it with bravery. Does anyone else feel the same? Wouldn't we > all feel better if Harry was just a bit more powerful? > det_okse > It does seem that more research went on in high school back in the old days. Snape created the Sectumsempra spell, remember. That's how he knew Potter had his potions book. The Mauraders created the map. They didn't just take lessons, back then. They created new stuff. It may be a subtle jab from a former schoolteacher (in Portugal) on the laziness of students these days. Hermione was, however, able to summon a flock of birds and send them after Ron. Maybe that's indicative of some real ... superhero power to come. And I think that might be the other reason that JKR is holding back on the magic. Maybe she doesn't want the HP saga to turn into Superman vs. Lex Luthor. TK Kenyon -- TigerPatronus! www.tkkenyon.com Rabid: A Novel, coming in April, 2007 Available to pre-order now from your favorite local bookstore or Amazon http://recommendedreading.suite101.com http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/blog.cfm/still_waiting_for_har ry_potter_7 http://recommendedreading.suite101.com/article.cfm/great_books_like_h arry_potter *STARRED REVIEW* A priest, a professor, the professor's wife, and his mistress--it sounds like the set-up for a dirty joke, but debut novelist Kenyon isn't fooling around. What begins as a riff on Peyton Place (salacious small-town intrigue) smoothly metamorphoses into a philosophical battle between science and religion. You would think that in attempting to deal with so many different themes-- shady clergy, top-secret scientific research, marital infidelity, lust, love, honor, faith-- Kenyon would run the risk of overwhelming readers. But, and this is why Kenyon is definitely an author to watch, she juggles all of her story's elements without dropping any of them--and, let's not forget, creates four very subtle and intriguing central characters. This is a novel quite unlike most standard commercial fare, a genre-bending story--part thriller, part literary slapdown with dialogue as the weapon of choice (think Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf)-- that makes us laugh, wince, and reflect all at the same time. Kenyon is definitely a keeper. -- David Pitt, Booklist, December 1, 2006 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 12 23:27:32 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:27:32 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162730 > >>Eggplant: > When Harry entered that bathroom if he didn't have his full > concentration on protecting himself, if he gave even one thought to > the well being of his attacker then he is a hopelessly wimpy > goody-two-shoes who doesn't deserve to be leader of the DA, or even > leader of the Hogwarts Stamp Collectors Club. Betsy Hp: But Harry didn't. Harry wasn't thinking about protecting himself at all. He stood there in shock watching Draco cry, stood in full view of Draco while Draco attempted to pull himself together. Stood without moving until Draco finally looked up and spotted Harry staring at him from the doorway. So I guess Harry needs to turn in his wand now? Betsy Hp From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 02:34:45 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:34:45 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162731 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Lupinlore: > > If Harry had kept his trap shut, Wormtail's death would have neatly > > foreclosed the route of Voldy's return, Sirius and Dumbledore would > > both still be alive > Alla: > On the other hand, it is not like Harry showed sympathy for Peter, > really. He was worrying about not letting Sirius and Remus be > murderers and was quite okay with Peter being kissed, too bad Harry > could not predict what JKR had in mind, hehe. zanooda: I've always thought that keeping Wormtail alive until he could be interrogated by the authorities was the only chance for Sirius to prove his innocence. I realize that it's not what Harry had in mind when he stopped the killing, and it's not surprising for me that he didn't think about it. I'm also not surprised that Sirius doesn't understand this or maybe understands but doesn't care, he is after all not in his right mind. But it really surprises me that more level-headed people like Lupin or Hermione go along with Sirius without even trying to convince him that PP is his only hope to go free. I've also always wondered how Sirius and Lupin intended to kill PP. Were they about to AK him or what? If they were, that would be the end of Lupin too, wouldn't it? From jnoyl at aim.com Wed Dec 13 00:14:10 2006 From: jnoyl at aim.com (James Lyon) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:14:10 -0700 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) Message-ID: <42B98E1C-AB5A-480B-BAB0-640F90E43548@aim.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162732 Regarding the bathroom scene: "...There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded; Harry attempted a Leg-Locker Curse that backfired off the wall behind Malfoy's ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Myrtle, who screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped as Malfoy, his face contorted, cried, "Cruci ?" "SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand wildly." The follow-up to this scene really shows how incompetent DoubleDumb is. He never tried to get all the facts of the situation, just instantly blamed Harry for over-reacting. Unless there are several other curses that Harry knows that begin with Cruci, Harry responded in a very appropriate way. Sectumsempra was condemned in this case because Harry did not know the effects (that Snape had previously used it on another student seems to have not affected DoubleDumb at all); however, it was still appropriate against an unforgiveable. So we let someone who cast or tried to cast an unforgiveable off the hook and hold them blameless and punish the other for self-defense. I still say that, starting with the hiding of a baby for a day and then just dropping it off on someone's doorstep and leaving the child for 10 years, DoubleDumb has never done anything that really supported or helped Harry. If Harry was so important, then he should have adopted him himself and retired from the headmastership (where his bungling and inattention had already dragged the school down with a child-abusive potions teacher, an incompetent divination teacher, and a useless history professor (not sure if the DADA position was also useless but the odds are that it was) and protected and apprenticed Harry. I know that JKR made the path that DoubleDumb followed, but it is still a criminally negligent one that included kidnapping and forced imprisonment of a minor. Try to picture all the things that DoubleDumb did to Harry and think about if you neighbor did the same sort of things to a baby. Too many people (both in the WW and the RW) allow DoubleDumb to get away with child abuse based solely on the fact the Harry survived (if you want to call that survival--I, personally, would think that death would have been kinder at several points). Just My Opinion noylj= [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 04:21:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 04:21:52 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion /Re: Harry Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: <42B98E1C-AB5A-480B-BAB0-640F90E43548@aim.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162733 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, James Lyon wrote: > > Regarding the bathroom scene: > "...There was a loud bang and the bin behind Harry exploded; Harry > attempted a Leg-Locker Curse that backfired off the wall behind > Malfoy's ear and smashed the cistern beneath Moaning Myrtle, who > screamed loudly; water poured everywhere and Harry slipped as Malfoy, > his face contorted, cried, "Cruci ?" > "SECTUMSEMPRA!" bellowed Harry from the floor, waving his wand > wildly." > > The follow-up to this scene really shows how incompetent DoubleDumb > is. He never tried to get all the facts of the situation, just > instantly blamed Harry for over-reacting. Unless there are several > other curses that Harry knows that begin with Cruci, Harry responded > in a very appropriate way. > > Sectumsempra was condemned in this case because Harry did not know > the effects (that Snape had previously used it on another student > seems to have not affected DoubleDumb at all); however, it was still > appropriate against an unforgiveable. > Alla: Huh? Not everybody blames Harry for overreacting, I am absolutely convinced that had Harry not reacted, very bad things could have happened to him and the quote that you just brought up shows IMO very convincingly that Harry was really really defending himself from bad things and was not in control at all. Oh, and as I also wrote earlier I do not blame Harry when slipping and on the floor reacting to Crucio with curse for enemies, since it seems quite logical to me that person who is throwing Crucio at you can be safely considered your enemy. What I do blame Harry for is thinking of Sectusemptra earlier, letting the desire to try this curse to stay in his head. But I am one of those who would say that it would have been much better for Harry to never incur that Book. Yes, yes, I know that he read about bezoar there and aware of the reasons why it is needed in the story, I still think that Harry would have been better off never seeing it. Having said all that, my question to you would be what does Dumbledore has to do with that scene? It is too late of the hour here, so I am assuming I forgot that quote, where is Dumbledore instantly blaming Harry of overreacting? Maybe it would be another "slap Dumbledore" moment for me. Thanks. Alla From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Dec 13 04:38:07 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:38:07 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162734 >Magpie: > If he needed that information why didn't he just let Narcissa tell it to > him > like she was going to before he himself jumped in and said, "Don't tell > me?" > > Nikkalmati: > > Because Bella was there. SS was taken by surprise by the visit and he > didn't know what Bella was doing there. Cissy was obviously very upset > and he > didn't want her to get reported to LV as a traitor. >Magpie: >But Snape's goal was, I thought, finding out what Draco's task is. I can understand him wanting to protect Narcissa, but it still seems completely silly to have Snape literally shut Narcissa up (instead of letting her go on for the second more it would take for him to give him the basic idea) Nikkalmati: You are not looking at this in stages, which is how it happened. Snape's immediate reaction when Cissy says "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it" is to prevent her from getting herself into trouble and to appear to be a loyal servant of LV in front of Bella. If he had known the plan, he would have said so immediately, instead of getting up to look out the window before he makes his claim. >Magpie: But taking the Vow is supposed to be his way of trying to find out what Draco's task is--which it still doesn't. (And doesn't the Vow potentially fall under going against the wishes of the Dark Lord more than Narcissa spilling the beans? It even implies it to LV later.) Nikkalmati: Taking the vow to protect Draco puts him in a position to know all the details and to work against Draco in secret. Narcissa certainly did not know about the Cabinets or other details Snape would need to know. (Please no, not the Cabinets again!) and Snape was sure he could worm the task out of Draco. The fact that it didn't work does not reflect on whether it made sense at the time. Circumstances intervened (read DADA curse?) Yes, the vow goes against the wishes of LV, but this time Bella is involved. She can hardly report Cissy or Snape when she is the Binder in a vow whose basic purpose is to thwart the Dark Lord's purpose. >Magpie: The Death Pact kind of undermines any superficial protection he's gotten elsewhere, though. Nikkalmati His initial purpose is to prevent Bella reporting treason to the Dark Lord. He doesn't know at this point Cissy will ask for a UV. >Magpie: Right, I can see that part of the reading. But it makes Snape's lines less meaningful because he's just faking it the whole time, so the whole conversation carries less weight. Nikkalmati Yes, I think he's lying the whole time. I don't know what you mean by less weight. >Magpie And he's still supposed to be taking the Vow to get information that the Vow doesn't give him (so he winds up vowing to die if he doesn't do something unknown to himself). Nikkalmati He thought the Vow would put him in position to get all the information he needs from Draco. He did not know he would end up vowing to do something he doesn't know about. I am convinced that he could not get out of Part #3 once he had started. >Magpie >With the vow Snape isn't exactly proving that he follows Voldemort's orders, just that he's anti-Dumbledore. In this case he's proving something by agreeing to kill Dumbledore, but he's not following Voldemort's orders, is he? As you say, they're all thwarting Voldemort's plan. Nikki: > It is also not clear that Cissy knows exactly what Draco is supposed to do > either- only that it is likely to be outright fatal or unsuccessful and > therefore fatal. Magpie: So now nobody knows what's actually going on? How sad. I read it as this really dramatic scene where everyone (including me, even the first time reading) knew that 16-year-old Draco Malfoy had been given the suicide mission of trying to kill Dumbledore. Snape's thoughtfully realizing Voldemort wants him (Snape) to do it in the end, Narcissa is rightfully frantic and seeing it as an attempt to get Draco killed, Bellatrix is crazily claiming it's an honor. But really it's just a bunch of people who have the feeling Voldemort has told Draco to do something--could be anything--and they're running for help and taking Vows and accepting Vows without having any idea what they're vowing about? But having a conversation that makes it seem like they know they're going to talk about? What would Narcissa have said to Snape if Snape hadn't shut her up if she doesn't know any more than he does? What does she think "even the Dark Lord" can't do? (And how does Snape not figure it out from that clue?) > Nikkalmati Ok, Narcissa and Bella probably know Draco has been assigned to kill DD (although I have seen it speculated on list that Draco was not told that himself until later, that he initially thought he was only supposed to bring DE's into the castle) "Even the Dark Lord can't do" Yes, that is a big pointer, but I am not sure Snape has time to process it. There are a lot of things LV can't do, including getting into Hogwarts and even more likely after GOF -- killing Harry Potter!. Besides, if LV can't kill DD, how is Snape supposed to do it "in the end?" Maybe Snape is engaging in puffery here. >Magpie: >But the Vow has nothing to do with any of this. There's nothing in the Vow that gives Snape the information he's looking for. The only way it would have done that would be if the Vow had to contain specific language, like, "You will watch over Draco as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes to [insert secret information]to [insert secret information]." Snape' confide in him didn't need the Vow. Since Narcissa was about to tell him about the plan he could probably more easily have sent them away and then just set up a secret meeting with her anyway. Or just talk about how he was going to do this thing and get her to talk about the details of the plans that way. Once Bellatrix thinks Snape knows the plan there's no reason for anyone to worry about talking about it openly. Nikkalmati The Vow doesn't tell him any information, but it sets him up with Draco. If Mommy just says to Draco "Work with Uncle Snape, Honey, and everything will be all right," Snape can get all the details as Draco works it out - details that Narcissa doesn't know. If he tries to pump Narcissa Bella will smell a rat right away. Anyway Narcissa doesn't know about the necklace, the mead, the Cabinets, all that important stuff. As to whether the vow was necessary, it was not Snape's idea; he wanted Narcissas' cooperation. And yes, I know it didn't work out. >Magpie >I don't think an author would write Snape cutting Narcissa off and then continuing on the conversation the way he does and taking the Vow if he really didn't know what he was doing. I don't see any beats in the scene the flag (as JKR would flag, imo) that Snape is actually just speaking vaguely hoping what he's saying matches up with the information he doesn't know. Nikkalmati He turns to look out the window. Why? There is nothing out there in the middle of the night. Everything he says from Scholastic hardback p 32 on is vague and based on comments Cissy and Bella have already made. >Magpie. Plus I don't see any moment of shock and horror for Snape when he realizes what he's agreed to do--a moment I don't think JKR would hide from us if it happened, since it's Snape's tragic mistake. The vagueness of the scene still reads more logically to me as three people who know what they're talking about who are hiding it from the reader, not two people who are pretending they know what they are talking about. Nikkalmati: The twitch? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 13 04:33:11 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:33:11 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Draco and bathroom. References: Message-ID: <005e01c71e6f$cec3f3a0$a998400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162735 > SisterMagpie Wrote: > >> Voldemort's "duel" with Harry is a sham, like >> a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it. > > A sham!? Harry won that duel with Voldemort! Magpie: Let's stick to the specific point being made. Voldemort is playing with Harry when he throws the Crucio. He makes Harry go to prove how weak he is. That Harry surprises him does not change the fact that Voldemort thinks he is a cat playing with a mouse before he kills it. He raises his wand and points it at Harry. Eggplant: I don't know why people keep saying that. Harry's spell wasn't perfect but what spell is the very first time you try it? Harry's spell was good enough to make Bellatrix scream and stop that stupid baby talk. Magpie: They're not putting Harry down for not doing his spell "perfectly" they're pointing out the canon given for why Harry's spell (which is actually pretty good for a first try for Harry) is not a Crucio like Bellatrix throws. It's not just about anger, which is what Harry is throwing it with--as is Draco. Eggplant: And if Harry had not successfully > defended himself and had received the curse how could Draco let him > live and tell what had happened? It would mean life in Azkaban for > Draco. Harry might have just disappeared with no body ever found. Magpie: As I said earlier, I don't buy the idea that Draco's attempting a Crucio immediately equals Draco killing Harry (not that there's a story about Draco not being a killer or anything) and destroying his body in a wood chipper (which naturally would get Draco off scott free...err, somehow). Harry himself attempts to throw Crucios twice and never thinks of himself as risking these things. If Harry had not successfully defended himself against the curse I think two far more likely outcomes would be either Harry would feel the kind of curse that Bellatrix felt when he threw a Crucio at her or less or Harry would be in a great deal of pain for a short period of time. However, since Draco did not finish the curse, none of this happened--nor did his subsequent murder of Harry after torturing him into insanity--so we don't know. Otoh, why not just use this defense for Draco? He's got every reason to think Harry is going to kill him in the bathroom. It was self defense. He's got to get Harry first. Harry's hurt him in the past (more than Draco's hurt Harry), he's been stalking him all year. He needed to jump in in the moment he had an opening, when Harry was down, and not only disable him but keep him from trying to attack Draco again. If Harry's got a little ouchie for a minute boo hoo! This is war! You can't advance to the next level of the video game if you think about other people like a Goody Twoshoes! So both boys are even. Harry was great for throwing Sectumsempra. Draco was great for throwing Crucio. -m From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Dec 13 04:57:40 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:57:40 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162736 >Carol responds: >Although I originally started out with something like Nikkalmati's reading (Snape is faking his knowledge of Draco's task), I don't think the rest of the book bears this out. So I agree with you that all three of them knew the overall mission--to kill Dumbledore--three of least two of them (Snape and Narcissa) expected Draco to fail. Snape may not have been told by LV himself that the mission is *supposed* to fail, that LV is punishing Lucius, but he doesn't dispute Narcissa when she states that this is her view. ("Then I'm right!") LV certainly hasn't told either Narcissa or Bella, who as you say thinks it's an honor, that he expects Draco to fail or that he's punishing Lucius--that'Lucius--that's her own (c Nikkalmati I am just trying to figure out how this would work. LV called in Snape and tells him he plans to give Draco a chance to redeem his name and that he will be trying to kill DD this year? If that is what happened, he had to tell Snape to stay out of it, because otherwise working together with Snape, Draco could succeed, which is not what LV wants. He knows as HOH and friend of the family, Snape would be likely to help Draco, if asked, and Draco was likely to get desperate enough to ask. I guess if he really wanted Draco to kill DD (or thought it was remotely possible in his wildest dreams) he certainly would tell Snape to help Draco. So we must assume LV told SS to stay out of it. If LV told Snape to stay out of it, Snape was directly going against LV's orders by asking Draco to come see him, questioning him at Slughorn's party, giving Crabbe and Goyle extra lessons, trying Legilimancy on Draco, and following Draco around. Seems risky for SS. On the night on the tower, did SS know Draco was about to act or did LV keep that fact from him, risking SS intervening? Did SS upon hearing DE's were in the castle violate his instructions by running to the tower and killing DD? That would be hard to explain. I rather visualize SS kneeling at LV's feet apologizing "I'm sorry, My Lord, I didn't know Draco was supposed to be the one. I killed DD in ignorance of your true wishes, but at least the old bag is gone." Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 05:23:19 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 21:23:19 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612122123j15bb370g1386b5c1467ed66e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162737 Eggplant: I don't believe JKR is trying to send a moral message clear or otherwise, nor should she. Like any novelist her first responsibility is just to write a good story. Therefore in her books we have no reason to assume good will always be rewarded or evil always punished. Fortunately. Lynda: I don't think that JKR is trying to send a moral message either. She is writing a story and that is her responsibility to her readers, to write a good story. Will moral messages be carried in the story? Inevitably. Will they at times be unclear or even missing because it is in the end not a fable that is being written? That is also inevitable, but since I don't think that the moral is the ultimate goal of the story, but that the story itself is the goal, it doesn't work me over extraordinarily when the moral gets lost for awhile. I have so far found that it reappears, although maybe in a slightly altered form. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 07:10:26 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:10:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612122310s44b9009ew8df3e8cf456eb16d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162738 TheIllusiveOne: don't think that's good enough of an excuse. Snape was inventing spells and modifying potions in his sixth year. James Potter was casting silent spells in his fifth. Voldemort was IMMORTAL by his sixth year. Harry's had Voldemort after him for years, yes, but you'd think that would make him even more motivated to learn useful and powerful spells, and to work hard in school. Hermione has been with Harry most of the time, and yet she manages to learn advanced stuff early (The charm on the fake Galleons in OotP). That's been my biggest problem with the last two books, Harry went from a powerful, motivated (the Patronus charm, the spells for the Triwizard Tournament, etc) young wizard, into a completely average, unmotivated kid (Not learning Occulemency, being tricked easily by Voldemort, cheating in potions, etc) and really not doing much of anything. Lynda: Perhaps the reason he isn't learning the more advanced spells is because Hermione has been there for him to lean on. He has fairly recently discovered that his father wasn't the all wonderful, ever good wizard he had built up in his mind. Snape, (a very talented wizard in his youth) is not someone he wants to emulate--which by the way explains his lack of trying to attain any skill in occlumency--and let's face it, his life has been rather full of other stuff, even if the other stuff is the occasional "lesson" with Dumbledore or planning and training Quidditch matches for Gryffindor. And then there were those detentions, the ones with Umbridge in OOP and the ones under Snape in HBP. Its not a perfect answer, I know that, but then I'm not looking for that. I've seen enough real life people not fulfill all of their potential to see it as plausible. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 10:40:55 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:40:55 -0000 Subject: Forced to be good? was: Re: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162739 Ok, so this seems a cock-and-bull theory even as I'm writing it down, but it would still fit to some extent (as everything, it seems): what if the reason DD trusts Snape is that Snape is forced to be on the Order's side? I'm not suggesting an UV, but rather a life's debt. James saved his life, so maybe Snape is physically uable to kill Harry, or to stand aside while someone is hurting him. Look at PS, for exemple: it wouldn't have been so difficult to slow down Harry's fall, as DD does in PoA, but Snape - who at this point of the story, as he admits in HBP, even thinks that Harry may be a new LV - feels compelled to stop him from falling. He doesn't oppose Quirrell, though, even if, as they were sitting close, he must have known what he was doing. Maybe he secretly approves what he's doing - only in relation to Harry, mind, not in the whole PS business - but he *cannot* see Harry hurt. So here we have a canon Bastard!Snape, lured by DA, who can even - as he claims - cause Vance's death but who cannot hurt Harry. And hasn't DD mentioned , and Ron too, that life debts in wizard society are really strong magic? Seems right the thing she'd do, mention something in Book 3 which actually is the solution to everythig...as she did for LV not dying after AK rebound... chrus From chrusokomos at gmail.com Wed Dec 13 12:22:24 2006 From: chrusokomos at gmail.com (chrusotoxos) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:22:24 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162740 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > > > >>Eggplant: > > When Harry entered that bathroom if he didn't have his full > > concentration on protecting himself, if he gave even one thought to > > the well being of his attacker then he is a hopelessly wimpy > > goody-two-shoes who doesn't deserve to be leader of the DA, or even > > leader of the Hogwarts Stamp Collectors Club. > > Betsy Hp: > But Harry didn't. Harry wasn't thinking about protecting himself at > all. He stood there in shock watching Draco cry, stood in full view of > Draco while Draco attempted to pull himself together. Stood without > moving until Draco finally looked up and spotted Harry staring at him > from the doorway. > chrus now: Betsy is right about canon, but I hope that Harry, in those few seconds, felt for Draco and wondered why he was crying. To be able to feel pity and love and understandement for your enemy and his problems it is *not* the behaviour of a "wimpy goddy-two-shoes who doesn't deserve to be (...) leader of Hogwarts Stamp Collectors Club. It is, on the contrary, what makes you a human being. Not a thug, not a video-game warrior. A human being. Why don't you read some war stories of WW2 about people on opposite camps being terribly sorry and thorn in two at the idea of killing someone else? From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 12:06:38 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:06:38 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion /Re: Harry Draco and bathroom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162741 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > It is too late of the hour here, so I am assuming I forgot that > quote, where is Dumbledore instantly blaming Harry of overreacting? > > Maybe it would be another "slap Dumbledore" moment for me. > > Thanks. > > Alla > LOL! Slap Dumbledore moment indeed! There are any number of those! On the other hand, DD doesn't seem directly involved in this scene. Maybe what James is talking about is that DD, as usual, fails to exercise his responsibility to protect Harry from Snape's unfairness? If that is indeed the argument, it could become yet another in a long line of "slappable" offenses, particularly as the incompetence of DD is what is allowing Draco to pursue his plans in the first place. Lupinlore, who likes the Double-Dumb label, as it fits so perfectly with DD and his relationship with Harry (and Snape too, for that matter) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 13 12:28:59 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:28:59 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162742 Sydney: > It seems to me we have good reason in canon to believe that the Vow > led to Snape getting the DADA job, not the other way around: > -- Snape complains to Bellatrix that D-dore won't give him the job > in Spinner's End. Of course he could be concealing that he has it > for some reason, but it would be public knowledge in a couple of > weeks and then she'd know he'd lied about something. Jen: OK, I'm up for putting aside the DADA curse to explore other options and this sounds like a simple and straightforward rationale. It wouldn't matter if Snape was concealing though, Bella would think he lied either way once she heard the news. Sydney: > I do dislike the idea, though, of their fates being forced by the > DADA curse by actually *acting* on their personalities. Lockhart > did what he would have done under the same circumstances with or > without the DADA curse. And when JKR shows a character in the grip > of a personality-affecting enchantment, it tends to be visible and > you can see exactly when it kicks in. It's sort of pointless > storytelling, IMO, if Lupin's wishy-washiness or Umbrige's control- > freakery were 'boosted' or something by the curse and they weren't > really responsible for them. I mean, what's the point of the whole > character then? Jen: I think the DADA could act on a person similar to Felix but with a negative outcome. Harry's personality wasn't enhanced by Felix; he was already the one with the right combination of traits to get the memory from Slughorn and Felix merely illuminated his way. In contrast, the DADA curse would act on weaknesses or negative traits peculiar to each person so that a person sees the wrong path illuminated or chooses to overlook warning signs. Having Felix show up in the same book as the Dada jinx might support this idea. The problem with it is what you alluded to--wouldn't all the DADAs have made the same choices they made anyway? Sydney: > -- Practical!Snape, who realizes that the only way Draco will not be > killed by Voldemort is if Snape magically lashes the two of them > together. He knows Voldemort will definitely kill Draco (because > that's just the sort of guy he is, plus the kill-Dumbledore thing > isn't going to happen). But now he can't without taking Snape with > him (because that doesn't go with "protect Draco from all harm"). > This is actually also the only logical reason Narcissa would venture > to ask him. > This has many good aspects. It makes sense that there wouldn't be a > reveal at this point because it can't be made too, too obvious that > Snape is being heroic here, putting his life on the line for > somebody else (although it's already, IMO, pretty obvious Jen: Your idea has merit for Snape as a heroic guy but also a terribly naive one if he thinks Voldemort cares if he dies with Draco (if I'm understanding correctly). Snape shouldn't be taking the UV to begin with, so when Snape lays out the UV as the reason for Voldemort not killing Draco, Voldemort will probably kill them both for failure and betrayal and not wait for the UV to kick in. If Voldemort really expects Snape to kill Dumbledore as his back-up plan then he pretty much expects Snape to die or go to Azkaban. Not because he thinks Dumbledore will kill Snape, but because LV expects 1) Someone around Dumbledore who never trusted Snape will do the deed or 2) Snape will fail and be captured by Aurors or 3) Snape won't be able to go through with it thus proving he's loyal to Dumbledore. Besides, Voldemort wouldn't believe anyone else is capable of killing Dumbledore if he himself hasn't suceeded. Sydney: > Actually, now that I've written that up, my favorite would be a > mash-up suicidal!practical!Snape. He takes the Vow for the above, > 'protect Draco' reasons. He doesn't hesitate because he doesn't > mind dying in the process-- you'd have to be a little suicidal any > way you slice it to take a UV. His hand jerks because the kill > Dumbledore part is a bad spanner in the works (plus he can't get > out of it because he's bound with snakes of fire by now), but he > continues coolly because he's thinking, "Oh well, at least I can > teach DADA this year and then check out heroically not killing > Dumbledore." Jen: I definitely agree Snape doesn't care if he dies. I'm not completely convinced you can't stop the Vow once in progress because we see Bella's 'astounded' face when Snape agrees to the final clause. Maybe the two choices during the Vow are agreeing or dropping dead so Bella was surprised Snape didn't choose to drop dead. I've also wondered if both people would drop dead if the Vow isn't completed, but discarded this idea since Bella didn't try to dissaude Narcissa at all. I'm still not seeing much of a motive for saying yes to the UV in the first place. Snape's deep caring for Draco isn't that obvious if Narcissa needs a death vow to ensure he'll protect him. And Snape is a fool if he trusts Narcissa won't add in a few extra tasks to the ones she's already mentioned (ACID POPS anyone, Snape acting the way 'fools who love' act?). So to summarize, Narcissa went to Snape for help but doesn't trust Snape will live up to his word, and Snape can't say no to a death vow by two people who hold nothing over his head....what's up with these people?!? ***************************************** One of my favorite theories that would change my outlook on the UV is if Voldemort was behind the Vow and Narcissa is lying during the first part of their conversation-- notice how she stares down at her hands when she arrives, she covers her face in her hands, she shuts her eyes when saying she is forbidden to talk about it. Only when Snape says he knows the task does she start to look at him and talk about Draco. She cries then and appears sincerely desperate, she only struck a bargain with Voldemort in order to help Draco after all, but all of her actions make it difficult for Snape to practice Legilimency on her. The moment when he is gazing at her tear-filled blue eyes as she kneels before him is the moment they are in the closest contact and by then she's already asked for the Unbreakable. Possible explanations: 1) Snape realized Narcissa betrayed him in the moment his face goes blank, before he agrees to the Vow. He knows all her talk about being the 'favorite servant' was just flattery and untrue, something he already suspected since Peter was ordered to live with him. So Snape thinks taking the Vow might help his status and further his double-agent work. This explanation is a little iffy because Snape wouldn't know if his loyalty was being tested to take the Vow or refuse it unless he saw something in Narcissa's eyes. 2) I don't know what would make him agree to the Vow in the first place, but perhaps Snape realized the betrayal the moment Narcissa uttered the third clause. That's when Snape understood the trap was Voldemort's, that it's a test of his loyalty so he can't back out. Once again is the problem of 'why take the Vow in the first place?' Sigh. Jen R., who just read a quote by British actor Hugh Laurie who said, "Americans expect their heros to be morally good" and wondered if that's not the sum total of Snape, a character who's morally compromised but also capable of good deeds. From antonia31h at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 10:58:19 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:58:19 -0000 Subject: Forced to be good? was: Re: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162743 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "chrusotoxos" wrote: > > > Ok, so this seems a cock-and-bull theory even as I'm writing it down, but it would still fit > to some extent (as everything, it seems): what if the reason DD trusts Snape is that Snape > is forced to be on the Order's side? > Yes I thought about something similar, too. I think that Severus is somehow forced to be in the Order. Forced not neccesarily by others but by his own mind and conceptions. James saved his life, Lily was a nice girl, Dumbledore trusts him. I think he's very confused about his loyalties. Dumbledore or Voldemort? Good or bad? I don't think he knows who or what to choose. He is a totally tormented soul who goes with the wind not sticking to a well planned strategy. And about him in book 7 I think that there are two possibilities: 1. he is somehow absolved of guilt and returns to the good side 2.he dies without ever knowing on who's side he was working. Antonia From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 10:23:10 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:23:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: <2795713f0612122123j15bb370g1386b5c1467ed66e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Lynda: > is also inevitable, but since I don't > think that the moral is the ultimate goal of the story, but that the story > itself is the goal, it doesn't work me over extraordinarily when the moral > gets lost for awhile. I have so far found that it reappears, although maybe > in a slightly altered form. > > Lynda Well, I think that's true, with two caveats. One is that many of the moral messages sent are, I think, unintentional and even contemptible. In that the unintentional morals JKR sends "cross the wires" with the intentional ones, she has a problem, and sometimes a very severe one. Pick your place, but there are many situations (the Dursleys, Dumbledore and his reprehensible policies toward Snape, Hermione and Marietta) where these unintentional morals -- if they indeed be unintentional -- become so overwhelming that not only is the intentional moral lost, but the story itself is drowned. I.E. in many places where Snape is allowed to abuse his students and the response, at least on my part and that of others I know, is that "the Dumbledore you want us to believe in would never allow this and it is simply an hamfisted and contemptible device to make Harry's life difficult -- story disbelieved." The second caveat is that sometimes when morals "resurface" as you say, they are disruptive even if intended. The scene with DD at the Dursleys is a good example of a moral "resurfacing" like a submarine to devestate the storyscape, raising questions about consistency of character, and even creating unintentional moral issues in some people's minds -- that is, muggle-baiting. It would have been better to keep the moral from disappearing in the first place. Lupinlore From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 13:14:51 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 13:14:51 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: <005e01c71e6f$cec3f3a0$a998400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162745 Magpie: > Otoh, why not just use this defense for Draco? He's got every reason to > think Harry is going to kill him in the bathroom. It was self defense. He's > got to get Harry first. Harry's hurt him in the past (more than Draco's hurt > Harry), he's been stalking him all year. He needed to jump in in the moment > he had an opening, when Harry was down, and not only disable him but keep > him from trying to attack Draco again. If Harry's got a little ouchie for a > minute boo hoo! This is war! You can't advance to the next level of the > video game if you think about other people like a Goody Twoshoes! Alla: The difference of course would be that Draco may think that Harry has a reason to kill him ( no matter how irrational this thought seems to me), but Draco shows Harry that he attacks him with Unforgiveable and Harry does not attack him first. I mean, is the desire to absolve Draco so great that you honestly and truly equal these two? I don't see that at all. IMO of course. > So both boys are even. Harry was great for throwing Sectumsempra. Draco was > great for throwing Crucio. > > -m > Alla: Erm... what? Alla, who wonders if somebody took Magpie's place in front of her computer to write this post. I am only half-joking. :) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 14:42:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:42:49 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162746 Lupinlore wrote: > On the other hand, there IS a situation where one can, I think, argue > pretty strongly that wrong-headed compassion messed up everything, > and that is the situation with Wormtail in PoA. If Harry had kept > his trap shut, Wormtail's death would have neatly foreclosed the > route of Voldy's return, Sirius and Dumbledore would both still be > alive, and even the child-abusing Snapey-poo would still be safely > ensconced in his reprehensible practices. > > Lupinlore, thinking that if Harry should feel guilty for anything, > THAT is what he should worry about. Carol responds: Since you want JKR to be consistent in depicting the moral values she preaches through Dumbledore, the advocate of mercy, trust, and second chances, I would think you'd approve of Harry's action, which in some ways foreshadows Dumbledore's mercy to Draco on the tower. (I approve of it, but them, I approve of mercy and deplore revenge, whether it's Harry, Draco, Voldemort, Snape, or Hermione who's taking it.) However, aside from Wormtail's escape being essential to the storyline, Harry's action prevents Sirius Black and Remus Lupin (whom I'm surprised that you never talk about, given your screenname) from becoming murderers and going to Azkaban (back to Azkaban, in Black's case) or having their souls sucked out, the WW penalty for murder. Also, if Wormtail hadn't restored Voldemort, Barty Crouch Jr. might have done so, and if neither had done so, the situation would never be resolved. Harry can't fight and defeat Vapormort. (Now, granted, Dumbledore could have started the Horcrux hunt a bit earlier, but then the plot would be spoiled). Carol, who weally, weally woves Snapey-poo (joking, but I don't consider him a child abuser and I'd consider it a courtesy to other posters if you didn't take your view of him for granted) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 15:05:55 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:05:55 -0000 Subject: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162747 > Jen: > I think the DADA could act on a person similar to Felix but > with a negative outcome. Harry's personality wasn't enhanced by > Felix; he was already the one with the right combination of traits > to get the memory from Slughorn and Felix merely illuminated his > way. In contrast, the DADA curse would act on weaknesses or negative > traits peculiar to each person so that a person sees the wrong path > illuminated or chooses to overlook warning signs. Having Felix show > up in the same book as the Dada jinx might support this idea. The > problem with it is what you alluded to--wouldn't all the DADAs have > made the same choices they made anyway? zgirnius: Felix also seems to tweak circumstances. I mean, how convenient that Ginny was passing into the Common Room to be bumped by Invisible! Harry. I think the curse does the same, but to the detriment of the DADA teacher. How unfortunate for Lupin that Buckbeak's execution was set for a full moon night! If he had made the same decision the night before, he would not have transformed. How unfortunate for Lockhart that it was Ron's wand that was lying loose for him to pick up. (Rather fortunate for our heroes and Ginny, though...) Why did the Dementor choose to Kiss Barty, rather than taking him to Azkaban? I imagine another Dementor, under different circumstances, might have done so, since the reaction of people in the book is one of surprise. I wonder if the curse can also affect others. Hermione's solution of taking Umbridge to the centaurs is certainly in character, but can we really say she would have come up with that solution, that quickly, in all possible worlds? Perhaps she had a bit of help form a curse that needed a way top get Umbridge... In the case of Snape, I find it a most unfortunate coincidence that Harry learned about Snape being the eavesdropper the very night Draco was planning to make his move, and Dumbledore was planning to go to the Cave. Would Dumbledore have listened more carefully to Harry's exdplanations about Draco, if Harry hadn't been so emotional about Snape? > Jen: > Besides, Voldemort wouldn't believe anyone else is capable of killing > Dumbledore if he himself hasn't suceeded. zgirnius: I find this hard to believe. Snape is in the ideal situation to do so because he has managed to win Dumbledore's trust. it's nto about having more magical power than Voldemort, its about having a better opportunity. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 15:17:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:17:52 -0000 Subject: What is with the wimpy spells? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162748 TheIllusiveOne wrote: > > I don't think that's good enough of an excuse. Snape was inventing spells and modifying potions in his sixth year. James Potter was casting silent spells in his fifth. Voldemort was IMMORTAL by his sixth year. Harry's had Voldemort after him for years, yes, but you'd think that would make him even more motivated to learn useful and powerful spells, and to work hard in school. Hermione has been with Harry most of the time, and yet she manages to learn advanced stuff early (The charm on the fake Galleons in OotP). That's been my biggest problem with the last two books, Harry went from a powerful, motivated (the Patronus charm, the spells for the Triwizard Tournament, etc) young wizard, into a completely average, unmotivated kid (Not learning Occulemency, being tricked easily by Voldemort, cheating in potions, etc) and really not doing much of anything. > jhenderson9: > I think Rowling's point is that Harry, the Everyman, must defeat the lord of darkness and save the world. In the cave, Dumbledore tells Harry,"I am much older, much cleverer, and much less valuable." Dumbledore knows full well of certain magical mediocrity found within Harry, such as his inability to master Occulemency, but he still knows, even if he downplays prophecy, that Harry is indeed the Chosen One. Carol adds: I think you've made a very important point here. Except for his exceptional Quidditch skills (no doubt inherited from James), his talent for DADA, and whatever powers he acquired from Voldemort, Harry really is almost as mediocre as Snape accuses him of being. If he were a genius, he wouldn't need Hermione's help. If he were as powerful and brilliant as Voldemort, the David-and-Goliath aspects of the story would be lost. What Harry has, primarily, is his courage and his determination. He also has the power of Love, which of course he has yet to use to its fullest because he doesn't really understand it or believe in its potency (and consequently, neither do the readers). As for the "wimpy" spells, I agree that Harry should have learned what Snape tried to teach him (Occlumency and nonverbal spells) and his inability to do so hampered him in the duel against Snape at the end of HBP. Possibly, that defeat will motivate him to work on his nonverbal spellcasting a bit. But there's no time to learn many more spells (unless he gets the HBP's Potions book back and finds more cool spells in there, bearing in mind that Teen!Severus was not yet a Death Eater, much less the man who killed Dumbledore). And in the end, it won't be spells that defeat Voldemort. He's got to find and destroy the stupid Horcruxes and come to terms with Snape (he can't go on hating him and seeking revenge or he'll never access the power of Love.) In the end, I think Harry may use another power that he's acquired from Voldemort, possession, either to force him into the locked room of Love or, throgh his own sacrificial Love, force him through the Veil. And I also think that the Sword of Gryffindor and Fawkes will play a role, along with Parseltongue, in destroying Nagini. So the "wimpy" spells won't matter in terms of what Harry has to do. But I also think that Harry and his friends are supposed to use *defensive* spells (Stupefy being probably the most efficient, along with Expelliarmus) to defend themselves against the Dark Arts rather than using powerful but Dark spells like the Unforgiveables, Sectumsempra, and whatever curse Dolohov used against Hermione in the DoM (the purple-flashing spell that would have done serious damage had it not been cast silently). The good guys can't resort to using the Dark Arts themselves or they'll be no better than their enemies. Witness Barty Crouch Sr., hoist by his own petard. I forgot to mention that Harry was hampered in OoP by his own anger and his ability to feel Voldemort's emotions through the scar connection and in HBP he was sidetracked by whatever Draco was up to, but he nevertheless learned some useful new spells (along with one he needs to learn *not* to use) through the HBP's book. I agree with you that he should not have been taking credit for the HBP's potion improvements, but at least he finally developed an interest in the subject (which may or may not come in handy in the next book). In PoA, OTOH, he was motivated to learn Expecto Patronum by his own fear of Dementors and in GoF, he had to learn certain spells (always at the last minute) in order to survive the TWT. So the motivation for learning is absent in the fifth and sixth books, not to mention that Harry's resentment of the teacher who has most to teach him, Snape, hampers him in learning both Occlumency in fifth year and nonverbal spell casting in sixth. At least he can now Apparate, and Dumbledore has said that he now knows all he needs to know if he'll only realize it. (Of course, I think he'll need some help along the way from Hermione, Ron, Snape, and others, until the ultimate showdown when he faces Voldemort alone. Carol, who thinks that, ultimately, Harry's own instincts and the power of Love will save him somehow From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 13 15:37:23 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:37:23 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed Compassion/The UV(was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162749 > Magpie: > > > Otoh, why not just use this defense for Draco? He's got every > reason to > > think Harry is going to kill him in the bathroom. It was self > defense. He's > > got to get Harry first. Harry's hurt him in the past (more than > Draco's hurt > > Harry), he's been stalking him all year. He needed to jump in in > the moment > > he had an opening, when Harry was down, and not only disable him > but keep > > him from trying to attack Draco again. If Harry's got a little > ouchie for a > > minute boo hoo! This is war! You can't advance to the next level > of the > > video game if you think about other people like a Goody Twoshoes! > > Alla: > > The difference of course would be that Draco may think that Harry > has a reason to kill him ( no matter how irrational this thought > seems to me), but Draco shows Harry that he attacks him with > Unforgiveable and Harry does not attack him first. > I mean, is the desire to absolve Draco so great that you honestly > and truly equal these two? Magpie: I was being sarcastic--I don't really want to absolve Draco. But if I was dead set on doing it I would probably just find excuses for why Harry did give Draco reason to think he was going to kill him despite not throwing an Unforgivable (which are not all deadly any way). Harry actually did throw a deadly spell, and I'd probably use that as retroactive evidence that Draco should have feared death. I'd find a way to make everything he did self-defense even if he struck first or wasn't in physical danger. Magpie: > > So both boys are even. Harry was great for throwing Sectumsempra. > Draco was > > great for throwing Crucio. > Alla: > > Erm... what? > > Alla, who wonders if somebody took Magpie's place in front of her > computer to write this post. > > I am only half-joking. :) Magpie: I was almost completely joking.:-) Don't worry, I don't actually agree with that defense of Draco. I don't agree with the attitude about Harry either. I'm not the biggest fan of Dumbledore, but I'd much rather have him as a general than someone with this view of war or fighting. Carol: Since you want JKR to be consistent in depicting the moral values she preaches through Dumbledore, the advocate of mercy, trust, and second chances, I would think you'd approve of Harry's action [to Wormtail], which in some ways foreshadows Dumbledore's mercy to Draco on the tower. Magpie: I don't think there's any thing stupid in Harry's actions with Wormtail either, myself. What he does is hand him over to the authorities to essentially be killed, just like Barty is. Wormtail escapes because of an unusual occurrance--a werewolf. Saying that what Harry did was stupid suggests that this is some kind of rule one could apply all around, as if it's always better to just kill your suspect or your criminal because what if some bizarre circumstances allows him to escape on the way to the prison/executioner? It may be appealing because it cuts off chances for the prisoner to escape or get off without punishment, but more likely, imo, it would just lead to people murdering people. (PoA is, after all, all about somebody who was falsely imprisoned with the real culprit gone free because the most important thing was making sure he didn't get away. Every little bit of forbearance Sirius got was important.) Nikkalmati: I am just trying to figure out how this would work. LV called in Snape and tells him he plans to give Draco a chance to redeem his name and that he will be trying to kill DD this year? If that is what happened, he had to tell Snape to stay out of it, because otherwise working together with Snape, Draco could succeed, which is not what LV wants. He knows as HOH and friend of the family, Snape would be likely to help Draco, if asked, and Draco was likely to get desperate enough to ask. I guess if he really wanted Draco to kill DD (or thought it was remotely possible in his wildest dreams) he certainly would tell Snape to help Draco. So we must assume LV told SS to stay out of it. Magpie: I don't think he quite had to tell Snape to stay out of it. Snape himself says, "I think he expects me to do it in the end." I think that's intentionally ambiguous and may actually refer to both LV and Dumbledore (or either). But for LV it makes sense: Snape has been living in Dumbledore's camp for years. It's totally in Voldemort's character to think that Snape killing Dumbledore would be great-- proof that he's had a spy in DD's camp all along, and perhaps also a way of making Snape demonstrate he's really anti-Dumbledore. (Even if he doesn't totally think Snape's a traitor, he would still get off on making Snape kill any positive feelings he might have had for DD after his years with him.) What LV wants for Draco is to die. He doesn't have to die because he failed. He seems to expect Draco to die in the attempt. But I don't think he'd have to go so far as to tell Snape not to help Draco--or even that Snape wouldn't be allowed to help Draco in ways that he could--any more than Bellatrix isn't allowed to help Draco. He seems to just say that Draco's the one that's got to do the deed. The plan is secret at the beginning but it seems like a rather open secret after a while--and if Snape's been told the plan there's even more reason Draco ought to be able to ask him for help here and there. I think the fact that it's really a suicide mission is not something LV would need to say out loud--it's not, for instance, like the TWT where Barty Crouch is supposed to force Harry into this deadly contest but also make sure that Harry is not killed in the contest (in this plan that would translate to Draco being forced to kill Dumbledore while Voldemort actively tries to stop him or make it more difficult). I imagine it more that Voldemort simply gave Draco the task and snickered when the kid was out of the room or made some ominous remark about his chances. He figures the kid's just dead meat either way: he dies in the attempt, he's punished by death by the good side for the attempt or for the actual murder (if hell freezes over and he manages it) or he's killed for failing. Nikkalmati: If LV told Snape to stay out of it, Snape was directly going against LV's orders by asking Draco to come see him, questioning him at Slughorn's party, giving Crabbe and Goyle extra lessons, trying Legilimancy on Draco, and following Draco around. Seems risky for SS. On the night on the tower, did SS know Draco was about to act or did LV keep that fact from him, risking SS intervening? Did SS upon hearing DE's were in the castle violate his instructions by running to the tower and killing DD? That would be hard to explain. I rather visualize SS kneeling at LV's feet apologizing "I'm sorry, My Lord, I didn't know Draco was supposed to be the one. I killed DD in ignorance of your true wishes, but at least the old bag is gone." Magpie: I think Snape is taking a risk there, but only in the sense that he's really trying to head off Draco's murder attempts. I don't think, as I explained above, that LV would be particularly angry to know that Snape was trying to help. I don't think Snape knew the plan was going to happen on the Tower that night, but that that was because Draco kept it from him, not LV. I don't think Snape's violating instructions by killing Dumbledore himself would be so bad, since Voldemort still gets what he wants, perhaps all around. Snape kills Dumbledore, which is good because Dumbledore is dead--Snape's doing it is possibly what LV wanted "in the end." Draco didn't kill Dumbledore, so he still failed. So I don't think Snape would have to say he was ignorant of LV's true wishes. I can more imagine him saying (and this is just my imagining so obviously not canon) that Draco did not kill Dumbledore, but he did amazingly set him up so he could be taken out. When it became apparent Draco couldn't do it (maybe he'd gloss over that part to protect Draco) he thought it was too good a shot to pass up. So Snape was acting as a DE loyal to LV's cause, and one who felt that just as LV didn't expect Draco to kill Dumbledore, he did eventually expect or plan for Snape to kill him. If he overstepped his bounds, he's sorry, but he can be pretty sure that he's overstepped his bounds in a way he can handle. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 16:59:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 16:59:59 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162750 bboyminn wrote: > > First let me say that I have no idea what 'literature' or > 'literary' means. Apparently, to some, it means dull > boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the > author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he > is smarter than you. And that by reading and approving of > his book, you are simply trying to bask in the glow of > the author's towering intellect. Carol responds: Or it could mean what it used to mean when I was an undergraduate, written works that have stood the test of time, books that continue to be meaningful for tens or hundreds or thousands of years. If Literature meant "boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he is smarter than you," it would largely be confined to James Joyce. (Granted, some other classics, such as "Moby Dick," may seem to fit this definition, but they were written with other motivations and at least some readers find it rewarding to study and interpret them.) These days, literature professors argue that there are no universals, but I disagree. Love, death, fear, courage, loss, joy, triumph, defeat--all those emotions and experiences are universal or nearly so, as is the conflict between good and evil, however we define those terms. So I would say that literature is the expression of those themes and others in story form. *Good* literature involves the reader in the struggle (conflict is a necessary element of literature). I know that others will disagree with my definition, but that view is the reason that I earned my PhD in literature and considered that subject (and English composition) important enough to spend eighteen years of my life teaching it. bboyminn: > As far as 'criticism', I am equally baffled. Apparently, a critic is someone who compains about everything, and especially about whatever his area of alledged expertise is. Carol: Ah. You've touched on one of my pet peeves. Literary criticism has always had an element of evaluation as well as analysis, too often (IMO) leading to attacks on works that don't meet the critic's standards for a particular genre. However, not all types of criticism lead in the same direction. Textual analysis, for example, simply examines the literary work and tries to interpret its symbolism, themes, plot and story structure, and narrative technique. Above all, it examines the characters--their relationships, their conflicts, their motivations, their development. Postmodern criticism, however, has other goals, mostly critical in the sense you're talking about, examining a work to see how well it gets across the preconceived values of the critic. A feminist critic, for example, is interested solely in the depiction of women. A Marxist critic examines the economic and social structure of the work. A deconstructionist critic examines the language in the work to show how it fails to communicate the author's intentions, so far as they can be determined, having themselves been expressed, if at all, through language. Cultural studies considers all forms of expression, from graffiti to the King James Bible, to be of equal value, all of them merely illustrating the values of a given culture. (Okay, I'm oversimplified and biased against these postmodern forms of criticism, but none of them, IMO, really helps us to understand the work itself or to interpret it because all of them are using the literary work to demonstrate something outside the work that fits with the critic's own philosophy or political agenda.) Please, everybody, don't throw rotten pumpkins at me! bboyminn: > > Is JKR a great writer, not necessarily, but she IS a great storyteller. I think of many 'folk' storytellers in > the oral tradition; the gramma suck, they use regional > idioms, and speak in lower than common language. In other > words, they do it all wrong, yet they manage to hold their > listener's spellbound. That is that magic of a great > story teller, and I think JKR has that magic. Carol: I wouldn't place JKR in the oral tradition, which BTW had its own formulas. (Ever notice how everything comes in threes, rather like the formula for most jokes? Sorry; I'm oversimplifying again. But even the Anglos-Saxon bards had their kennings, e.g., "whale path" for "sea," and the Greek epic poets had their epithets, e.g., "ox-eyed Hera," "wine-dark sea" to help them remember their story and make it fit the meter.) Yes, JKR writes fairly simply, especially in the early books, because her intended readers are children, and given the attention span of many children and the limited time available for adult readers to ponder the message, simplicity is probably a virtue. It does, as you say, enable the reader to picture the scene and characters for him- or herself, and it does speed up the story. In, say, the nineteenth century, when books were often read aloud to the whole family and there were no movies, TV, or computers to make us all impatient, the writing style in general was more leisurely and more detailed, both in sentence structure and description. Point-of-view was also more likely to be omniscient, with the narrative voice sometimes commenting, perhaps ironically, on the events, before Henry James came up with his idea that the story should be told from a single (not necessarily reliable) point of view. At any rate, JKR experiments with story structure, combining genres and sometimes following, sometimes violating, the expectations set up by a given genre. What she's doing is not as simple as it looks, and while she borrows (and adapts) creatures and traditions from myth and folklore, her novels really have little in common with the folk tale genre except the deceptively simple style. When have we ever encountered an unreliable narrator in a folk tale? bboyminn: > Further, JKR has created flawed charaters, we see Harry as lazy, withdrawn, unreasonable, forgetful, and any number of other characteristics that we also see in ourselves. These books would be loved by the religious right, but gathering dust on bookstore shelves if JKR has tried to force a moral message into the story. She has a story to tell, a story of characters who make mistakes. She doesn't put moral messages into the story, she just tells the story of people as they exist in her imagination, and lets what ever moral message we might derive spring forth from the story. Carol: I agree that readers of all ages identify with her flawed characters, and certainly we react differently to different characters. I disagree, though, that her moral message is concealed (though Harry hasn't gotten it yet). It's pretty clear (to me) that her messages include mercy rather than revenge, trusting others to learn from their mistakes, being kind to your subordinates or dependents, equality for all races. There's an element of multiculturalism and a condoning of rule-breaking that make me uncomfortable, but that's just me. Still, if the story entertains, if it's what Sir Philip Sidney called "a medicine of cherries," the moral message is at least palateable. I just wish it were *less* conspicuous (e.g., Dumbledore's remarks about the fountain of Magical Bretheren.) bboyminn: > I think it is the very moral imperfection in JKR's world that brings the moral message forward. Harry struggles to do the right thing, and ultimately when it counts, he makes the right decision; the greater, compassionate, selfless decision. Yet, in the small things he struggles, just like each and everyone of us struggles to know and do what is right, and that is why we so deeply identify with Harry, because we see our daily struggle for what is right reflected in him. Carol: Here, I agree iwth you, except that Harry is still making mistakes and hasn't yet learned all of the lessons that Dumbledore has tried to teach him. I think that will happen in Book 7 (which will make those who like Dumbledore and what he stands for happy and irritate those who think that Harry is already right and/or that he should be his own man, not Dumbledore's). Just my opinion, of course, and I may well be wrong. bboyminn: > Personally, though I only gave it one try, I found Tolkein to be as dry as yesterday's toast. I need a story to move much faster than that and to be far less of a struggle. Carol: True, the story does take a few chapters to get going, but I think you might like it if you gave it a chance. You can always skip over the descriptions and just read the action and dialogue (though I don't recommend it--you'll end up missing important points). But if it's wrong to condemn the HP books without reading them, isn't the same true of LOTR? I'll bet you five galleons, sent by e-mail, that you'll like at least parts of the story. ;-) > Which brings me back to JKR's compact writing style. If > the story is a bit dull, don't worry, in a few pages the > story will have made huge leaps and will have certainly > moved on to something more interesting. > > > > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, > > of interaction with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the > > nature of the interaction? > > > > bboyminn: > > Being a financially challenged person from the heartland > I've never had occassion to meet JKR. > > > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed > > something in her books because of outside influence? > > If so, what kind of influence and by whom? > > > > bboyminn: > I have often suspected Snape's revealing dialog at Spinners End was prompted by fans. Many of us have debated how and why Snape was able to return to Voldemort when it seemed that Voldemort had every intension of killing Snape. That perhaps seemed a mystery worth resolving, and Spinners End gave Snape and JKR the perfect opportunity. Carol: I disagree. I think that Spinner's End," which only *seems* to answer our questions, some of them already raised by Harry, but really only reveals what Snape has told Voldemort to keep him alive to this point, was planned from the beginning. Note that the second half of the chapter sets up the UV, on which the main plot of the book, or at least Snape's role in that plot, depends. Bellatrix's presence, and her opposition to Snape, are also necessary to the plot, both to the UV and to Draco's learning Occlumency and otherwise resisting Snape's help. JKR has been raising questions about Snape from the beginning of the series, and she's both revealing and concealing key information in this crucial chapter, which places Snape in a dilemma in some ways matching Harry's as outlined in the Prophecy, which Harry himself describes as becoming a murderer or being murdered. (I'm oversimplifying yet again, but this post is already too long!) > bboyminn: > bboyminn: > > Were does this crazy ill-conceived idea come from that it > is every author's responsibility to create a picture > prefect model of the world? JKR is telling a specific > story about specific characters, and these characters are > who they are and do what they do. Her job is to tell the > story and nothing else. > > It is certainly not her job to appease every politically > correct wacko's idea of that utopian world should look > like. Hermione is Hermione, love her or hate her, she is > one individual in one story, not an unrealistic unlikely > model of some critics fantasy 'every girl'. Carol responds: I know exactly where this idea comes from: the nonreligious left, which runs the universities, at least in the United States and possibly in Europe. The same people who gave us postmodern criticism in place of textual analysis. The same people who decreed that students taking freshman composition should be politically indoctrinated rather than taught to organize their ideas logically and express them clearly and grammatically. The same people who caused me to feel so uncomfortable and out of place in academia that I changed my profession. Carol, apologizing for the tone of resentment that permeates parts of this post, exiting lecture mode, and requesting that no one reply offlist to this post as I don't want to get into heated discussions and really should be editing a manuscript From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 17:23:36 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:23:36 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162751 Carol: > > > > However, I don't think any of the three knows about the *specific* mission: to fix the Vanishing Cabinet and let the DEs into Hogwarts. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Right, so I'm focusing in on this one little nit, but it's a nit I just can't help picking. There is nothing in canon to suggest that Draco has been given a mission to get DE's into Hogwarts. In fact, canon is there to support that the Vanishing Cabinet scheme is thought up by Draco, on his own, as a means to accomplish his one and only task: killing Dumbledore. > > I know we've been round and round on this particular issue, but I > cannot let any comment that reads like Voldemort assigning Draco the > task of fixing the cabinet and getting Death Eaters into Hogwarts is > established canon slide by. I just can't. Carol: Yes, I know. We disagree and will continue to disagree on this one point. All I meant to say was that Snape may know, and probably does know, that Voldemort has assigned Draco to kill Dumbledore. Whether LV has specifically identified the task as a suicide mission to punish Lucius or not (I think not), snape agrees with Narcissa that it might be one. Like Narcissa, he clearly expects Draco to fail. But my point is that, regardless of which came first, the Vanishing Cabinet or the task of killing Dumbledore, Snape doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet, which is the only way Draco can get DEs into Hogwarts for backup. If Snape did know about the Vanishing Cabinet, he probably would never have taken the Unbreakable Vow. He would simply have found a way to thwart that plan. And there would be no point in Bellatrix's teaching Draco Occlumency if Draco weren't trying to hide the Vanishing Cabinet plan from Snape, regardless of whether Voldemort knows about it or not (and I think he does). Carol, hoping that you at least agree that Snape didn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet when he took the UV From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 17:35:40 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:35:40 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed Compassion/Murder in self-defense In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162752 > > Alla: > > > > The difference of course would be that Draco may think that Harry > > has a reason to kill him ( no matter how irrational this thought > > seems to me), but Draco shows Harry that he attacks him with > > Unforgiveable and Harry does not attack him first. > > I mean, is the desire to absolve Draco so great that you honestly > > and truly equal these two? > > Magpie: > I was being sarcastic--I don't really want to absolve Draco. But if > I was dead set on doing it I would probably just find excuses for > why Harry did give Draco reason to think he was going to kill him > despite not throwing an Unforgivable (which are not all deadly any > way). Harry actually did throw a deadly spell, and I'd probably use > that as retroactive evidence that Draco should have feared death. > I'd find a way to make everything he did self-defense even if he > struck first or wasn't in physical danger. Alla: Oh, good, good :) And yes, we can find excuses for every character easily if we wish so. :) But speaking seriously, I told you earlier that I agree with you that I think that JKR means for us to take the murder or murder attempts very seriously in the book ( all of them) and she means for Harry to think about it, but I am not sure if she does not mean the self- defense situation to be a bit different from all other murder attempts. And I am not even only talking about bathroom scene, where while to me it is absolutely clear that Harry was defending himself, JKR throws in a twist of Harry using a deadly spell. I am talking about Harry killing Voldemort at the end. Now, because of general depiction of the murders in the book I share the view that Harry will not have Voldemort's blood on his hands, I believe that Voldemort will die, but because of some unconventional twist. BUT I am not completely sure of that. At the reading in NY JKR said something to the effect that while most of her characters are redeemable, Voldemort is not one of them, that he is psychopath, etc. So, I am not sure that JKR will not make Harry kill Voldemort after all and not hold it against him in the slightest, strictly because she will make it clear that it was self-defense, unique situation. And I am pretty convinced that if Harry kills Voldemort ( which as I said I am more inclined to believe that he will not), it will be called self-defense even if Harry kills him in his sleep. Does it make sense? I think it is pretty easy to see what JKR views about murders are, but I honestly believe that there is a possibility that she may view self-defense as different. > Magpie: > I was almost completely joking.:-) Don't worry, I don't actually > agree with that defense of Draco. I don't agree with the attitude > about Harry either. I'm not the biggest fan of Dumbledore, but I'd > much rather have him as a general than someone with this view of war > or fighting. > Alla: Glad to know it is you after all :) So, to make myself completely clear I do not agree with Eggplant that this scene must be glorified, or anything like that. As I said many times I believe it is justified, except for Sectusemptra coming into Harry head originally, but I sure would not want Harry going around using it. Now, Eggplant seems to want bloodbath at the end, I respect the wish, but I do not believe such wish would be granted. IMO of course and I can be wrong. I mean, I can sympathise, since I also really want to see something at the end, which I strongly doubt I will get - nice long scene of Snape utterly humiliated by Harry and begging him of something - his life would be nice, but anything will do. I mean, I would be lucky if I will get couple of sentences of similar something, or maybe nothing at all. JMO, Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 17:44:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:44:30 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162753 Eggplant wrote: > "justcarol67" wrote: > > Me: > >>It's just a pity Harry hadn't killed him as he had every moral right to do, if he had Dumbledore would still be alive. Carol: Forgive me, but I didn't say any such thing. "Me" here is Eggplant. Please see upthread for my real sentiments, which are completely at odds with this statement. Carol earlier: > > > A Crucio requires a downed or helpless or distracted opponent > Eggplant: > Victor Crumb, just a boy, used the spell effectively against Cedric > Diggory and he was not helpless downed or distracted. Carol again: Viktor Krum, who is about eighteen (almost as old as Barty Jr. was when he helped to Crucio the Longbottoms), is from Durmstrang, where students (according to Draco) are taught the Dark Arts. I doubt that they practice Unforgiveables on each other, but possibly he's been taught to cast the curse on, say, an animal or a house-elf. (I hope not, but the curse requires both practice and the enjoyment of inflicting pain, as Bellatrix tells us.) But it's also possible that Viktor has never cast the curse before, and it's the Imperius Curse--Crouch!Moody's will and malice overwhelming Viktor's own will--that caused him to do it. I think this is the correct explanation; otherwise, the Imperius Curse couldn't be used as a sort of insanity plea to excuse the DEs from their crimes, and Karkaroff wouldn't say that Mulciber had caused "countless" people to do "horrific" things which, presumably, they wouldn't and perhaps couldn't have done if they hadn't been Imperio'd. Carol, asking posters to be more careful with attributions, please, including identifying your own comments so that they can't be misattributed From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 13 18:39:35 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:39:35 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162754 > > > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in > her books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence > and by whom? > > > > Pippin: > > I know she changed a CoS witch who had a harelip into one with a hairy > > chin, apparently after being told that this was insensitive. > > She has also responded to fans by correcting the famous wand order > > glitch in Goblet of Fire, as well as numerous other errors of logic > > or consistency that fans have pointed out (though many remain, or > > are they clues?) > > > > klotjohan: > Good observations, they may come in handy. Could you point me to places > where I could learn more about this? There are lists of changes and corrections at the Harry Potter Lexicon for all the books. Here's a link to the one for CoS http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/changes_cs.html Pippin: > > Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but > > Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her > > teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before > > Rowling developed a fandom of her own. > > > > klotjohan: > In what way do they remind you of fan fiction? I'm not too familiar with > it I'm afraid. Pippin: Nymphadora's grandiose name, unusual magical talent, strangely colored hair, physical awkwardness and romantic interest in an established character are typical of the sort of original characters created by beginning fan fiction writers (in the world of fan fiction they are derisively labelled "Mary Sues.") Luna, initially disdained, socially awkward and seemingly in a world of her own, is another variation on the type. > > klotjohan: > That's my sentiments as well. I'll try to expand a bit on Zipes later > on, but for now I'd like to hear what you think about the > "conventionality" and adherence to a pattern of the first books in the > series. I agree that the expected can be soothing to the mind, but as > you say it can be detrimantal as well. Did you experience any difference > in this respect between the books, and if so was it a positive or > negative change? Pippin: I started reading the series just after Prisoner of Azkaban came out in paperback. I had gathered enough from skimming various reviews to know that there was something fascinating about this Snape person and as I read the first book I was puzzled by all this interest in what seemed to be a very ordinary children's book villain. Of course I was floored by the ending. Now it seems she's turned Snape back into a conventional villain after all. But I don't believe it... One thing I noticed is the way that Rowling treats female characters. It seems that the women in the first few books are stuck in conventional roles. However, if you pay attention to the details, the first four books refer to female textbook authors, business owners, dark magic fighters (the witch who banished the Bandon banshee), professional Quidditch players, Ministry officials and headmistresses, and of course the villainess later identified as Bellatrix Lestrange. Wizarding society is actually well-diversified. People also said that she depicts all marriages as conventionally happy, and all women as good mothers, but we hear about Hagrid's mother who abandoned him, and the failed marriages of Hagrid's parents and Tom Riddle's. It seemed to me that JKR was deliberately setting people up to underestimate the role of women in magical society as a sort of consciousness raising exercise. For example, you have to read the description of the World Cup game very carefully to find out that two of the Irish chasers are female. She likes to lead us into making judgements based on our expectations and then show us that we were wrong. Pippin From jmrazo at hotmail.com Wed Dec 13 20:50:01 2006 From: jmrazo at hotmail.com (phoenixgod2000) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:50:01 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162755 > > Betsy Hp: > Right, so I'm focusing in on this one little nit, but it's a nit I just > can't help picking. There is nothing in canon to suggest that Draco > has been given a mission to get DE's into Hogwarts. In fact, canon is > there to support that the Vanishing Cabinet scheme is thought up by > Draco, on his own, as a means to accomplish his one and only task: > killing Dumbledore. If the cabinet was competely of Draco's own volition, I think that makes Draco worse actually. What did he think was going to happen, the death eaters were going to use sunshine and rose petals on the students? He moves from a reluctant assassin, to one that has gone out of his way to go above and beyond his basic mission. For me that takes a lot of the sting out of the poor, blackmailed Draco that you believe in. If he were so bothered by his actions he would be trying so darn hard. he'd just be going through the motions instead. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 13 20:55:49 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:55:49 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162756 > zanooda: > I'm also not surprised that Sirius doesn't understand this or maybe > understands but doesn't care, he is after all not in his right mind. > But it really surprises me that more level-headed people like Lupin > or Hermione go along with Sirius without even trying to convince him > that PP is his only hope to go free. > > I've also always wondered how Sirius and Lupin intended to kill PP. > Were they about to AK him or what? If they were, that would be the > end of Lupin too, wouldn't it? > Pippin: Hermione is still too timid to argue forcefully with adults. But as for Lupin... he will be in trouble if he gets caught. But why should he be? Pettigrew is legally dead already, Sirius isn't going to be believed no matter what he says, and no one will take the word of three thirteen year old wizards. That scene, more than any other, convinces me that Lupin is the Book Seven traitor. JKR always gives us a glimpse of her villains' true nature, though she makes it ever so easy to overlook it at the time. That scene is Lupin's ferret-bounce, IMO, the thing that is going to have the readers of Book Seven slapping their foreheads and moaning, "How could we not have known???" There lies the answer also to those who think that if Harry had only let Pettigrew be slain, Trelawney's second prophecy would not have come true and Voldemort would never have returned. I'm afraid it would only have meant that a different servant of Voldemort would set out to join him that night. It is wrong-headed, in Rowling's world, to pretend that some people are not dangerous. It is equally wrong-headed, IMO, to think that killings should be stopped only when they are against your interest. Pippin From klotjohan at excite.com Wed Dec 13 14:43:44 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:43:44 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162757 Greetings Carol, nice to see a pro joining in :) Carol: If we're considering the book > as children's literature, will child readers want to reread the > whole series? At this point, it's too early to say. Will the books > appeal to new readers twenty or a hundred years from now? I have no > clue. But if saleability, readability, and enjoyment for readers of > all ages are the criteria we're suing for literature, children's > books or otherwise, then the HP books are literature. Are they good > literature? I suppose that depends on your criteria. I'm not about > to pass moral judgment on the books or the author and only to some > extent on the characters. All that matters is consistency iwithin > JKR's moral universe. klotjohan: You bring up many important aspects here. My evaluation of the books are more of an experiment than anything else, but I'm using it as means finding new approaches both to the literature at hand and the theories I find applicable. The consistency is, as you say, the deciding factor when it comes to any lasting qualities in this case. Carol: > If the moral standards epitomized by Dumbledore--Love, trust, > second chances, mercy, etc.--prove to be mistaken, if Harry doesn't > come to accept Dumbledore's judgment of snape or does not use Love > to defeat Voldemort, I'll again consider the book to be a failure > in terms of its own moral universe. By the same token, I anticipate > some resolution to the problems of inequality among the magical > creatures in the WW. My own feelings have no bearing on the matter. > She's raised the issue; she needs to resolve it, or at least > acknowledge in the Epilogue that it remains unresolve (a bit of a > cop-out). My own feelings (and my politics and educational > philosophy are very different from JKR's) have no bearing on the > matter. klotjohan: That's very insightful of you, and I fully concur. Still, that last sentence has piqued my interest. Is the discrepancy between your philosophies not a drawback to your enjoyment of the books? I'm just curious, and I can understand if it isn't. Carol: > The HP books are in some respects almost sui generis because they > combine so many genres: fantasy/heroic quest with detective story > and Bildungsroman/boarding school tale. The "secondary world," to > borrow Tolkien's term, is set within the primary world, invisible > to ordinary people, as in, say, "The Borrowers" and the Narnia > books, not a long ago, mythical world that is and isn't our own > like Tolkien's Middle Earth. Comparing Tolkien and Rowling is like > comparing Dostoevsky and Louisa May Alcott. I don't think it can be > done, at least not with any degree of fairness to Alcott. klotjohan: You're probably right about HP being one of a kind. Good analogy there about the comparison of Rowling and Tolkien. Carol: > I'm not sure. I think she may have responded to complaints that > Frank Longbottom was an Auror and Alice wasn't in GoF by making > Alice an Auror in OoP. Otherwise, I see no way to account for the > inconsistency. It's possible that Dumbledore's scolding of the > Dursleys for mistreating Harry in HBP is the same sort of thing. I'd > have been more comfortable if that scene had been omitted, but maybe > it was planned all along. I can't think of any other examples. I'm > sure that she planned the female baddies Bellatrix and Umbridge all > along. klotjohan: Thanks, I'll look into this. > klotjohan wrote: > Most of you have probably encountered some form of criticism > against Rowling and/or her books, more or less constructive and > sensible. I've recently read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks > and Stones: The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from > Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that children's > literature represents one of the most significant sources of > commercial homogenization. > Carol: > Define, please? Can you quote him to save me the trouble of looking > at Zipes to figure out what he means by this postmodern-sounding > term? klotjohan: I'm guessing you're wondering about his use of the term homogenization. Though it's difficult to find a suitable quote, here's an example: "Perhaps you will now expect me to lament that we have failed our children and to begin developing a moral critique of American society ? la William Bennett calling for the return to the virtues of the Judeo-Christian tradition and the basic values of the family. But I do not want to preach about absolute or essential American values that we have lost and that may never have really existed in the first place. Nor do I want to pretend that there is an answer to the present predicament of cultural homogenization. What I should like to explore with you is how certain cultural practices play a role in homogenizing American children and send contradictory messages that are bound to undermine their capacity to develop a sense of morality and ethics and to recognize that their autonomy will be governed by prescribed market interests of corporations that have destroyed communities and the self-determination of communities." Zipes argues that commercial media and consumer culture are conforming children and that this seriously affects their freedom of choice. He claims that this is the case with some of the literature aimed at children as well. I hope this answers your question, although the subject matter is complicated and I haven't quite gotten my head around it yet. > Carol: > What is Zipes > complaining about? The only real inequality in the books, despite > all the fuss about purebloods and "Mudbloods," is between Wizards > and Muggles, a situation peculiar to the WW that can't really > mirror the RW except as the mind of the reader chooses to see > applicability. But JKR has to create her own world, and sexual > equality is not a prerequisite for imaginary worlds, especially > those that are as medieval in some respects as the WW. I personally > deplore film adaptations of, say, "Little Women" or "Huckleberry > Finn" or the 1990s(?) TV series "Dr. Quinn, Medicinewoman," which > make the characters' attitudes more politically correct than they > were in the books or would have been at that time period in RL. If > the standard of literary value is sexual equality or any other form > of political correctness, we'd better burn all the classics, > including Jane Austen's works. klotjohan: Well I very much agree with you on this. I'm guessing Zipes either ignored those parts of GoF, or simply didn't understand their significance. His arguments about the sexism is admittedly weak, especially considering the series has yet to be completed. Besides, political correctness and homogenization could easily be conceived as going hand in hand with eachother. It may be a case of simply flinging some dirt in Rowling's direction to go with the other criticisms. > klotjohan: > The stories diverge more from the formula in the latest two books > as well, interestingly enough; > Carol: > Which formula? Please clarify. klotjohan: To paraphrase Zipes: Part 1. Prison, where Harry the chosen one is held by materialist Muggles (the Dursleys). Part 2. The Noble Calling, where Harry is summoned to Hogwarts and must break out of his "prison". Part 3. The Heroic Adventures, where Harry travels to Hogwarts and is tested in various ways, fights against Voldemort and other sinister elements, with the help of his sidekick Ron and cheered on by Hermione and Ginny. "Whatever happens - and the plots always involve a great deal of manly competition and some kind of mystery - you can be sure that Harry wins." Part 4. The Reluctant Return Home, where Harry must return victorious, exhausted but enlightened, to the Dursleys. > Carol: > Possibly Cedric isn't a major character, but his death certainly > foreshadows others to come, as both Firenze ("Always the innocent > die first") and Draco point out. (Though I could be wrong about the > specific Centaur and specific book.) klotjohan: Yes, I adressed this in my first answer to zgirnius. I think this should classify as a substantial enough digression from the formula, but of course it's possible to argue against this. Carol: > Since I don't judge by Zipes's standards, I can't comment on this > point. The last two books are more complex and OoP is perhaps flawed > by trying to cram in too many plots and themes, but unless we > examine characterization and plot structure and foreshadowing and > narrative technique and other aspects of literature, as opposed to > books as indoctrination or reflections of a culture, I really have > nothing more to say regarding their respective "value." klotjohan: Well put, those kind of assessments could easily drift to far into the area of the subjective. I appreciate your analytical viewpoint though. > Carol, who thinks that any form of literary criticism that imposes > its own standards on what a book "should" be misses the point of > analyzing the work in the first place Klotjohan, who thinks that's a valid criticism of most criticism ;) From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 13 21:06:56 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:06:56 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162758 > > Betsy Hp: > > Right, so I'm focusing in on this one little nit, but it's a nit I > just > > can't help picking. There is nothing in canon to suggest that Draco > > has been given a mission to get DE's into Hogwarts. In fact, canon > is > > there to support that the Vanishing Cabinet scheme is thought up by > > Draco, on his own, as a means to accomplish his one and only task: > > killing Dumbledore. phoenixgod: > > If the cabinet was competely of Draco's own volition, I think that > makes Draco worse actually. What did he think was going to happen, > the death eaters were going to use sunshine and rose petals on the > students? He moves from a reluctant assassin, to one that has gone > out of his way to go above and beyond his basic mission. For me that > takes a lot of the sting out of the poor, blackmailed Draco that you > believe in. If he were so bothered by his actions he would be trying > so darn hard. he'd just be going through the motions instead. Magpie: Whether it makes Draco seem worse I think it's canon. But he isn't going beyond his basic mission at all by bringing in the DEs intentionally. The DEs are there to give him his shot at Dumbledore. You're right that this could possibly lead to even more damage if the DEs decided to attack students, but Draco himself wouldn't necessarily think that. I doubt he envisions them having anything to do with the students. Interestingly, the Death Eater who specifically does express a desire to attack students is the one Draco admits to DD he didn't expect. So it certainly makes Draco potentially responsible for worse things, but he's not intentionally moving beyond his mission to get students attacked. He's written as conflicted--trying hard but also hampered by internal conflict. Also when Draco gets to the point where he's motivated more by threats it's not blackmail, it's death threats. Which wouldn't make him likely to want to try even more evil plots on the side. The DEs are the plan to kill Dumbledore. -m From klotjohan at excite.com Wed Dec 13 15:10:12 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:10:12 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162759 > > Betsy Hp: > Hemmingway? I think he's an author who made much of sparsity, IIRC. > Mary Renault also springs to mind. I do agree that JKR is a good > story-teller (for the most part, see below), and I think she's a > master of puns. But I've never felt moved by a sentence of hers, by > a simple, spare, perfect bit of writing that shows the power of the > English language. But keep in mind, I'm comparing her to an awfully > grand pantheon. It's not really fair treatment of a writer on her > very first set of books. I'll also add that it's very rare I hit > upon a writer that I think meets that sort of standard, even while > I'm completely enjoying the story being told. > klotjohan: I feel the same way, I very rarely reflect over the actual words used, the layering or the structure. Mostly I just engulf the text to get further into the story. > > >>klotjohan: > > I'd say mainstream means, at least in the context of Zipes' > > book, a conventional and somewhat broad piece of pop culture > > that panders to a large crowd. There's also an implicit > > association made I feel between mainstream and commercialism, > > and further down the road between the popular and the > > "lowbrow". > > Betsy Hp: > Well, I do know for a fact that JKR had a very hard time finding > a publisher for SS because it was set in a boarding school (a > major "no-no" at the time ). So she certainly didn't start > out by pandering. > > > So the question is, why did these books become so popular? They > weren't created to be, obviously. klotjohan: You touch upon something vital here, namely that the first book was far from a commercially produced commodity. In that aspect it's hazardous to label HP as mainstream, so I guess it's more a question of popularity and that its broad appeal make it "low-brow". > > >>klotjohan: > > Would you care to elaborate on why you dislike her > > views of women? I'm very curious about this. > > Betsy Hp: > Eek! I just got *out* of a thread on this very topic. > Here's a link to an earlier discussion. Hopefully it'll give > you enough to work with. > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/160350 > Fair enough, I won't drag you into something like that again ;) Thanks for the link. > > >>klotjohan: > > Am I wrong in guessing that you're more inclined towards > > the innocence and purer sense of magic in the first books? Very > > understandable, if that's the case. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm 34. And it's not the innocence of the first books, it's the > clarity. Because while JKR may have attempted to make her later > books more adult and complex, I don't think she's done a great > job on that front. Remember the discussion about language at the > beginning of this post and the suggestion that JKR's strength lay > in her simplicity? I think her story-telling skills lie in the > same thing. And as she's gotten more complicated I think the story > has become more needlessly padded and repetitive. > klotjohan: I understand your sentiments, it's been a couple of years since I read the first three, so I'm more into the newest ones. It's only natural that complexity doesn't necessarily lead to increased quality or "value". /Klotjohan From connerlorraine at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 18:24:12 2006 From: connerlorraine at yahoo.com (lorraine conner) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:24:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. / Harry and Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <358189.66456.qm@web59202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162760 Eggplant: > It's just a pity Harry hadn't killed him [Draco] as he had > every moral right to do, if he had Dumbledore would still > be alive. Lorraine: I think you're right about what you said about if Harry killed him Dumbledore would still be alive, I also think that this all could have been avoided at the same time. Things are still going to happen to Harry and since Dumbledore is not alive to save Harry, Harry can depend on his friends and be more careful and not use Dumbledore as protection anymore. He relied on Dumbledore too much, that's what I personally think. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 22:49:53 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:49:53 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162762 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Right, so I'm focusing in on this one little nit, but it's a nit I > > just can't help picking. There is nothing in canon to suggest > > that Draco has been given a mission to get DE's into Hogwarts. > > In fact, canon is there to support that the Vanishing Cabinet > > scheme is thought up by Draco, on his own, as a means to > > accomplish his one and only task: killing Dumbledore. > > > >>Carol: > Yes, I know. We disagree and will continue to disagree on this one > point. All I meant to say was that Snape may know, and probably does > know, that Voldemort has assigned Draco to kill Dumbledore. Betsy Hp: I agree. Everything in Spinner's End points to Snape knowing exactly what Voldemort has asked of Draco. And I suspect that Snape has the best guess in the room as to why Voldemort gave Draco his task. > >>Carol: > Whether LV has specifically identified the task as a suicide > mission to punish Lucius or not (I think not), snape agrees with > Narcissa that it might be one. > Betsy Hp: I agree with Snape that Draco's death is the main (and petty) goal behind Voldemort's assignment. > >>Carol: > If Snape did know about the Vanishing Cabinet, he probably > would never have taken the Unbreakable Vow. He would simply have > found a way to thwart that plan. Betsy Hp: Huh. So you think Snape took the UV in order to get details? I'm not a big fan of this theory. It makes Snape look several kinds of stupid, IMO. Narcissa was in a very sharing mood, and he's long had a good relationship with Draco; I'm not sure why he had to do this far too complicated move to snoop out the pesky details. > >>Carol: > And there would be no point in Bellatrix's teaching Draco > Occlumency if Draco weren't trying to hide the Vanishing Cabinet > plan from Snape, regardless of whether Voldemort knows about it or > not (and I think he does). Betsy Hp: Except for the main point of avoiding a Buffy-like moment where Dumbledore hears, "By this time tomorrow you'll be dead, old man! And I, Draco Malfoy, shall be Voldemort's right-hand-man!!! Mwahahahaha!" from the direction of the Slytherin table. > >>Carol, hoping that you at least agree that Snape didn't know > about the Vanishing Cabinet when he took the UV Betsy Hp: Goodness, yes! I don't even think *Draco* had the Cabinet plan figured out when Snape took the UV. Too early in the summer by far. > >>phoenixgod: > > If the cabinet was competely of Draco's own volition, I think that > > makes Draco worse actually. > > > >>Magpie: > Whether it makes Draco seem worse I think it's canon. > Betsy Hp: As Magpie said, what is does or doesn't do for Draco's character, I'm solely arguing canon here. > >>Phoenixgod: > For me that takes a lot of the sting out of the poor, blackmailed > Draco that you believe in. If he were so bothered by his actions he > would be trying so darn hard. he'd just be going through the > motions instead. Betsy Hp: But since you brought it up... I tell you what, someone holds the life of my family in their grip? I'd be doing a darn sight more than just going through the motions. I'd skip work, sleep, food, let go of any childish rivalries and put all of my focus on getting the required deed done. And if I felt that inspite of all that I might not be able to do it? There'd be breakdowns. So I don't see anything wrong with Draco working hard on his plan. What I see as hopeful about Draco's Cabinet plan is that it's still a step away from actual murder. Draco isn't working on a perfect death trap, he's opening a door. It's a door that shouldn't be opened but it's not a killing stroke either. Betsy Hp From BCs at BonniDune.com Wed Dec 13 22:38:22 2006 From: BCs at BonniDune.com (Kelly Whiteman) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:38:22 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: <358189.66456.qm@web59202.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162763 In reading this thread I noted several people talking about the POA scene where Harry did not want Lupin and Sirius to be murderers and therefore saved PP's life. In those posts, people talk about Harry not caring that PP would be turned over to the Dementors, and the D-Kiss being the punishment for murder. I don't have my copy of POA handy, but my recollection is that being sent to Azkaban is the punishment for murder (as happened to Sirius). The D-Kiss is for those who escape Azkaban (Sirius and Barty Jr.). (I'm not going to get into the issue of why they also went after Harry). My point here is that according to canon, Harry logically assumed that PP would have been imprisoned for life, not D-Kissed. So, although I think his concern for Sirius and Lupin not becoming murderers was the motivation, I also think it's significant that he knew he was also saving PP's life. BonniDune From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 13 23:55:01 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:55:01 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162764 > > Eggplant wrote: > > Victor Crumb, just a boy, used the spell effectively against > > Cedric Diggory and he was not helpless downed or distracted. zanooda: This is not a very good example, because Cedric and Viktor did not fight. Krum "crept up behind" Cedric, who barely had time to turn around, which can be considered "distracted". Besides, Cedric woudn't expect anything like this from Krum, because Cedric "thought he was all right" (p. 627 US) > Carol: > But it's also possible that Viktor has never cast the curse before, > and it's the Imperius Curse--Crouch!Moody's will and malice > overwhelming Viktor's own will--that caused him to do it. zanooda: I like Krum and I really hope Carol is right and he never Crucio'd anyone before, even a spider. We are shown in the books that people under Imperius curse can do things that they cannot do in their normal state. Neville "performed a series of quite astonishing gymnastics" when Fake!Moody demonstrated the curse on him. Same goes for Rosmerta. I really doubt she ever learned and practiced the Imperius curse in her life. However, after being put under the curse herself, she Imperio'd Katie Bell quite successfully. From rkdas at charter.net Thu Dec 14 00:45:51 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:45:51 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162765 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "susanbones2003" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, puduhepa98@ wrote: > > > >snipped > > > Nikkalmati: > More snippage: > > Regardless, of whether SS knows the plan, they are all > > thwarting LV in his attempt to destroy Draco. > > again with the snipping...> > > Nikkalmati > > > Okay, forgive me, I am just getting my HP legs back in shape, but I > have been reading for a few days. Has it been mentioned that Snape's > vow creates the sort of bond that Harry has with Wormtail. I mean, > Snape did work to save Draco. Mayhap that will mean something when it > gets down to the bone... Again, if this has been mentioned (again and > again no doubt...) forgive me. I must keep reading. > Jen D. > From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 01:16:49 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 01:16:49 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162766 > Magpie: > Whether it makes Draco seem worse I think it's canon. But he isn't > going beyond his basic mission at all by bringing in the DEs > intentionally. The DEs are there to give him his shot at Dumbledore. > You're right that this could possibly lead to even more damage if > the DEs decided to attack students, but Draco himself wouldn't > necessarily think that. a_svirn: Wouldn't he, though? I wonder why not? He jolly well should have thought of that. Just like he should have thought about the possibility of poisoning someone else besides Dumbledore with that mead. He might not have *stopped* to think about such things, but I think he realised perfectly well the possible consequences of his actions. He'd be an idiot not to, and we know very well he's anything but. That's the thing that bothers me about the bathroom scene, for instance. We are told quite unequivocally that Harry was oblivious to the danger of using an unknown jinx labelled "for enemies", which, of course, makes his case so very different from Draco's. But I just can't swallow it. After all he'd been through he *should* have known better than that. Quite suddenly from being "on the brink of manhood" he reverted to a silly little boy mode, and he hadn't been all that silly, even when he'd been little. > Magpie: I doubt he envisions them having anything to > do with the students. Interestingly, the Death Eater who > specifically does express a desire to attack students is the one > Draco admits to DD he didn't expect. a_svirn: Oh, that's clearly a lie. Grayback was part of the group from the start. > Magpie: > So it certainly makes Draco potentially responsible for worse > things, but he's not intentionally moving beyond his mission to get > students attacked. He's written as conflicted--trying hard but also > hampered by internal conflict. a_svirn: I agree, but I don't see how his internal conflict made him blind to the blatantly obvious. On the contrary, I think that if Draco had been so confident about his fellow death eaters' good behaviour or if he hadn't realised in how many ways his own attempts could miscarry his internal conflict could have been less intense. From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 14 02:13:59 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 21:13:59 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) References: Message-ID: <003401c71f25$84b9d250$8a92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162767 >> Magpie: >> Whether it makes Draco seem worse I think it's canon. But he isn't >> going beyond his basic mission at all by bringing in the DEs >> intentionally. The DEs are there to give him his shot at > Dumbledore. >> You're right that this could possibly lead to even more damage if >> the DEs decided to attack students, but Draco himself wouldn't >> necessarily think that. > > a_svirn: > Wouldn't he, though? I wonder why not? He jolly well should have > thought of that. Just like he should have thought about the > possibility of poisoning someone else besides Dumbledore with that > mead. He might not have *stopped* to think about such things, but I > think he realised perfectly well the possible consequences of his > actions. He'd be an idiot not to, and we know very well he's > anything but. Magpie: I think you put your finger on it by saying he didn't stop to think about such things (and probably didn't dwell on it when they entered his mind). My point was that Draco was not, as the OP was saying, intentionally going beyond his original orders to hurt/kill as many people as possible. I don't think he's saying, "And if I bring the DEs then along with killing Dumbledore I might get a lot students killed too!" Of course Draco's using the DEs and things like the poison and necklace could all lead to consequences for other people that were easily forseeable--I agree. > Magpie: > I doubt he envisions them having anything to >> do with the students. Interestingly, the Death Eater who >> specifically does express a desire to attack students is the one >> Draco admits to DD he didn't expect. > > a_svirn: > Oh, that's clearly a lie. Grayback was part of the group from the > start. Magpie: You thought he was lying? I didn't.. Greyback was involved in some ways--Draco uses him as a threat to Borgin--but I think Draco's telling the truth when he says he didn't know he would come--I can't imagine he's lying to Dumbledore in that last line. I think there's a point in the scene where he starts being honest with Dumbledore and never goes back. He would have, imo, responded differently to Dumbledore if he'd known Fenrir was coming. > a_svirn: > I agree, but I don't see how his internal conflict made him blind to > the blatantly obvious. On the contrary, I think that if Draco had > been so confident about his fellow death eaters' good behaviour or > if he hadn't realised in how many ways his own attempts could > miscarry his internal conflict could have been less intense. Magpie: I wouldn't say he had to be confident about those things, necessarily. I think he could very well be pushing thoughts like that out of his mind because he's "got to do it." Which makes him responsible for the consequences. But I'm not trying to say that Draco couldn't have conceived of these outcomes. I'm just saying I think they were a risk he took to kill Dumbledore rather than something that he intentionally wanted to happen for extra evil. Not that this makes a difference in how dead his victims almost become or makes him more innocent of those crimes. -m From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 03:00:15 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:00:15 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162768 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kelly Whiteman" wrote: > > In reading this thread I noted several people talking about the POA > scene where Harry did not want Lupin and Sirius to be murderers and > therefore saved PP's life. In those posts, people talk about Harry > not caring that PP would be turned over to the Dementors, and the D- > Kiss being the punishment for murder. > I don't have my copy of POA handy, but my recollection is that > being sent to Azkaban is the punishment for murder (as happened to > Sirius). The D-Kiss is for those who escape Azkaban (Sirius and > Barty Jr.). (I'm not going to get into the issue of why they also > went after Harry). > > My point here is that according to canon, Harry logically assumed > that PP would have been imprisoned for life, not D-Kissed. So, > although I think his concern for Sirius and Lupin not becoming > murderers was the motivation, I also think it's significant that he > knew he was also saving PP's life. > > BonniDune zanooda: I think you are right about Harry's intentions, I even wanted to write about it myself in one of my posts yesterday, but forgot. Harry means to turn PP to dementors to be taken to Azkaban, not to be kissed. He mentions it a few times, first he says:"We'll hand him over to the dementors... He can go to Azkaban...but don't kill him"(PoA, p.375 US hardcover). On the next page he says again:"He can go to Azkaban. If anyone deserves that place, he does...". Of course, we don't know what would have happened if they turned PP to the dementors, but Harry's intention was clearly to spare his life, or at least to let the authorities decide his fate. Besides, why would PP thank Harry so fervently if he thinks he'll get kissed? He thanks Harry for saving his life. From kking0731 at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 03:00:03 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 03:00:03 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162769 Carol: Yes, I know. We disagree and will continue to disagree on this one point. All I meant to say was that Snape may know, and probably does know, that Voldemort has assigned Draco to kill Dumbledore. Whether LV has specifically identified the task as a suicide mission to punish Lucius or not (I think not), snape agrees with Narcissa that it might be one. Like Narcissa, he clearly expects Draco to fail. But my point is that, regardless of which came first, the Vanishing Cabinet or the task of killing Dumbledore, Snape doesn't know about the Vanishing Cabinet, which is the only way Draco can get DEs into Hogwarts for backup. If Snape did know about the Vanishing Cabinet, he probably would never have taken the Unbreakable Vow. He would simply have found a way to thwart that plan. And there would be no point in Bellatrix's teaching Draco Occlumency if Draco weren't trying to hide the Vanishing Cabinet plan from Snape, regardless of whether Voldemort knows about it or not (and I think he does). Snow: If Draco and the Slytherin guys that heard Montague's tale of the cabinets, thinking it fascinating, were quiet about this news, I'll eat my hat. Slytherin's are braggarts and the biggest of all being Draco who announced to Dumbledore on the Tower that `he' was the `only' one who connected the dots as to what this could mean. (Then again, Draco is only surveying the situation as to his fellow classmates inept understanding I'm sure) These guys are in Snape's House and yet Snape did not get wind of the story that was being told or maybe Snape did not connect the dots as well as young Draco? It doesn't seem reasonable that Snape, being an exceptional Slytherin, would not have realized the potential hazard that could occur with those cabinets especially since Snape was the one who saved Montague and would have heard the Whole story long before it fell on Draco's ears (legilimence is a wonderful tool). Dumbledore was confronted by Harry of Draco's newfound likeness to the ROR and Draco's woops of joy from inside the room and yet Dumbledore's response was anything but stunned. Dumbledore instead was more like Willy Wonka lets push forward, so much time and so little to do reverse that. Dumbledore knew and Snape knew what the various possibilities were strategies were formed for each case scenario, concerning the cabinets, to be enacted as previously agreed upon. That could be why Snape argued with Dumbledore that he was taking too much for granted. I don't think Snape had the assurance that Dumbledore felt over Draco's final decision. I don't see any flaws with this possibility but then again I am viewing this from Dumbledore-has-a-plan, which he does admit to in OOP. Dumbledore has more pieces of the puzzle than we have to work with and he only allows certain persons knowledge; Dumbledore and Voldemort have something in common after all, no `one' person knows everything about them. I see Dumbledore's evaluation of this circumstance much like the chess game in SS, sometimes you have to lose a very important piece to get the checkmate! Then again was Ron a sacrifice in the end or just a willing pawn (knight) that didn't really die for his heartfelt deed? Snow From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 14 03:47:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:47:42 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Cabinet Plan...again/Wrongheaded compassion References: Message-ID: <007101c71f32$9c766860$8a92400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162770 Snow: If Draco and the Slytherin guys that heard Montague's tale of the cabinets, thinking it fascinating, were quiet about this news, I'll eat my hat. Slytherin's are braggarts and the biggest of all being Draco who announced to Dumbledore on the Tower that `he' was the `only' one who connected the dots as to what this could mean. (Then again, Draco is only surveying the situation as to his fellow classmates inept understanding I'm sure) These guys are in Snape's House and yet Snape did not get wind of the story that was being told or maybe Snape did not connect the dots as well as young Draco? It doesn't seem reasonable that Snape, being an exceptional Slytherin, would not have realized the potential hazard that could occur with those cabinets especially since Snape was the one who saved Montague and would have heard the Whole story long before it fell on Draco's ears (legilimence is a wonderful tool). Magpie: But this is taking information the author found a place to give us directly and tossing it out and rewriting stuff not there. I don't think there's any reason whatsoever that Snape has to have heard this story, or figured out the Cabinets, or any of it. It's not like McGonagall knows of everything somebody comes up with in Gryffindor just because she's the HoH--and what do the Slytherins have to be bragging about anyway with Montague's story? And Why don't Hermione and Harry get wind of it if they're bragging? I think it happened just the way Draco said it did. Not just because of those things, and because I think part of the thematic resonance comes from the fact that the "secret plan" was directly linked to being a kid, but because that's the information we're given. I see no more reason to second guess it than I see reason to second guess Sirius' explanations for how he escaped Azkaban. Snow: Dumbledore was confronted by Harry of Draco's newfound likeness to the ROR and Draco's woops of joy from inside the room and yet Dumbledore's response was anything but stunned. Dumbledore instead was more like Willy Wonka.lets push forward, so much time and so little to do.reverse that. Dumbledore knew and Snape knew what the various possibilities were.strategies were formed for each case scenario, concerning the cabinets, to be enacted as previously agreed upon. That could be why Snape argued with Dumbledore that he was taking too much for granted. I don't think Snape had the assurance that Dumbledore felt over Draco's final decision. Magpie: I don't think Snape or Dumbledore knew a thing about the Cabinets. If they knew about them I think they'd get rid of the one at Hogwarts and destroy the plan. Dumbledore figures out that Vanishing Cabinets created a portal right in front of us when he says, "There are a pair of them, I take it?" He and Snape were taking general precations against anything and anyone unwanted getting into the school. Dumbledore is confident that the school is secure, so doesn't take Harry's warnings seriously--especially since Harry's emotional about Snape. Snow: I don't see any flaws with this possibility but then again I am viewing this from Dumbledore-has-a-plan, which he does admit to in OOP. Dumbledore has more pieces of the puzzle than we have to work with and he only allows certain persons knowledge; Dumbledore and Voldemort have something in common after all, no `one' person knows everything about them. Magpie: I think the flaws in it are just the things that don't build on the information we're given in the text that indicates Snape and Dumbledore didn't know about the Cabinets. I do think it's perfectly possible that Snape's "taking too much for granted" line could refer to letting Draco keep working on his plan, though. BonniDune: > My point here is that according to canon, Harry logically assumed > that PP would have been imprisoned for life, not D-Kissed. So, > although I think his concern for Sirius and Lupin not becoming > murderers was the motivation, I also think it's significant that he > knew he was also saving PP's life Magpie: My bad--you're right. Harry is showing sparing Peter's life. Though he's still not imo doing anything foolish in having Peter put into Azkaban. -m From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Dec 14 04:15:30 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 04:15:30 -0000 Subject: FILK: Go Spill It In The Fountain Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162771 Go Spill It In The Fountain (OOP, Chap. 9) To the tune of Go Tell It On the Mountain A You-Tube performance here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsLjtLeHJeo Dedicated to Heidi Tandy THE SCENE: The Atrium of the Ministry of Magic. HARRY, rejoicing in his exoneration, repays a promised debt. HARRY: Go spill it in the fountain, Empty the bag of every coin Go spill it in the fountain, I will not be expelled. When I came to this hearing I thought all hope was lost I cried, "O Brethren, spare me!" I don't care what it costs. Go spill it in the fountain, Ev'ry Knut & Galleon Tho' the tension was mountin' I will not be expelled. The statues look quite foolish Non-humans cringe and bow - No time to be a critic! To them I made my vow Go spill it in the fountain, Ev'ry Knut & Galleon Don't even bother countin' I shall not be expelled. It says that to St. Mungo's All proceeds will be sent. For charity this quarter I will not be outspent Go spill it in the fountain, I'll go back to Hogwarts School Go spill it in the fountain, I will not be expelled. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm A VERY HARRY CHRISTMAS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/Christmas.htm From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 08:51:36 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:51:36 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0612122123j15bb370g1386b5c1467ed66e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0612140051m359e8780y8c8819efa0134a14@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162772 Lupinlore: The second caveat is that sometimes when morals "resurface" as you say, they are disruptive even if intended. The scene with DD at the Dursleys is a good example of a moral "resurfacing" like a submarine to devestate the storyscape, raising questions about consistency of character, and even creating unintentional moral issues in some people's minds -- that is, muggle-baiting. It would have been better to keep the moral from disappearing in the first place. Lynda: For the sake of the listelves I didn't simply snip the whole response. I won't say you don't have valid points when you do, I just don't see these as being overwhelmingly devastating to the story as a whole. Every series I've read, every trilogy movie group I have seen has what I call a "dead spot" in the middle ( I intensely dislike The Empire Strikes Back although the Star Wars Saga is my favorite set of movies--mostly due to the time in my life it was released--it made my adolescence a truly magical time). Because of that view, I don't have so much difficulty with the last two books. Also, I do not consider DD's treatment of the Dursleys in the last book muggle-baiting. I see it as an attempt to teach them courtesy. Or show them how they should treat company. I realize that a lot of people on this list disagree with me. I do think it will be very very interesting to see what JKR does with moral messages she gives in the last book and how they interweave with what has already been established. Hope this makes sense, btw. Its nearly one a.m. here. I'm only online because I just finished two final exams for my classes this semester and decided to read my email while I wind down from the long day. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Dec 14 11:54:21 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 06:54:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612140354s78f4ac30o821a960c9b381143@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162773 Jen: If Voldemort really expects Snape to kill Dumbledore as his back-up plan then he pretty much expects Snape to die or go to Azkaban. Not because he thinks Dumbledore will kill Snape, but because LV expects 1) Someone around Dumbledore who never trusted Snape will do the deed or 2) Snape will fail and be captured by Aurors or 3) Snape won't be able to go through with it thus proving he's loyal to Dumbledore. Besides, Voldemort wouldn't believe anyone else is capable of killing Dumbledore if he himself hasn't suceeded. Debbie: Voldemort's expectation that Snape will kill Dumbledore is nothing more than a test of his loyalty. It is my longstanding view that Voldemort has doubted Snape's loyalty at least since PS/SS, based on the observations he made while stuck behind Quirrell's head, and that it is little short of miraculous that Snape was accepted back into the fold at the end of GoF, a supreme testament to Snape's Occlumency skills and Voldemort's need for information. It was useful to have Snape as a double agent, but I read Voldemort's desire to get Dumbledore out of the way as part of the final preparation for the big showdown with Harry. Voldemort's overconfidence is such that he believes that with Dumbledore out of the way, Harry will be an easy mark -- remember how earlier he denigrated Harry's skills. Therefore, Snape is available to do the job since Voldemort believes he no longer needs the spying reports Snape has been providing to him. Jen: I definitely agree Snape doesn't care if he dies. I'm not completely convinced you can't stop the Vow once in progress because we see Bella's 'astounded' face when Snape agrees to the final clause. Maybe the two choices during the Vow are agreeing or dropping Debbie: I read the astonishment as deriving from two related sources. First is the expectation that Snape will attempt to slither out of tough assignments, and the first two clauses are not really difficult at all. Second, she doesn't trust him. Snape just finished offering up all sorts of proofs which are, really, unprovable. Snape's vow -- to kill Dumbledore if Draco fails -- will be much better proof, if it happens as Snape expects it will. Jen: I'm still not seeing much of a motive for saying yes to the UV in the first place. Snape's deep caring for Draco isn't that obvious if Narcissa needs a death vow to ensure he'll protect him. And Snape is a fool if he trusts Narcissa won't add in a few extra tasks to the ones she's already mentioned (ACID POPS anyone, Snape acting the way 'fools who love' act?). So to summarize, Narcissa went to Snape for help but doesn't trust Snape will live up to his word, and Snape can't say no to a death vow by two people who hold nothing over his head....what's up with these people?!? Debbie: The answer to this is, to me, the same as the answer above. Bella is too skeptical of him for him to refuse. And maybe Snape does suspect that Voldemort is behind Narcissa's begging in the first place. If not, why would Bella be there at all? My reading of the beginning of the chapter strongly implies that Narcissa came of her own accord, judging from the way she's trying to lose Bella; OTOH, Bella may be tailing her on Voldemort's orders. Grey!Snape is evidently not a uniform theory, or I would agree with Jen on all these points. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 14 14:21:54 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 14:21:54 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162774 > a_svirn: > That's the thing that bothers me about the bathroom scene, for > instance. We are told quite unequivocally that Harry was oblivious > to the danger of using an unknown jinx labelled "for enemies", > which, of course, makes his case so very different from Draco's. But > I just can't swallow it. After all he'd been through he *should* > have known better than that. Quite suddenly from being "on the brink > of manhood" he reverted to a silly little boy mode, and he hadn't > been all that silly, even when he'd been little. Pippin: No? Isn't he the guy who took off for Hogsmeade on a lark when he knew there was a murderer on the loose who especially had it in for him? And it wasn't fear of the consequences that made him realize it was dumb, it was Lupin's disappointment with him. Don't you know anyone who did some incredibly stupid and reckless things as a teenager that they wouldn't have done as a child and wouldn't do now as an adult? Teenagers just aren't good at weighing present rewards against future dangers. It's not that Harry and Draco don't know things could go wrong, it's that their brains haven't an adult's capacity to turn that knowledge into fear. Meanwhile, they've lost the child's fear of adult disapproval in general. It's a dangerous time. > > Magpie: > > So it certainly makes Draco potentially responsible for worse > > things, but he's not intentionally moving beyond his mission to > get students attacked. He's written as conflicted--trying hard but > also hampered by internal conflict. > > a_svirn: > I agree, but I don't see how his internal conflict made him blind to > the blatantly obvious. On the contrary, I think that if Draco had > been so confident about his fellow death eaters' good behaviour or > if he hadn't realised in how many ways his own attempts could > miscarry his internal conflict could have been less intense. Pippin: The necklace and the poison illustrate Draco's subconscious conflict. They didn't require Draco's personal involvement, and carried only a small chance of actually hurting anyone. While you can say that Katie and Ron were lucky, you could also say that they were unlucky to have suffered at all. If Katie's friend had gone to an adult as she had been instructed to do instead of trying to wrest the necklace away, and if Filch had been doing his job properly instead of giving Mme Rosmerta's bottles a pass, both the necklace and the poison might have been discovered without any harm. That's one reason I don't think the cabinet plan was entirely Draco's idea. I don't think he would have been so proud of it and worked so doggedly at fixing it if he had conceived of it as a way to do murder. His internal conflict would have gotten in the way and he would have failed. But Draco didn't know he was conflicted, just as Harry didn't know he was conflicted about killing Sirius until he stood over him. OTOH, Draco certainly expected there would be mayhem when the DE's entered the castle. He just didn't think that his friends might be the targets. He understood that Voldemort might kill his family as a punishment but not that "he shows just as little mercy to his followers as to his enemies." Draco's comment to Snape about his friends not needing to study DADA shows how naive he was. Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 13:31:16 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 13:31:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: <2795713f0612140051m359e8780y8c8819efa0134a14@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162776 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > Lynda: > > Every series I've > read, every trilogy movie group I have seen has what I call a "dead spot" in > the middle ( I intensely dislike The Empire Strikes Back although the Star > Wars Saga is my favorite set of movies--mostly due to the time in my life it > was released--it made my adolescence a truly magical time). That is a good point. I have never cared much for "Empire" either, although many people find it their favorite of the Star Wars saga. Unfortunately for this "dead spot," however, is that its where the moral problems of the Potter series begin to become very clear, perhaps because of the extended absence of plot and action. Thus Snape' child abuse, the reprehensible failure of the adults to restrain Umbridge or punish her after the fact, and Dumbledore's incompetence and contemptible policies with regard to Harry being abused become very clear -- despite JKR's attempt to rescue DD in the early pages of HBP. > I do think it will be very very interesting to see what JKR does with moral > messages she gives in the last book and how they interweave with what has > already been established. Well, the problem is she has a LOT of interweaving to do and not much time to do it in. That is the real hole she's dug for herself. Frankly, I expect her to fail pretty miserably, especially on the moral front, or at best to come up some insipid and utterly contemptible idea about Harry forgiving all those who have abused him over the years because it's DD's example (never mind that DD stood by and watched approvingly, or at least silently, as it happened), and these people going unpunished. But then again, a train wreck is a fascinating thing to watch. Lupinlore, who approves of justice, which does indeed contain an element of revenge in practice if not in theory From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 15:07:56 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:07:56 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: <003401c71f25$84b9d250$8a92400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162777 Magpie earlier: > > I doubt he envisions them having anything to do with the students. Interestingly, the Death Eater who specifically does express a desire to attack students is the one Draco admits to DD he didn't expect. > > a_svirn responded: > > Oh, that's clearly a lie. Grayback was part of the group from the start. > Magpie again: > You thought he was lying? I didn't.. Greyback was involved in some ways--Draco uses him as a threat to Borgin--but I think Draco's telling the truth when he says he didn't know he would come--I can't imagine he's lying to Dumbledore in that last line. I think there's a point in the scene where he starts being honest with Dumbledore and never goes back. He would have, imo, responded differently to Dumbledore if he'd known Fenrir was coming. Carol responds: Funny, I thought and still think that he was excusing himself on the one count he can find that he's innocent of--he knew that Greyback was part of the plan all along (being used to force Borgin to help with the cabinets) but he didn't expect him to come along as part of Draco's DE backup--finally, one charge on which he can plead innocent! I don't think it has anything to do with honesty. If it did, he'd be admitting his guilt in inviting Greyback along and being sorry for such a grievous error. Instead, he's protesting his innocence. Funny, he does care what Dumbledore thinks, but he reminds me of a kid caught doing something wrong on the playground and protesting to the headmaster that *this* part of the misdeed wasn't his fault or wasn't planned. (I did break on the window on purpose, but I didn't mean to hit Professor McGonagall on the head!") I agree that Draco either didn't think of the danger to his fellow students in bringing DEs into the castle or put it in the back of his mind, but the whole idea of bringing DEs into the castle so that he could have them as backup when he murdered Dumbledore is as far from innocent as it can be. And whether he told Voldemort about the Vanishing Cabinet before or after being ordered to murder Dumbledore, the idea of fixing the cabinet and using it to get DEs into the castle, with all the dangers to staff and students that the plan entails, is his own. The presence or absence of Greyback is only a minor matter compared with the possibility of the DEs wreaking havoc at Hogwarts after the murder of the headmaster. (Draco also didn't plan on the Order being present or Snape getting him and the DEs out of the castle.) Carol, who thinks that Draco's loyalties are now in the balance and hopes that Snape will bring him over to the anti-Voldemort side From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 15:20:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:20:22 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162778 Kelly Whiteman (Bonnidune) wrote: > > In reading this thread I noted several people talking about the POA > scene where Harry did not want Lupin and Sirius to be murderers and > therefore saved PP's life. In those posts, people talk about Harry not caring that PP would be turned over to the Dementors, and the D-Kiss being the punishment for murder. > > I don't have my copy of POA handy, but my recollection is that being > sent to Azkaban is the punishment for murder (as happened to Sirius). The D-Kiss is for those who escape Azkaban (Sirius and Barty Jr.). (I'm not going to get into the issue of why they also went after Harry). > > My point here is that according to canon, Harry logically assumed that PP would have been imprisoned for life, not D-Kissed. So, although I think his concern for Sirius and Lupin not becoming murderers was the motivation, I also think it's significant that he knew he was also saving PP's life. Carol responds: I *do* have my copy of PoA handy, and it *does* show Harry ready to turn PP over to the Dementors. Here's the quote as typed in my post #162585: "'Harry, this piece of vermin is the reason you have no parents,' Black snarled. 'This cringing bit of filth would have seen you die too, without turning a hair. You heard him. His own stinking skin meant more to him than your whole family.' ''I know,' Harry panted. 'We'll take him up to the castle. . . . We'll hand him over to the dememntors. . . .'" (PoA Am. ed. 375). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162585 That should, of course, be "We'll hand him over to the dementors." However, you're right that he assumed that handing PP over to the Dementors meant sending him back to Azkaban. He hadn't yet seen what they would do to Barty Crouch Jr. I should have included the rest of the quotation. Carol, who had a hard time finding her own post because of that darned typo! From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 14 15:49:16 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:49:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: Voldie's Growing Stronger Every Day Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162780 Voldie's Growing Stronger Every Day To the tune of Winter Wonderland Dedicated to Ginger. http://www.allthingschristmas.com/music.html (Karkaroff to Snape) See my arm, how it's burning. See the mark, how it's turning. A terrible sight, it gives me a fright! Voldie's growing stronger every day! The Dark Lord is so chilling And he dreams about killing, I don't dare stay here. The signs are so clear. Voldie's growing stronger every day. (Dumbledore to himself) In the Pensieve I can see the bad news. All around us folks are acting odd. Tom is up to something. Yes I know it. I think he has a plan to get a bod. (Harry in the hospital wing) Wormtail brewed. Voldie stood up Then I thought I would throw up. Our wands burned so bright, I saw a strange sight Voldie's getting stronger every day. (Dumbledore) In the Pensieve I can see the bad news. It is time to gather all around. Lupin you can go and get the old crowd, Tell them Voldemort has come to town. Severus Snape are you ready? Are your nerves cold and steady? To face unafraid, the plans that we've made? Voldie's growing stronger every day? All: We'll face unafraid, the plans that we've made. Voldie's growing stronger every day Potioncat, who is finding FILKing to be habit forming. (And a lot more fun than that odd math puzzle with the funny name.) From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 14 15:55:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:55:36 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162781 > Pippin: > > That's one reason I don't think the cabinet plan was entirely > Draco's idea. I don't think he would have been so proud of it > and worked so doggedly at fixing it if he had conceived of it > as a way to do murder. His internal conflict would have > gotten in the way and he would have failed. But Draco > didn't know he was conflicted, just as Harry didn't know he > was conflicted about killing Sirius until he stood over him. Magpie: But the Cabinet Plan perfectly illustrates what you described above as the teen mentality and Draco's conflict. The Cabinet plot makes perfect sense as Draco's idea in that mindset, because it puts something between him and the murder. He can work so doggedly at fixing the Cabinet precisely because it is supposed to be a way to do murder but it clearly isn't. It's just getting DEs into the castle. It's only after they're there that he has to face the actual murder part. > Magpie: I doubt he envisions them having anything to > do with the students. Interestingly, the Death Eater who > specifically does express a desire to attack students is the one > Draco admits to DD he didn't expect. Carol responds: Funny, I thought and still think that he was excusing himself on the one count he can find that he's innocent of--he knew that Greyback was part of the plan all along (being used to force Borgin to help with the cabinets) but he didn't expect him to come along as part of Draco's DE backup--finally, one charge on which he can plead innocent! I don't think it has anyt hing to do with honesty. Magpie: Why on earth would Draco want to plead innocent to anything? He's *not* the kid on the playground you describe--or if he is, it's the DEs who are the headmaster here, not Dumbledore. He's been desperately trying to prove he's not innocent (in DD's terms) for the entire book. Bringing Fenrir in is a minor matter on top of all he's done from the pov of someone judging Draco negatively for his evil deeds. It's significant for Draco because he judges by the exact opposite values. I see what a_svirn meant by Draco's already mentioning Greyback-- that it's a heads-up that Draco is lying at the end, but I think it's there for completely other reasons. First, most practically, it introduces Fenrir Greyback by name for the first time and attaches him to these plots. More importantly, it's further illustration of the difference between Draco's talk and his actual feelings. He can brag about Fenrir when he's not there, threaten people with him and refer to him as a family friend, but in person he can't even look at him. I tried to think of what practical reason Draco could possibly have for lying to Dumbledore about not bringing him in intentionally, and the only thing I could come up with is that maybe he thought Dumbledore would take back his offer if he knew about this last bit of evil Draco committed. But that's pretty weak given that Dumbledore's already shown he knows about worse things he's done, and can see through his lies, and anyway Dumbledore is obviously about to be killed so the offer is no longer realistic anyway. I don't think Draco's emotions are played to show a lie when he says the line. There's no indication of the truth as I think JKR would write it if there was. Most importantly, Draco telling that particular lie is far too huge a change in Draco's character. But it's also a change in his character to When Draco quasi-admits to Dumbledore he's not a killer (he doesn't even say it himself, just admits he doesn't think he has any options but to kill and starts to accept the offer) that's a huge thing for Draco to admit. It's his big secret that he's carried since year one and that much of his personality is devoted to covering up (badly). He's always loudest about proclaiming his love of evil deeds and ability to do them himself because he can't. He spends most of the scene on the Tower still desperately trying to keep this mask on. Dumbledore sees through it, of course, and just keeps saying "You're not a killer" to all of Draco's bragging about being a DE. That's Draco lying to DD--with signs that he's doing so. When Draco starts to lower his wand he is admitting that he would rather have his family protected and not have to kill Dumbledore to get it. I don't think he's ever in his life admitted even to himself that he would make that choice. Once the DEs come in and Dumbledore is obviously outnumbered, far from having a reason to butter Dumbledore up by claiming to be not so bad Draco's got every reason to hide that moment of weakness. And also it's just too huge a thing for him to go from a life of pretending to be worse than he is to cover up the little bit of "good" to, in front of DEs, lying about how bad he is to pretend to be a little more "good." Draco has always seen this kind of goodness (or lack of badness, really) as a weakness and at the point the DEs come in I don't think he's had time to completely change his mind on that so that he'd suddenly scramble in the opposite direction--especially in front of the DEs. I can believe him unable to go back to his old lies after the taste of freedom of being truthful about who he is, but not having done a complete 180. If he's going to adopt those values in future, I don't think he has yet. That line is, I think, the only time in canon where Draco ever says something where he describes himself as less capable of that kind of darkness (which is completely different than, say, striking an innocent pose and claiming Potter hexed you first, which adds to your wickedness). I can see Draco lying to make himself sound more like a DE in that last moment on the Tower, surrounded by DEs, and I can see him telling the truth to Dumbledore despite them. Lying to Dumbledore in that moment with the DEs watching seems the least logical for this character. I just realized I was mostly talking about why Draco wouldn't *lie* in this case, which was a_svirn's theory and not yours, but since Draco's lying for the same reason as he's telling the truth in your version, the same arguments apply. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 16:08:43 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:08:43 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162782 Lupinlore wrote: > Thus > the reprehensible failure of the adults to restrain Umbridge or punish her after the fact, and Dumbledore's incompetence and contemptible policies with regard to Harry being abused become very clear -- despite JKR's attempt to rescue DD in the early pages of HBP. Carol responds: Harry concealed what happened during Umbridge's detentions even from his friends as long as possible and when Hermione did see his bleeding hand, he refused to take her advice and tell McGonagall about it. His hands were not bleeding during his lessons, and any teacher who saw a pinkish spot on the back of his hand could easily assume that it was a Quidditch injury or had occurred in one of the many dangerous classes at Hogwarts. Also, Harry's contact with Dumbledore was extremely limited, so DD would not have seen the injury, and he was treating it with Murtlap essence once Hermione found out about it. (The same is true for Lee Jordan, for whom the detention seems to be no big deal. Certainly, he and his friends didn't tell McGonagall about it. That's not part of their schoolboy code.) How was any member of the Hogwarts staff to know what was going on in those detentions? AFAWK, the only adult to whom Harry has shown the scar on his hand is Rufus Scrimgeour in HBP. Nor did Harry report to anyone, even Dumbledore, that Umbridge had tried to Crucio him or that she, not Voldemort, had sent the Dementors that attacked him on Privet Drive. When he and DD talk at the end of OoP, CAPSLOCK Harry's concerns are Sirius Black's death, Kreacher, and Snape, whereas Dumbledore's concern is calming him down so he can tell him about the Prophecy. Umbridge is barely mentioned (in connection with Snape's reasons for contacting the Order) and the Dementors are mentioned in relation to Petunia, not Umbridge. And Harry has just come back from a battle in the DEs in the MoM, no doubt scraped and bruised. There is no reason for DD to notice his hand, and the subject does not come up, Harry has two opportunities to talk about Umbridge, once in connection with the attempted Crucio and the other in connection with the Dementors. Unless Legilimency involves reading every thought at every moment, including those at the back of the person's mind--and we know that Legilimency doesn't work that way--Dumbledore has no way of knowing what Umbridge has done (with the exception of her ridiculous decrees and her attempt to arrest Harry in connection with the DA, an attempt that Dumbledore thwarts. He can hardly report Umbridge to the MoM; Fudge is right there on the spot, under the delusion that Umbridge is a valuable ally against DD's attempt to seize power and that she's right about Dumbledore being back. Fudge, now chastened and no longer Minister for Magic, can't do anything about Delores Umbridge, nor does he know about her detentions or her attempt to Crucio Harry even if he knows--and we don't know that he does--that she sent the Dementors. Scrimgeour has seen the scar on Harry's hand, but can hardly be expected to figure out how it got there or that it has anything to do with Umbridge. The fact that she's still a Ministry employee is more their fault than Dumbledore's, but all they know is that she attempted to interfere at Hogwarts. They have no way of knowing the extent of her sadism and ineptitude. Carol, wondering how Dumbledore can be blamed for what he doesn't know or has no control over From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 16:40:14 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:40:14 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162783 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > a_svirn: > > > That's the thing that bothers me about the bathroom scene, for > > instance. We are told quite unequivocally that Harry was oblivious > > to the danger of using an unknown jinx labelled "for enemies", > > which, of course, makes his case so very different from Draco's. But > > I just can't swallow it. After all he'd been through he *should* > > have known better than that. Quite suddenly from being "on the brink > > of manhood" he reverted to a silly little boy mode, and he hadn't > > been all that silly, even when he'd been little. > > Pippin: > No? Isn't he the guy who took off for Hogsmeade on a lark when > he knew there was a murderer on the loose who especially had > it in for him? And it wasn't fear of the consequences that made > him realize it was dumb, it was Lupin's disappointment with > him. > > Don't you know anyone who did some incredibly stupid and > reckless things as a teenager that they wouldn't have done > as a child and wouldn't do now as an adult? a_svirn: I know lots of people who acted stupidly as teenagers and went on acting stupidly as adults. Harry, however, isn't normally reckless and irresponsible. His actions in the third year were silly, yes, but he actually listened to Lupin, and afterwards he usually demonstrated more consideration for his and his friends' safety and welfare. (To the point of being rebuked by Sirius, who thought such attitude too tame). We know he kept his head while fighting with death eaters and Voldemort. He spent an entire year learning and *teaching* the defence magic. I find it completely implausible that his experience and his training failed him during a perfectly trivial (if dangerous) alteration with Draco Malfoy. > Pippin: > The necklace and the poison illustrate Draco's subconscious > conflict. a_svirn: What does it mean "subconscious conflict"? Does it mean that he wasn't conscious about possible consequences of his actions? Not likely. Does it mean that he was conscious about the consequences, but, as Magpie says, didn't dwell on them? That's only too likely, but the effort of pushing such thoughts from his mind must have been conscious. > Pippin: They didn't require Draco's personal > involvement, a_svirn: Considering that it was Draco who sent both, he was involved alright. Personally. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 16:46:46 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:46:46 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162784 Carol earlier: > Funny, I thought and still think that he was excusing himself on the > one count he can find that he's innocent of--he knew that Greyback > was part of the plan all along (being used to force Borgin to help > with the cabinets) but he didn't expect him to come along as part of > Draco's DE backup--finally, one charge on which he can plead > innocent! I don't think it has anything to do with honesty. > > Magpie: > Why on earth would Draco want to plead innocent to anything? He's > *not* the kid on the playground you describe--or if he is, it's the > DEs who are the headmaster here, not Dumbledore. He's been > desperately trying to prove he's not innocent (in DD's terms) for > the entire book. Bringing Fenrir in is a minor matter on top of all > he's done from the pov of someone judging Draco negatively for his > evil deeds. It's significant for Draco because he judges by the > exact opposite values. > > I see what a_svirn meant by Draco's already mentioning Greyback-- > that it's a heads-up that Draco is lying at the end, but I think > it's there for completely other reasons. First, most practically, it > introduces Fenrir Greyback by name for the first time and attaches > him to these plots. More importantly, it's further illustration of > the difference between Draco's talk and his actual feelings. He can > brag about Fenrir when he's not there, threaten people with him and > refer to him as a family friend, but in person he can't even look at > him. Carol: As an aside here, Draco's reference isn't the first mention of Greyback, though it's the first time his wolfish first name is given (Fenrir is Loki's wolf son in Norse mythology, a hint that Greyback was *born* a werewolf?). But Snape mentions Greyback, along with the Carrows and Yaxley, IMO, the DEs who show up on the tower, (and Avery and Malfoy, whom we already know) as DEs who pleaded the Imperius curse to excuse themselves from crimes after VW1 (HBP Am. ed. 26). So the alert reader recognizes the name Greyback when Draco uses it in "Draco's Detour" to threaten Borgin with his "family friend." Even if we don't know the significance of the name Fenrir, it's clear that there's something especially fearsome about this particular DE, and both Draco and Borgin know it. > Magpie: > I tried to think of what practical reason Draco could possibly have > for lying to Dumbledore about not bringing him in intentionally, and > the only thing I could come up with is that maybe he thought > Dumbledore would take back his offer if he knew about this last bit > of evil Draco committed. But that's pretty weak given that > Dumbledore's already shown he knows about worse things he's done, > and can see through his lies, and anyway Dumbledore is obviously > about to be killed so the offer is no longer realistic anyway. I > don't think Draco's emotions are played to show a lie when he says > the line. There's no indication of the truth as I think JKR would > write it if there was. Most importantly, Draco telling that > particular lie is far too huge a change in Draco's character. > > I just realized I was mostly talking about why Draco wouldn't *lie* > in this case, which was a_svirn's theory and not yours, but since > Draco's lying for the same reason as he's telling the truth in your > version, the same arguments apply. Carol responds: Thanks for realizing that I didn't say that Draco was lying, but, no, the same arguments don't apply. I said that I think he's making excuses, trying to get Dumbledore to see that he's innocent of bringing Greyback onto the tower even though he's guilty of everything else. IMO, he's beginning to see the implication of bringing in the DEs, but at least he didn't invite the disgusting Greyback. (He only used him to threaten Borgin.) But it's not a first sign of honesty, which is what I meant by my misleading sentence, "I don't think it has anything to do with honesty." (Mea culpa.) IMO, Draco has been telling the truth as he sees it (including Snape's attempt to "steal his glory") the whole time. But here's a chance for Dumbledore to see that at least he's not guilty of this one transgression. This much, at least, is not his fault. DD says, "I am a little shocked that Draco here invited you, of all people, into the school where his friends live. . . ." "'I didn't,' breathed Malfoy. He was not looking at Fenrir; he did not seem to want to even glance at him. 'I didn't know he was going to come--'" (593). Draco is starting to realize the implications of his actions. He's already realized that he can't kill Dumbledore. But for the moment, all he can do is say, in essence, I didn't invite *him.*" But he did invite the other DEs or know they were coming. He did fix the cabinet to allow them to come in and celebrate fixing it. He did disarm Dumbledore and intend, so he thought, to kill him, if only because he and his family would be killed if he didn't. Draco is in shock and still irresolute at this point, but he does plead innocent on this one count, as if he wants DD to know that this much, at least, is not his fault. The DEs, of course, don't understand the implications or care about Draco's feelings. They just want to get on with the killing of Dumbledore, preferably by Draco, but they're ready to do it themselves if he fails. Carol, who thinks that Draco is still teetering on the brink and could fall into either camp at this point and hopes that Snape's rescuing him twice will have some bearing on his choice From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 14 17:42:58 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:42:58 -0000 Subject: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162785 Magpie: Wrote: > why not just use this defense for Draco? > He's got every reason to think Harry is > going to kill him in the bathroom. All Harry did was enter a bathroom. Do you think everyone who enters a public restroom is out to kill you? Eggplant From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 14 17:55:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:55:35 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162786 > Carol responds: > Thanks for realizing that I didn't say that Draco was lying, but, no, > the same arguments don't apply. I said that I think he's making > excuses, trying to get Dumbledore to see that he's innocent of > bringing Greyback onto the tower even though he's guilty of everything > else. IMO, he's beginning to see the implication of bringing in the > DEs, but at least he didn't invite the disgusting Greyback. (He only > used him to threaten Borgin.) But it's not a first sign of honesty, > which is what I meant by my misleading sentence, "I don't think it has > anything to do with honesty." (Mea culpa.) IMO, Draco has been telling > the truth as he sees it (including Snape's attempt to "steal his > glory") the whole time. But here's a chance for Dumbledore to see that > at least he's not guilty of this one transgression. This much, at > least, is not his fault. Magpie: I'm a little more confused now, because we don't really seem to be disagreeing so much. It's like we're both arguing the same thing, yet aren't agreeing. The reason it feels like disagreement for me is that it seems like when you describe it you're skipping over the aspect of this line that *is* about honesty, even if it's not about honesty as a general principle. Draco has spent all of canon trying to play the role of DE-to-be. Squeamishness over doing something Dumbledore thinks is bad or that is bad is, imo, to him a weakness. Throughout the Tower scene he's trying to deny exactly that. He's bragging about being a killer but his physical state keeps contradicting what he's saying. His more grandiose claims sound childish even to him. He keeps saying he's going to kill Dumbledore, but he's not making a single move to kill him. Not only is he not looking for ways that this isn't his fault, he's trying to claim own responsibility for things he's not even comfortable with (as he's done before in canon, imo). He's not, as I think Peter Pettigrew would do (and I think Peter's story makes for an excellent contrast to this story), claiming to be not a normal guy who just had to do these things because he had no choice and didn't mean for some of that stuff to happen. He's trying to put himself across as someone who doesn't care about the bad consequences that have come of his actions, who welcomes them as a badass DE would. I think that's a big part of the significance of his line about Fenrir to DD, to me. He is saying it isn't his fault, yes. But I don't think he's just looking for technicalities or ways to disconnect his actions from their consequences. He hasn't been doing that throughout the scene. I think Draco's turnaround in the scene is much clearer: he begins by desperately trying to hide everything in him that shrinks from bloodshed, cruelty and murder. He's talking one way, with lots of physical signs that it's conflict with what he feels. Dumbledore eventually leads him to where they're able to speak more plainly. So when the DEs come in and Draco does, as you say, need Dumbledore to know that this one thing wasn't his fault, I think it's more significant than just trying to get out of blame like any kid would want to get out of punishment from a teacher. It's openly leaning more towards Dumbledore than the DEs. It's a defense of himself, but one that is entirely new for Draco and involved first accepting the very things he was trying to hide before. It's not a changing of sides from DE to DD, but his last line in canon does lean more one way than the other. Magpie: Wrote: > why not just use this defense for Draco? > He's got every reason to think Harry is > going to kill him in the bathroom. Eggplant: All Harry did was enter a bathroom. Do you think everyone who enters a public restroom is out to kill you? Magpie: But the standards you allow characters you support (not my real life standards), Draco's got reason to think Harry's going to kill him. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 17:54:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:54:12 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162787 Jen D. wrote: > Has it been mentioned that Snape's vow creates the sort of bond that Harry has with Wormtail. I mean, Snape did work to save Draco. Mayhap that will mean something when it gets down to the bone. Carol responds; Hi, Jen. If you're asking whether Snape's vow to protect Draco in itself creates a bond similar to the life debt, I don't think so. But I think that *acting* on that vow--saving Draco first from Sectumsempra and then from the DEs (and the Aurors?), creates some sort of obligation, if not a magical one then at least a debt of honor. Snape saved Draco's life at least once in HBP, got him out of Hogwarts before the Aurors showed up, prevented the DEs from doing anything to him, and kept him from committing murder. I expect that he also persuaded Voldemort not to kill or Crucio Draco since, after all, Draco successfully repaired the cabinet and got the DEs into Hogwarts against all expectations, making the murder of Dumbledore possible. And Draco also knows, though he pushed the implications from his mind, that Snape put his own life on the line to protect him by taking the UV in the first place. (He doesn't know about the third provision, but he knows about the UV itself.) So I think that Draco owes Snape a huge debt, whether or not that debt creates the same sort of bond between them as a Life Debt. (I don't think it does because of the UV; whatever Snape's motives, if Draco had died from Sectumsempra, he might have died, too, for failing to protect Draco to the best of his ability.) Still, even if the UV negates what might otherwise have been a Life Debt, I think and hope that Draco will realize how much he owes to Snape and how much Snape risked for his sake. If I'm right, that realization will enable Snape to slowly rebuild Dracos trust in him and even more slowly help him to decide for himself to join the battle against Voldemort. (Snape can't push him too hard or Draco might rebel again, and if he openly attempts to persuade him, he risks being reported by Wormtail as a traitor. Fortunately, Snape is both cunning and subtle and if anyone can help Draco choose the right side over the wrong one, it's Snape. But, ultimately, the choice has to be Draco's own or it isn't really a choice.) If you're interested in this idea, Magpie and I discussed it briefly in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149876 and the surrounding posts. Carol, hoping that this idea is what you had in mind From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 14 18:16:07 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:16:07 -0000 Subject: Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring Curse (Re: ESE, DDM., OFH, Grey..) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612140354s78f4ac30o821a960c9b381143@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162788 > Jen before: Besides, Voldemort wouldn't believe anyone else is > capable of killing Dumbledore if he himself hasn't suceeded. zgirnius: > I find this hard to believe. Snape is in the ideal situation to do > so because he has managed to win Dumbledore's trust. it's nto about > having more magical power than Voldemort, its about having a better > opportunity. Jen: Oh right, of course that's right. Hm, that has me thinking about something else. It's canon that Snape reported Dumbledore's injury (ring curse) to Voldemort and was questioned about it. So what if something about Snape's answer aroused more than the usual amount of suspicion in Voldemort? Something Snape couldn't completely hide with Occlumency, or at least not hide from the world's greatest Legilimens. Perhaps a very subtle flicker that only Voldemort would pick up on and interpret correctly as a connection between Dumbledore and Snape of more significance than enemy and double-agent. Now the ring happened several weeks before Spinner's End IIRC, so it's possible that event was the catalyst for Voldemort deciding to amend his plan to use Draco for punishment only. He may have determined that Snape would be involved as a practical measure as well as a test of loyalty (see below). > Debbie: > Voldemort's expectation that Snape will kill Dumbledore is nothing > more than a test of his loyalty. It is my longstanding view that > Voldemort has doubted Snape's loyalty at least since PS/SS, based > on the observations he made while stuck behind Quirrell's head, and > that it is little short of miraculous that Snape was accepted back > into the fold at the end of GoF, a supreme testament to Snape's > Occlumency skills and Voldemort's need for information. Jen: A test of loyalty is my thinking, too. Of the three possible outcomes I postulated for Voldemort's expectations when setting Snape the task, having Snape's actions confirm his loyalty (for one side or the other) was my favorite answer. I really think Voldemort's plans for Snape go all the way back to ordering him to work at Hogwarts. He wanted information, yes, but he also wanted someone placed at Dumbledore's side if and when he chose to move on Hogwarts and/or Dumbledore. There could be something to the fact that Snape was a young man and now history is repeating itself with Draco, two young men given highly significant missions. Maybe Snape's task was seen as just as impossible as Draco's, that no way would Dumbledore allow the man who overheard the prophecy and delivered it to Voldemort be allowed into Hogwarts. There may have even been a threat toward Snape's mum hanging over his head as punishment for delivering only part of the prophecy. I could see a similar scenario between Dumbledore & Snape as we saw with DD and Draco, Dumbledore offering help for Eileen as an act of mercy and compassion because he realized Snape was seeing 'how far Voldemort was willing to go' and balking. Then Dumbledore would feel it safe to give Snape the Hogwarts job knowing he wouldn't jeopardize Eileen's welfare. (I believe Eileen will be the one 'hidden more completely'.) In "The Seer Overheard" Dumbledore says this: "I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned---" And of course the rest is cut off. The reason he returned 'completely' maybe, 'absolutely'? Voldemort's decision to target the Potters is the canon reason for Snape's return and his greatest regret, but that cut-off point could be important to the story since JKR likes this technique. Debbie: > It was useful to have Snape as a double agent, but I read > Voldemort's desire to get Dumbledore out of the way as part of the > final preparation for the big showdown with Harry. Voldemort's > overconfidence is such that he believes that with Dumbledore out of > the way, Harry will be an easy mark -- remember how earlier he > denigrated Harry's skills. Jen: I totally agree. Just as Harry viewed Dumbledore as his 'last and greatest protector', so did Voldemort. And both of them underestimate how much stronger Harry's power will prove to be. Voldemort doesn't know he has such a power specifically, but LV has a history of underestimating Dumbledore's magic which was Lily's magic as well. > Debbie: > I read [Bella's] astonishment as deriving from two related > sources. First is the expectation that Snape will attempt to > slither out of tough assignments, and the first two clauses are not > really difficult at all. Second, she doesn't trust him. Snape > just finished offering up all sorts of proofs which are, really, > unprovable. Snape's vow -- to kill Dumbledore if Draco fails -- > will be much better proof, if it happens as Snape expects it will. Jen: We're saying similar things here I think. I was using Bella's astonishment as proof Snape could have stopped the Vow midway if he wanted to, that there was no magical reason he couldn't have backed out ('slithered out'). So Bella was astonished because he agreed to the final clause and doesn't stop the Vow, which is pretty much what you're saying, too (right?). I also agree Snape's explanations did nothing to make Bella trust him more. Though I'm still not sure why her trust mattered unless Snape was hiding his own disquiet, aware that Voldemort didn't view him as his most trusted servant like Narcissa was enthusing about. Debbie: > Grey!Snape is evidently not a uniform theory, or I would agree with > Jen on all these points. Jen: Hehe, then it wouldn't be Grey, right? So far we agree on the big points I'm pretty sure, that Snape really did turn to Dumbledore's side and HBP was a crucible for him. Hey, that would tie into the alchemy symbolism! Snape in the crucible being transformed? Just thought of that . Anyway, I view the tower as the endpoint for his decision-making and you believe he'll make it on- page in book 7. Jen, who agreed with everthing zgirnius said about Felix 'tweaking' circumstances as well as helping the user see the best choice in a given situation. From klotjohan at excite.com Thu Dec 14 17:44:19 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 17:44:19 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162789 > bboyminn: > > First let me say that I have no idea what 'literature' or > 'literary' means. Apparently, to some, it means dull > boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the > author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he > is smarter than you. And that by reading and approving of > his book, you are simply trying to bask in the glow of > the author's towering intellect. > > As far as 'criticism', I am equally baffled. Apparently, > a critic is someone who compains about everything, and > especially about whatever his area of alledged expertise > is. > > So, on that front, I'm afraid I won't be much help. > klotjohan: I see where you're coming from. For me criticism of the kind that the paper concerns is a way for me to look at literature from new directions, to question preconceived notions and just pry around in general. So far, I've learned some new things about Rowling and HP that I hadn't considered before, and hopefully I can transform all of it into something valuable. Your input is greatly appreciated! > Is JKR a great writer, not necessarily, but she IS a > great storyteller. I think of many 'folk' storytellers in > the oral tradition; the gramma suck, they use regional > idioms, and speak in lower than common language. In other > words, they do it all wrong, yet they manage to hold their > listener's spellbound. That is that magic of a great > story teller, and I think JKR has that magic. > > JKR is a master of turning the KEY of imagination. I've > brought this up before and have used Ron as an example. > How many of us have a crystal clear picture of Ron in our > mind? Yet, if you go back through the books and add up all > the descriptions of Ron, you will be very disappointed. He > is describe in only the most basic way, yet JKR tells us > just enough to turn the Ron 'key' in our mind, and from > behind that magical door a fully formed complete in detail > Ron springs. > JKR hasn't created Hogwarts and the rest of Harry's world, > we have, it has sprung from the magic well of our > imaginations, and that creates a very compelling reading > experience. > > > I think it is the very moral imperfection in JKR's world > that brings the moral message forward. Harry struggles to > do the right thing, and ultimately when it counts, he > makes the right decision; the greater, compassionate, > selfless decision. Yet, in the small things he struggles, > just like each and everyone of us struggles to know and > do what is right, and that is why we so deeply identify > with Harry, because we see our daily struggle for what > is right reflected in him. > > JKR does more by illustrating the perils of life, than > she ever could by preaching the morals of life. klotjohan: I'll snip most of your excellent summary of the books because of bandwidth consideration, but I'd like to compliment your insightfulness. Your description of the keys to the human imagination is something to ponder about, good stuff. The morality of Rowling's tales and the ethical fabric of her fictional world are fascinating to absorb. Complex characters are common in areas like anime, not in Hollywood. Much ambiguity is lost in the transition from books to movies I feel, though I still like them all. Focusing on perils rather than morals is naturally a great way to increase tension and excitement as well as attachment to the characters, and Rowling does a fine job with this. > bboyminn: > > Personally, though I only gave it one try, I found Tolkein > to be as dry as yesterday's toast. I need a story to move > much faster than that and to be far less of a struggle. > Which brings me back to JKR's compact writing style. If > the story is a bit dull, don't worry, in a few pages the > story will have made huge leaps and will have certainly > moved on to something more interesting. klotjohan: Different strokes :) LOTR had me instantly gripped as a twelve-year old, although I can see how others can perceive him as dull. It would be harder to think of HP as dull, so on that I agree. > > 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed > > something in her books because of outside influence? > > If so, what kind of influence and by whom? > > > > bboyminn: > > No, JKR knows her story to the very end, and I don't think > anything can cause her to change course. The story is what > the story is, and that is the story that will be told. If > we all hate her for (theoretically) killing Harry at the > end, then so be it. Besides, she a billionare now, what > would her motivation be to please fans? > > > So, minor fan question might get answered in the books, but > the overal course of the story is fixed. If Harry is dead, > then Harry is dead. > klotjohan: Seems reasonable enough. It's certainly easy to drift into the realm of speculation here. > bboyminn: > > Regarding 'commercial homogenization' and the Harry Potter > books, let's remember that careful planning and marketing > strategy did not make these books the success they are. > First the books became successful on their own merits, > then the marketing potential kicked in. > klotjohan: True and significant. I adressed this in another post. > 'Commercial homogenization' is a very real problem in our > modern world. Once corporations discover a working profit > making formula, they work hard to duplicate it. > What marketing > executive would have believed little kids would read a > 800 page book? So, if anything, the existance of Harry > Potter is breaking the homogenization of literature, and > leading to the discover, by a new generation of readers, > of the old tried and true classics. > klotjohan: Strong points, I think there are other examples of literature that or more in need of scrutinizing than HP. As you say, the books should do more good than bad if logic holds. > bboyminn: > > Were does this crazy ill-conceived idea come from that it > is every author's responsibility to create a picture > prefect model of the world? JKR is telling a specific > story about specific characters, and these characters are > who they are and do what they do. Her job is to tell the > story and nothing else. > > > As too the idea that JKR's books are too mainstream, again, > crazy talk. What is she suppose to do, intentionally write > her books poorly so they won't be popular, just so she can > sit around in poverty and obscurity extolling the literary > merits of her failed books? > > A book that is homogenous and mainstream is not a book that > appeals to the greatest number of people, but a books that > offends the fewest. That is the marketing goal of corporate > Americe today, to create bland uninteresting products that > offend the fewest number of people and are merely accepted > by the rest. > > JKR wrote a story, just as it came to her, people liked > the story. It is only 'mainstream' because it was a story > that struck a chord with so many people. The key in her > case is that the popularity came long before the hype. > klotjohan: Some fine arguments here, it really speaks against Zipes' line of reasoning on the matter. You may also be right about the publicity fuelling the desire to criticize Rowling, although Zipes states that the reaction to his critique was both surprising and unexpectedly massive. He poses the question of why these particular books have gained such recognition, and argues that phenomena like this "are driven by commodity consumption that at the same time sets the parameters of reading and aesthetic taste." It's certainly bold of him to propose that readers are "induced" to enjoy books of this kind in order "to conform to a cultural convention of amusement and distraction". I can see how this can apply to some types of books, but I'm not convinced about the conventionality that he tries to demonstrate in the HP series. Zipes voices many important problems, yet it's hard for me to fit Harry Potter into it all. > > The stories diverge more from the formula in the latest > > two books as well, interestingly enough; especially > > important is the death of major characters at the > > end(s). ... > > bboyminn: > > In modeling the story arc of the series, I like to think > of two funnels or two cones with their large ends placed > together. Up until GoF, JKR's world is expanding, as is > the story with it's many subplots and mysteries. Now > we have gone past the middle, and JKR's world is > contracting. She is funneling the story down to a single > climactic point, and I think that is what we are feeling > in the change of the tone and direction of the story. JRK > simply can't run off on fanciful expansion of a world that, > for story purposes, is already too big. > > I think that compression and contraction bears heavily on > the stories in the last two books (OotP/HBP). We want to > know more about the world; we want the expansion to go on > forever until we know every detail. But she has to tell us > less of the world, and concentrate on taking the story to > that final point. That is inevitable. > klotjohan: Again, very well put. That's one of the problems with writing a series with a fixed amount of volumes, although it may also heighten the overall quality. It can be very satisfying to know that something is complete and the story told in full. In some ways, Tolkien was more about the world than the stories. Not that the stories wasn't wonderful IMO, but he did after all set out to create a mythological world more concise than any other, and partly succeeded as well. Still, I admire Rowling's creative abilities and think Hogwarts is a fantastic place to be. > Just a few thoughts. > > Steve/bboyminn > Not so few, and I'm grateful for every one. David/klotjohan From klotjohan at excite.com Thu Dec 14 16:04:43 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 16:04:43 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162790 Pippin: > There are lists of changes and corrections at the Harry Potter Lexicon for > all the books. Here's a link to the one for CoS > http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/cs/changes_cs.html > klotjohan: That may come in handy, thanks! > Pippin: > > > Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but > > > Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her > > > teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before > > > Rowling developed a fandom of her own. > > > > > > > klotjohan: > > In what way do they remind you of fan fiction? I'm not too familiar with > > it I'm afraid. > > Pippin: > Nymphadora's grandiose name, unusual magical talent, strangely > colored hair, physical awkwardness and romantic interest in an established > character are typical of the sort of original characters created > by beginning fan fiction writers (in the world of fan fiction they are > derisively labelled "Mary Sues.") > > Luna, initially disdained, socially awkward and seemingly in a > world of her own, is another variation on the type. > klotjohan: OK, interesting stuff. I'm wary to dive into the expansive subject of fan fiction. > > > > klotjohan: > > I'd like to hear what you think about the > > "conventionality" and adherence to a pattern of the first books in the > > series. I agree that the expected can be soothing to the mind, but as > > you say it can be detrimantal as well. Did you experience any difference > > in this respect between the books, and if so was it a positive or > > negative change? > > Pippin: > I started reading the series just after Prisoner of Azkaban came out > in paperback. I had gathered enough from skimming various > reviews to know that there was something fascinating about this > Snape person and as I read the first book I was puzzled by > all this interest in what seemed to be a very ordinary > children's book villain. Of course I was floored by the ending. > > Now it seems she's turned Snape back into a conventional > villain after all. But I don't believe it... klotjohan: Neither do I, Rowling seems too fond of twists and turns for it to be so simple. > One thing I noticed is the way that Rowling treats female characters. > It seems that the women in the first few books are stuck in > conventional roles. However, if you pay attention to the details, the > first four books refer to female textbook authors, business owners, dark > magic fighters (the witch who banished the Bandon banshee), > professional Quidditch players, Ministry officials and headmistresses, > and of course the villainess later identified as Bellatrix Lestrange. > Wizarding society is actually well-diversified. > > People also said that she depicts all marriages as conventionally > happy, and all women as good mothers, but we hear about > Hagrid's mother who abandoned him, and the failed marriages > of Hagrid's parents and Tom Riddle's. > > It seemed to me that JKR was deliberately setting people up to > underestimate the role of women in magical society as a sort > of consciousness raising exercise. For example, you have to > read the description of the World Cup game very carefully to > find out that two of the Irish chasers are female. > > She likes to lead us into making judgements based on > our expectations and then show us that we were wrong. > > Pippin > klotjohan: Very nice reflections on the gender "problem". One can of course turn the text inside out looking for conventions and stereotypes, but it seems Rowling has tried her best to strike a balance between realism, entertainment and political correctness (for lack of a better term). As you point out, there are several indications that she was successful in this. Klotjohan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 18:49:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:49:15 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Holly and the Yew Tree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162791 The Holly and the Yew Tree To the tune of "The Holly and the Ivy" Dedicated to Potioncat for inspiring me to make this first feeble attempt at a FILK MIDI can be found at http://www.christmas-carol-music.org/Lead_Sheets/HollyAndIvy.mid Sung by Dumbledore after hearing Harry's story about the duel in the graveyard: The holly and the yew wood With Phoenix feather core Of all the wands that they could have picked >From Ollivander's store. O Priori Incantatem And the conflict of the wands The echoes coming into view And the sound of Phoenix song. The yew means transformation It is a long-lived tree. For Voldemort wants eternal life And immortality. O Priori Incantatem And the conflict of the wands The echoes coming into view And the sound of Phoenix song. The holly wood means rebirth And its berry red means blood. Will Harry sacrifice his life For the Wizarding World's good? O Priori Incantatem And the conflict of the wands The echoes coming into view And the sound of Phoenix song. The holly and the yew tree When they are both full grown Of all the trees that are in the wood The holly bears the crown. O Priori Incantatem And the conflict of the wands The echoes coming into view And the sound of Phoenix song. See also http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/yew.htm and http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=741138&lastnode_id=0 Carol, who intends this carol to be hopeful, if not exactly cheerful, and who knows that "wands" and "song" don't rhyme From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 14 19:06:52 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:06:52 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162792 > a_svirn: He spent an entire year learning and *teaching* the defence magic. I find it completely implausible that his experience and his training failed him during a perfectly trivial (if dangerous) alteration with Draco Malfoy. Pippin: Really? What would you expect from a quarterback who hadn't actually played or practiced football for a year? It's been pointed out that Harry didn't need skill in the past and reacted correctly by instinct. But he had help. In the bathroom there was no Fawkes to pass him the diary as a hint, no time-turned memory to serve as a guide, just "your own brain or guts or whatever--like you can think straight when you know you're about a second from being murdered or tortured, or watching your friends die--". That, as Hermione pointed out, was why they needed to practice. Harry stopped practicing and he screwed up. Nothing unbelievable about it. What would be unbelievable is if he had known just what to do. > > > Pippin: > > The necklace and the poison illustrate Draco's subconscious > > conflict. > > a_svirn: > What does it mean "subconscious conflict"? Does it mean that he wasn't conscious about possible consequences of his actions? Not likely. Pippin: The relationship between the conscious and the subconscious has been compared to a boy riding an elephant. But Draco doesn't know he's on an elephant -- he's not aware that most of his mind (Dumbledore calls it his heart) isn't with the program. Consciously, he's pleased with the necklace and the poison. They can get the job done and won't be traced to him. Unconsciously, he's pleased with them because they put him at a distance and haven't got a great chance of success. Draco's subconscious mind doesn't fill him with fears about the failure of his plans, so he doesn't feel pushed to scrutinize them. Reason (or a friend like Hermione) would tell him to think it all through carefully anyway, but Draco doesn't have any friends like that except for Snape, from whom he's feeling alienated. Draco doesn't have to make a conscious effort to push things out of his mind because his subconscious is doing a bang up job of making sure they never get there in the first place. Magpie: But the Cabinet Plan perfectly illustrates what you described above as the teen mentality and Draco's conflict. The Cabinet plot makes perfect sense as Draco's idea in that mindset, because it puts something between him and the murder. He can work so doggedly at fixing the Cabinet precisely because it is supposed to be a way to do murder but it clearly isn't. It's just getting DEs into the castle. It's only after they're there that he has to face the actual murder part. Pippin: I agree that Draco is able to work diligently on the cabinet because he doesn't associate it with the murder. What I'm questioning is whether he would be have been able to avoid the association if it was his idea to use the cabinets as an instrument of murder. There's also the idea that Draco thinks he doesn't need to be a qualified wizard to do his task, and that he doesn't want to share any of his glory with Snape. If that's his mindset, why would he think of using the cabinets for adult backup at all? Pippin From klotjohan at excite.com Thu Dec 14 18:56:46 2006 From: klotjohan at excite.com (thinmanjones1983) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 18:56:46 -0000 Subject: Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162793 Welcome Ceridwen! > I like the books or I wouldn't read them. My main reason for reading > books is to enjoy myself. I am not looking for social commentary or to > be informed of some cause or plight. I am an "escapist" reader. > I didn't read the books when I first heard of them. They > were 'trendy', and that often means a book has some transient morality > or some other politically correct viewpoint that I don't want shoved > down my throat. I did break down and get HP & The Philosopher's Stone > when the movie was about to come out, because my youngest wanted to see > the movie and I thought we should read the book first. > > Hee! Completely hooked. > klotjohan: Interesting that you bring up the lack of overshadowing moralities, I'm not that sensitive about it myself but it points directly to the core of the problem that you adress further down. Zipes describes it as a modern issue: "The general accumulative effect of this pop culture is to make consumers out of children, not responsible citizens concerned about the quality of their social life." According to him the "cultural socialization" of children is partly beyond the control of their parents. Now, I'm not sure if Zipes supports overt moralities in literature, but I suspect he's bothered about the emptiness of conventional mainstream culture. As I remarked in another post, I fail to see how this concerns Rowling since the HP series are arguably more meaningful and less homogenized than the average book a child might pick up today. I don't think Zipes want the 70's teaching style back, but rather a more diversified market with books that lets children make up their own minds on what to think. Again, I'm not sure why he sees a problem with HP. > Ceridwen: > The Harry Potter series is no Lord of the Rings. I wouldn't expect it > to be. Both have their elements of fantasy, but Rowling is going for a > different audience and a different effect than Tolkien. Frodo's > journey is more blatantly a hero's journey and quest, while Harry is at > school and suffering the same sorts of problems kids have faced since > schools began. The stories have a resonance on the level of a familiar > story told by friends, not on some epic scale. > klotjohan: Yes, it's less "classic" in that way, more intimate and perhaps therefore more human. I'd say it's a good thing that books aimed (partly) at children demonstrates that life isn't black and white, and that you should keep an open mind about other people. When set in a reasonably realistic environment as well, I'd consider it very suitable indeed. > Ceridwen: But I have also heard of an interview where > JKR states that she is writing the books to please herself. If that is > so, then criticism wouldn't play as much of a part as it would to a > writer who wants to write to please his or her audience. > klotjohan: Naturally, and from what I've gathered this was true in C.S. Lewis' case as well. To write something you yourself would want to read is an excellent idea. If she indeed is telling the truth, it becomes even more difficult to substantiate any arguments about commercialistic interests and/or homogenization. > Ceridwen: > > But, what is so bad about writing within a particular cultural > viewpoint? Even Science Fiction stories set on different planets have > some sort of cultural background. Homogenization? Is that another > term for 'brainwashing'? > klotjohan: I answered this in part above and in other posts, but it's a slippery term. Cultural background is probably neccessary if you're not going for something artfully abstract and experimental. Zipes argues, I think, against the equalization of the literary market caused by commercial interests. He seems to feel that too many books are bland commodities designed to enhance consumerism and establish buying habits at the earliest possible time in people's lives. Thanks a bunch for your contributions Ceridwen! Klotjohan From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 22:04:15 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:04:15 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162794 > >>Magpie: > > But the Cabinet Plan perfectly illustrates what you described > > above as the teen mentality and Draco's conflict. The Cabinet > > plot makes perfect sense as Draco's idea in that mindset, because > > it puts something between him and the murder. He can work so > > doggedly at fixing the Cabinet precisely because it is supposed > > to be a way to do murder but it clearly isn't. It's just getting > > DEs into the castle. It's only after they're there that he has to > > face the actual murder part. > >>Pippin: > I agree that Draco is able to work diligently on the cabinet > because he doesn't associate it with the murder. What I'm > questioning is whether he would be have been able to > avoid the association if it was his idea to use the cabinets > as an instrument of murder. Betsy Hp: I think he would have. Because it's a two part plan, isn't it? (1) Get backup into Hogwarts; (2) Kill Dumbledore. And what Draco is focused very heavily on is part (1). Which enables him to diligently *not* think about part (2). It's like when you have not-wanted guests coming over for the holidays. You concentrate on getting the house into shape and the big meal planned while carefully not thinking about having to deal with your alcoholic brother-in-law. Because Draco cannot duck out of planning Dumbledore's murder completely. For one, it's his assigned task. For another, he doesn't want to deal with the fact that he's not really comfortable planning a murder (which ducking out of would force him to contemplate). So he has to do *something*. And getting backup into Hogwarts is a challenging enough problem that he can focus all of his energy into it and not think about anything else. > >>Pippin: > There's also the idea that Draco thinks he doesn't need to > be a qualified wizard to do his task, and that he doesn't > want to share any of his glory with Snape. If that's his > mindset, why would he think of using the cabinets for > adult backup at all? Betsy Hp: Because whoever came through the cabinet, *Draco* would be in charge of them. Or at least, that's what he can tell himself. However, there's no way Draco can fool himself into thinking he's in charge of Snape. Their relationship is too established. Betsy Hp From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 22:03:04 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:03:04 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162795 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > zanooda: > > But it really surprises me that more level-headed people like > > Lupin or Hermione go along with Sirius without even trying to > > convince him that PP is his only hope to go free. > Pippin: > That scene, more than any other, convinces me that Lupin is the > Book Seven traitor. zanooda: Well, Pippin, I've been around long enough to know your point of view on Lupin. Unfortunately, I've never read any actual discussion on the issue, it was all before my time. I should find some old threads on ESE!Lupin and make myself familiar with your arguments before I will be able to give you my opinion. For now I can only say that I'm not an ESE!Lupiner (or is it ESE! Lupinist?), but I agree with you that Lupin behaves suspiciously in some scenes, including the one we discuss. What stops me from believing that Lupin is a traitor? I don't know, maybe it's because I like him? Or maybe because I don't see much sense in his actions even if we assume that he is evil. Take this same Shrieking Shack scene. I agree that Lupin acts suspiciously here. He takes active part in the "execution", although it's not in Sirius's best interests to kill PP. It's also not in Lupin's best interest, because after killing PP he'll become a hunted man for the rest of his life, just like Sirius. He starts to roll up his sleeves even before Sirius says "let's kill him together", giving the impression that it's him, not Sirius, who actually "leads the way" here (that's my personal opinion, of course, and I may be wrong). I don't know what is your take on this scene, but it looks like Lupin wants to silence PP at all costs, by killing him or at least by gagging him, which he does a little later. OK, it looks bad, but I don't understand what is the reason for ESE!Lupin to do all this. Does he think that PP knows that Lupin was "the other spy" and doesn't want him to tell? But, first of all, it seems to me that PP doesn't know anything, otherwise he would have said something, being in such a desperate situation. Besides, no one would have believed him, IMO. Everyone would just assume that he tries to frame Lupin as he framed Sirius, that's all. Anyway, as I said before, I need to read some of the previous argument before I have a definite opinion, but for now I don't see much logic in Lupin's actions, either he is evil or good. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 23:05:48 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:05:48 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162796 > >>Debbie: > > Grey!Snape is evidently not a uniform theory, or I would agree > > with Jen on all these points. > >>Jen: Hehe, then it wouldn't be Grey, right? So far we agree on > the big points I'm pretty sure, that Snape really did turn to > Dumbledore's side and HBP was a crucible for him. Hey, that would > tie into the alchemy symbolism! Snape in the crucible being > transformed? Just thought of that . Anyway, I view the tower > as the endpoint for his decision-making and you believe he'll make > it on-page in book 7. Betsy Hp: I think this encapsulates the issue I have with Grey!Snape. Either in HBP or in Book 7 Snape goes through a life-change where he finally figures out who he is and what he stands for, right? But, much as I love Snape (and I really, really love him ) I don't think he can be this active growth-wise. I feel like his job is to be a sort of dark mirror for Harry. And I think an important moment of growth for Harry will be when the "real Severus Snape" is finally revealed to him. But I do think it'll be a revelation rather than Snape *becoming* the person Harry needs to see. IOWs, I think Grey!Snape makes it a bit too much about Snape. (Can you belive I'm making this argument?!?) Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 23:21:53 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:21:53 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162797 > > a_svirn: > He spent an entire year learning and *teaching* the defence magic. > I find it completely implausible that his experience and his training > failed him during a perfectly trivial (if dangerous) alteration with > Draco Malfoy. > > Pippin: > Really? What would you expect from a quarterback who hadn't > actually played or practiced football for a year? a_svirn: I would expect him to play football. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that he wasn't on the top of his form, but I would be surprised very greatly if he forgot completely the rules of the game. > Pippin: > It's been pointed out that Harry didn't need skill in the past and > reacted correctly by instinct. But he had help. In the bathroom > there was no Fawkes to pass him the diary as a hint, > no time-turned memory to serve as a guide, just "your own brain > or guts or whatever--like you can think straight when you know > you're about a second from being murdered or tortured, or watching > your friends die--". That, as Hermione pointed out, was why > they needed to practice. Harry stopped practicing and he > screwed up. Nothing unbelievable about it. What would be > unbelievable is if he had known just what to do. a_svirn: He didn't exactly screw-up. His reflexes were as good as ever, and he defended himself, didn't he? It's just that he was a bit over- enthusiastic about it, as Lupin would say. > Pippin: > The relationship between the conscious and the subconscious > has been compared to a boy riding an elephant. But Draco > doesn't know he's on an elephant -- he's not aware that most > of his mind (Dumbledore calls it his heart) isn't with the program. > Consciously, he's pleased with the necklace and the poison. > They can get the job done and won't be traced to him. > > Unconsciously, he's pleased with them because they put him at a > distance and haven't got a great chance of success. Draco's > subconscious mind doesn't fill him with fears about the failure of > his plans, so he doesn't feel pushed to scrutinize them. a_svirn: I very much doubt that Dumbledore called Draco's mind his heart. That would be too confusing. And if he is so pleased with himself consciously and unconsciously how come he is in the state of conflict? > Pippin: > Draco doesn't have to make a conscious effort to push things out > of his mind because his subconscious is doing a bang up job > of making sure they never get there in the first place. a_svirn: I repeat, where do you see the conflict then? That's quite apart from the question of how one can plot a murder without giving it a conscious thought. Quite an achievement. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 14 23:59:52 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:59:52 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162798 > Magpie: > I see what a_svirn meant by Draco's already mentioning Greyback-- > that it's a heads-up that Draco is lying at the end, but I think > it's there for completely other reasons. First, most practically, it > introduces Fenrir Greyback by name for the first time and attaches > him to these plots. More importantly, it's further illustration of > the difference between Draco's talk and his actual feelings. He can > brag about Fenrir when he's not there, threaten people with him and > refer to him as a family friend, but in person he can't even look at > him. a_svirn: I don't think we can dismiss that as bragging, though. Draco's bragging usually fails to impress his audience; in fact, the effect it often produces is quite the opposite one. Yet the old Ollivander was certainly impressed. Whatever Draco showed him, it must have been sufficiently convincing; and Grayback probably did indeed monitor his progress with the cabinet. Nor do I think that it was just to introduce the name. There could have been other possibilities, Lupin and his assignment being the most obvious one. I think it was mentioned in that particular context, precisely because Rowling wanted us to associate it with Draco and his mission. I concede that Draco might not have been technically lying. Probably he didn't know who was going to come, and who wasn't. After all, it's not like he was the one who gave orders. But it seems to me that he wasn't exactly honest either. He'd known very well that Grayback was likely to come. > Magpie: > When Draco quasi-admits to Dumbledore he's not a killer (he doesn't > even say it himself, just admits he doesn't think he has any options > but to kill and starts to accept the offer) that's a huge thing for > Draco to admit. It's his big secret that he's carried since year one > and that much of his personality is devoted to covering up (badly). > He's always loudest about proclaiming his love of evil deeds and > ability to do them himself because he can't. He spends most of the > scene on the Tower still desperately trying to keep this mask on. > Dumbledore sees through it, of course, and just keeps saying "You're > not a killer" to all of Draco's bragging about being a DE. That's > Draco lying to DD--with signs that he's doing so. When Draco starts > to lower his wand he is admitting that he would rather have his > family protected and not have to kill Dumbledore to get it. I don't > think he's ever in his life admitted even to himself that he would > make that choice. a_svirn: Oh, yes, Dumbledore said that he's not a killer. But what does it mean? He didn't say, "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer", because they both knew that Draco did stoop to murder. What did he actually say to him, then? That he was no good as a Voldemort's hit-man and would be much better off under the Order's protection? In that case Draco's lowering his wand would mean only admitting his own limitations. A sure sign of growing-up, but little else, I am afraid. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 01:16:06 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 01:16:06 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162799 > >>a_svirn: > I don't think we can dismiss that as bragging, though. Draco's > bragging usually fails to impress his audience; in fact, the effect > it often produces is quite the opposite one. Yet the old Ollivander > was certainly impressed. Whatever Draco showed him, it must have > been sufficiently convincing... > Betsy Hp: Right, but it's what Draco *showed* Borgin that did the trick. Borgin was already frightened and changing his tune when Draco followed through with the Fenrir threat. (The bragging wasn't the powerful bit.) > >>a_svirn: > I concede that Draco might not have been technically lying. > > But it seems to me that he wasn't exactly honest either. He'd known > very well that Grayback was likely to come. Betsy Hp: But that's an assumption. And I'm not sure what you're basing it on. Why should Draco have felt Fenrir was likely to come? > >>a_svirn: > Oh, yes, Dumbledore said that he's not a killer. But what does it > mean? He didn't say, "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer", > because they both knew that Draco did stoop to murder. Betsy Hp: Who did Draco murder? Also, I think you've got the gradations of the words wrong. One can be a killer without being a murderer (a soldier, for example). But one cannot be a murderer without being a killer. For someone to murder they've had to kill. > >>a_svirn: > What did he actually say to him, then? That he was no good as a > Voldemort's hit-man and would be much better off under the Order's > protection? In that case Draco's lowering his wand would mean only > admitting his own limitations. A sure sign of growing-up, but > little else, I am afraid. Betsy Hp: And yet, Draco proved himself well able to be Voldemort's hitman. He had Dumbledore dead to rights. So Draco doesn't lower his wand because he's in a weak position. That he's in a position of strength, a position that someone who *was* a killer could have operated quite comfortably from, is what makes Draco's lowered wand so powerful. Powerful enough that if effects Harry. Betsy Hp From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 15 03:17:12 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 03:17:12 -0000 Subject: FILK: Azkaban Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162800 All the recent filking activity on HP4GU makes it seems like old times again. Here's my latest, not an Xmas filk this time...... Azkaban To the tune of Ray Stevens' Guitarzan A You-Tube recording here (Stevens' recording with boring visuals): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvGxXQU6bw4 or (a concert performance) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErnDPzUG6Y4 THE SCENE: A courtyard within Azkaban. Just as the late Johnny Cash used to perform at Folsom Prison, so too would magic vocalist STUBBY BOARDMAN interrupt his retirement to sing at occasional benefit concerts at Azkaban Prison. This particular concert took place during Harry's second year, while HAGRID was briefly incarcerated. NOTE: Dementors find Boardman's music to be totally "retro", and so they did not attend his performance, thus missing out on all the valuable information contained in BOARDMAN'S song. STUBBY BOARDMAN: He's serving lifetime For doing a crime His cell is a kennel when he's a canine Animagic design Even though he's confined, he'll decline to whine. They say he's Voldy's heir - "Yeah, right," hear him swear. He's a hound who'll prepare to depart with a flair, Simply vanish in air. "Kinfolk said, `Black, move away from there!'" He found a *Prophet* crossword to pursue Then chanced to view an old pal, Pettigrew And knew the double-crossin' rat debuted with the crew of that You- Know-Who, Who all got Black subdued & framed for murder, too! Get him, get him, get him, get him! Owww! Azkaban, he's in Azkaban A place he can't stand But he's a plan, Azkaban PADFOOT (howling): Ow-woo-wow-oo-wow! Ow-woo-wow-oo-wow! , etc. STUBBY: They got a girl named Bell She's mean as hell With a Crucio spell And thinks Voldy's pretty swell She would love to rebel But she's stuck in her cell When she casts her curse She really does her worst So the fellers tell Come on, cast one, Bell! BELLATRIX: Voldy, Voldy, oh Voldy, ska-vaa-vooo-volley-vay, Voldy, wow Voldy, etc. STUBBY: How about that, let's hear it for Bell! (At STUBBY'S cue, HAGRID steps forward ? he is looking highly disoriented, and, under the stress of Azkaban's dementors, has reverted to a rather Grawp-like condition ..) They've got a groundkeeper who likes Creepy creatures, he's a kind o' weeper As he's getting in deeper Come on, your turn, guy! Sing one, `keeper! HAGRID (Grawp-like): Ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha, etc. STUBBY: Let's hear it for the `keeper! Ev'ry day it's torment they get from dementors Bell gets bent and the `keeper laments The dog's not content He will never relent Till he's found the scent Of that Pete rodent, let's hear him vent! Let's hear `em right now! (PADFOOT, BELLATRIX & HAGRID all sing simultaneously) PADFOOT (howling): Ow-woo-wow-oo-wow! Ow-woo-wow-oo-wow! , etc. BELLATRIX: Voldy, Voldy, oh Voldy, ska-vaa-vooo-volley Voldy, oh Voldy, etc. HAGRID (Grawp-like): Ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha-ooh-ha, etc. BELLATRIX (spoken): Shut up, you damn mutt, I'm trying to curse! STUBBY: Get him, get him, get him, get him! Owww! Azkaban, it'll mangle, man! A place he can't stand But he's a plan, Azkaban!........ - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 15 04:03:53 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 23:03:53 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Draco and bathroom. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45821EA9.9050607@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162801 > Magpie: Wrote: >>why not just use this defense for Draco? >>He's got every reason to think Harry is >>going to kill him in the bathroom. Eggplant: > All Harry did was enter a bathroom. Do you think everyone who enters a > public restroom is out to kill you? Bart: Why do I have this incredible urge to say that Colonel Mustard did it with the lead pipe in the Conservatory? Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 15 04:51:09 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 04:51:09 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162802 > Betsy Hp: > I think this encapsulates the issue I have with Grey!Snape. Either > in HBP or in Book 7 Snape goes through a life-change where he > finally figures out who he is and what he stands for, right? But, > much as I love Snape (and I really, really love him ) I don't > think he can be this active growth-wise. Jen: You and others have argued Grey makes too much of Snape, that the story will veer off from Harry to Snape. To me Grey is already front and center! HBP told us what we need to know about the life Snape lived and how it came crashing down around him. He was once the Half-Blood Prince, a name that meant something significant to him, and now...he's left with nothing. I didn't mean Snape went through character growth in HBP, what I meant by the crucible was that a confluence of events forced Snape out in the open (ironically on the wrong side). While Dumbledore dealt in mercy and Voldemort in savagery, Snape walked a tightrope between them engaging in neither one. He seemed to prefer that, he didn't want to be a toe-the-line Order member or a snivelling DE, he's above those jobs: "..you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No--that's your job isn't it?"....there was a curious, almost satisfied expression on Snape's face when he answered. "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job." (OOTP, chap. 26) Now Snape is saddled with Draco and the Chosen One and suddenly Dumbledore's problems of compassion and mercy are Snape's problems. He detests the position he's in with every fiber of his being, he's avoided being attached to any person or group because that could lead to weakness and yet...he'll still choose to follow Dumbledore's plan. (I'm not holding my breath for Snape to learn about mercy though .) Betsy: > I feel like his job is to be a sort of dark mirror for Harry. And > I think an important moment of growth for Harry will be when > the "real Severus Snape" is finally revealed to him. But I do > think it'll be a revelation rather than Snape *becoming* the person > Harry needs to see. Jen: Harry doesn't understand what Dumbledore did, that you can be on the same side even when you don't personally like someone or share his values. Harry needs a lesson in the grey area of life ;-), not finding out the real Severus Snape is a lot like him on the inside. Draco will be Harry's biggest revelation imo, his nemesis from the same generation who *does* change before his eyes in terms of loyalty. Betsy: > IOWs, I think Grey!Snape makes it a bit too much about Snape. (Can > you belive I'm making this argument?!?) Jen: No! Just as odd as me arguing so fervently when I hoped Snape would go away in book 6. What's up with us?! From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 05:11:56 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:11:56 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's plans in HBP. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612142111t52994265v7ed7ae854917b0eb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162803 Carol: Carol, wondering how Dumbledore can be blamed for what he doesn't know or has no control over Lynda: I've often wondered the same thing. For some strange reason, when I read a book and a character in the book says "I'm not omniscient!" which DD does in the series, I tend to believe that the character is not omniscient. I realize that DD keeps a close eye on the kids and knows far more about what's going on than is externally revealed in the series so far, but he's never, to my mind been portrayed as infallible. Just a different way of viewing the books than some others have, I guess. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 15 05:46:11 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 05:46:11 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Horcrux Song Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162804 The Horcrux Song A Filk by Pippin To the Tune of The Dreydl Song wishing a very Harry Hannukah to all I had a little horcrux I made it from a ring When Dumbledore destroyed it It gave his hand a sting Chorus: Oh, horcrux, horcrux, horcrux I've hidden them away And if nobody finds them Immortal I wil stay. I had a little horcrux I made it from a book A basilisk fang stabbed it And covered it with ook. I had a little horcrux I hid it in a cup That once belonged to Helga And Hepzibah stored up. I had a little horcrux A locket made of gold They say RAB stole it But how remains untold I had a little horcrux It might be in a snake But living things are tricky That could be a mistake. I had a little horcrux It might be in the sword That Dumbledore was guarding So safely in his horde. I had a little horcrux It might be in a crown Above that busted statue Where Harry set it down I had a little horcrux It might be in the scar On Harry Potter's forehead But that would be bizarre! I had a little horcrux I laid it on a shelf And if you want more verses Just make them up yourself From rkdas at charter.net Fri Dec 15 12:32:54 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:32:54 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162805 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Jen D. wrote: > > Has it been mentioned that Snape's vow creates the sort of > bond that Harry has with Wormtail. I mean, Snape did work to save > Draco. Mayhap that will mean something when it gets down to the bone. > > > Carol responds; > Hi, Jen. If you're asking whether Snape's vow to protect Draco in > itself creates a bond similar to the life debt, I don't think so. SNIPPED > > So I think that Draco owes Snape a huge debt, whether or not that debt > creates the same sort of bond between them as a Life Debt. (I don't > think it does because of the UV; whatever Snape's motives, if Draco > had died from Sectumsempra, he might have died, too, for failing to > protect Draco to the best of his ability.) Still, even if the UV > negates what might otherwise have been a Life Debt, I think and hope > that Draco will realize how much he owes to Snape and how much Snape > risked for his sake. SNIPPED> > If you're interested in this idea, Magpie and I discussed it briefly > in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149876 and the > surrounding posts. > > Carol, hoping that this idea is what you had in mind Hi Carol, Actually this discussion, as simple as it seems, makes me wonder (as it often does) exactly how the rules of JKR's world work. The debt that was created when Harry spared Wormtail seems to hinge on the fact that Wormtail realizes how he has been spared. Can we say that much of Draco? He is very good at re-writing events to suit himself and he may well not recognize what Snape did in some many instances as any sort of extrordinary actions (as Wormtail certainly did, witness his fawning gratitude...). I thank you for pointing out we don't know exactly what an unbreakable vow means in this instance although it doesn't seem possible that it couldn't create a life debt, when someone agrees to put his own life on the line to protect yours, but we just don't know. I don't think Snape is the sort that would try to prode Draco into understanding they have a life-debt relationship. He never seemed to like Draco much at all except for the pain he could cause Harry. I can see him bullying Draco into realizing they have an alliance of sorts. But thanks for exploring this with me a bit. I will go to your discussion with Magpie. Jen D. off to make the lunches... From rklarreich at aol.com Fri Dec 15 07:58:16 2006 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 07:58:16 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162806 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Kelly Whiteman (Bonnidune) wrote: > > > > My point here is that according to canon, Harry logically assumed > that PP would have been imprisoned for life, not D-Kissed. So, > although I think his concern for Sirius and Lupin not becoming > murderers was the motivation, I also think it's significant that he > knew he was also saving PP's life. > > Carol responds: > I *do* have my copy of PoA handy, and it *does* show Harry > ready to turn PP over to the Dementors. > [snip quote from PoA] > > However, you're right that he assumed that handing PP over to the > Dementors meant sending him back to Azkaban. He hadn't yet seen what > they would do to Barty Crouch Jr. I should have included the rest of > the quotation. Roberta: You seem to be saying that Harry and Pettigrew assumed Pettigrew would be sent to Azkaban, but in reality Pettigrew would have been kissed. However, being handed over to the Dementors is not synonymous with being kissed. Everyone who goes to Azkaban is handed over to the Dementors. And as Kelly points out elsewhere in the post to which you were replying, the only people in canon so far who have either been kissed or been specifically condemned to be kissed are Sirius and Barty Crouch, Jr., both of whom are Azkaban escapees. The kiss was probably decreed because both men have proved through their escape that sending them to Azkaban was not sufficient to protect the wizarding world from them. We can't assume that Pettigrew, who has never been convicted of anything, would be sentenced to be kissed right off the bat. Sirius was sentenced to life in Azkaban for killing thirteen people and for betraying the Potters (although this second crime was not publicized). It's reasonable to expect that Pettigrew would have gotten the same sentence for the same crime if they had made it up to the castle. (And Pettigrew only killed twelve people! Maybe they'll let him out on parole in eighty years.) Roberta From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Fri Dec 15 13:44:56 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:44:56 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162807 > > Carol responds; > > Hi, Jen. If you're asking whether Snape's vow to protect Draco in > > itself creates a bond similar to the life debt, I don't think so. > SNIPPED > > > > So I think that Draco owes Snape a huge debt, whether or not that debt creates the same sort of bond between them as a Life Debt. (I don't think it does because of the UV; whatever Snape's motives, if Draco had died from Sectumsempra, he might have died, too, for failing to protect Draco to the best of his ability.) Still, even if the UV negates what might otherwise have been a Life Debt, I think and hope that Draco will realize how much he owes to Snape and how much Snape risked for his sake. Jen D: > Actually this discussion, as simple as it seems, makes me wonder (as it often does) exactly how the rules of JKR's world work. The debt that was created when Harry spared Wormtail seems to hinge on the fact that Wormtail realizes how he has been spared. Dungrollin: I'm not so sure about that. I was thinking about it recently, there's an interview in which JKR said that Ginny didn't owe Harry a life debt from when he saved her in CoS, though she clearly recognises that he saved her. I think it's more likely to be something about being in a clear position to save the life of someone you have every right to want dead, and saving them anyway. You do it and they survive, you don't do it and they die. Harry saving Peter thus fits. James saving Snape makes me wonder what it was Snape had done to make James want him dead. I know I've always argued and argued (and made comic vomiting noises in a childish manner) against any form of Snape loves Lily, but I have to admit that when this question popped into my head, the following thought was "Cherchez la femme". P'raps Snape snogged Lily. No *love*, just a snog. (I'm still 100% against the idea that it was Snape's love of Lily which made him leave Voldemort when he found out how he was interpreting the prophecy.) Jen D: I thank you for pointing out we > don't know exactly what an unbreakable vow means in this instance > although it doesn't seem possible that it couldn't create a life > debt, when someone agrees to put his own life on the line to protect yours, but we just don't know. Dungrollin: I agree with you that it's not impossible in principle. If it works as above, Harry could make an Unbreakable Vow to protect, for example, Voldemort. A clear decision to put his own life on the line for someone he would far rather see dead. Though I think it would be fulfilling the vow - i.e. actually saving Voldemort from death (in a Snape-Draco Sectumsempra kind of situation) - that would create the actual life debt. However, in practice, how likely would Harry be to swear such a vow? Jen D: I don't think Snape is the sort that would try to prode Draco into understanding they have a life-debt relationship. He never seemed to like Draco much at all except for the pain he could cause Harry. Dungrollin: I've always thought that Snape likes Draco in the same way that Hagrid likes Harry, because he reminds him of himself as a child. Two childless (we assume) father-figures who have an instinctive fondness for a child in whom they see so much of themselves. But that's just my opinion. However, I'm fairly sure that Harry at least thinks Snape likes Draco. He certainly thinks something like that in the first potions lesson of PS. I think the narrator mentions something similar again when Harry is so astonished at the way that Draco talks back to Snape when he overhears them at Slughorn's Christmas Party. Though it could be about Draco liking Snape - I don't have my book to hand. So, no, I don't think that Draco owes Snape a life debt, unless the conversation that Hagrid overheard was Snape saying he didn't want to protect Draco any more, perhaps because Draco did or said something unforgiveable to Snape off-screen. But even then... no, I can't imagine Snape actively wanting Draco dead, and so saving him from the Sectumsempra (IMO) wouldn't set up a life debt. Dungrollin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 14:58:15 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:58:15 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162808 Jen: You and others have argued Grey makes too much of Snape, that > the story will veer off from Harry to Snape. To me Grey is already > front and center! HBP told us what we need to know about the life > Snape lived and how it came crashing down around him. He was once > the Half-Blood Prince, a name that meant something significant to > him, and now...he's left with nothing. Carol responds: I don't think I've made this particular argument (I can never have too much of Snape), but I do think that the key point is not a change of heart in Snape but the revelation of his loyalties, which will come as a shock to Harry. There's the whole problem of point of view (I'd like to see another "Spinner's End"-style chapter, but there won't be many--the story is usually told from Harry's pov), and it's Harry who has to learn Dumbledore's lessons (mercy, forgiveness, trust in Snape). Snape is Snape, and he's not going to change, either in essential character or in loyalty, IMO. We, and Harry, will simply find out that he is and remains DDM (or whatever). There's no room in the story for Snape's own internal conflict, which has long since been suppressed or overcome. (The argument in the forest is not about old Slytherin or DE loyalties returning; it's just about something DD wants him to do that he thinks isn't working or won't work.) At any rate, HBP is in some ways Snape's book. He's front and center, with major scenes in three or four chapters and several minor scenes, he finally has the DADA position, he makes the crucial UV (we finally get to see him as he appears to the Death Eaters), we learn what he's told Voldy that's enabled him to survive (rather different from the actual truth), we see his healing skills and his duelling skills, we see him *appear* to turn traitor and yet continue to save and protect Harry. And all the time, throughout the book, there's the parallel motif of the Half-blood Prince, who improves Potions and invents clever spells and reminds Harry of Snape's lesson on Bezoars, an unknown teenage boy whom Harry sees as a friend, who helps him out in many ways--and turns out to be Snape. But at the end of the book, all Harry sees is Snape as murderer of Dumbledore. Sad to say, Snape has had his book. We'll find out more about him, of course. We'll have to for the reveal/reversal to make sense. But most of it will be snippets of Snape's past and none of it will be insight into the inner workings of Snape's mind. At most, I expect one key scene from the perspective of an objective, dramatic third-person narrator and one or two scenes with Harry and Snape with the usual third-person limited narrator presenting the scene from Harry's pov. > Jen: > I didn't mean Snape went through character growth in HBP, what I > meant by the crucible was that a confluence of events forced Snape > out in the open (ironically on the wrong side). While Dumbledore > dealt in mercy and Voldemort in savagery, Snape walked a tightrope > between them engaging in neither one. Carol: So far, I agree with you. Jen: Now Snape is saddled with Draco and the Chosen One and suddenly Dumbledore's problems of compassion and mercy are Snape's problems. He detests the position he's in with every fiber of his being, he's avoided being attached to any person or group because that could lead to weakness and yet...he'll still choose to follow Dumbledore's plan. (I'm not holding my breath for Snape to learn about mercy > though .) Carol: I agree that he detests having to go back to Voldemort, but that was always part of the plan from at least GoF and possibly before, as, I think, was giving Snape the cursed DADA position when he was most needed, a year of passing on his skills and knowledge to the students before the DADA curse forced his return to Voldemort and, as you so beautifully put it, " a confluence of events forced Snape out in the open (ironically on the wrong side)." But, IMO, what Snape is now saddled with is not attachment to any person or group (though Draco could prove to be a thorn in his side) but the agony of intensified remorse. If he felt remorse for his part in the Potters' being targeted and killed by Voldemort, what must he feel now at having been forced, not by the UV alone but by the "confluence of events," to kill Dumbledore? And now, having lost everything, he must pretend to be loyal to Voldemort. Absolutely, he "detests the position he's in with every fiber of his being"--except, possibly, for the danger and the challenge, which are greatly intensified by his status as fugitive criminal and Harry's almost insurmountable antipathy. But you don't need to hold your breath for Snape to show mercy. He has already done so. Look again at the healing scene in the Sectumsempra chapter. Snape is forgiving Draco for fighting the Chosen One and trying to kill Dumbledore, and he is letting him continue his assignment, very much against Snape's will, IMO, because Dumbledore believes in choices and second chances. We see Snape as gentle as a mother singing a lullabye in that scene before he reverts to his normal self to deal with Harry. And later, of course, he rescues Draco from the DEs (and the Aurors) by getting him safely out of Hogwarts, having first prevented him from becoming a killer. In "The flight of the Prince," he has *Harry* at his mercy. He knows what spell Harry'ss going to cast, but he simply deflects the spells rather than fighting him. He saves him from a Crucio. And he stands over him when Harry is wandless and helpless, taunting him with "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!" and his only response is an anguished "Don't--call me coward." (I think he wanted to say. Don't say that! I didn't want to kill him!" Which, of course, he can't say under the circumstances.) He could have killed or Crucio'd Harry or Stunned and kidnapped him, but he does none of those things. He hates and possibly envies Harry, but he shows him mercy, only at the very end venting his feelings with what appears to be a stinging hex, for which he pays the penalty of being chased off the grounds by Buckbeak. But snape is indeed capable of mercy and has already shown it. Jen: Harry doesn't understand what Dumbledore did, that you can be on the same side even when you don't personally like someone or share his values. Harry needs a lesson in the grey area of life ;-), not finding out the real Severus Snape is a lot like him on the inside. Draco will be Harry's biggest revelation imo, his nemesis from the same generation who *does* change before his eyes in terms of loyalty. Carol: Exactly. The enemy who will *change* is Draco. The seeming enemy who will be revealed as being on his side (DDM!) is Snape (assuming that we're right). So where is Gray!Snape? I don't see him. Carol, noting that neither Snape nor Draco is Harry's nemesis (that role is reserved for Voldemort) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 15:46:09 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:46:09 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162809 Roberta: > > You seem to be saying that Harry and Pettigrew assumed Pettigrew > would be sent to Azkaban, but in reality Pettigrew would have been > kissed. Carol responds: That's what I originally thought, yes, but I was conceding in this post that the rest of the quotation, which I had snipped, suggested otherwise. But, nevertheless, Harry saves Wormtail's life *only* to turn him over to the Dementors, who will take him back to Azkaban, and even if they don't suck out his soul, he'll be in their power, suffering despair and even madness. And Harry is fine with that. (Had Hary not prevented Lupin and Black from murdering Pettigrew, Black *would* have had his soul sucked and most likely werewolf!Lupin wouldn't have fared much better.) Roberta: However, being handed over to the Dementors is not synonymous with being kissed. Everyone who goes to Azkaban is handed over to the Dementors. Carol: Yes. That's what I was conceding. But to be sent to Azkaban is to have the Dementors for company. They may not suck out your soul, but they will suck out every bit of happiness in you--and your sanity along with it. Look at the mental state of Sirius Black after twelve years, and he could fight it by turning into a dog. Being sent to Azkaban, as Harry knows, is not like being sent to a modern prison with gym equipment and computer privilieges for the prisoners. It's a living hell. Harry, of all people, knows what Dementors can do to the mind. His Boggart is a Dementor, after all. Roberta: And as Kelly points out elsewhere in the post to which you were replying, the only people in canon so far who have either been kissed or been specifically condemned to be kissed are Sirius and Barty Crouch, Jr., both of whom are Azkaban escapees. > We can't assume that Pettigrew, who has never been convicted of > anything, would be sentenced to be kissed right off the bat. Sirius > was sentenced to life in Azkaban for killing thirteen people and for > betraying the Potters (although this second crime was not > publicized). It's reasonable to expect that Pettigrew would have > gotten the same sentence for the same crime if they had made it up to the castle. (And Pettigrew only killed twelve people! Maybe they'll let him out on parole in eighty years.) Carol: On a sadly ironic note, regarding your remark that "Pettigrew only killed twelve people," we could add that those twelve people were Muggles, which might lessen the crime in the WW's eyes. But he did betray the Potters (though I don't think that's why Sirius Black was arrested or what he was sentenced for). So reserving soul-sucking for escapees in an odd way shows the WW's priorities. Maybe if the Dementors sucked the souls of all the murderers or those who used Unforgiveable Curses, they wouldn't have enough prisoners to suck the happiness out of. So take your pick. Which is worse, having your soul sucked out so that you're robbed of your identity and your memories or whatever losing your soul entails or sitting in a cold, bleak cell in Azkaban for the rest of your life with only the swooping Dementors and your own despair and self-hatred for company? As Sirius Black says, many prisoners died or went mad within a year of being sent there. Barty Crouch Jr. was on the point of dying when his parents (foolishly) rescued him. So Harry's mercy in sparing Wormtail is, IMO, not an act of kindness to Wormtail, who might be better off dead than being sent to that hellhole. It's his father's friends, Lupin and Black, that Harry saves from a terrible fate--and from the guilt of having performed the act of murder. Carol, remembering Barty Jr.'s terror of the Dementors in the Pensieve scene in GoF and picturing Wormtail in his place From rkdas at charter.net Fri Dec 15 16:25:35 2006 From: rkdas at charter.net (susanbones2003) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:25:35 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162810 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" wrote: > >Snipped > So, no, I don't think that Draco owes Snape a life debt, unless the > conversation that Hagrid overheard was Snape saying he didn't want > to protect Draco any more, perhaps because Draco did or said > something unforgiveable to Snape off-screen. But even then... no, I > can't imagine Snape actively wanting Draco dead, and so saving him > from the Sectumsempra (IMO) wouldn't set up a life debt. > > Dungrollin > I guess what I am wondering really, do you think Draco appreciates anything Snape has done for him to save him in various situations in HPB and if that knowledge (again Draco is fully capable of not giving a person his due)will somehow create any sort of alliance, however tenuous. I am sorry I don't catch all JRK's (hardly any, sadly enough) interviews which seem to shed much light on such minutiae! Jen D. (off to clean the bathrooms, ugh.) From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 15 16:53:28 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:53:28 -0000 Subject: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162811 > Hi Carol, > Actually this discussion, as simple as it seems, makes me wonder (as > it often does) exactly how the rules of JKR's world work. The debt > that was created when Harry spared Wormtail seems to hinge on the > fact that Wormtail realizes how he has been spared. Can we say that > much of Draco? He is very good at re-writing events to suit himself > and he may well not recognize what Snape did in some many instances > as any sort of extrordinary actions (as Wormtail certainly did, > witness his fawning gratitude...). Magpie: I think Snape's UV clearly doesn't create any sort of Life Debt for Draco any more than Harry's saving Ginny does for Ginny. It's not something that's technically explained, but I think the "feeling" of the situations is clearly defined. Snape feels indebted to James because he knows James hated him and had reason to hate him since Snape hated James too. Yet he knows James saved his life. Peter has the same situation with Harry. With Malfoy--whom I think Snape did seem to like (Harry on the first day uses that exact expression to describe how Snape is with Malfoy, and in sixth year turns it around and says that Malfoy always seemed to like Snape too)--it's a different situation. Snape made a decision on his own to take the vow with Narcissa (not Draco) to protect her son, whom they both cared about, and without Draco's knowledge. As far as he was concerned he was just being given a task for him to do himself. He would never have wanted Snape to make the vow (unlike Snape and Peter who of course at the moment of being saved would have felt the relief). Technically, Draco pretty much keeps Snape from protecting him anyway in the way he expects. Snape does heal him in the bathroom and pulls him out at the end, but they're kind of tangential to specifically helping/watching over the task. Snape's not able to interfere with his plots, and when he kills Dumbledore himself he's not exactly doing what Malfoy wants. Someone has to do something, and Malfoy must know that, but Malfoy probably doesn't yet understand what Snape did. Snape the DE simply did the task Draco couldn't just as any other of those DEs would have done. He probably wouldn't realize at the time that Snape was primarily interested in protecting him, not killing Dumbledore for his own glory (assuming Snape is DDM). Malfoy's come to see he doesn't want this murder, so Snape coming in and doing it isn't the type of set up to create a debt. Even if Malfoy realizes it benefitted him--since he couldn't do it he would have most likely been killed--he has no reason to think of it yet as Snape saving him intentionally. We wouldn't want him to appreciate Snape for killing DD that way, because that would make him more of a DE himself. Of course in the wider sense Snape has made huge sacrifices for Malfoy and he will hopefully come to appreciate just how much Snape has done for him. But that's a natural relationship issue that's just as Muggle as it is Wizard. Draco doesn't need a magical bond or something that feels like one, because Snape is genuinely part of his family (using the term loosely). It's like Sirius running off to the MoM to save Harry. Harry loves Sirius for it and loves Sirius anyway, so it's not reduced to debts and owing. >From Snape's pov this might be important because of his history with the Potters. Narcissa's asking him to save her son might have pinged him as being like Lily, so may appeal to his guilt. But even apart from that I think there's possibly a reason the character was given people (especially one person, Draco) that he cares about. I don't think he'd see it as Draco owing him anything because adults protect children. It's counterintuitive for the grown characters in the book to be demanding debts from the minors, imo. So Harry doesn't feel indebted to Snape for saving him in PS (or just about anything!). Jen D. I guess what I am wondering really, do you think Draco appreciates anything Snape has done for him to save him in various situations in HPB and if that knowledge (again Draco is fully capable of not giving a person his due)will somehow create any sort of alliance, however tenuous. Magpie: I'm not sure where you're getting that specific trait of Draco's. What have we seen that would indicate that he'd be incapable of recognizing someone doing something for him or liking him? Before HBP he seemed to me like a genuine Snape-fan. Draco's relationship in HBP I think follows easily along the lines of that. Draco is rebelling in that book, and rebelling against Snape because Snape is an important figure for him. I don't know how this will work out but it seems hard for me to believe that JKR would just completely rewind Draco post-HBP to that mode, which even Harry recognizes does not reflect his true feelings for Snape any more than Harry's anger at DD in OotP reflected his true feelings for him. Draco got his shot on his own, he didn't completely fail. If anything I'd say he's in more of a position to appreciate Snape than he was before. More able, that is, in terms of Draco being more mature. There's a lot of plot things to be worked out before they can really approach each other honestly. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 17:29:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:29:37 -0000 Subject: What does Draco owe Snape? (Was: The UV ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162812 Jen D. wrote: > I guess what I am wondering really, do you think Draco appreciates anything Snape has done for him to save him in various situations in HPB and if that knowledge (again Draco is fully capable of not giving a person his due)will somehow create any sort of alliance, however tenuous. I am sorry I don't catch all JRK's (hardly any, sadly enough) interviews which seem to shed much light on such minutiae! Carol reponds: Okay, let's pretend that we've never heard of the Life Debt, which probably doesn't come into play here. (JKR has discussed it only in relation to Wormtail and Harry, and not very helpfully at that, so no need to worry about missing out on the interviews in this regard.) Let's look at this from the standpoint of a kid who's saved from bleeding to death (and other dangers) by a teacher/father figure that he used to like and respect but against whom he's now rebelling (as we see in the post-Christmas party confrontation in "The Unbreakable Vow"). I do think that Draco owes Snape, at the least, a debt of gratitude. I'm not talking about a magical compulsion, just the recognition that he owes his life to Snape and ought, if he has an iota of decency, to be grateful for that favor. There's no question that Snape saved his life at least once in HBP, and, IMO, only Snape could have saved him from Sectumsempra because only Snape knew the counterspell to his own curse. The problem is that Draco is not prone to gratitude (when have we ever seen him express it?), he doesn't know that only Snape could have saved him from Sectumsempra, and he does know about the portion of the UV that involved protecting him, so he may think that Snape saved him only to prevent the UV from killing him. To compound matters, he thinks that Snape is a DE, loyal to the Dark wizard who sent Draco on this dangerous mission, an impression that could only have been strengthened when he saw Snape killing Dumbledore (and "stealing his glory" in the process). And it can't have helped matters that Snape grabbed Draco, who is only a few days from his seventeenth birthday if he hasn't actually passed it, by the scruff of the neck like a troublesome kitten and rescued him a second time, not letting him get in a single curse of his own (as if Draco knew whom to fight against at this point). Very damaging to Draco's momentarily fragile self-esteem and his view of himself as a "man," which IMO had been enhanced by his mission despite the death threats that seem to have started around April when it seemed clear that he would fail to fix the cabinet. So we have rebellious teenager!Draco who has been saved from death by a teacher he thinks is a faithful DE and who is now a fugitive, on the run from the Aurors for having done the job that Draco was supposed to do. If Draco was confused by Dumbledore's behavior toward him, he must be equally confused by Snape's. What are Snape's motives? Why did he save Draco's life? Is he serving the Dark Lord or undermining him by doing so? Could Dumbledore, that stupid old man, be right about Snape's loyalties after all? And what does Snape want from Draco now? And, of course, there's the big question of where his own loyalties lie now that it's clear that the Dark Lord doesn't value the lives of his own followers. I think it's a matter of time until Snape convinces Draco to trust him or Draco arrives at that conclusion himself. If he decides to rebel against LV, Snape is the only one who can, and will, help him. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course.) He just needs to figure that out. Carol, imagining Snape, Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Draco all in hiding together in the hidden chamber beneath the Malfoys' drawing room From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 19:35:02 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 19:35:02 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162813 > > >>a_svirn: > > I don't think we can dismiss that as bragging, though. Draco's > > bragging usually fails to impress his audience; in fact, the effect > > it often produces is quite the opposite one. Yet the old Ollivander > > was certainly impressed. Whatever Draco showed him, it must have > > been sufficiently convincing... > > > > Betsy Hp: > Right, but it's what Draco *showed* Borgin that did the trick. > Borgin was already frightened and changing his tune when Draco > followed through with the Fenrir threat. (The bragging wasn't the > powerful bit.) a_svirn: Why do you assume that it was bragging then? In the beginning of HBP Draco gave Borgin (sorry, it was Borgin, of course)to understand that he is Grayback's colleague. And sure enough, in the end of HBP Grayback shows up among the group of hit-men. Where do you see the snag? > > >>a_svirn: > > I concede that Draco might not have been technically lying. > > > > But it seems to me that he wasn't exactly honest either. He'd known > > very well that Grayback was likely to come. > > Betsy Hp: > But that's an assumption. And I'm not sure what you're basing it > on. Why should Draco have felt Fenrir was likely to come? a_svirn: He didn't have to *feel* anything. He *knew* that Grayback was part of the group. That makes odds for his showing up at the grand finale rather good. Draco said to Dumbledore that he hadn't invited Grayback, but then, he probably hadn't *invited* anyone at all ? he wasn't the one who passed the invitations. He wasn't the one in control. > > >>a_svirn: > > Oh, yes, Dumbledore said that he's not a killer. But what does it > > mean? He didn't say, "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer", > > because they both knew that Draco did stoop to murder. > > Betsy Hp: > Who did Draco murder? a_svirn: No one. I said he stooped to murder, but we all know very well that he wasn't successful. Or, as Dumbledore said, he was "lucky". Which actually means that his victims were lucky. > Betsy Hp: Also, I think you've got the gradations of the > words wrong. One can be a killer without being a murderer (a > soldier, for example). But one cannot be a murderer without being a > killer. For someone to murder they've had to kill. a_svirn: Yes. That's what makes Draco such a poor soldier for any cause, Voldemort's or Dumbledore's alike. He has no objection to murdering people so long that he doesn't have to do or witness actual killing. Poisoning, plotting and planning for others to do the job ? that's more in his line. > > >>a_svirn: > > What did he actually say to him, then? That he was no good as a > > Voldemort's hit-man and would be much better off under the Order's > > protection? In that case Draco's lowering his wand would mean only > > admitting his own limitations. A sure sign of growing-up, but > > little else, I am afraid. > > Betsy Hp: > And yet, Draco proved himself well able to be Voldemort's hitman. He > had Dumbledore dead to rights. a_svirn: No, he didn't. He simply had an incredible and completely unforeseen luck to find Dumbledore incapacitated. If it hadn't been for that he wouldn't have been in a position to complete his assignment. > Betsy Hp: So Draco doesn't lower his wand > because he's in a weak position. That he's in a position of > strength, a position that someone who *was* a killer could have > operated quite comfortably from, is what makes Draco's lowered wand > so powerful. a_svirn: It would have been powerful, if Draco *had* lowered his wand. But he was in no hurry to do that. Dumbledore's offer was the answer to his prayers, but, then, Draco had never dreamed to find him so weak. So he hesitated. Tried to weigh the advantage of giving to Voldemort his heart's desire against the disadvantage of being enslaved to the Dark Lord for the rest of his life. That he started to lower his wand gives credit to his intelligence, but not to his morals. > Betsy Hp: > Powerful enough that if effects Harry. a_svirn: How does it affect Harry? The best that can be said is that he pities Draco. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 15 20:04:25 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:04:25 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162814 > Carol responds: > I don't think I've made this particular argument (I can never have > too much of Snape)... Jen: LOL. FWIW I wasn't speaking of any particular person, I only remember hearing that argument. Carol: > ...but I do think that the key point is not a change of heart in > Snape but the revelation of his loyalties, which will come as a > shock to Harry. > Carol: > Exactly. The enemy who will *change* is Draco. The seeming enemy who > will be revealed as being on his side (DDM!) is Snape (assuming that > we're right). So where is Gray!Snape? I don't see him. Jen: I'm not asking anyone to "see" this version, just trying to answer questions or comments re: the origin of Grey and where I think it differs from DDM. And even though it's not an OFH theory, I do understand now (more than I did post-HBP) why people read Snape as OFH because I see elements of out-for-himself in Snape's *character* without believing they extend to his loyalty. Perhaps the elements I see will prove to be red herrings to shadow the loyalty question or perhaps they will play a significant role in Snape's story. Right now I favor the latter explanation. DDM started as a way to differentiate Snape from out-for-himself or evil on the loyalty issue only, but now it's evolved to include how Snape is loyal, the ways his loyalty is characterized, a comparison of Snape's loyalty to Harry's and speculation about his part in book 7. That's natural for any theory, people can't simply say "Snape is loyal" and not support their position with canon. What I don't get is why these points of support don't then become part of the whole package that is DDM? If I read a very complicated analysis from someone saying they are in support of DDM then I am going to assume the evidence they present is also part of DDM. I'm not going to assume DDM is only about the loyalty question if what I'm reading goes into details about Snape's character and the plot that extend beyond the question of Snape's loyalty. It seems like a lot of work for no payback imo, to write a carefully supported position only to say the hard work is superfluous in the end. Why doesn't the supporting evidence and additional material become as crucial to the theory as the issue of loyalty itself? Even if Snape is not the main character and not the POV character and Harry is the one who needs to grow, JKR has still made Snape a crucial part of Harry's story in ways that go beyond the loyalty question. She does not write simple denouements in my opinion! There are pages of reasons why a character chose to take certain actions when she's ready to reveal something. Yes Harry gets to see a person's loyalty (or lack of) but more importantly, he given the information to understand *why*, how all the elements fit together to cause a character to act, think and operate in his/her given situation. Often those elements are contradictory or unfavorable to the person but it's still clear that Harry gets what he's supposed to get and understands how that one character fits into his life and the larger story. When I read a theory, whether it is DDM, OFH, ESE or Grey, they are all an attempt to answer the entire puzzle of Snape imo, not just the piece about his loyalty. Jen, who doesn't have another point-by-point argument in her at the moment. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 20:16:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:16:43 -0000 Subject: All knowing Dumbledore or not/The Cabinet Plan...again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162815 > Carol: > > Carol, wondering how Dumbledore can be blamed for what he doesn't know > or has no control over > > Lynda: > > I've often wondered the same thing. For some strange reason, when I read a > book and a character in the book says "I'm not omniscient!" which DD does in > the series, I tend to believe that the character is not omniscient. I > realize that DD keeps a close eye on the kids and knows far more about > what's going on than is externally revealed in the series so far, but he's > never, to my mind been portrayed as infallible. Just a different way of > viewing the books than some others have, I guess. Alla: Well, there are plenty of things that Dumbledore either admits flat out of knowing or turning a blind eye on them, so I really don't need to blame him for something he did not know - I see plenty of things he knows and can be blamed for in my view. As to Umbridge detentions, I cannot say for sure of course whether Dumbledore knew about them or not, but we do have that line at the end of OOP - "I watched you more closely that you can ever imagine". I am quoting from memory, so forgive me for possible misspeaks. So, does it make for me very plausible that Dumbledore did not stop watching Harry closely? Yeah, it does, that is why while I cannot blame him with hundred degree certainty, I am suspicious. > > Betsy Hp: > > But that's an assumption. And I'm not sure what you're basing it > > on. Why should Draco have felt Fenrir was likely to come? > > a_svirn: > He didn't have to *feel* anything. He *knew* that Grayback was part > of the group. That makes odds for his showing up at the grand finale > rather good. > > Draco said to Dumbledore that he hadn't invited Grayback, but then, > he probably hadn't *invited* anyone at all ? he wasn't the one who > passed the invitations. He wasn't the one in control. > > Alla: YES, a_svirn, yes, I think you nailed it. When I read Draco saying that he did not think that Greyback come, I think I was saying at first - yeah, right or laughing if I was not so upset with DD situation. What did you think, you twit? You knew that Greyback is one of them and you did not think he would come. You acted as if he is a family friend, whether or not it was completely true, it to me implies some familiarity with this er.... man. And you did not think that he would grasp an opportunity to go and have fun with kids? I mean Malfoy can be stupid IMO but that stupid? I am not sure. From friartuck97 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 16:07:17 2006 From: friartuck97 at yahoo.com (Jim "Chocolate Thunder" Dennis) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:07:17 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew's hand-not for Lupin??? Harry a man? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162816 Pettigrew's Life Debt- Is it possible that Wormtail's hand will be used to kill Greyback, rather than Lupin? Could Harry order him to kill Greyback? Will this be another one of Voldemort's plans that explodes in his face? Just curious!!! P.S. This has been debated in my office non-stop, what do you guys think? Harry Potter started as a series intended for children, but as the writing gets progressively older, will Harry face Voldemort as a virgin? I say he will, as teens and sex are a whole new "cauldron" of troubles, but others are adamant that he will be a man against Voldemort in every possible aspect... Eagerly awaiting your responses!!! -Dave From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 15 20:42:39 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:42:39 -0000 Subject: What does Draco owe Snape? (Was: The UV ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162817 Carol: > So we have rebellious teenager!Draco who has been saved from death > by a teacher he thinks is a faithful DE and who is now a fugitive, > on the run from the Aurors for having done the job that Draco was > supposed to do. If Draco was confused by Dumbledore's behavior > toward him, he must be equally confused by Snape's. What are > Snape's motives? Why did he save Draco's life? Is he serving the > Dark Lord or undermining him by doing so? Could Dumbledore, that > stupid old man, be right about Snape's loyalties after all? And > what does Snape want from Draco now? SSSusan: I have a question about this part of the discussion. I was following along quite nicely, I think, until the comment was made that, in questioning Snape's motives, Draco might conclude that DD had been *right* about Snape's loyalties (i.e., Snape was trustworthy & on the side of Right). What I don't get is *why* Draco might come to this conclusion, simply from asking, "Why did Snape just do what he did -- save me from the tower, KILL DD himself, and then shuffle me off the grounds of Hogwarts?" To me, the leap from "Snape is a loyal DE" to "He might have been loyal to DD all along!" seems like a gigantic one. Can someone show me what I'm missing here? Carol: > And, of course, there's the big question of where his own loyalties > lie now that it's clear that the Dark Lord doesn't value the lives > of his own followers. > > I think it's a matter of time until Snape convinces Draco to trust > him or Draco arrives at that conclusion himself. If he decides to > rebel against LV, Snape is the only one who can, and will, help him. > (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course.) He just needs to figure that out. > > Carol, imagining Snape, Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Draco all in hiding > together in the hidden chamber beneath the Malfoys' drawing room SSSusan: And that would be a fascinating scene, wouldn't it! :-) It would also make it all the more difficult for Snape to do any kind of convincing of Draco to rebel against Voldy. Yet, if I'm reading this correctly, it is being suggested that Draco will decide his own loyalties *aren't* with the Dark Lord, right? If so, I think you're right that Snape would be the only one who could & would help Draco "out." The question is, how would Snape be able to get to Draco and show him that he could help in this? Is there any reason for Draco to mistrust his earlier impression, that Snape was just trying to steal Draco's glory and impress Voldy? I don't see why Draco would be doubting that conclusion, based upon Snape's actions at the end of HBP. Siriusly Snapey Susan From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 15 20:59:10 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:59:10 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162818 > > Betsy Hp: > Also, I think you've got the gradations of the > > words wrong. One can be a killer without being a murderer (a > > soldier, for example). But one cannot be a murderer without being > a > > killer. For someone to murder they've had to kill. > > a_svirn: > Yes. That's what makes Draco such a poor soldier for any cause, > Voldemort's or Dumbledore's alike. He has no objection to murdering > people so long that he doesn't have to do or witness actual killing. > Poisoning, plotting and planning for others to do the job ? that's > more in his line. Magpie: I think that's why Dumbledore can't be meaning what you are saying he means (and why I disagree with all interpretations that say that Draco didn't feel anything about Katie and Ron--if he almost-killed from a slight distance with no problem, I'd need more explanation as to why he couldn't kill Dumbledore). Dumbledore is throughout the scene, imo, saying that Draco did have a problem with murder, period. Poisoning and planning for others to do the job was not any more in his line than killing Dumbledore himself is--not because he didn't almost do just that, obviously, but because of the way it affected him. As a human being who is not a killer (in this case killer meaning someone who has no problem with killing) killing from a short distance was damaging to him too. If it wasn't I think he'd already be a killer in his heart and wouldn't be in the shape he's in on the Tower. And he'd probably kill Dumbledore. > > Betsy Hp: > > And yet, Draco proved himself well able to be Voldemort's hitman. > He > > had Dumbledore dead to rights. > > a_svirn: > No, he didn't. He simply had an incredible and completely unforeseen > luck to find Dumbledore incapacitated. If it hadn't been for that he > wouldn't have been in a position to complete his assignment. Magpie: It doesn't matter how he did it, he had him dead to rights and chose not to kill him. He was in the position to complete his assignment and knew it--and chose not to. Dumbledore's state was very lucky for Dumbledore in that sense, I think. Much easier for him to make the case he was trying to make to Draco, imo, while being so truly helpless. (Unlucky in other ways, obviously.) > > Betsy Hp: > So Draco doesn't lower his wand > > because he's in a weak position. That he's in a position of > > strength, a position that someone who *was* a killer could have > > operated quite comfortably from, is what makes Draco's lowered wand > > so powerful. > > a_svirn: > It would have been powerful, if Draco *had* lowered his wand. But he > was in no hurry to do that. Dumbledore's offer was the answer to his > prayers, but, then, Draco had never dreamed to find him so weak. So > he hesitated. Tried to weigh the advantage of giving to Voldemort his > heart's desire against the disadvantage of being enslaved to the Dark > Lord for the rest of his life. That he started to lower his wand > gives credit to his intelligence, but not to his morals. Magpie: I don't think we can count his morals out just yet--if it's just about his intelligence it's not just Draco who suffers, but Dumbledore. I don't think JKR would be interested in that kind of scene or choice. I agree with Betsy that Draco wasn't weighing the advantage when he went over having Dumbledore in his power. What he's going over underlines the fact that he's making his choice from a position of strength and actually giving up what he had valued so much before. Dumbledore was at his mercy, he'd proved himself more than anyone thought he would, and yet he would not have killed Dumbledore. Given the themes of the book I can't see that as a purely practical move-and I suspect the acceptence of Dumbledore's mercy specifically is important morally. That's also why I don't make the decision between DDM!Snape and Grey! Snape if Grey is used to distinguish between Snape and Harry, as if Harry is the prototype of DDM. If I was going to pick one of those two for what it "really" meant to be DDM, I'd pick Snape in a minute- -and throughout the Tower scene with Draco I thought I was probably getting a lot of echoes of the way Dumbledore handled Snape. > Betsy Hp: > Powerful enough that if effects Harry. a_svirn: How does it affect Harry? The best that can be said is that he pities Draco. Magpie: He specifically thinks about the lowered wand afterwards, and I think that's tied in with the way his feelings towards Malfoy have changed even slightly. All Harry thinks at this point is that he feels "a drop of pity" mingled with the dislike but the lowered wand seems to be pretty important--and I don't think it's part of the pity. The pity is for Malfoy being made to do things because his family is in danger, but I don't know if Harry would feel even that if Malfoy hadn't shown him something positive by lowering his wand. I think it does mean something to Harry that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore. Alla: YES, a_svirn, yes, I think you nailed it. When I read Draco saying that he did not think that Greyback come, I think I was saying at first - yeah, right or laughing if I was not so upset with DD situation. What did you think, you twit? You knew that Greyback is one of them and you did not think he would come. You acted as if he is a family friend, whether or not it was completely true, it to me implies some familiarity with this er.... man. And you did not think that he would grasp an opportunity to go and have fun with kids? I mean Malfoy can be stupid IMO but that stupid? I am not sure. Magpie: I don't think it's necessarily that stupid. I mean, obviously Fenrir is involved and Draco knows that perfectly well, but it doesn't seem odd he wouldn't think he was coming. It's not like Fenrir is some go- to guy that's always at every DE thing,and if Draco thinks of him a savage he might never think he'd be sent on delicate operations. We've never even heard of him until now. Draco could know lots of DEs but still be surprised at any one of them appearing some place if he thought the group wouldn't include them. I don't think his being mentioned means that Draco must have known he was so likely to be there in Hogwarts. When he does show up it's not like Draco is completely shocked like, "What? How could you possibly be doing here?" He sees, presumably, how Fenrir got involved, but can still be telling the truth when he says he didn't specifically want him and did not think he was going to be part of the group. I mean, there's lots of things in canon where we could say "well, what did you expect?" but the characters often do seem to be surprised at the results. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 21:09:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:09:50 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162819 > Magpie: >> That's also why I don't make the decision between DDM!Snape and Grey! > Snape if Grey is used to distinguish between Snape and Harry, as if > Harry is the prototype of DDM. If I was going to pick one of those > two for what it "really" meant to be DDM, I'd pick Snape in a minute- > -and throughout the Tower scene with Draco I thought I was probably > getting a lot of echoes of the way Dumbledore handled Snape. Alla: LOL. You think Snape is more worthy of that title than Harry? I suppose under certain circumstances I would not wish that title on Harry at all, but I believe that JKR indeed means for us for Harry to be seen as prototype of DDM - ultimate loyalty and all that. IMO of course. I mean, this is Harry's story, yes? First and foremost? > Magpie: > I don't think it's necessarily that stupid. I mean, obviously Fenrir > is involved and Draco knows that perfectly well, but it doesn't seem > odd he wouldn't think he was coming. It's not like Fenrir is some go- > to guy that's always at every DE thing,and if Draco thinks of him a > savage he might never think he'd be sent on delicate operations. > We've never even heard of him until now. Draco could know lots of > DEs but still be surprised at any one of them appearing some place > if he thought the group wouldn't include them. Alla: There is stupid IMO and there is stupid. It is completely unbelievable to me that Draco would not guess that Greyback would come not because he knows the name, but precisely because Draco threatens Borgin with the name - the leap to make from there is not big for me. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 22:38:56 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 22:38:56 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162820 > > a_svirn: That's what makes Draco such a poor soldier for any cause, > > Voldemort's or Dumbledore's alike. He has no objection to > murdering > > people so long that he doesn't have to do or witness actual > killing. > > Poisoning, plotting and planning for others to do the job ? that's > > more in his line. > > Magpie: > I think that's why Dumbledore can't be meaning what you are saying > he means (and why I disagree with all interpretations that say that > Draco didn't feel anything about Katie and Ron--if he almost-killed > from a slight distance with no problem, I'd need more explanation as > to why he couldn't kill Dumbledore). Dumbledore is throughout the > scene, imo, saying that Draco did have a problem with murder, > period. a_svirn: So he does. And that's just another instance of Dumbledore's being hypocritical. Because all those problems were in fact technical, yet Dumbledore made them sound as if they were moral problems. Draco made two honest-to-God murder attempts, and that's a fact. He let a group of hit-men into Hogwarts to finish Dumbledore off, and that's another fact. Whatever he felt about it didn't stop him from doing it. > Magpie: > Poisoning and planning for others to do the job was not any > more in his line than killing Dumbledore himself is--not because he > didn't almost do just that, obviously, but because of the way it > affected him. a_svirn: So would you say that Macbeth and his Lady weren't really murderers? I mean, look how the whole thing affected them! And I don't think that Pettigrew is particularly happy about murdering people, but needs must. Of course, Draco's record is no match to Pettigrew's ? yet ? but he made a start of sorts. Not a very promising start, because he feels queasy about killing people with his own hand, but he's very clever about arranging for them to be killed. > Magpie: > As a human being who is not a killer (in this case > killer meaning someone who has no problem with killing) killing from > a short distance was damaging to him too. a_svirn: What makes "this case" such a special one, then? In ninety-nine cases out of hundred, I imagine, you would say that a killer is someone who kills. > Magpie: If it wasn't I think he'd > already be a killer in his heart and wouldn't be in the shape he's > in on the Tower. And he'd probably kill Dumbledore. a_svirn: I don't know what it means, "killer at heart". He is not a bloodthirsty brute, like Grayback, or an insane sadist like his aunt, nor is he a hardened criminal. On the whole, he would rather not to kill. But he accepts the necessity of murder and acts accordingly. I don't know what it says about his heart, but it certainly shows that he's capable of murder. > > > Betsy Hp: > > > And yet, Draco proved himself well able to be Voldemort's > hitman. > > He > > > had Dumbledore dead to rights. > > > > a_svirn: > > No, he didn't. He simply had an incredible and completely > unforeseen > > luck to find Dumbledore incapacitated. If it hadn't been for that > he > > wouldn't have been in a position to complete his assignment. > > Magpie: > It doesn't matter how he did it, he had him dead to rights and chose > not to kill him. He was in the position to complete his assignment > and knew it--and chose not to. Dumbledore's state was very lucky for > Dumbledore in that sense, I think. Much easier for him to make the > case he was trying to make to Draco, imo, while being so truly > helpless. (Unlucky in other ways, obviously.) a_svirn: Sorry, I phrased it badly. I didn't mean that Draco hadn't Dumbledore dead to rights. I meant that he didn't show himself as an able hit- man. > Magpie: > I don't think we can count his morals out just yet--if it's just > about his intelligence it's not just Draco who suffers, but > Dumbledore. I don't think JKR would be interested in that kind of > scene or choice. I agree with Betsy that Draco wasn't weighing the > advantage when he went over having Dumbledore in his power. a_svirn: Then you disagree with canon, because that's what Draco says. Even after Dumbledore had presented Draco with a choice he was still thinking about the advantage of killing Dumbledore. 'But I got this far, didn't I?' he said slowly. They thought I'd die in the attempt, but I'm here ... and you're in my power ... I'm the one with the wand ... you're at my mercy ...' > Magpie: > What he's going over underlines the fact that he's making his choice from > a position of strength and actually giving up what he had valued so > much before. Dumbledore was at his mercy, he'd proved himself more > than anyone thought he would, and yet he would not have killed > Dumbledore. a_svirn: Except that Dumbledore himself said that Draco got it all wrong and it was Dumbledore's mercy that counted. And only after Dumbledore pointed that out, did Draco start to lower his wand. Because he finally acknowledged that he would find neither glory, nor mercy from Voldemort's hands. 'No, Draco,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now.' Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wand hand still trembling. Harry thought he saw it drop by a fraction - > Magpie: >Given the themes of the book I can't see that as a > purely practical move-and I suspect the acceptence of Dumbledore's > mercy specifically is important morally. a_svirn: Well, "everything's got a moral if only you can find it", but what exactly is the moral of this? I'd say either Draco is in need of mercy, or he is not a position of strength. It's impossible to have it both ways. He acknowledged a moment ago that his Lord had sent him to sure death, and his comrades-in-arms had stood by and watched. He might find favour with the Dark Lord if he kills Dumbledore, but what the odds? His life and those of his family would still depend on Voldemort's whims. And he had finally realised there is no glory in being a slave, even a privileged one. So he (probably, but not for sure) chose to accept an escape route Dumbledore had offered. What else any sane person would choose under the circumstances? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 23:05:08 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:05:08 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162821 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Right, but it's what Draco *showed* Borgin that did the trick. > > Borgin was already frightened and changing his tune when Draco > > followed through with the Fenrir threat. (The bragging wasn't the > > powerful bit.) > >>a_svirn: > Why do you assume that it was bragging then? In the beginning of > HBP Draco gave Borgin (sorry, it was Borgin, of course)to > understand that he is Grayback's colleague. And sure enough, in the > end of HBP Grayback shows up among the group of hit-men. Where do > you see the snag? Betsy Hp: I see Draco's statement as very fuzzy as far as truthfulness goes because he refers to Fenrir as a "family friend", which is an impossibility. There's no way a family as stuck on blood purity as the Malfoys are is going to befriend a creature with a blood disease. Draco is exaggerating, as Draco is wont to do. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Why should Draco have felt Fenrir was likely to come? > >>a_svirn: > He didn't have to *feel* anything. He *knew* that Grayback was part > of the group. Betsy Hp: Um... why is the word "feel" such a big deal here? (That's an aside, I'll move on to the main argument now. ) > >>a_svirn: > That makes odds for his showing up at the grand finale rather good. > >>Magpie: > I don't think it's necessarily that stupid. I mean, obviously > Fenrir is involved and Draco knows that perfectly well, but it > doesn't seem odd he wouldn't think he was coming. It's not like > Fenrir is some go-to guy that's always at every DE thing,and if > Draco thinks of him a savage he might never think he'd be sent on > delicate operations. > >>Alla: > There is stupid IMO and there is stupid. It is completely > unbelievable to me that Draco would not guess that Greyback would > come not because he knows the name, but precisely because Draco > threatens Borgin with the name - the leap to make from there is not > big for me. Betsy Hp: Both Alla and a_svirn are making the mistake (IMO ) of thinking that Draco should realize he's in a novel. We, the reader, can expect a heavily foreshadowed character like Fenrir to show up again (especially at a school given the limited background we've learned). But Draco is supposed to assume that out of several nameless Death Eaters he knows (that we've never met since we've not sat on Draco's shoulder during the entirety of his life as he's met and/or heard of several possible Death Eaters) that the mad werewolf is going to be the one sent? Sorry, but that's stretching it, IMO. To show that Draco's surprise is fake, you'll need to show a tell that hints as such at the time he expresses his surprise. That Draco know Fenrir exists, works for Voldemort from time to time, and is scary isn't enough. Just as we knew we'd know who the Half-Blood Prince was, but as far as Harry was concerned it could have been Joe Blow, Ravenclaw, Class of '56. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Who did Draco murder? > >>a_svirn: > No one. I said he stooped to murder, but we all know very well that > he wasn't successful. Or, as Dumbledore said, he was "lucky". Which > actually means that his victims were lucky. Betsy Hp: I'm still confused. Who did Draco murder, that we can say he stooped to murder? What lucky victim of Draco's desire to murder are you referring to here? Because as far as I've read, Draco had the opportunity to murder one person, Dumbledore. And he chose not to do so. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Also, I think you've got the gradations of the words wrong. One > > can be a killer without being a murderer (a soldier, for > > example). But one cannot be a murderer without being a killer. > > For someone to murder they've had to kill. > >>a_svirn: > Yes. That's what makes Draco such a poor soldier for any cause, > Voldemort's or Dumbledore's alike. He has no objection to murdering > people so long that he doesn't have to do or witness actual > killing. Poisoning, plotting and planning for others to do the job ? > that's more in his line. Betsy Hp: But he still couldn't do it. I'm not getting this line of argument a_svirn. To be a murderer you have to kill. If Draco is uncomfortable with killing than he's uncomfortable with murder. Betsy Hp (agrees with Magpie! ) From random832 at gmail.com Fri Dec 15 14:30:10 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 09:30:10 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7b9f25e50612150630o73241e6ctcd5c9c89e61c63b9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162822 On 12/13/06, pippin_999 wrote: > There lies the answer also to those who think that if Harry had only > let Pettigrew be slain, Trelawney's second prophecy would not have > come true and Voldemort would never have returned. I'm afraid it > would only have meant that a different servant of Voldemort would > set out to join him that night. The prophecy in question actually applies equally to Crouch Jr. In fact, it applies better, as Pettigrew was _in hiding_, not "chained". The adaptation that shall not be named butchered the prophecy to make it "more clear" for teh kiddies and eliminate this alternate interpretation. -- Random832 From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 23:38:45 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:38:45 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162823 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I think this encapsulates the issue I have with Grey!Snape. > > Either in HBP or in Book 7 Snape goes through a life-change where > > he finally figures out who he is and what he stands for, right? > > But, much as I love Snape (and I really, really love him ) I > > don't think he can be this active growth-wise. > >>Jen: You and others have argued Grey makes too much of Snape, > that the story will veer off from Harry to Snape. To me Grey is > already front and center! > > I didn't mean Snape went through character growth in HBP, what I > meant by the crucible was that a confluence of events forced Snape > out in the open (ironically on the wrong side). While Dumbledore > dealt in mercy and Voldemort in savagery, Snape walked a tightrope > between them engaging in neither one. > Betsy Hp: It's so funny because the man you describe just is not Snape to me; I don't recognize him at all. (Which means, of course, that you must have the same reaction when *I* talk about Snape. "Who is this strange creature Betsy's talking about?" ) So I cannot imagine that I'll change your mind. (I'll leave that to JKR and Book 7. ) But the other issue I have is that there's too much going on here. There's not a "true" Snape in this scenario. He's a little bit of what Dumbledore sees, a little bit of what Voldemort sees, and a little bit of what Harry sees, carefully walking a tightrope and refusing to choose. And the problem with that is it makes for a very poor "revelation". You say there's no growth involved, but there must be. Because even Snape doesn't know who he is until he's forced by circumstance to finally pick a personality. And in picking that "true" Snape, Snape must change. (Actually, I think you're stealing Draco's story and trying to stick it on Snape.) > >>Betsy: > > I feel like his job is to be a sort of dark mirror for Harry. And > > I think an important moment of growth for Harry will be when > > the "real Severus Snape" is finally revealed to him. But I do > > think it'll be a revelation rather than Snape *becoming* the > > person Harry needs to see. > >>Jen: Harry doesn't understand what Dumbledore did, that you can > be on the same side even when you don't personally like someone or > share his values. Betsy Hp: But you're not presenting a Severus Snape who is on Harry's (or Dumbledore's) side. So Harry wouldn't recognize that particular lesson if your Grey!Snape was supposed to be the example. Instead Harry would learn that even rats know when to flee a sinking ship. Or that the proper amount of leverage can make a repugnant person useful. Which Harry has already started to learn (Slughorn). For Harry to learn that an ally doesn't have to also be a friend Snape must be wholly on the side of good. Snape must be a *true* ally. He can't be seen as dithering. And he can't be seen as having dithered. Because then Harry will not see him as an ally. And Harry would be right, quite frankly. A grown man who can not make up his mind until forced to is not to be trusted. > >>Jen: > Harry needs a lesson in the grey area of life ;-), not > finding out the real Severus Snape is a lot like him on the inside. Betsy Hp: But... Harry's *already* seen that Snape is a lot like him on the inside. He's had two sneak attacks of "OMG, I'm relating to SNAPE!" at current count. Do you really think Harry's feeling after the pensieve scene and his bonding with the half-blood Prince were examples of JKR spinning her wheels? > >>Jen: > Draco will be Harry's biggest revelation imo, his nemesis from the > same generation who *does* change before his eyes in terms of > loyalty. Betsy Hp: Exactly! Which is why Snape needs to have been steadily on the good guys' side throughout the books. Just as he was in PS/SS. Otherwise either he or Draco is a wasted character, one the faded copy of the other. (And since Draco's the one running around with the "bad faith" moniker, I'm betting on him being the one having to make a resolute choice. You know, because of Sartre. ) > >>Betsy: > > IOWs, I think Grey!Snape makes it a bit too much about Snape. > > (Can you belive I'm making this argument?!?) > >>Jen: No! Just as odd as me arguing so fervently when I hoped > Snape would go away in book 6. What's up with us?! Betsy Hp, blaming JKR... as always From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 00:23:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:23:59 -0000 Subject: What does Draco owe Snape? (Was: The UV ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162825 Carol earlier: > > So we have rebellious teenager!Draco who has been saved from death by a teacher he thinks is a faithful DE and who is now a fugitive, on the run from the Aurors for having done the job that Draco was supposed to do. If Draco was confused by Dumbledore's behavior toward him, he must be equally confused by Snape's. What are Snape's motives? Why did he save Draco's life? Is he serving the Dark Lord or undermining him by doing so? Could Dumbledore, that stupid old man, be right about Snape's loyalties after all? And what does Snape want from Draco now? > > SSSusan: > I have a question about this part of the discussion. I was following along quite nicely, I think, until the comment was made that, in questioning Snape's motives, Draco might conclude that DD had been *right* about Snape's loyalties (i.e., Snape was trustworthy & on the side of Right). What I don't get is *why* Draco might come to this conclusion, simply from asking, "Why did Snape just do what he did -- save me from the tower, KILL DD himself, and then shuffle me off the grounds of Hogwarts?" To me, the leap from "Snape is a loyal DE" to "He might have been loyal to DD all along!" seems like a gigantic one. Can someone show me what I'm missing here? Carol again: What I had in mind when I wrote that was not the entire tower scene but only Draco asking himself why Snape saved him and why he took a UV to protect him rather than merely promising Narcissa to watch over him, a promise he could "slither out of," to use Bellatrix's phrase, if things got too hot. If Draco (not notable for his introspection, I realize, or for analyzing other people's motives) started wondering why Snape risked everything to save him, including taking over the burden of that not-so-glorious task, he might realize that the UV and loyalty to Voldemort don't really go together. If Voldemort wanted Draco to do the task or die, would a loyal Voldemort supporter undermine that goal? Just thinking about those questions and remembering Dumbledore's words on the tower about Snape following his orders might get Draco thinking. I don't think he'd arrive on his own at Snape as DDM!, but at least he might see that Snape isn't VDM! either. Then again, maybe I'm expecting, or hoping, too much of Draco. > Carol earlier: > > And, of course, there's the big question of where his own loyalties lie now that it's clear that the Dark Lord doesn't value the lives of his own followers. > > > > I think it's a matter of time until Snape convinces Draco to trust him or Draco arrives at that conclusion himself. If he decides to rebel against LV, Snape is the only one who can, and will, help him. (Assuming DDM!Snape, of course.) He just needs to figure that out. > > > > Carol, imagining Snape, Narcissa, Bellatrix, and Draco all in hiding > > together in the hidden chamber beneath the Malfoys' drawing room > SSSusan: > And that would be a fascinating scene, wouldn't it! :-) > > It would also make it all the more difficult for Snape to do any kind of convincing of Draco to rebel against Voldy. Yet, if I'm reading this correctly, it is being suggested that Draco will decide his own loyalties *aren't* with the Dark Lord, right? If so, I think you're right that Snape would be the only one who could & would help > Draco "out." The question is, how would Snape be able to get to > Draco and show him that he could help in this? Is there any reason > for Draco to mistrust his earlier impression, that Snape was just > trying to steal Draco's glory and impress Voldy? I don't see why > Draco would be doubting that conclusion, based upon Snape's actions > at the end of HBP. Carol again: I guess we're *hoping* that Draco will decide that Voldie, who threatened to kill Draco and his parents if Draco failed to fix the cabinet and get the DEs into Hogwarts (I don't think he's going to be killed for failing to murder DD), will realize that Voldemort isn't worth supporting. (Maybe he'll find out that Voldie is a Half-blood, which will make him even more unworthy in Draco's view--I'm not considering Draco as some nice, misguided boy but as one who, despite being essentially a bullying braggart, nevertheless finally sees that Voldie is an evil, murdering megalomaniac who's as cruel to his supporters as to his enemies.) So, yes, the question in my mind is how to get past Draco's false impression that Snape was out to "steal his glory," and the first step toward that realization is the recognition that he owes his life to Snape, who clearly was not out for "glory" (as Draco will see when the wanted posters go up) but to protect Draco. Being a teenager, he'll have to get over the egotistical "I don't need saving," but maybe lying bleeding on the bathroom did that for him already. All I want, really, is a little gratitude from Draco, something that will make Snape's saving his life (twice) worth the effort. Carol, who is being pressured to get off the computer and is not at all sure that this post makes sense From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 00:43:14 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 00:43:14 -0000 Subject: What does Draco owe Snape? (Was: The UV ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162826 > SSSusan: > I have a question about this part of the discussion. I was following > along quite nicely, I think, until the comment was made that, in > questioning Snape's motives, Draco might conclude that DD had been > *right* about Snape's loyalties (i.e., Snape was trustworthy & on the > side of Right). What I don't get is *why* Draco might come to this > conclusion, simply from asking, "Why did Snape just do what he did - - > save me from the tower, KILL DD himself, and then shuffle me off the > grounds of Hogwarts?" To me, the leap from "Snape is a loyal DE" > to "He might have been loyal to DD all along!" seems like a gigantic > one. Can someone show me what I'm missing here? zgirnius: Nothing, in my opinion. At the end of the Flight of the Prince chapter of HBP, I am sure the idea that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore could not be farther from Draco's mind. However, something must happen next. (May have already happened next, though we don't know about it). That is, Draco and Snape went somewhere. Harry's musings in the final chapter seem to me a hint that Draco went to Voldemort. And I really can't see where else Snape would have gone. So the question becomes, what will happen/did happen, when Snape and Draco returned to Voldemort? Did/will Snape try to grab all the glory, as Draco suggested? I doubt it, if he cared enough to take an Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco, would he stop now? (Whether or not the Vow is over-and there is an argument to be made that Snape is still bound by the second clause...) *That's* where I can see Draco beginning to reevaluate some of his ideas. If Snape takes actions to protect him and/or his mother from Voldemort's wrath (most likely, by painting Draco's mission as a success by Draco.) But to get from his present opinion to the idea that Dumbledore was right about Snape all along should be a slow process. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 01:12:30 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:12:30 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162827 >>Betsy Hp: > I see Draco's statement as very fuzzy as far as truthfulness goes > because he refers to Fenrir as a "family friend", which is an > impossibility. There's no way a family as stuck on blood purity as > the Malfoys are is going to befriend a creature with a blood > disease. Draco is exaggerating, as Draco is wont to do. a_svirn: You forget that "family" is how Voldemort refers to his death eaters. > Betsy Hp: > Both Alla and a_svirn are making the mistake (IMO ) of thinking > that Draco should realize he's in a novel. We, the reader, can > expect a heavily foreshadowed character like Fenrir to show up again > (especially at a school given the limited background we've learned). > But Draco is supposed to assume that out of several nameless Death > Eaters he knows (that we've never met since we've not sat on Draco's > shoulder during the entirety of his life as he's met and/or heard of > several possible Death Eaters) that the mad werewolf is going to be > the one sent? > > Sorry, but that's stretching it, IMO. To show that Draco's surprise > is fake, you'll need to show a tell that hints as such at the time he > expresses his surprise. That Draco know Fenrir exists, works for > Voldemort from time to time, and is scary isn't enough. a_svirn: Talk about stretching! Where do you see surprise? All Draco shows is disgust. And while other death eaters are indeed nameless, Fenrir Grayback has a name, and that's the one name Draco is quick enough to mention. > > >>a_svirn: I said he stooped to murder, but we all know very well that > > he wasn't successful. Or, as Dumbledore said, he was "lucky". Which > > actually means that his victims were lucky. > > Betsy Hp: > I'm still confused. Who did Draco murder, that we can say he stooped > to murder? a_svirn: When someone attempts murder we can say that he or she stoops to it, can we not? > Betsy Hp: What lucky victim of Draco's desire to murder are you > referring to here? a_svirn: I don't believe I said anything about Draco's desires. It's only his intentions I feel qualified to discuss. > Betsy Hp: Because as far as I've read, Draco had the > opportunity to murder one person, Dumbledore. And he chose not to do > so. a_svirn: On the contrary, he chose to do so at least three times. When he sent the necklace, when he sent the mead, and when he let the death eaters in. > > >>a_svirn: That's what makes Draco such a poor soldier for any cause, > > Voldemort's or Dumbledore's alike. He has no objection to murdering > > people so long that he doesn't have to do or witness actual > > killing. Poisoning, plotting and planning for others to do the job ? > > that's more in his line. > > Betsy Hp: > But he still couldn't do it. a_svirn: Yes, he could. And did. His "lucky victims" survived, but not thanks to him. > Betsy Hp: I'm not getting this line of argument > a_svirn. To be a murderer you have to kill. If Draco is > uncomfortable with killing than he's uncomfortable with murder. a_svirn: I don't dispute that. He might have been uncomfortable, but he still proceeded with his plans. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 01:21:28 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:21:28 -0000 Subject: Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: <7b9f25e50612150630o73241e6ctcd5c9c89e61c63b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162828 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" wrote: > The prophecy in question actually applies equally to Crouch Jr. In > fact, it applies better, as Pettigrew was _in hiding_, not "chained". zanooda: "Chained" fits Crouch Jr. better, sure, but what about the "tonight, before midnight" line? It cannot apply to Crouch Jr., who "set out to rejoin his master" not that very night, but later. In fact, he didn't even "set out", LV and PP came to free him, after PP helped Vapor!Mort to become Baby!Mort. From eviljunglechicken at yahoo.com Fri Dec 15 23:57:27 2006 From: eviljunglechicken at yahoo.com (eviljunglechicken) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:57:27 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162829 - > Alla: > > There is stupid IMO and there is stupid. It is completely > unbelievable to me that Draco would not guess that Greyback would > come not because he knows the name, but precisely because Draco > threatens Borgin with the name - the leap to make from there is not > big for me. > I'll see this stupid and raise you a moron. It seems beyond reason that Harry would not suspect an unknown spell and one conveniently labelled "for enemies" could be a potentially lethal one. Is he not an orphan due to the flick of a wand and an utterance of words? Has he not seen a murder with the same before his very eyes? I would certainly be wary. But according to what we get in the book, we should indeed believe that he is just a moron. eviljunglechicken From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 16 01:55:56 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 01:55:56 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162830 Betsy Hp: > > > Who did Draco murder? a_svirn: > > No one. I said he stooped to murder, but we all know very well > > that he wasn't successful. Or, as Dumbledore said, he > > was "lucky". Which actually means that his victims were lucky. Betsy Hp: > I'm still confused. Who did Draco murder, that we can say he > stooped to murder? What lucky victim of Draco's desire to murder > are you referring to here? Because as far as I've read, Draco had > the opportunity to murder one person, Dumbledore. And he chose > not to do so. SSSusan: I have to say this seems a *wee* bit disingenuous. ;-) I mean, I think it's pretty clear that a_svirn's point is Draco INTENDED to murder with his first two plots, and he almost did do so, even if the people who ended up almost getting it weren't the person he set out to kill. It seems to me little more than semantics: Draco stooped to murder vs. Draco stooped to attempted murder. Isn't it the *intent* which was in Draco which mattered? So he was unsuccessful. Do we really think he was cheering about being unsuccessful those first two times, saying to himself, "Yay! I'm not really a murderer!"? I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer. Siriusly Snapey Susan From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 02:23:10 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 02:23:10 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162831 > Betsy Hp: > > I'm still confused. Who did Draco murder, that we can say he > > stooped to murder? What lucky victim of Draco's desire to murder > > are you referring to here? Because as far as I've read, Draco had > > the opportunity to murder one person, Dumbledore. And he chose > > not to do so. Alla: Whom did Draco attempted to murder? Um, Dumbledore - TWICE. Instead he almost killed Ron and Katie. SSSusan: > It seems to me little more than semantics: Draco stooped to murder > vs. Draco stooped to attempted murder. Isn't it the *intent* which > was in Draco which mattered? So he was unsuccessful. Do we really > think he was cheering about being unsuccessful those first two > times, saying to himself, "Yay! I'm not really a murderer!"? > > I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer. Alla: Besides just agreeing, I also think that when Dumbledore on the Tower was saying that Draco is not a killer, he was absolutely lying, because again - two murder attempts were done. :) But I also think that here Dumbledore was lying for good purpose - he was trying to make Draco change his mind, to appeal to his better part, if such exists. And it is totally possible, loathe that as I am that he succeeded. But if Draco's **better part** chose to listen, that to me does not mean that he is not a killer, because his another part, um, attempted to do just that. IMO, of course. Alla. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 16 02:37:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:37:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DDM!Harry and Snape/The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) References: Message-ID: <007001c720bb$16729650$1286400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162832 Alla: > > LOL. You think Snape is more worthy of that title than Harry? I > suppose under certain circumstances I would not wish that title on > Harry at all, but I believe that JKR indeed means for us for Harry to > be seen as prototype of DDM - ultimate loyalty and all that. IMO of > course. Magpie: Yup! I totally think of him as more of DDM, but obviously the term means something different to me than to you. Basically, I think Harry is his own man. He's potentially someone who could become an equal to Dumbledore--a totally different guy, but at 150 Harry might also have a great reputation and be a wiley old guy etc. (He's less brilliant, but he might bring something else to the table.) Dumbledore has now died before Harry's reached adulthood and before he's had his biggest challenges, so he's not going to be Harry's leader as an adult. Harry's more like Dumbledore as a person to start with than Snape and they've always been on the same side, but in a way I'd almost say that Dumbledore was more Harry's man than vice versa. It was Harry who would always have to fight and Dumbledore was always trying to prepare for that, including dying and passing the torch to Harry. (Harry's also pretty independent really, which I think is a good thing. He doesn't trust Snape because Dumbledore does. If he's going to see him as an ally he's going to need to see it for himself.) Now, with Snape as he seems to me as a DDM!Snaper (if all this is jossed in the next book obviously I'll have to take it all back!) Dumbledore the man is far more important because Snape's story is one of redemption. When he was a DE who realized he made a mistake and wanted to fix it it was Dumbledore who gave him a second chance and vouched for him. He tells everyone to trust him. When Fake!Moody suggested otherwise Snape got very upset about how Dumbledore trusted him. He's spent almost all his adult life under the guy. Snape has very few people in his life--most of his old friends he betrayed by switching sides and the good side doesn't really trust him. So there was only Dumbledore. So while Harry might learn to be more like Dumbledore in terms of understanding his lessons in mercy and second chances, Snape *is* one of Dumbledore's lessons in mercy and second chances. So to me Snape's greatest potential role is as truly Dumbledore's man. He's not going to get higher than that. Harry, strange as it is to say, doesn't need Dumbledore. > Magpie: > I think that's why Dumbledore can't be meaning what you are saying > he means (and why I disagree with all interpretations that say that > Draco didn't feel anything about Katie and Ron--if he almost-killed > from a slight distance with no problem, I'd need more explanation as > to why he couldn't kill Dumbledore). Dumbledore is throughout the > scene, imo, saying that Draco did have a problem with murder, > period. a_svirn: So he does. And that's just another instance of Dumbledore's being hypocritical. Because all those problems were in fact technical, yet Dumbledore made them sound as if they were moral problems. Draco made two honest-to-God murder attempts, and that's a fact. He let a group of hit-men into Hogwarts to finish Dumbledore off, and that's another fact. Whatever he felt about it didn't stop him from doing it. Magpie: Oh, I didn't expect that not to be challenged as a concept. But I thought that was what the book was laying out as the way Dumbledore saw things. (Dumbledore of course having some insavory connection to those murders himself, given what he knew.) a_svirn: So would you say that Macbeth and his Lady weren't really murderers? I mean, look how the whole thing affected them! And I don't think that Pettigrew is particularly happy about murdering people, but needs must. Of course, Draco's record is no match to Pettigrew's - yet - but he made a start of sorts. Not a very promising start, because he feels queasy about killing people with his own hand, but he's very clever about arranging for them to be killed. Magpie: Pettigrew I would say obviously was a killer because he's not bothered by killing. He hates certain things about his life, but killing's no problem at all. I think he was probably relatively happy as Scabbers all those years. With the Macbeth's, well, they turn out to be kind of driven to self-destruction by their murders so perhaps a case could be made that it didn't really suit them.:-) But I can't really compare them because they're in a different story and I think JKR is saying something different in hers. In JKR's book actual murder is given, imo, as a big barrier to cross. Coming close to murder seems to be sometimes more of a warning sign to the would-be murderer more than a done deal. a_svirn: I don't know what it means, "killer at heart". He is not a bloodthirsty brute, like Grayback, or an insane sadist like his aunt, nor is he a hardened criminal. On the whole, he would rather not to kill. But he accepts the necessity of murder and acts accordingly. I don't know what it says about his heart, but it certainly shows that he's capable of murder. Magpie: I would say the way it seems to me (and I obviously mean this is how I think it's being set up in the story--I'm not applying this to real people who almost kill) is that before making the attempts murder isn't real to Draco and without that dose of reality he wasn't honestly making a choice about murder. He's been brought up to think killing is fine, he can imagine it and come up with ways to do it, but the reality is still different. He's already guilty of almost killing people, but can he live with an actual murder on his conscience now that he has a taste of what that would be like? And presumably a big reason why he doesn't is because the near-misses showed him what murder really was. a_svirn: Then you disagree with canon, because that's what Draco says. Even after Dumbledore had presented Draco with a choice he was still thinking about the advantage of killing Dumbledore. 'But I got this far, didn't I?' he said slowly. They thought I'd die in the attempt, but I'm here ... and you're in my power ... I'm the one with the wand ... you're at my mercy ...' Magpie: I'm not disagreeing with canon I'm interpreting Draco's motivation differently there. You see it as him thinking about the possible advantages of killing Dumbledore. I see him letting go of what's been important to him for so long, and part of that is recognizing how close he is to it. Killing Dumbledore is not an option ever in the scene. Draco's never made a move to kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore recognizes right away that whatever he's got to fear, this kid killing him isn't it. So Draco wouldn't go over the advantages of killing because it's off the table--and that's not what he says, either. He talks about where he's gotten to up until this moment--he didn't get killed, he got this far, he's got Dumbledore at his mercy. a_svirn: Except that Dumbledore himself said that Draco got it all wrong and it was Dumbledore's mercy that counted. And only after Dumbledore pointed that out, did Draco start to lower his wand. Because he finally acknowledged that he would find neither glory, nor mercy from Voldemort's hands. Magpie: But Dumbledore was, imo, speaking spiritually. Dumbledore's not warning him about Voldemort in the scene. I think that reading reduces the concept of mercy for Dumbledore--he's just using it like Draco is using it or like a DE would use it. He's just another tough guy. I think Dumbledore is using mercy in a far more important sense (some would say a Christian sense). He's offering mercy to his murderer. That's what Draco's accepting, not just protection from Voldemort. I think that's why it will stay with Draco in the next book long after Dumbledore's practical offer of witness protection ceases to be an option. Basically, I think it's a powerful line and far more central to Dumbledore's character than just "I won't kill you but snake-eyes will." BetsyHP: > But Draco is supposed to assume that out of several nameless Death > Eaters he knows (that we've never met since we've not sat on Draco's > shoulder during the entirety of his life as he's met and/or heard of > several possible Death Eaters) that the mad werewolf is going to be > the one sent? > > Sorry, but that's stretching it, IMO. To show that Draco's surprise > is fake, you'll need to show a tell that hints as such at the time he > expresses his surprise. a_svirn: Talk about stretching! Where do you see surprise? All Draco shows is disgust. And while other death eaters are indeed nameless, Fenrir Grayback has a name, and that's the one name Draco is quick enough to mention. Magpie: Actually, I don't know how exactly I'd describe what Draco shows in response to Fenrir. Dumbledore shows disgust. Draco's trying not to look at him. I figured it was complete horror Draco was feeling. But he *expresses* that he didn't know Fenrir was coming. I don't think he needs to show great surprise--as you say, he's mentioned the guy before. I think once Fenrir shows up he quickly gets that this was always a possibility. But I still thought he was telling the truth to Dumbledore. (I don't honestly think Draco was capable of lying at that point. He's been laid bare by the master.) -m From random832 at gmail.com Sat Dec 16 02:31:57 2006 From: random832 at gmail.com (Jordan Abel) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 21:31:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Wrong-headed compassion (was Re: Harry Draco and bathroom) In-Reply-To: References: <7b9f25e50612150630o73241e6ctcd5c9c89e61c63b9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7b9f25e50612151831q2aaa497bqcebd54d45adc0be2@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162833 On 12/15/06, zanooda2 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jordan Abel" > wrote: > > > The prophecy in question actually applies equally to Crouch Jr. In > > fact, it applies better, as Pettigrew was _in hiding_, not "chained". > > > zanooda: > > "Chained" fits Crouch Jr. better, sure, but what about the "tonight, > before midnight" line? It cannot apply to Crouch Jr., who "set out to > rejoin his master" not that very night, but later. In fact, he didn't > even "set out", LV and PP came to free him, after PP helped Vapor!Mort > to become Baby!Mort. I forgot to mention this link. http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/theundergroundlake/tul23.shtml scroll down to the part about Trelawney. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 16 01:06:54 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:06:54 -0500 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162834 Lupinlore, when did JKR condone child abuse? I can't find it. Certainly it happens in the stories, but I can't see that she approves of it. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 04:03:51 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 04:03:51 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162835 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Who did Draco murder? > >>a_svirn: > > No one. I said he stooped to murder, but we all know very well > > that he wasn't successful. Or, as Dumbledore said, he > > was "lucky". Which actually means that his victims were lucky. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I'm still confused. Who did Draco murder, that we can say he > > stooped to murder? What lucky victim of Draco's desire to murder > > are you referring to here? Because as far as I've read, Draco > > had the opportunity to murder one person, Dumbledore. And he > > chose not to do so. > >>SSSusan: > I have to say this seems a *wee* bit disingenuous. ;-) I mean, I > think it's pretty clear that a_svirn's point is Draco INTENDED to > murder with his first two plots, and he almost did do so, even if > the people who ended up almost getting it weren't the person he set > out to kill. Betsy Hp: But that's not a_svirn's point as I understood it. Or at least, that's not what the point was when this conversation started. (If there was a shift, I missed it. Which does happen. ) Here's where this conversation started: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162798 > >>a_svirn: > Oh, yes, Dumbledore said that he's not a killer. But what does it > mean? He didn't say, "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer", because > they both knew that Draco did stoop to murder. > Betsy Hp: So a_svirn is taking the position (as far as I could tell) that while Draco is not a killer (as per Dumbledore) Draco *is* a murderer. And (from what I understand) that Dumbledore agrees with that assessment and is engaging in linguistical games in order to trick Draco into lowering his wand. Since I cannot see how someone can be a murderer while at the same time *not* be a killer I am getting a bit nit picky. But I'm not being disingenuous. I'm asking for clarity. (I *am* quite certain that clarity will not come because I believe the argument is nonsensical. One must kill in order to be a murderer.) > >>SSSusan: > It seems to me little more than semantics: Betsy Hp: But semantics is the entire bases of the argument, as far as I can see. > >>SSSusan: > Draco stooped to murder vs. Draco stooped to attempted murder. > Isn't it the *intent* which was in Draco which mattered? So he was > unsuccessful. Do we really think he was cheering about being > unsuccessful those first two times, saying to himself, "Yay! I'm > not really a murderer!"? Betsy Hp: Well, *we* might not , but I suspect that he felt a massive amount of guilt over the near deaths of both Katie and Ron. Hence his physical breakdown, the lack of future attempts of this sort, and the eventual lowering of his wand before a powerless Dumbledore. I don't think Draco *cheered* his failure, because he'd have seen it *as* a failure, a lack of manhood. (Draco as Hamlet .) But since Dumbledore tells us that Draco is not a killer, it follows that he is also not a murderer. > >>SSSusan: > I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer. Betsy Hp: But not, as per Dumbledore, in his heart of hearts. > >>Alla: > Besides just agreeing, I also think that when Dumbledore on the > Tower was saying that Draco is not a killer, he was absolutely > lying, because again - two murder attempts were done. :) Betsy Hp: You really think Dumbledore's last task was one of deception? I suppose it'll take Book 7 for the final say, but IMO it makes no story sense (unless Dumbledore is completely deconstructed in the last book and is revealed as a stupid old man; lying or mistaken about just about everything). If Dumbledore is either lying or wrong about the core of Draco Malfoy, than he becomes a pathetic failure. I honestly don't see JKR taking the story in that direction. > >>Alla: > But I also think that here Dumbledore was lying for good purpose - > he was trying to make Draco change his mind, to appeal to his better > part, if such exists. And it is totally possible, loathe that as I > am that he succeeded. Betsy Hp: Change Draco's mind about what though? What you're saying is that Draco *is* a killer, but Dumbledore reconstructed him somehow. Which means Draco has become a tool in Dumbledore's hands too. He is still a puppet of higher beings. > >>Alla: > But if Draco's **better part** chose to listen, that to me does not > mean that he is not a killer, because his another part, um, > attempted to do just that. Betsy Hp: Draco did attempt to become a killer, a murderer. But his attempt was pathetic (as per Dumbledore and Snape, and Draco actually). And see, if just the attempt makes Draco a murderer, then it follows that Harry is a sadist because he threw a Crucio at Bellatrix. I don't think this is how JKR is working things. >>Betsy Hp: > > I see Draco's statement as very fuzzy as far as truthfulness goes > > because he refers to Fenrir as a "family friend", which is an > > impossibility. There's no way a family as stuck on blood purity > > as the Malfoys are is going to befriend a creature with a blood > > disease. Draco is exaggerating, as Draco is wont to do. > >>a_svirn: > You forget that "family" is how Voldemort refers to his death > eaters. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, I *did* forget that! (Damn, this gives more evidence towards Draco showing Borgin a Dark Mark.) Yeah, I can totally see Draco meaning *that* family. But it still doesn't follow that this means Draco should have expected Fenrir to come through the Cabinet. He's still just pulling out the scariest threat he can think of. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 04:34:32 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 04:34:32 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162837 > >>SSSusan: > > I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer. > > Betsy Hp: > But not, as per Dumbledore, in his heart of hearts. Alla: My mind is totally boggling right now. Okay, he intended to be a murderer not in his heart of hearts, just in his heart? Seriously, not attempting any sarcasm or anything, but the fact is Draco willingly attempted to kill Dumbledore twice, no? So, how do you figure that he did not intend to do so? > > >>Alla: > > Besides just agreeing, I also think that when Dumbledore on the > > Tower was saying that Draco is not a killer, he was absolutely > > lying, because again - two murder attempts were done. :) > > Betsy Hp: > You really think Dumbledore's last task was one of deception? I > suppose it'll take Book 7 for the final say, but IMO it makes no > story sense (unless Dumbledore is completely deconstructed in the > last book and is revealed as a stupid old man; lying or mistaken > about just about everything). If Dumbledore is either lying or wrong > about the core of Draco Malfoy, than he becomes a pathetic failure. > I honestly don't see JKR taking the story in that direction. Alla: I am saying that cold canon facts IMO of course, you may disagree that they constitute cold canon facts contradict Dumbledore's asssesment very strongly. I do think that Dumbledore may have been deceiving Draco, somehow, yes and saying what Draco needed to hear, knowing that there is a chance that something in Draco may listen to DD. > > >>Alla: > > But I also think that here Dumbledore was lying for good purpose - > > he was trying to make Draco change his mind, to appeal to his better > > part, if such exists. And it is totally possible, loathe that as I > > am that he succeeded. > > Betsy Hp: > Change Draco's mind about what though? What you're saying is that > Draco *is* a killer, but Dumbledore reconstructed him somehow. Which > means Draco has become a tool in Dumbledore's hands too. He is still > a puppet of higher beings. Alla: Um, yeah, I am saying that Draco intended to become a murderer and showed that by his murder attempts and Dumbledore pushed him towards the right path, absolutely. Whether Draco will accept or not it is IMO totally up in the air. My instincts are telling me that little brat will accept, yes, but I strongly disagree that calling someone who just committed two murder attempts not a murderer, or if you wish "attempted murderer" is correct. > Betsy Hp: > Draco did attempt to become a killer, a murderer. But his attempt > was pathetic (as per Dumbledore and Snape, and Draco actually). Alla: Not per Ron, who almost died and not per Katie who spent several months in the hospital and who seemed to be in horrible pain. I would think they call Draco's attempts pretty well done. Betsy Hp: > And see, if just the attempt makes Draco a murderer, then it follows > that Harry is a sadist because he threw a Crucio at Bellatrix. I > don't think this is how JKR is working things. > Alla: The difference of course that Draco's attempts **worked** as in his victims ( even though wrong people) could have died easily and did not die only by lucky chance and Harry's attempt as far as I remember did not cause any pain to Bellatrix, so it was not working. IMO of course. From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 16 04:27:08 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 23:27:08 -0500 Subject: Murder in self-defense Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162838 That's a contradiction in terms. If a homicide was in self-defense, it isn't murder, it is justifiable homicide. If you are going to throw legal--or the 'terms of art' for any other learned profession for that matter--be sure to use them correctly. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 16 12:25:45 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 12:25:45 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162839 > Betsy Hp: > It's so funny because the man you describe just is not Snape to me; > I don't recognize him at all. (Which means, of course, that you > must have the same reaction when *I* talk about Snape. "Who is > this strange creature Betsy's talking about?" ) So I cannot > imagine that I'll change your mind. (I'll leave that to JKR and > Book 7. ) Jen: Strangely, no, I see the version of Snape you guys see very clearly because when I closed HBP for the first time I read the same story. I argued early on for DDM!Snape, pretty strongly if I remember . > Jen previous: While Dumbledore dealt in mercy and Voldemort in > savagery, Snape walked a tightrope between them engaging in neither > one. Betsy: > But the other issue I have is that there's too much going on here. > There's not a "true" Snape in this scenario. He's a little bit of > what Dumbledore sees, a little bit of what Voldemort sees, and a > little bit of what Harry sees, carefully walking a tightrope and > refusing to choose. And the problem with that is it makes for a > very poor "revelation". You say there's no growth involved, but > there must be. Because even Snape doesn't know who he is until > he's forced by circumstance to finally pick a personality. And in > picking that "true" Snape, Snape must change. (Actually, I think > you're stealing Draco's story and trying to stick it on Snape.) Jen: I didn't mean to imply that Snape and Dumbledore don't know who Snape is (I think that's what you meant?). That's *why* the tower was successful, because only Dumbledore and Snape know the truth. What I meant is that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and allied to him, but he doesn't fully accept Dumbledore's love magic just as he didn't accept Voldemort's version. I think the run across the grounds was one example, he still believes Harry must close his mind to defeat Voldemort and we know Harry must open his heart. But Snape *did* choose a path to be a double agent or 'dual person'. I mean, there's a reason Dumbledore has to proclaim his trust far and wide, right? Yet we find out in HBP no one else really believed Snape which means he was a helluva double-agent in the end! The reason I don't see this making a poor revelation is because the loyalty revelation is *not* the biggest issue on the table to me regarding Snape. Harry having an 'aha' moment about whose side Snape is on is just another Sirius moment--"I thought your were evil! You're on my side and what's more, we have a lot in common." (More below) > Betsy Hp: > But... Harry's *already* seen that Snape is a lot like him on the > inside. He's had two sneak attacks of "OMG, I'm relating to > SNAPE!" at current count. Do you really think Harry's feeling > after the pensieve scene and his bonding with the half-blood Prince > were examples of JKR spinning her wheels? Jen: No, no! I love these moments, as well as when Harry gets to see bits from Snape's childhood and likely when the Prank is revealed. It's just that I don't see them leading to the loyalty revelation, or leading there indirectly. Like you, I see Snape as already redeemed, he's been redeeming himself for years and Harry will get that part *after* he gets the bigger deal. Snape's role will actually be the biggest one for Harry's growth because when he can see Snape through Lily's and Dumbledore's eyes of compassion, he will finally understand the power he holds that Voldemort does not. When he can truly feel empathy for the boy Snape was, what he lost, why he made the huge mistakes he did and his genuine feelings of remorse and pain, then Harry will understand he was loyal all along. Even if you don't agree, maybe that's an urgh scenario for you , that still fits the criteria for Harry learning from Snape, doesn't it? > Betsy Hp: > Exactly! Which is why Snape needs to have been steadily on the > good guys' side throughout the books. Just as he was in PS/SS. > Otherwise either he or Draco is a wasted character, one the faded > copy of the other. (And since Draco's the one running around with > the "bad faith" moniker, I'm betting on him being the one having to > make a resolute choice. You know, because of Sartre. ) Jen: I guess I answered this one above for Draco, why I believe his revelation of loyalty will be the bigger one because Snape will be part of something else for Harry. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sat Dec 16 13:17:49 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:17:49 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162840 Having read much of this discussion I'd like to comment on some problems I see with a Grey!Snape who ultimately comes through for Dumbledore's side. Through the books Harry has developed and expanded several attitudes toward Snape, some highlighted by Dumbledore's comments and others highlighted in the narrative. 1. Harry hates Snape to a greater and greater degree. He hated Snape even before HBP and had decided by the end of OOTP that he would "never" forgive Snape. Of course, that's a very likely foreshadowing that he will have to forgive Snape. 2. Harry believes Snape is on Voldemort's side and that Snape murdered Dumbledore in cold blood. Obviously, Harry will have to be convinced that this isn't true. 3. Harry distrusts Snape. Dumbledore has said repeatedly that he "trusts" Snape and Harry cannot bring himself to do the same, not knowing Dumbledore's reasons. At the end of HBP, we see that apparently no one else is willing to admit to having trusted Snape, or to knowing Dumbledore's reasons for trusting him. But because Dumbledore made such a big deal over the trust issue, I believe this is also something that Harry will have to come to -- a trust in Snape. A lot of readers apparently can't deal with a *pure* "trust" notion and come up with all sorts of reasons to make DD's "trust" in Snape really just an odd euphemism for being convinced that Snape will follow their side out of some sort of compulsion like a life debt or another unbreakable Vow, but of course, that doesn't actually make Snape trustworthy, only compelled. The problem with Grey!Snape is that while JKR can take Grey!Snape and give Harry convincing evidence that Snape is or has been working for Dumbledore's side, Grey!Snape cannot fit the other needs of Harry's future changed attitude toward Snape. Grey!Snape is not trustworthy, because he himself does not know his own mind, and therefore can't be truly trusted. But if Dumbledore truly *trusted* Snape (rather than depending on some other compelling thing), then for Harry to trust Snape, Snape will have to be shown to be *trustworthy.* And Grey!Snape should not be truly trusted. Further, I'm not sure how forgiveable Grey!Snape is. Of course, I would say that philosophically anyone is forgiveable, but for Harry I think he will have to have *reasons* to forgive Snape. I don't think a Snape who isn't really even sure himself where he falls on motivation is going to be particularly forgiveable for Harry. And last, I think JKR has been drawing a parallel between Harry and Snape. From their backgrounds of being half-bloods, bullied, probably both coming from unpleasant childhoods, etc., to the HBP evidence that if one could only take away all the background of hate, Harry could have liked Snape as he liked the Prince, JKR has been drawing this parallel. Because of the parallel, I think Harry will have to ultimately see Snape as just as much Dumbledore's man, as he sees himself -- with perhaps just the same stumbling block, in that they both will follow Dumbledore on practically anything except Dumbledore's opinion of each other. So -- a Grey!Snape can still be on Dumbledore's "side," and Harry can be convinced of that. But a Grey!Snape is not trustworthy and cannot (and should not) therefore become trusted by Harry. A Grey!Snape may be much more difficult for Harry to forgive. And a Grey!Snape removes a lot of the parallels between Harry and Snape which JKR seems intent on developing. wynnleaf From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 16 13:27:57 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:27:57 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162841 SSSusan previously: > I have to say this seems a *wee* bit disingenuous. ;-) I mean, I > think it's pretty clear that a_svirn's point is Draco INTENDED to > murder with his first two plots, and he almost did do so, even if > the people who ended up almost getting it weren't the person he set > out to kill. Betsy Hp: > But that's not a_svirn's point as I understood it. Or at least, > that's not what the point was when this conversation started > So a_svirn is taking the position (as far as I could tell) that > while Draco is not a killer (as per Dumbledore) Draco *is* a > murderer. And (from what I understand) that Dumbledore agrees with > that assessment and is engaging in linguistical games in order to > trick Draco into lowering his wand. > > Since I cannot see how someone can be a murderer while at the same > time *not* be a killer I am getting a bit nit picky. But I'm not > being disingenuous. I'm asking for clarity. (I *am* quite certain > that clarity will not come because I believe the argument is > nonsensical. One must kill in order to be a murderer.) SSSusan: > It seems to me little more than semantics: Betsy Hp: > But semantics is the entire bases of the argument, as far as I can > see. SSSusan: Thanks for taking me back to the start so that I could see where the argument began. Fair enough to say you don't see yourself as being disingenuous, only nit-picky. I guess if it seems a nonsensical argument, though, I'd just stop arguing is all. :) Anyway, getting a bit away from the semantics to the other issue... SSSusan previously: > > I think not. He INTENDED to be a murderer. Betsy Hp: > But not, as per Dumbledore, in his heart of hearts. Alla replied: > My mind is totally boggling right now. Okay, he intended to be a > murderer not in his heart of hearts, just in his heart? > > Seriously, not attempting any sarcasm or anything, but the fact is > Draco willingly attempted to kill Dumbledore twice, no? > > So, how do you figure that he did not intend to do so? Betsy: > And see, if just the attempt makes Draco a murderer, then it > follows that Harry is a sadist because he threw a Crucio at > Bellatrix. I don't think this is how JKR is working things. SSSusan: This is where I pull away from the position you have, Betsy. (And I mean, not arguing "killer" vs. "murderer," but arguing intent to be a murderer.) To me there is a significant difference between what happened with Harry in the spur of a moment, at the end of a battle, and what happened with Draco's first two attempts to kill Dumbledore. The difference in my mind has to do with intent, with planning, with premeditation. Therein lies a BIG difference for me. Harry likely did intend to hurt Bellatrix ? yes, indeed ? although even Bella scoffed that he "had to mean it" so perhaps I'm wrong. Regardless, the Crucio attempt was spontaneous, heat-of-the- moment, and while a battle was raging. Draco, OTOH, had weeks & months in which he *planned* these two attempts on DD's life. He plotted, schemed and set them up. I know it's not the RW but the WW, but that is a difference that I believe most juries would consider. It's also the difference that makes me not hesitate in the slightest to say that Draco stooped to real and intended attempted murder. If Draco had succeeded in either attempt, then DD would not have said [hee ? well, he wouldn't have been able to say it, but you know what I mean ], "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer." Because it would have been a known fact that he was one. That he failed does not make it untrue that Draco did twice stoop to attempted murder. He got *lucky* that he failed, yes, and that that allowed DD to confront him on that last occasion, to talk him out of succeeding in becoming a murderer on his third attempt. I think you're right, Betsy, that DD said what he said on the tower because he either believed or hoped that Draco didn't *want* to be a murderer "in his heart of hearts" (or just his plain old heart ). It does not take away the fact, however, that Draco did intend and try to become one and was only foiled by circumstance and/or bad planning. So DD was only "allowed" to say what he did to Draco by virtue of the fact that Draco screwed up, not necessarily by virtue of the fact that Draco's motives and intentions weren't "really" to kill. (Unless you would actually argue that Draco sabotaged himself in his first two schemes and tried not to succeed?) Betsy Hp: > Well, *we* might not , but I suspect that he felt a massive > amount of guilt over the near deaths of both Katie and Ron. Hence > his physical breakdown, the lack of future attempts of this sort, > and the eventual lowering of his wand before a powerless > Dumbledore. SSSusan: I definitely don't argue that we saw these outward manifestations of *something* in Draco in the text. I'm not ready to make the leap to "massive amount of guilt" in those manifestations, though. I think we could all concur that the stress of the task alone could have caused them. Whether massive guilt accompanied the stress remains to be seen. It's possible, and I know that those who want a Redeemed!Draco hope that it's true. I just don't think it's a given at all from what we've seen in the text. Siriusly Snapey Susan From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Dec 16 13:57:18 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 13:57:18 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162842 > Carol responds: > I don't think I've made this particular argument (I can never have > too much of Snape), but I do think that the key point is not a > change of heart in Snape but the revelation of his loyalties, which > will come as a shock to Harry. Jen: I apologize for not answering fully earlier, but I was struck by what seemed to be implications about DDM that didn't click with what I've been reading. As for the loyalty issue, I answered this a bit in a post to Betsy and won't go into detail but I see it as secondary to the lesson Harry will learn below. Carol: ...and it is Harry who has to learn Dumbledore's lessons (mercy, forgiveness, trust in Snape). Snape is Snape, and he's not going to change, either in essential character or in loyalty, IMO. We, and Harry, will simply find out that he is and remains DDM (or whatever). Jen: Yes, complete agreement. Although I feel like you are saying in most of your other arguments that there is nothing to forgive Snape *for*, which will completely ruin this part of the story. If Harry is to learn about mercy and trusting Snape, see him through the eyes of compassion, there must be things Harry needs to feel merciful and forgiving about. Carol: There's no room in the story for Snape's own internal conflict, which has long since been suppressed or overcome. Jen: I see his loyalty as static, but his person is not. Once again he made a mistake with the UV that contributed to an innocent person's death and this time by his own hand. Snape salvaged a situation that he himself had a part in setting up. Maybe Snape expects Harry to 'thank him on bended knee' for saving his life just like he expected James to, when he himself made a contribution to both needing saving in the first place? Carol: > And all the time, throughout the book, there's the parallel motif of > the Half-blood Prince, who improves Potions and invents clever > spells and reminds Harry of Snape's lesson on Bezoars, an unknown > teenage boy whom Harry sees as a friend, who helps him out in many > ways--and turns out to be Snape. But at the end of the book, all > Harry sees is Snape as murderer of Dumbledore. Jen: I believe Harry identifies with that boy and that will be important for his own compassion, but it says more about who Snape was & what he lost, imo. Carol: > Sad to say, Snape has had his book. We'll find out more about him, > of course. We'll have to for the reveal/reversal to make sense. But > most of it will be snippets of Snape's past and none of it will be > insight into the inner workings of Snape's mind. Jen: I don't expect delving into the inner workings of Snape's mind to reveal some information about him. POA and GOF both delved into stories about the central figure whom Harry was going to have a revelation about and they were quite satisfying in detail and scope without being a therapy session. I don't understand this part? I believe JKR has proven her ability to focus on contradictions and still reveal a person for who he/she is. > Carol: > I agree that he detests having to go back to Voldemort, but that was > always part of the plan from at least GoF and possibly before, as, I > think, was giving Snape the cursed DADA position when he was most > needed, a year of passing on his skills and knowledge to the > students before the DADA curse forced his return to Voldemort and, > as you so beautifully put it, " a confluence of events forced Snape > out in the open (ironically on the wrong side)." But, IMO, what > Snape is now saddled with is not attachment to any person or group > (though Draco could prove to be a thorn in his side) but the agony > of intensified remorse. If he felt remorse for his part in the > Potters' being targeted and killed by Voldemort, what must he feel > now at having been forced, not by the UV alone but by > the "confluence of events," to kill Dumbledore? And now, having > lost everything, he must pretend to be loyal to Voldemort. Jen: I see Snape as part of the confluence of events, though! I didn't mean he was outside that and life was happening to him, he took part in the UV, he wanted the DADA job (presumably). And Snape is weighted down with obligations he doesn't want, imo. Returning to Voldemort, carrying through with Dumbledore's plans for Harry and having 'custody' of Draco for all intents and purposes since Narcissa has no influence over Voldemort. It's one thing to be a double-agent and appear to play both sides, it's quite another to be forced out of that role and *have* to go to the enemy camp. It's the worst possible scenario for a double-agent. Carol: > But you don't need to hold your breath for Snape to show mercy. He > has already done so. Look again at the healing scene in the > Sectumsempra chapter. Snape is forgiving Draco for fighting the > Chosen One and trying to kill Dumbledore, and he is letting him > continue his assignment, very much against Snape's will, IMO, > because Dumbledore believes in choices and second chances. Jen: You mean Snape would have rather let Draco die and he himself then die from the UV there than carry out Dumbledore's plan but instead did as Dumbledore would have wanted? I'm not seeing another option if he didn't save Draco. Not to belittle that he created a healing means for the Sectumsempra, but once again that was his own curse; The healing would not be necessary if he hadn't invented the curse. Sort of like the Potters wouldn't have needed to be saved without Voldemort knowing the prophecy and Harry and Draco wouldn't need to be saved on the tower if Snape hadn't played a role in that scenario (not placing the full burden on Snape there, just saying he played a role in all these situations and seems to be continually making mistakes he then has to play a role in correcting). Carol: > An In "The flight of the Prince," he has *Harry* at his mercy. He > knows what spell Harry'ss going to cast, but he simply deflects the > spells rather than fighting him. He saves him from a Crucio. And he > stands over him when Harry is wandless and helpless, taunting him > with "Kill me like you killed him, you coward!" and his only > response is an anguished "Don't--call me coward." Jen: I'm not seeing mercy here though I once did, Dumbledore bought Harry's and Draco's life with his sacrifice. Snape's entrusted with them now and if Dumbledore means anything to Snape and he does obviously as both of us see his deep pain and remorse, then Snape will not defile his death by hurting Harry or undermining the very plan he just sacrificed a life for. > Carol, noting that neither Snape nor Draco is Harry's nemesis (that > role is reserved for Voldemort) Jen: I believe Draco is Harry's nemesis from his own generation, his schoolboy nemesis. Dumbledore tried to ensure Harry was more than the Chosen One, he wanted him to have as normal a life as possible and that was part of the reason to stall on telling the prophecy. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 14:42:24 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:42:24 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162843 SSSusan: > I think you're right, Betsy, that DD said what he said on the tower > because he either believed or hoped that Draco didn't *want* to be a > murderer "in his heart of hearts" (or just his plain old heart > ). It does not take away the fact, however, that Draco did > intend and try to become one and was only foiled by circumstance > and/or bad planning. zgirnius: Dumbledore was saying a bit more, I think. (Though, naturally, he/I could be mistaken). It seemed to me that he was suggesting Draco picked methods so elaborate and unlikely to succeed as a subconscious form of self-sabotage; his heart not being in it had practical consequences. So yes, he was lucky, but on the other hand the plans he made would have required considerable (bad) luck to work. SSSusan: > (Unless you would actually argue that Draco sabotaged himself in his > first two schemes and tried not to succeed?) zgirnius: I should read the whole post before starting to respond! But yes, this is what I believe. In Dumbledore's words, > HBP: "Draco, they have been feeble attempts.... So feeble, to be honest, that I wonder whether your heart has been really in it." zgirnius: I'm not sure that he is therefore necessarily feeling very guilty, though. Here we can agree. In some ways that is a separate issue. Sirius Black comes to mind. We are to believe he did not intend to kill Snape, in the prank. But he certainly seems to feel little or no guilt about the whole thing, ever, even after it has been pointed out to him that he might have, if he hadn't been lucky/possessed of a friend like James. Presumably because noone was irreparably harmed, after all. Snape kept Lupin's secret and James and Snape both survived. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 16 15:33:55 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:33:55 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162844 SSSusan previously: > > I think you're right, Betsy, that DD said what he said on the > > tower because he either believed or hoped that Draco didn't > > *want* to be a murderer "in his heart of hearts" (or just his > > plain old heart ). zgirnius: > Dumbledore was saying a bit more, I think. (Though, naturally, > he/I could be mistaken). It seemed to me that he was suggesting > Draco picked methods so elaborate and unlikely to succeed as a > subconscious form of self-sabotage.... SSSusan: > > (Unless you would actually argue that Draco sabotaged himself in > > his first two schemes and tried not to succeed?) zgirnius: > I should read the whole post before starting to respond! SSSusan: Hee. It's happened to all of us, I think! :) zgirnius: > But yes, this is what I believe. In Dumbledore's words, > > HBP: "Draco, they have been feeble attempts.... So feeble, to be > honest, that I wonder whether your heart has been really in it." SSSusan: Thanks, zgirnius, this is beginning to make more sense to me. So the idea is that Dumbledore at least believed that Draco's attempts were feeble enough that they did, indeed, signal reservations within him, and perhaps even included self-sabotage, however conscious or unconscious? And then this gets us back to the issue of whether Draco really & truly intended to murder? And hence DD could be sincere in his comment to Draco on the tower? zgirnius: > I'm not sure that he is therefore necessarily feeling very guilty, > though. Here we can agree. In some ways that is a separate issue. > Sirius Black comes to mind. We are to believe he did not intend to > kill Snape, in the prank. But he certainly seems to feel little or > no guilt about the whole thing, ever, even after it has been > pointed out to him that he might have, if he hadn't been > lucky/possessed of a friend like James. Presumably because noone > was irreparably harmed, after all. SSSusan: Interesting comparison to Sirius and the prank re: the issue of guilt. I think what you're suggesting is that, not having the action actually result in lasting harm might free a person from feeling much guilt? Or perhaps that if the action had had deathly consequences, then the guilt might have appeared? So, since Ron, Katie & DD were all okay at this point, perhaps Draco isn't feeling all that much guilt. Or (heh) am I just way off what you're suggesting? For those who do think Draco is manifesting massive feelings of guilt (with a shout-out to Betsy, of course, but to anyone really!), here's a question that would help me think about this further: The guilt you perceive or suspect in Draco, do you think is it over what happened/almost happened to Katie & Ron, or over what he tried/almost did do to DD? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who obviously has more questions than ideas of her own on this topic, and who's off to ponder what she thinks will happen to Draco in Year 7. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 16 15:47:45 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 10:47:45 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) References: Message-ID: <003f01c72129$88e39360$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162845 > Alla: > > I am saying that cold canon facts IMO of course, you may disagree > that they constitute cold canon facts contradict Dumbledore's > asssesment very strongly. > > I do think that Dumbledore may have been deceiving Draco, somehow, > yes and saying what Draco needed to hear, knowing that there is a > chance that something in Draco may listen to DD. Magpie: I can't agree that Dumbledore was deceiving Draco at all--I think that whole scene was Dumbledore trying to get down to the real deal. Draco never makes a move to kill Dumbledore (which the text calls attention to numerous times through Draco's physicality, the narrator's pov through Harry's eyes and through Dumbledore's dialogue), and Dumbledore never tries to trick, manipulate or pressure Draco into anything. He is, by narrative design, plot contrivance and his own choice of how to speak, helpless. That's another reason I can't agree with any reading of the mercy line where Dumbledore is basically using Voldeort's threat as his own. He's all about giving Draco a choice that he can accept or reject. But regarding the "killer" thing, here's how I think it works. If we were talking about a real boy who had sent out poisoned wine and a bomb in the mail and they had hurt people who didn't die, and someone said, "But he's not a killer--they didn't die!" I think we'd all think that was crazy because we'd all be focused on the danger the boy posed. So what if his attempts didn't actually succeed because there happened to be a doctor present at the time? The actions he took were intentionally deadly and had a very good chance of killing people. So we can't dismiss them because they didn't work. But within the book, I don't think you can blur those two things (attempted murderer and murderer) together that way. Death, in this universe, is one of those things of great importance and magical metaphor. Besides the main monster villain fearing death and chasing immortality, we've got Thestrals that you can't see until you have seen death. Iow, seeing death literally changes your view of the world. You can see things that were literally not there before. And in every book up until VI there's some reference for Draco Malfoy in particular not relating to death as real. If seeing death (in the symbolic way Rowling means it--the death of Harry's parents don't count because he's not old enough to comprehend it at all yet) causes a literal change of vision, causing death is an even bigger deal, imo. That's why Harry can't just walk away from the bathroom secure in the knowledge he was defending himself. He was, but almost killing someone is still freaky. And that's more where Draco is at the end of the book. He's almost killed with Katie and Ron, and that's made death start to be more real. But he has not actually caused the death of another person yet. (JKR was careful to not let Ginny do that either, even under possession. Her young age, combined with the possession and lack of deaths means Ginny can be just as Thestral-blind and whole as ever at this point. She can get a little muddy about Harry seeing Thestrals only at the beginning of fifth year, but I don't think she'd want to be fuzzy on this.) His soul is whole. SSSusan: (Unless you would actually argue that Draco sabotaged himself in his first two schemes and tried not to succeed?) Magie: Just wanted to throw in that that is what Dumbledore also says, that Draco was indeed trying not to succeed with his first two schemes. SSSusan: Interesting comparison to Sirius and the prank re: the issue of guilt. I think what you're suggesting is that, not having the action actually result in lasting harm might free a person from feeling much guilt? Or perhaps that if the action had had deathly consequences, then the guilt might have appeared? So, since Ron, Katie & DD were all okay at this point, perhaps Draco isn't feeling all that much guilt. Or (heh) am I just way off what you're suggesting? Magpie: Actually, he may be feeling guilt. We don't get a clear analysis of that aspect of Draco's feelings but by the time he gets to the Tower Dumbledore is confident that he doesn't want to kill. It seems like that logically is coming out of his previous attempts--when he was clueless about death and murder he was able to make the attempts, even if they were feeble. But after two near-deaths he can't even attempt it. So whether or not guilt is the main idea here, I think those attempts were negative for him in some way enough to contribute to his inability to make any more. (Fixing the Cabinet not being actual murder.) SSSsusan: The guilt you perceive or suspect in Draco, do you think is it over what happened/almost happened to Katie & Ron, or over what he tried/almost did do to DD? Magpie: I think I'd say the guilt, if that's what we call it, as about nearly murdering someone. So his negative reaction to Ron and Katie almost dying is bound up in his negative reactions to trying to kill Dumbledore. His earlier attempts may have had Dumbledore in mind, but Ron and Katie were the people he hurt. When he gets to the Tower he doesn't want to kill anyone. -m From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 17:54:01 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:54:01 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162846 > Jen: I believe Draco is Harry's nemesis from his own generation, his > schoolboy nemesis. Dumbledore tried to ensure Harry was more than > the Chosen One, he wanted him to have as normal a life as possible > and that was part of the reason to stall on telling the prophecy. > Jenni from Alabama responds: Here is a thought, ponder this. Lily gave her life to protect Harry. So, Harry was protected by her sacrifice - or the shedding of her blood for him. Dumbledore sacrificed his life to protect Harry. Could he possibly have done this on purpose, so that now Harry would still have protection through HIS sacrifice - the shedding of HIS blood? Looking at things in this light, I think Dumbledore's sacrifice is even more significant than Lily's (not to downplay hers at all). Harry is Lily's child. Any loving mother would give her life for her child. (Still not downplaying her sacrifice here.) But here is Dumbledore who is no relation to Harry but still sacrifices his life for Harry's. I think the strength of that sacrifice and love will play a huge part in what 'saves' Harry. Jenni from Alabama (whistling Dixie) From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 21:20:39 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:20:39 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162847 > Betsy Hp: > But that's not a_svirn's point as I understood it. Or at least, > that's not what the point was when this conversation started. (If > there was a shift, I missed it. Which does happen. ) > > Here's where this conversation started: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162798 > > >>a_svirn: > > Oh, yes, Dumbledore said that he's not a killer. But what does it > > mean? He didn't say, "Draco, Draco, you are not a murderer", because > > they both knew that Draco did stoop to murder. > > > > Betsy Hp: > So a_svirn is taking the position (as far as I could tell) that while > Draco is not a killer (as per Dumbledore) Draco *is* a murderer. And > (from what I understand) that Dumbledore agrees with that assessment > and is engaging in linguistical games in order to trick Draco into > lowering his wand. > a_svirn: Well, it's either that, or Dumbledore is lying. Because Draco did attempt murder. And it is possible to be a murderer without doing actual killing, you know. If I hired you to kill a noisy neighbour of mine, I'd be guilty of murder even if you were the one who did actual work. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 21:14:48 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 21:14:48 -0000 Subject: DDM!Harry and Snape/The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: <007001c720bb$16729650$1286400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162848 > Magpie: > With the Macbeth's, well, they turn out to be kind of driven to > self-destruction by their murders so perhaps a case could be made that it > didn't really suit them.:-) a_svirn: Oh, yes, they certainly didn't. But even if they weren't "killers at heart" they were still murderers. > Magpie: But I can't really compare them because they're > in a different story and I think JKR is saying something different in hers. a_svirn: Since Rowling herself used Macbeth to illustrate a point she is making in HBP I feel justified to follow her example. > Magpie: > In JKR's book actual murder is given, imo, as a big barrier to cross. Coming > close to murder seems to be sometimes more of a warning sign to the would-be > murderer more than a done deal. a_svirn: And yet, this barrier hasn't been crossed only by accident. > Magpie: > I would say the way it seems to me (and I obviously mean this is how I think > it's being set up in the story--I'm not applying this to real people who > almost kill) is that before making the attempts murder isn't real to Draco > and without that dose of reality he wasn't honestly making a choice about > murder. He's been brought up to think killing is fine, he can imagine it and > come up with ways to do it, but the reality is still different. He's already > guilty of almost killing people, but can he live with an actual murder on > his conscience now that he has a taste of what that would be like? And > presumably a big reason why he doesn't is because the near-misses showed him > what murder really was. a_svirn: Whatever the reason, his natural inclinations or his upbringing, it comes to the same thing ? in HBP Draco *was* capable of murder. Whether he is capable of it now remains to be seen, but I, for one, don't see why he should be affected by his near-misses if even the best of the good guys shrug them off as something unimportant. > Magpie: > I'm not disagreeing with canon I'm interpreting Draco's motivation > differently there. You see it as him thinking about the possible advantages > of killing Dumbledore. I see him letting go of what's been important to him > for so long, and part of that is recognizing how close he is to it. Killing > Dumbledore is not an option ever in the scene. a_svirn: Such interpretation renders the whole business on the Tower meaningless, I am afraid. What *is* this scene about if not about Draco choosing between the two options ? to kill or not to kill? Remove the first option and what is left? A foregone conclusion? Poor Draco! He's been a pawn in the big game throughout HBP and now you rob him of the responsibility for the most important choice he seems to have started to make! > Magpie: Draco's never made a move to > kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore recognizes right away that whatever he's got > to fear, this kid killing him isn't it. So Draco wouldn't go over the > advantages of killing because it's off the table--and that's not what he > says, either. He talks about where he's gotten to up until this moment--he > didn't get killed, he got this far, he's got Dumbledore at his mercy. a_svirn: I don't understand why it's "off the table" if he has "Dumbledore at his mercy". It hadn't been on the table when Draco started this business ? his only options were "to do or die" and he fully expected to die. But when he came in and saw Dumbledore incapacitated he suddenly was presented with two other options, and both held certain appeal. It took some time for him to digest this new development, still more to access it. That's what he was talking about. > Magpie: > But Dumbledore was, imo, speaking spiritually. Dumbledore's not warning him > about Voldemort in the scene. I think that reading reduces the concept of > mercy for Dumbledore--he's just using it like Draco is using it or like a DE > would use it. He's just another tough guy. I think Dumbledore is using > mercy in a far more important sense (some would say a Christian sense). He's > offering mercy to his murderer. That's what Draco's accepting, not just > protection from Voldemort. I think that's why it will stay with Draco in the > next book long after Dumbledore's practical offer of witness protection > ceases to be an option. Basically, I think it's a powerful line and far more > central to Dumbledore's character than just "I won't kill you but snake-eyes > will." a_svirn: I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco then? Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point of view. He could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same thing as mercy. To offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do so. Rowling tells us that Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, what sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 22:19:04 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:19:04 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162849 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So a_svirn is taking the position (as far as I could tell) that > > while Draco is not a killer (as per Dumbledore) Draco *is* a > > murderer. And (from what I understand) that Dumbledore agrees > > with that assessment and is engaging in linguistical games in > > order to trick Draco into lowering his wand. > >>a_svirn: > Well, it's either that, or Dumbledore is lying. Because Draco did > attempt murder. And it is possible to be a murderer without doing > actual killing, you know. If I hired you to kill a noisy neighbour > of mine, I'd be guilty of murder even if you were the one who did > actual work. Betsy Hp: If someone actually died, yes of course. Just as, if we accept that Draco is indeed a murderer (in his heart, I guess?) then so is Dumbledore, since he knowingly and willingly allowed an assassin into his school. And while this does make for an interesting legal and philosophical discussion, I just don't think this is where JKR wants her readers to go. In trying to interpert Draco's story, and in trying to anticipate where it's going to go in book 7, I feel I should keep the author's intent in mind. I seriously doubt JKR wants us to see Dumbledore as a liar or a manipulator on the order you're suggesting. So I think any attempt to understand either character (Dumbledore or Draco) based on that thought is going to fail. > >>zgirnius: > > I'm not sure that he is therefore necessarily feeling very guilty, > > though. Here we can agree. In some ways that is a separate issue. > > Sirius Black comes to mind. We are to believe he did not intend to > > kill Snape, in the prank. But he certainly seems to feel little or > > no guilt about the whole thing, ever, even after it has been > > pointed out to him that he might have, if he hadn't been > > lucky/possessed of a friend like James. Presumably because noone > > was irreparably harmed, after all. > >>SSSusan: > For those who do think Draco is manifesting massive feelings of > guilt (with a shout-out to Betsy, of course, but to anyone really!), > here's a question that would help me think about this further: The > guilt you perceive or suspect in Draco, do you think is it over what > happened/almost happened to Katie & Ron, or over what he > tried/almost did do to DD? Betsy Hp: I think Draco experienced negative feeling over Katie's near death large enough for Harry to notice. Because of Katie, I think he saw much clearly than Sirius ever did (going by Sirius's own words -- though Sirius was as good at fronting as Draco is) what it is to be a murderer. And he didn't like it. So yeah, I think the negative reaction to Katie's near death is what starts Draco's Tower breakdown in motion. By Slughorn's Christmas party Draco is already showing a large amount of stress. And we also know that he's stopped launching any "death from afar" schemes by this time as well. I do think Draco's guilt is complicated by his upbringing. He reacts badly to something that shouldn't be a big deal to a junior Death Eater. So there's also that guilt eating at him. Which is why I described it as massive a few posts back. I do think Draco is fighting against his negative reactions, though. Like Hamlet, I think Draco is driven by a sense of duty into trying to be something he is not. > >>Magpie: > > But Dumbledore was, imo, speaking spiritually. Dumbledore's not > > warning him about Voldemort in the scene. I think that reading > > reduces the concept of mercy for Dumbledore--he's just using it > > like Draco is using it or like a DE would use it. He's just > > another tough guy. I think Dumbledore is using mercy in a far > > more important sense (some would say a Christian sense). He's > > offering mercy to his murderer. That's what Draco's accepting, not > > just protection from Voldemort. > > > >>a_svirn: > I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this > Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco > then? Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point > of view. He could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same > thing as mercy. To offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do > so. Rowling tells us that Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't > offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, > what sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago. Betsy Hp: I don't think Dumbledore is supposed to literally be Christ in the Tower scene, but I think there are recognizable echoes. A layering if you will. The mercy Dumbledore offers is a chance for Draco to realize his own true nature. And Dumbledore *can* offer that. He's the only person in a position to atually offer Draco the opportunity. And really, that's been Dumbledore's entire mantra from the get go. Allow people the freedom to make the choices that show them who they are. Draco has never been allowed that choice. Dumbledore (in his mercy) is giving him that chance now. Dumbledore doesn't *make* Draco lower his wand. But he does allow Draco the chance to choose to do so. But yeah, Dumbledore is neither cleansing Draco nor taking on Draco's own sins. (Though I do think that by calling Draco an innocent he's allowing Draco to maybe forgive himself or something like that.) Betsy Hp From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 16 22:48:34 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:48:34 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162850 > >>Jen: I didn't mean to imply that Snape and Dumbledore don't know > who Snape is (I think that's what you meant?). That's *why* the > tower was successful, because only Dumbledore and Snape know the > truth. What I meant is that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and allied > to him, but he doesn't fully accept Dumbledore's love magic just as > he didn't accept Voldemort's version. > Betsy Hp: I don't know what you mean by Dumbledore's "love magic", but then I've never gotten the love magic thing. I sort of assume book 7 will make it all clear. But I *can* say that I feel that Snape has fully and completely embraced Dumbledore's side. I think he's made Dumbledore's phiolosophy his own, his guiding principle if you will. And that his problem with Voldemort's side was one of principle too. I think Snape joined Voldemort based on emotion (rage, fear, etc.) and it's when Snape looked at Voldemort's side with his head that he realized his mistake. > >>Jen > But Snape *did* choose a path to be a double agent or 'dual > person'. I mean, there's a reason Dumbledore has to proclaim his > trust far and wide, right? Yet we find out in HBP no one else > really believed Snape which means he was a helluva double-agent in > the end! Betsy Hp: But, Snape is *not* a "dual person". His strength in being a double agent is that he is so strongly himself there's no chance of him being turned. Hence Dumbledore's complete trust. Sure, other Order members might not have trusted Snape themselves, but that's because they didn't know him. But that doesn't make Snape a dual person. It makes him prickly. The important thing was that *Dumbledore* knew him. And I think the important thing to come is when Harry finally knows him. > >>Jen: > The reason I don't see this making a poor revelation is because the > loyalty revelation is *not* the biggest issue on the table to me > regarding Snape. Harry having an 'aha' moment about whose side > Snape is on is just another Sirius moment--"I thought your were > evil! You're on my side and what's more, we have a lot in common." > Betsy Hp: No, I wouldn't call it a Sirius moment at all. Evil!Sirius was a boogieman, not someone Harry had personal feelings for. Harry has an actual relationship with Snape. He's based his hatred for Snape on all sorts of personal interactions they've had over the years. So it's not going to be a simple, "You're not the boogieman at all! Let's move in together!" With Sirius, Harry had to rethink some basic facts that were wrong. With Snape, Harry will have to rethink his entire method of judging character. > >>Jen: > Like you, I see Snape as already redeemed, he's been redeeming > himself for years and Harry will get that part *after* he gets the > bigger deal. > > When he can truly feel empathy for the boy Snape was, what he > lost, why he made the huge mistakes he did and his genuine feelings > of remorse and pain, then Harry will understand he was loyal all > along. > Betsy Hp: I have to admit to genuine confusion here. How is Harry finally seeing Snape's true loyalty *not* about Snape's loyalty? I also don't understand why Snape's loyalty is suddenly crystal clear. Haven't you moved away from Grey!Snape here? Snape is Dumbledore's man and has been for the entire series. What's gray about that? Betsy Hp From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 16 22:56:13 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:56:13 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: <003f01c72129$88e39360$9f8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162851 Magpie: > Actually, he may be feeling guilt. We don't get a clear analysis > of that aspect of Draco's feelings but by the time he gets to the > Tower Dumbledore is confident that he doesn't want to kill. It > seems like that logically is coming out of his previous attempts-- > when he was clueless about death and murder he was able to make > the attempts, even if they were feeble. But after two near-deaths > he can't even attempt it. So whether or not guilt is the main idea > here, I think those attempts were negative for him in some way > enough to contribute to his inability to make any more. SSSusan: Snipping out most of your post to ask yet another question. Is it possible that what Draco was feeling on the tower was NOT a new sense of the reality of death and murder to the degree that he could no longer even attempt to murder DD, but instead the reality of facing his intended murder victim face to face, looking DD right in the eye, was what made him feel he couldn't do it? This is not to say that what you're presenting couldn't be the case, but being a bit more of a cynic where Draco is concerned, I can't help but compare the first two attempts, which were very much from afar and detached, with what presented itself on the tower. There could be a world of difference between poisoning a bottle of mead and hoping it makes it to the target and pointing a wand at the great man and speaking "Avada Kedavra" in terms of just the "guts" required to pull it off, not necessarily in terms of real growth & understanding of the reality of murder. (IOW, is it that he doesn't WANT to or that he doesn't think he has the COURAGE to?) Just thinkin' out loud. Siriusly Snapey Susan From sherriola at earthlink.net Sat Dec 16 23:19:07 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 15:19:07 -0800 Subject: Harry's rapport with the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162852 Carol: > And all the time, throughout the book, there's the parallel motif of > the Half-blood Prince, who improves Potions and invents clever spells > and reminds Harry of Snape's lesson on Bezoars, an unknown teenage boy > whom Harry sees as a friend, who helps him out in many ways--and turns > out to be Snape. But at the end of the book, all Harry sees is Snape > as murderer of Dumbledore. Jen: I believe Harry identifies with that boy and that will be important for his own compassion, but it says more about who Snape was & what he lost, imo. Sherry now: I actually want to take this thread in a different direction. I was very uncomfortable with Harry's attachment and fascination with the half Blood Prince, up to the time we discovered the prince's identity. I was right there with Hermione, distrusting the Prince and the book very much. My reactions had nothing to do with the potions part of it all. I was concerned with the way Harry reacted. The trying out of the jinxes on unsuspecting people and all that. I felt like the real Harry was slipping away, being swallowed up by the Prince. I didn't think the fascination was healthy and I didn't see the Prince as a good friend or good influence on Harry. The discovery of the identity of the Prince didn't make me think any better of Snape at all either. It made me feel that Snape wasn't a very nice person as a boy, anymore than he is as an adult. Didn't anyone else feel uncomfortable with the effects the absorption in the book had on Harry's development throughout the book HBP? Even DDM Snape people ... was anyone else uncomfortable with it all? I kept wanting to have that book get eaten alive by the giant squid or something. The feeling Harry had for the prince, till he learned his identity, does not make me think any better of Snape, because the Prince seemed to be pretty unpleasant. It also helped to resolve some issues about James for me, because it didn't seem that Snape was an innocent victim, being bullied and picked on by mean old James. Looked to me as if James and Snape gave as good as they got to each other, and nobody really comes out looking too good. Except for the fact that they all grew up, and most of them became heroes, loved and respected in their world. Anyway, it's taken me a long time to be able to put my feelings into words on this subject, and I'm curious to see what other people's first reactions were to Harry's reactions to the HBP. Sherry From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 16 23:33:39 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 18:33:39 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape References: Message-ID: <00ad01c7216a$9e151420$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162853 > Magpie: But I can't really compare them because they're > in a different story and I think JKR is saying something different in hers. a_svirn: Since Rowling herself used Macbeth to illustrate a point she is making in HBP I feel justified to follow her example. Magpie: But wasn't she just referring to a prophecy someone causes to come true because they believe in it? I don't think Draco's story's moving along Macbeth/Lady Macbeth lines. No actual ghosts to appear to him. When Draco's compared to a Shakespeare character it's usually Hamlet--the opposite of Macbeth in some ways. Macbeth takes actions despite his doubts and suffers for the actions. Hamlet can't act. > Magpie: > In JKR's book actual murder is given, imo, as a big barrier to cross. Coming > close to murder seems to be sometimes more of a warning sign to the would-be > murderer more than a done deal. a_svirn: And yet, this barrier hasn't been crossed only by accident. Magpie: Right--but as I explained in more detail in another post, I think that's enough. If it was only luck that kept you from seeing someone die (like the fact that Harry was unconscious when Quirrel did), you wouldn't be able to see Thestrals. Likewise I think the fact that Draco hasn't crossed the barrier still holds, even if it's only by luck. It's magic. a_svirn: Whatever the reason, his natural inclinations or his upbringing, it comes to the same thing - in HBP Draco *was* capable of murder. Whether he is capable of it now remains to be seen, but I, for one, don't see why he should be affected by his near-misses if even the best of the good guys shrug them off as something unimportant. Magpie: You've got a point there. Dumbledore's the one who refers to them as no real harm being done. > Magpie: > I'm not disagreeing with canon I'm interpreting Draco's motivation > differently there. You see it as him thinking about the possible advantages > of killing Dumbledore. I see him letting go of what's been important to him > for so long, and part of that is recognizing how close he is to it. Killing > Dumbledore is not an option ever in the scene. a_svirn: Such interpretation renders the whole business on the Tower meaningless, I am afraid. What *is* this scene about if not about Draco choosing between the two options - to kill or not to kill? Magpie: I see that you consider it meaningless without this, but the conversation between Dumbledore and Draco just doesn't go along those lines--nice surprise on JKR's part. There's no moment where Draco's going to kill Dumbledore. He claims he's going to, he says he's got to, but there's never a moment when he is actually going to do anything close. The Tower scene is about Draco not having any options, having come to the end of his cliff--until Dumbledore offers him one. The other option for Draco was only inaction. I think the kind of inaction that's associated with Sartre, who came up with Bad Faith. Rowling could go all out in a scene with a young man who could kill and just hadn't yet--perhaps a boy more like Snape. I don't think there'd be any missing, if she'd written that scene, exactly where Draco was closest to murder etc. She'd do all the classic beats of that kind of scene. Instead she hits the classic "If you were going to do it, you'd have done it already, so let's just accept you're no killer" beats. a_svirn: Remove the first option and what is left? A foregone conclusion? Poor Draco! He's been a pawn in the big game throughout HBP and now you rob him of the responsibility for the most important choice he seems to have started to make! Magpie: I don't see how I'm robbing him of responsibility by pointing out that he's unable to kill throughout the Tower scene. The fact that Draco is never making a move to kill is emphasized by Draco's physical descriptions, by the narrator via Harry and by Dumbledore himself. I don't see how you can read that scene as Draco's problem at that point being that he can either choose to kill or not given how it plays out and how Dumbledore treats him. The choice to kill exists in terms of Draco and Dumbledore are right there, but there's no moment where Draco is shown to be wavering between killing or not. Killing is what he's supposed to be doing according to what he believes and what he's supposed to be, but that's not who he is. Another character would have been facing that choice in these circumstances. Draco's just stuck. It's the moment he's unmasked as not being able to do it. The act doesn't cut it anymore. > Magpie: Draco's never made a move to > kill Dumbledore, and Dumbledore recognizes right away that whatever he's got > to fear, this kid killing him isn't it. So Draco wouldn't go over the > advantages of killing because it's off the table--and that's not what he > says, either. He talks about where he's gotten to up until this moment--he > didn't get killed, he got this far, he's got Dumbledore at his mercy. a_svirn: I don't understand why it's "off the table" if he has "Dumbledore at his mercy". It hadn't been on the table when Draco started this business - his only options were "to do or die" and he fully expected to die. But when he came in and saw Dumbledore incapacitated he suddenly was presented with two other options, and both held certain appeal. It took some time for him to digest this new development, still more to access it. That's what he was talking about. Magpie: It's off the table because Draco can not kill. He's presented with a situation where another person could kill--but he is not that person. I don't remember any beats in the scene that play that out that I remember. All he has to do is point the wand and say the words. But he can't do that. It's not even a question of "you have to mean it" because he never tries to say the spell. He paces, he babbles, he threatens, he doesn't try to kill Dumbledore--even when Dumbledore prods him to do it. He knows the situation is do or die. He says that. He's stuck unable to do, but not wanting to face dying. > Magpie: > But Dumbledore was, imo, speaking spiritually. Dumbledore's not warning him > about Voldemort in the scene. I think that reading reduces the concept of > mercy for Dumbledore--he's just using it like Draco is using it or like a DE > would use it. He's just another tough guy. I think Dumbledore is using > mercy in a far more important sense (some would say a Christian sense). He's > offering mercy to his murderer. That's what Draco's accepting, not just > protection from Voldemort. I think that's why it will stay with Draco in the > next book long after Dumbledore's practical offer of witness protection > ceases to be an option. Basically, I think it's a powerful line and far more > central to Dumbledore's character than just "I won't kill you but snake-eyes > will." a_svirn: I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco then? Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point of view. He could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same thing as mercy. To offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do so. Rowling tells us that Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, what sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago. Magpie: Not divine absolution, but offering love and compassion and a safe haven to someone who's been trying to kill him--the forgiveness is implied and part of what makes it such a strange idea to someone like Draco, imo. One doesn't have to be Christ to offer that kind of mercy. I can't see Dumbledore basically just telling Draco to come over to his side because Voldemort will kill him and Dumbledore will not. He wants Draco to have made a choice based on who he really is and wants to be, not threats of what will happen to him if he's the wrong person and makes the wrong choice. Jenni from Alabama responds: Here is a thought, ponder this. Lily gave her life to protect Harry. So, Harry was protected by her sacrifice - or the shedding of her blood for him. Dumbledore sacrificed his life to protect Harry. Could he possibly have done this on purpose, so that now Harry would still have protection through HIS sacrifice - the shedding of HIS blood? Magpie: Dumbledore's dying to save Harry is rather far removed. In a general way he's dying for the cause, but it's not like with Voldemort and Harry. That had to have Lily standing in front of the crib, with Voldemort offering to spare her because he was trying to get at Harry. Dumbledore just dies tangled in his own plots that are tangential to Harry. And besides, if everybody can do that kind of ancient magic it's just no big deal.:-) SSSusan: Snipping out most of your post to ask yet another question. Is it possible that what Draco was feeling on the tower was NOT a new sense of the reality of death and murder to the degree that he could no longer even attempt to murder DD, but instead the reality of facing his intended murder victim face to face, looking DD right in the eye, was what made him feel he couldn't do it? Magpie: I don't think so, no. The scene's not written that way. To show that Draco needs to try to kill Dumbledore so that we see he's going to do it, and then show a change when he's looking him in the eye. a beat of confusion, for a start. Draco's already avoiding the murder when he gets into the Tower. If Draco had that kind of revelatory moment in the Tower not only would we as readers see it, but so would Dumbledore. And Dumbledore would talk about it. Instead Dumbledore is confident Draco can't kill from the moment he sees him. -m From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 00:46:30 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:46:30 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162854 > > >>a_svirn: > > Well, it's either that, or Dumbledore is lying. Because Draco did > > attempt murder. And it is possible to be a murderer without doing > > actual killing, you know. If I hired you to kill a noisy neighbour > > of mine, I'd be guilty of murder even if you were the one who did > > actual work. > > Betsy Hp: > If someone actually died, yes of course. a_svirn: Even if nobody died I'd still be capable of murder. (Although such outcome would suggest that you are probably not capable of killing). > Betsy Hp: Just as, if we accept that > Draco is indeed a murderer (in his heart, I guess?) a_svirn: You are the one who insists on regarding murder it as a matter of heart. I only say that Draco intended, planed and executed murder. He was unsuccessful, not that's hardly an excuse. > Betsy Hp: then so is > Dumbledore, since he knowingly and willingly allowed an assassin into > his school. And while this does make for an interesting legal and > philosophical discussion, I just don't think this is where JKR wants > her readers to go. a_svirn: I can't help but go there. Because Dumbledore did allow an assassin into his school. That's how he ended up dead. > > >>a_svirn: > > I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this > > Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco > > then? Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point > > of view. He could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same > > thing as mercy. To offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do > > so. Rowling tells us that Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't > > offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, > > what sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago. > > Betsy Hp: > I don't think Dumbledore is supposed to literally be Christ in the > Tower scene, but I think there are recognizable echoes. A layering > if you will. The mercy Dumbledore offers is a chance for Draco to > realize his own true nature. And Dumbledore *can* offer that. He's > the only person in a position to atually offer Draco the opportunity. a_svirn: But if Draco is already not a killer, why he is need of this kind of mercy? Nothing wrong with his nature, as far as Dumbledore concerned, all that is needed is to provide for his safety. And that of his family. Which is exactly what Dumbledore offered, by the way. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Dec 17 01:00:10 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:00:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's rapport with the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162855 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sherry Gomes" wrote: > > Carol: > > And all the time, throughout the book, there's the parallel motif of > > the Half-blood Prince, who improves Potions and invents clever spells > > and reminds Harry of Snape's lesson on Bezoars, an unknown teenage boy > > whom Harry sees as a friend, who helps him out in many ways--and turns > > out to be Snape. But at the end of the book, all Harry sees is Snape > > as murderer of Dumbledore. > > Jen: I believe Harry identifies with that boy and that will be important for > his own compassion, but it says more about who Snape was & what he lost, > imo. > > > Sherry now: > > I actually want to take this thread in a different direction. I was very > uncomfortable with Harry's attachment and fascination with the half Blood > Prince, up to the time we discovered the prince's identity. I was right > there with Hermione, distrusting the Prince and the book very much. My > reactions had nothing to do with the potions part of it all. I was > concerned with the way Harry reacted. The trying out of the jinxes on > unsuspecting people and all that. wynnleaf The first thing that struck me about the Prince was that this was the first time we were seeing a student really acting with very strong creativity in actually *changing* the "established" methods of magic and creating new and better methods. Of course, I mean in potions. The fact that Hermione disliked that basically made me suspicious of *all* of Hermione's opinions about the HBP notes. In other words, I got the impression that not only did she resent Harry getting credit for work that was not her own, I felt she was jealous of someone else (the HBP) achieving so much better results than *her* when she followed the instructions to the letter and this other unknown person was being innovative. So basically, when I first read the book I thought Hermione was jealous of the Prince and therefore had an ulterior motive for criticizing the notes. So I just didn't care too much what Hermione thought of the Prince. As for the spells in the book, Harry was learning lots of benign spells like levicorpus or Muffliato. And the jinxes and hexes were pretty innocuous, too, like the one to grow toenails. I mean, the kids did far worse than that in the corridors, so creating one's own mild jinx didn't seem to me bad at all. I just thought that here were more examples of this person's extreme creativity and innovation. Sherry I felt like the real Harry was slipping > away, being swallowed up by the Prince. I didn't think the fascination was > healthy and I didn't see the Prince as a good friend or good influence on > Harry. wynnleaf I didn't see the Prince as either a friend or an influence (although Harry liked him), nor did I think of Harry as being taken over by the Prince. That would be more like Ginny and the Riddle diary in COS. But with Harry, what I was most conscious of was that he was trying to take the Prince's work and pretend it was his own. This really bothered me. It wasn't so much the cheating aspect (getting good marks for work that wasn't his). It was the stealing from another person without acknowledging their work -- even if he didn't know the real name. It wasn't, to me, like the Prince was swallowing Harry, but more (if one used that metaphor), like Harry was trying to swallow the Prince. Sherry The discovery of the identity of the Prince didn't make me think any > better of Snape at all either. It made me feel that Snape wasn't a very > nice person as a boy, anymore than he is as an adult. Didn't anyone else > feel uncomfortable with the effects the absorption in the book had on > Harry's development throughout the book HBP? wynnleaf Since mostly what Harry did was steal from the Prince's innovative, creative and mostly very useful work, I didn't think of the Prince's notes as negatively affecting Harry. To me, it more was a revelation of just how far Harry might be willing to go -- even to the point of stealing the work of someone else for his own benefit. When I realized it was Snape's work, I *did* think better about Snape. Not so much new knowledge about Snape -- I would have assumed he was that creative/innovative. But I liked seeing it confirmed. Plus, Slughorn was making so much mention of how much "Harry's" work seemed like Lily's that I was feeling throughout the book that Lily might have known the Prince. Once I found it was Snape, it was just a nice added weight to the possibility that they had known each other as friends. Sherry The feeling Harry had for the > prince, till he learned his identity, does not make me think any better of > Snape, because the Prince seemed to be pretty unpleasant. wynnleaf Except for Sectumsempra, I don't get this at all. Toenail hexes sounded like the Prince must be bad? Muffliato? Levicorpus? Sorry, it sounded pretty benign compared to the kind of stuff even the Trio was willing to do to others. Sectumsempra was clearly labeled "for enemies." It was pretty obvious that even the Prince thought of it as extreme compared to his other spells, as he didn't label the others in that way. Further, while it *is* a Dark spell, who did he actually use it on in Hogwarts? He may have used a small controlled version on James in 5th year. But do we have any reports of Snape causing the kind of injury to anyone like Harry did Draco? McGonagall seemed to think injuring a student with that sort of spell was an offense worthy of expulsion. Did Snape use it on anyone at Hogwarts? Seems doubtful that he did anything as injurious as Harry did with it. For whatever reasons he had created it, it doesn't seem like he was going around Hogwarts slashing people to ribbons or he'd have been expelled. Sherry It also helped to > resolve some issues about James for me, because it didn't seem that Snape > was an innocent victim, being bullied and picked on by mean old James. > Looked to me as if James and Snape gave as good as they got to each other, > and nobody really comes out looking too good. wynnleaf Well, we have not yet seen the evidence of whatever Snape supposedly did to the Marauders that was "as good as he got." We didn't see it in the pensieve scene and we were not told of any Snape detentions in Filch's detention files. Yes, he *may* have given "as good as he got," but so far there is no real evidence of it. Like I said, if he'd used Sectumsempra, in the manner Harry did, on anyone at Hogwarts he'd probably have been expelled. What other spells that he created would "give as good as he got?" Growing James toenails long? Sherry, I'm very curious about *why* you thought the Prince's work (excluding Sectemsempra) indicated an unpleasant person?? I assume that you would *not* consider the Trio unpleasant, yet throughout the books they have used much less benign or innocuous spells on other students, than the ones Snape created as a teenager. So what was in about the Prince's work you found so objectionable? Obviously I don't mean Sectumsempra, but I gathered from your comments that you felt that way well before that spell was revealed. wynnleaf From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 01:26:52 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:26:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's rapport with the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162856 > Sherry now: > Anyway, it's taken me a long time to be able to put my feelings into words > on this subject, and I'm curious to see what other people's first reactions > were to Harry's reactions to the HBP. > zgirnius: I had guessed the identity of the Prince by the end of the chapter in which he was introduced. This may have colored my reaction to the book. I certainly saw it Harry's way. From rklarreich at aol.com Sat Dec 16 23:05:15 2006 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:05:15 -0000 Subject: Was Harry Draco and bathroom/Now Harry and Peter Pettigrew In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162857 Just a quick observation in response to a question Carol poses below: > Carol: > > So take your pick. Which is worse, having your soul sucked out so that > you're robbed of your identity and your memories or whatever losing > your soul entails or sitting in a cold, bleak cell in Azkaban for the > rest of your life with only the swooping Dementors and your own > despair and self-hatred for company? I think in the context of the books we are meant to think that having your soul sucked out is worse than *anything*. As Lupin tells Harry, your soul is then lost forever. This is presented as worse than death: at least when you die, your soul goes beyond the Veil, presumably to some sort of afterlife. So, horrible as life in Azkaban is, at any rate the soul is still there and can eventually go beyond the Veil like everyone else's. If it's sucked out, that's it, it's gone forever. (Gone where, I wonder? Is it snuffed out, or does it spend an eternity trapped inside a Dementor feeling all the horrible sensations it was experiencing during the kiss? Not sure I want to know...) Roberta From sherriola at earthlink.net Sun Dec 17 01:41:06 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 17:41:06 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's rapport with the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162858 wynnleaf asked: Sherry, I'm very curious about *why* you thought the Prince's work (excluding Sectemsempra) indicated an unpleasant person?? I assume that you would *not* consider the Trio unpleasant, yet throughout the books they have used much less benign or innocuous spells on other students, than the ones Snape created as a teenager. So what was in about the Prince's work you found so objectionable? Obviously I don't mean Sectumsempra, but I gathered from your comments that you felt that way well before that spell was revealed. Sherry answers: It was Harry more than the Prince. I also felt Hermione was reacting out of jealousy, but the whole affinity with the HBP from Harry made me uncomfortable. The trio haven't done things maliciously to others in the past, not without provocation, and I felt Harry's use of the spells and jinxes was done sneakily. I think I maybe relate more to Ginny's reaction, that Harry should have known better than to put so much faith in a unknown person in that book. In some ways, throughout the book HBP, Harry seemed very out of character to me, and most of that revolved around his interactions with the book. As for the Snape giving as good as he got, and what Harry did or did not see in his final detentions, I'm confident that Snape could have made sure Harry didn't see any of his own detentions, while he was rubbing Harry's nose in James' school boy actions. That was a mean dirty thing to do. But that isn't really what I was talking about. The whole Prince personality bothered me, but it was because of how it seemed to affect Harry in a negative way and make him a less innocent person somehow. It's so hard to put my finger on it, but I was uncomfortable all the way through, and I did not figure out who the Prince was in the beginning, so I can honestly say my negative feelings about Snape did not color that impression. Sherry Lots of great events happening in summer 2007, so start making your travel plans now! Phoenix Rising: New Orleans, May 17 - 21 http://www.thephoenixrises.org/ Enlightening 2007: Philadelphia, July 12 - 15 http://enlightening2007.org/ Sectus: London, July 19 - 22 http://www.sectus.org/index.php Prophecy 2007: Toronto, August 2 - 5 http://hp2007.org/ 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 Sun Dec 17 01:58:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:58:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's rapport with the HBP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162859 Sherry: > As for the Snape giving as good as he got, and what Harry did or did not see > in his final detentions, I'm confident that Snape could have made sure Harry > didn't see any of his own detentions, while he was rubbing Harry's nose in > James' school boy actions. That was a mean dirty thing to do. Alla: Um, personally for me labeled for enemies or not, Sectusemptra is **plenty** enough to be assured that Snape gave as good as he got. But even stronger hint to me is the **Levicorpus**. Not because of malice of the spell of course, even though IMO it can be used maliciously, but because we see that Snape's own invention was used against him in Pensieve scene. I can view it as metaphorical foreshadowing to learn about more things that Snape dished out against Marauders and which were returned back to him with the vengeance. Sherry: > But that isn't really what I was talking about. The whole Prince > personality bothered me, but it was because of how it seemed to affect Harry > in a negative way and make him a less innocent person somehow. It's so hard > to put my finger on it, but I was uncomfortable all the way through, and I > did not figure out who the Prince was in the beginning, so I can honestly > say my negative feelings about Snape did not color that impression. Alla: Yes, that is what it was to me - the influence on Harry personality, yep. As was discussed recently Harry stops practicing his well known defensive spells, he only thinks about Prince's. I think he was affected by that book. But I have to say, I did know who Prince was, so my reaction contrary to Sherry is coloured by what I think about Snape of course. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 03:00:54 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:00:54 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <00ad01c7216a$9e151420$9f8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162860 > Magpie: > I don't think so, no. The scene's not written that way. To show that Draco > needs to try to kill Dumbledore so that we see he's going to do it, and then > show a change when he's looking him in the eye. a beat of confusion, for a > start. Draco's already avoiding the murder when he gets into the Tower. If > Draco had that kind of revelatory moment in the Tower not only would we as > readers see it, but so would Dumbledore. And Dumbledore would talk about it. > Instead Dumbledore is confident Draco can't kill from the moment he sees > him. Alla: Draco did turn the wand towards the Dumbledore though, before he lowered it, so to me this is exactly it - the moment where Draco starts to be ready to kill and finds himself incapable of it. I think that what Dumbledore is doing may be not even characterised as lying, but expressing his hopes of the sort - NOT what Draco is but what Draco *can* be, namely not a killer. So, yes, I am not buying that Draco comes to Tower not ready to kill Dumbledore, I think that he has every intention to do just that and his want pointed at Dumbledore indicates just that, but Dumbledore's words push him into not killing. IMO of course. From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 17 03:35:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:35:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape References: Message-ID: <011201c7218c$6a3c8e40$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162861 > Alla: > > Draco did turn the wand towards the Dumbledore though, before he > lowered it, so to me this is exactly it - the moment where Draco > starts to be ready to kill and finds himself incapable of it. Magpie: I'm not sure what you mean? Draco is pointing his wand at Dumbledore the whole time. A moment where he's going to kill and finds himself incapable would be something Harry/narrator could see, just as he sees so many other signs of Draco's conflict. I don't have the scene in front of me, but I can't believe I've forgotten that important a moment (for Draco as well as Dumbledore, whom I remember being steady throughout). It wouldn't be a moment where maybe we can imagine it happening somewhere in our minds. I think we'd actually probably get Dumbledore calling attention to it as well. Alla: > I think that what Dumbledore is doing may be not even characterised > as lying, but expressing his hopes of the sort - NOT what Draco is > but what Draco *can* be, namely not a killer. > > So, yes, I am not buying that Draco comes to Tower not ready to kill > Dumbledore, I think that he has every intention to do just that and > his want pointed at Dumbledore indicates just that, but Dumbledore's > words push him into not killing. Magpie: Draco comes to the Tower knowing that he has to kill Dumbledore or die. But I don't see how one can say he's possibly actually ready to kill him, because not only does he not kill him, he never tries to kill him, and never, to my recollection, is even ever ready to try to kill him. Dumbledore keeps reminding him--hey, aren't you supposed to be killing me? And Draco just keeps doing other things besides killing him. -m From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 17 03:42:17 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:42:17 -0000 Subject: NotKillingWormtail/SnapeAtXmas/Draco/Virgin/HBPbook/repliesToPostsInLiteratur Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162863 Lupinlore wrote in : << Neville handing Bellatrix over to the Aurors would be silly and unbelievable, and a complete mirror of Harry's single greatest mistake -- not letting Sirius and Remus kill Wormtail, thus avoiding this whole mess. >> The kids are more advanced mages now than they were in PoA, and Neville would presumably Stupefy Bellatrix rather than merely tie her up, or he could use Petrificus Totalus, which Hermione used on him in first year -- why didn't Hermione think of it in the Shrieking Shack? Sirius was driven mad by Azkaban, but why didn't Lupin think of using magical restraints on Pettigrew? Alas, that sounds like an argument for ESE!Lupin. Even if Wormtail didn't escape, Barty Junior could have brought Voldemort back only a few months later than Wormtail did. (Barty Junior escaped on his own during the Quidditch World Cup). Not in time to catch Bertha Jorkins and hatch the Triwizard Tournament plot, but in time for Polyjuice!Barty to snatch Harry from among the audience of the Third Task to the Graveyard, where Voldemort could re-embody himself with the flesh of a servant who did not have a life-debt to Harry. Oops, this is starting to sound like MAGIC DISHWASHER. Anyway, Neville using Cruciatis on Bellatrix is unlikely to prevent her escape. Carol wrote in : << Also, if Wormtail hadn't restored Voldemort, Barty Crouch Jr. might have done so, and if neither had done so, the situation would never be resolved. Harry can't fight and defeat Vapormort. >> We agree about young Barty, but it being a good thing that Voldemort was re-embodied so that he can be killed sounds like MAGIC DISHWASHER. I prefer the PS/SS Dumbledore: "Nevertheless, Harry, while you may only have delayed his return to power, it will merely take someone else who is prepared to fight what seems a losing battle next time -- and if he is delayed again, and again, why, he may never return to power." Zanooda wrote in : << I've also always wondered how Sirius and Lupin intended to kill PP. Were they about to AK him or what? >> As they both rolled up their sleeves, I think they were planning something messier than AK. More spurting blood. "Accio heart!" should splatter far more than just forearms, as I think would levitating a grand piano over him and then smashing it down on him. Perhaps Charm a bedspring into a sharp knife and stab him? Perhaps order one of those magical ropes to twist around his neck and strangle? Strangle him with the rope the old-fashioned Muggle way? << If they were, that would be the end of Lupin too, wouldn't it? >> Some listies think that murder gets a long sentence in Azkaban even without using an Unforgiveable. Pippin thinks ESE!Lupin takes that risk to silence the one witness against him. I think Lupin wass paying for his previous wrong belief against Sirius by sacrificing himself to Sirius's revenge, and perhaps hoping that both he and Sirius having to be in hiding for the rest of their lives will cause them to be hiding TOGETHER. The only thing that has ever cast doubt on my Sirius/Remus ship is Sirius not leaving him anything in his will, and currently I like to either pretend that didn't happen, or assert that werewolves aren't allowed to inherit under Umbridge's additions to wizarding law. In the latter case, there ought to be a note to Harry somewhere asking him to take care of Remus. Chrusotoxos (Golden Arrow? Is that DC or Marvel?) wrote in : << After all we've never seen Snape at Christmas (am I right here?) >> In CoS, we saw Snape's Christmas cracker's wise choice of funny hat to give him: an old witch's hat with a vulture on it. At the Yule Ball, he was taking points from students for making out in the rose bushes. I think he's been at Hogwarts at Christmas every year that Harry has been. I would say it's part of the House Head's job, except I don't think Professor Sprout is always there. Magpie wrote in : << destroying his body in a wood chipper (which naturally would get Draco off scott free...err, somehow) >> Not a wood-chipper. Transfiguring it into a bone and burying the bone in Hagrid's vegetable garden. That has worked before. Dave Jim Chocolate Friar Tuck wrote in : << Harry Potter started as a series intended for children, but as the writing gets progressively older, will Harry face Voldemort as a virgin? I say he will, as teens and sex are a whole new "cauldron" of troubles, but others are adamant that he will be a man against Voldemort in every possible aspect... >> I can't believe JKR would write about Harry having sex. Because it seems quite clear that she cannot write well about sex. I personally would have liked for Harry to learn sex via a fling with Tonks, but she's set up Tonks betrothed to Remus and Harry in love with Ginny, and she won't have her good guys having sex outside the "true love" relationship. Sherry wrote in : << Anyway, it's taken me a long time to be able to put my feelings into words on this subject, and I'm curious to see what other people's first reactions were to Harry's reactions to the HBP. >> I thought (and still think) that the charms on that book included one to repel all eyes but Severus's and Lily's (it repelled Hermione emotionally and Ron by being unable to read the handwriting) and one to seduce Lily's eyes (so we watched Harry, who has Lily's eyes, being seduced). Wynnleaf wrote in : << nor did I think of Harry as being taken over by the Prince. That would be more like Ginny and the Riddle diary in COS. >> Which I think is why JKR originally thought of putting the HBP 'thread' into CoS. Pippin wrote in : << I think we'll have to wait for the judgement of the ages on whether they're art. James Branch Cabell's books were wildly popular and far more literary than the Oz books which were popular around the same time, but aside from a brief revival in the sixties, you don't hear much about Cabell anymore, while The Wizard of Oz is now deathless and continues to be influential. >> I don't think that becoming part of the common cultural heritage of all USAmericans is proof of literary/artistic quality. Unless one is convinced of the literary/artistic quality of Superman, Batman, Spiderman, the villain with waxed moustache tying the heroine to the railroad track, the fastest gun in the West, "Comet! It makes you vomit! Get some Comet and vomit today!" and so on. Your comparison of Baum (and continuators) versus Cabell does reply to a thought I've often had (altho' I can't think of any examples off the tip of my tongue) that one great advantage in the "contest" to become part of the common culture is to be EARLIEST. It does, however, correlate with another great advantage being to be adapted into a movie that was shown annually on network television as long as there were only three networks (were? was?). << But I'd say that JKR introduces what seem to be stock characters and situations, then does something unexpected with them, exposing in the process how much we prefer relying on convention to keeping an open mind. >> Examples, other than ESE!Lupin? Steve bboyminn wrote in : << The most technically and literarily perfect book can be dull as paste, >> How dull is paste? Carol wrote in : << If Literature meant "boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he is smarter than you," it would largely be confined to James Joyce. >> It seems to me that that is the definition of Literature used by that guy (I don't remember his name and I didn't read his book) who complained so loudly about Oprah choosing his book for her Book Club that she withdrew the choice. I vaguely recall hearing soundbites from him to the effect that he was trying to write a piece of literary art to be read and evaluated by only a few highly qualified literary readers, and that his book had been put in danger of not being read by the people for whom it was intended because they figured that anything that ordinary people (for whom his book was not intended) were willing to read couldn't possibly be any good. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Dec 17 03:40:15 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:40:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What does Draco owe Snape? (Was: The UV ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612161940i3e150e1cq66123e7effb5c2aa@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162864 > zgirnius: > Nothing, in my opinion. At the end of the Flight of the Prince > chapter of HBP, I am sure the idea that Snape was loyal to Dumbledore > could not be farther from Draco's mind. However, something must > happen next. (May have already happened next, though we don't know > about it). > > That is, Draco and Snape went somewhere. Harry's musings in the final > chapter seem to me a hint that Draco went to Voldemort. And I really > can't see where else Snape would have gone. > > So the question becomes, what will happen/did happen, when Snape and > Draco returned to Voldemort? Did/will Snape try to grab all the > glory, as Draco suggested? I doubt it, if he cared enough to take an > Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco, would he stop now? (Whether or not > the Vow is over-and there is an argument to be made that Snape is > still bound by the second clause...) *That's* where I can see Draco > beginning to reevaluate some of his ideas. If Snape takes actions to > protect him and/or his mother from Voldemort's wrath (most likely, by > painting Draco's mission as a success by Draco.) > Debbie: If Snape and Draco go back to Voldemort, they will both have to lie to him in order to protect Draco from Voldemort's wrath. We know Snape is capable of appearing before Voldemort and lying through his teeth, but would Draco have the Occlumency skills to pull it off? This is one reason I am not at all convinced that that is where Snape has gone, or if he has gone there that he took Draco with him. (Another potential problem is that there were other witnesses, but I'm assuming that they're not available at the moment.) My thought was that perhaps he took Draco home to Narcissa and hid them under the Fidelius Charm, with himself as Secret Keeper? Now, if he goes back to Voldemort under this scenario, he will be alone and he can tell Voldemort any story he likes. (Draco may think Snape is stealing his glory, but only if he knows where Snape has gone.) However, any story he tells Voldemort had better be good, because he'll have to have a good explanation of why Draco isn't with him. This is why I lean to scenario #3: Snape with Draco somewhere out there (perhaps with Narcissa as well) apparently estranged from both sides. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 03:57:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 03:57:07 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <011201c7218c$6a3c8e40$9f8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162865 > > Alla: > > > > Draco did turn the wand towards the Dumbledore though, before he > > lowered it, so to me this is exactly it - the moment where Draco > > starts to be ready to kill and finds himself incapable of it. > > Magpie: > I'm not sure what you mean? Draco is pointing his wand at Dumbledore the > whole time. A moment where he's going to kill and finds himself incapable > would be something Harry/narrator could see, just as he sees so many other > signs of Draco's conflict. I don't have the scene in front of me, but I > can't believe I've forgotten that important a moment (for Draco as well as > Dumbledore, whom I remember being steady throughout). It wouldn't be a > moment where maybe we can imagine it happening somewhere in our minds. I > think we'd actually probably get Dumbledore calling attention to it as well. Alla: No, I do not think that you have forgotten anything. :) What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation that it is just not in the scene - Draco's readiness to kill Dumbledore at first, before he lets himself be convinced otherwise. To me Draco's pointed wand symbolises exactly that - his readiness to kill at first, till he listens. He was pointing his wand whole time AFAIR, Yes, but he has to **point** it sometime, yes? That is what for me equals Draco's intention to kill DD. He never goes through with it, but he **points** the wand before he lowers it, if it makes sense? I mean, to you it is necessary for Dumbledore to call atention to that. Why? I see it without any additional attention being called to it, just as I see DD doing everything possible to stop Draco from following through. ETA: Are you saying that unless JKR wrote the scene differently from what you think it **has to be** written to be interpreted differently, the different interpretation for that scene becomes less valid? What I am trying to say is that I do not find the fact that scene was not written this particular way to foreclose the different interpretation. I mean, I do not think DD **needs** to call any additional attention to Draco pointing his wand at him. It is like to call additional attention to the person who calls you hostage at gun shot, why would you do it? If nothing else, the person may flip and shot you instead of listening to you. IMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 04:12:55 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:12:55 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162867 > >>a_svirn: > You are the one who insists on regarding murder it as a matter of > heart. > Betsy Hp: Actually, that's Dumbledore, and through him, JKR I'm betting. > >>a_svirn: > I only say that Draco intended, planed and executed murder. He was > unsuccessful, not that's hardly an excuse. Betsy Hp: It is enough of one for Dumbledore though. And again, I think for JKR. > >>Betsy Hp: > > then so is Dumbledore, since he knowingly and willingly allowed > > an assassin into his school. And while this does make for an > > interesting legal and philosophical discussion, I just don't > > think this is where JKR wants her readers to go. > >>a_svirn: > I can't help but go there. Because Dumbledore did allow an assassin > into his school. That's how he ended up dead. Betsy Hp: Oh, I totally understand. It's an interesting discussion, I agree. But it's not one I think JKR planned on her readership having. Or at least, not as a way to understand her characters. Because it was *Dumbledore* making the decision to give Draco his head, I think we're supposed to see it as a good thing. I do agree that a headmaster knowingly allowing a suspected assassin loose in his school, *especially* after a student is harmed, is folly. So I think we're supposed to take this with the same grain of salt that we took with Harry going after the Stone with Dumbledore's implicit permission. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > The mercy Dumbledore offers is a chance for Draco to realize his > > own true nature. And Dumbledore *can* offer that. He's the only > > person in a position to atually offer Draco the opportunity. > >>a_svirn: > But if Draco is already not a killer, why he is need of this kind > of mercy? Nothing wrong with his nature, as far as Dumbledore > concerned, all that is needed is to provide for his safety. And > that of his family. Which is exactly what Dumbledore offered, by > the way. Betsy Hp: Because Draco doesn't actually *become* himself until he himself chooses to do so. Choice is important. And by taking the safety of Draco's family out of the equation, Dumbledore opens the door to Draco *making* the choice. Whereas before Draco felt that he had none. Draco had trapped himself in a cycle of "bad faith", as defined here: http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b.htm "In the philosophy of Sartre, an effort to avoid anxiety by denying the full extent of one's own freedom. Bad faith, on this view, is an especially harmful variety of self-deception, since it forestalls authentic appropriation of responsibility for ourselves." Dumbledore's mercy is expressed by showing Draco a way out of that self-deception. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 17 04:23:49 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2006 23:23:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape References: Message-ID: <012a01c72193$2763f5c0$9f8c400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162868 > Alla: > > No, I do not think that you have forgotten anything. :) > What I am disagreeing with is your interpretation that it is just > not in the scene - Draco's readiness to kill Dumbledore at first, > before he lets himself be convinced otherwise. Magpie: I think if it was in the scene we could all point to it easily. I also don't see Draco getting convinced out of killing in the scene. If he was being convinced out of being ready to kill, he should be shown ready to kill and then have a change so that he isn't. I don't even get why he stops being ready to kill in this scenario. Where is he going to do it and what stops him? Doesn't Dumbledore encourage him to take his shot? Like when he says, "Ah, you're waiting for your reinforcements," (as if that's the reason he hasn't tried yet) or tells him he'd better hurry up? That seems to me transparently something you say to someone when you're trying to get them to admit they're not really going to kill you. It's not too helpful a thing to say to someone who's actually going to do it. Dumbledore then goes over the whole year telling him how his attempts to kill have been feeble and maybe *suggested* that Draco's heart wasn't in it. I can't see a Draco who's actually ready to kill being confused about his own feelings by that kind of talk by Dumbledore. He's not written as being confused--I seem to recall him more making desperate declarations that make Dumbledore seem right. It's just this whole scene with the boy who's going to kill and gets convinced out of it by Dumbledore is so clear and so not anything I can see in the actual scene. Alla:> > To me Draco's pointed wand symbolises exactly that - his readiness > to kill at first, till he listens. He was pointing his wand whole > time AFAIR, Yes, but he has to **point** it sometime, yes? > That is what for me equals Draco's intention to kill DD. He never > goes through with it, but he **points** the wand before he lowers > it, if it makes sense? Magpie: But...but...why? Of course Draco's pointing his wand. He'd be pointing at Dumbledore even if killing was never introduced in the storyline at all in case Dumbledore makes a move of his own. Regardless of whether or not Draco is actually ready to kill him they're not just having a chat. Draco is the criminal here and Dumbledore is his prisoner. He has no problem with pointing his wand at the guy. If pointing his wand is the closest he gets to killing then I don't think he's close to killing at all. Alla: > I mean, to you it is necessary for Dumbledore to call atention to > that. Why? I see it without any additional attention being called to > it, just as I see DD doing everything possible to stop Draco from > following through. Magpie: Because that's what Dumbledore's doing throughout the scene is calling attention to Draco's state of mind. He's narrating bits of it for us. That's why I said I *thought* we would have had Dumbledore making some reference to this big change moment if it happened, but I did not say that I needed it. What I need is the actual moment, whether or not Dumbledore says anything about it. That's the kind of moment JKR does really well, imo--and in this case it would be one of the most important moments of the scene and the story, so it would be there. (As would that moment where Dumbledore realizes Snape's betrayed him before he pleads if that existed.) Alla: ETA:Are you saying that unless JKR wrote the scene differently from what you think it **has to be** written to be interpreted differently, the different interpretation for that scene becomes less valid? What I am trying to say is that I do not find the fact that scene was not written this particular way to foreclose the different interpretation. Magpie: No, I'm not saying that at all. Anybody can have any interpretation they want, but all interpretations aren't equal, and what's written is what we're judging it by. If there's no place where Draco is going to kill and then *changes* in reaction to something in the scene, how can that be what the scene is about? This isn't about me saying she has to write it the way I think it should be written--she would write it however she wanted to write it. But of course I'm not going to interpret a scene as having a major shift that the author didn't write. I mean, she did write this scene, actually. She wrote it in PoA when Harry realized he didn't want to kill Sirius. I don't think anybody missed it then. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 04:44:32 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 04:44:32 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <012a01c72193$2763f5c0$9f8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162869 > Magpie: > But...but...why? Of course Draco's pointing his wand. He'd be pointing at > Dumbledore even if killing was never introduced in the storyline at all in > case Dumbledore makes a move of his own. Regardless of whether or not Draco > is actually ready to kill him they're not just having a chat. Draco is the > criminal here and Dumbledore is his prisoner. He has no problem with > pointing his wand at the guy. Alla: So, if they are not just having a chat, why is Draco points a wand to DD? I believe that this means that he came to Tower ready to do just that and this is the reason why he pointed the wand and then when he is that close plus Dumbledore speech makes him lower the wand. Magpie: If pointing his wand is the closest he gets to > killing then I don't think he's close to killing at all. Alla: Yes, that is the closest he gets to the killing, because IMO he cannot do it close by and because of Dumbledore giving him a chance. But he **does** make that step, that makes me disagreeing with him arriving at the Tower not ready to kill DD. > Magpie: > No, I'm not saying that at all. Anybody can have any interpretation they > want, but all interpretations aren't equal, and what's written is what we're > judging it by. If there's no place where Draco is going to kill and then > *changes* in reaction to something in the scene, how can that be what the > scene is about? Alla: Yes, all interpretations are not equal, but that is the thing, I believe that I am intepreting what **is** written on the page ( e.g. pointing his wand and then lowering his wand symbolises that moment for me). JMO, Alla From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 17 15:25:19 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 15:25:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape (Re: Grey!Snape and Character Growth ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162870 > Betsy Hp: > I also don't understand why Snape's loyalty is suddenly crystal > clear. Haven't you moved away from Grey!Snape here? Snape is > Dumbledore's man and has been for the entire series. What's gray > about that? Jen: Because it's not about the loyalty issue to me! Snape's loyal, great, what does that mean for Harry? Harry will find out he was wrong, he'll discover Snape was salvaging a bad situation on the tower or following orders or whatever happened, but that's *not* going to lead to the bigger issues of compassion or forgiveness on Harry's part. Loyalty is the obvious, in our face dilemma after HBP but it's not the crux of the Snape/Harry storyline. Harry needs to learn what his power is before facing Voldemort for the last time and the quickest way there plot-wise is forgiving Snape. By necessity, that requires Snape to be someone who has done deeds that *require* forgiveness-- big things, seemingly unforgiveable things because otherwise what would Harry's forgiveness mean? So no matter what we might think of Snape or his actions, JKR is saying handing over the prophecy, the UV and killing Dumbledore were all almost unforgiveable deeds done by Snape. Dumbledore may have forgiven Snape, but he is not the one who was most affected by Snape's deeds. And if Snape is ever going to get out of the situation he finds himself in now because of his own choices, he is dependent on Harry's mercy and the defeat of Voldemort. Jen R. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 17:38:00 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:38:00 -0000 Subject: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <00ad01c7216a$9e151420$9f8c400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162871 > a_svirn: > Since Rowling herself used Macbeth to illustrate a point she is > making in HBP I feel justified to follow her example. > > Magpie: > But wasn't she just referring to a prophecy someone causes to come true > because they believe in it? I don't think Draco's story's moving along > Macbeth/Lady Macbeth lines. No actual ghosts to appear to him. When Draco's > compared to a Shakespeare character it's usually Hamlet--the opposite of > Macbeth in some ways. Macbeth takes actions despite his doubts and suffers > for the actions. Hamlet can't act. a_svirn: Yet I seem to remember Hamlet killing Polonius, Laertes, and Claudius with his own hand and arranging for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's murder. Not a bad record for someone who can't act. We can as well compare Draco with Macbeth. > Magpie: > Right--but as I explained in more detail in another post, I think that's > enough. If it was only luck that kept you from seeing someone die (like the > fact that Harry was unconscious when Quirrel did), you wouldn't be able to > see Thestrals. Likewise I think the fact that Draco hasn't crossed the > barrier still holds, even if it's only by luck. It's magic. a_svirn: "Convenient, eh?" But that means that Draco's becoming or not becoming a killer does not depend on his heart or his innocence, but on the blind luck and Dumbledore's mercy. That's holding innocence rather cheap, don't you think? By the way, Dumbledore ultimately died as a result of the plan conceived and executed by Draco. Does it mean that the barrier was crossed? > a_svirn: > Such interpretation renders the whole business on the Tower meaningless, I > am afraid. What *is* this scene about if not about Draco choosing between > the two options - to kill or not to kill? > > Magpie: > I see that you consider it meaningless without this, but the conversation > between Dumbledore and Draco just doesn't go along those lines-- nice > surprise on JKR's part. There's no moment where Draco's going to kill > Dumbledore. He claims he's going to, he says he's got to, but there's never > a moment when he is actually going to do anything close. The Tower scene is > about Draco not having any options, having come to the end of his > cliff--until Dumbledore offers him one. The other option for Draco was only > inaction. I think the kind of inaction that's associated with Sartre, who > came up with Bad Faith. a_svirn: Setting aside that for the better part of the scene Draco and Dumbledore discussed his options in a most practical and unspiritual vein, I have a more general problem with this reading. If, as you say, Draco has no options at all, and, consequently, makes no choice whatsoever, what, if anything has changed from the beginning of HBP? The book starts with Draco being an innocent victim of the circumstances that are out of his control, incapable of killing, but quite capable ? in his innocence ? of arranging for people to be killed, and it ends with much the same Draco still innocent and incapable of killing, but still quite capable of orchestrating assassinations. The only difference is that this time his careful arrangements bore a fruit ? Dumbledore got killed. > a_svirn: > I feel increasingly like Shylock now, because I just don't get this > Christian Mercy bit. What do you think Dumbledore is offering Draco then? > Absolution? It's not his to offer, even from Christian point of view. He > could and did offer forgiveness, but that's not the same thing as mercy. To > offer mercy you'd need to be in a position to do so. Rowling tells us that > Dumbledore is no Christ, so he couldn't > offer Draco salvation by atoning vicariously for his sins. Besides, what > sins? He just called Draco an innocent a few moments ago. > > Magpie: > Not divine absolution, but offering love and compassion and a safe haven to > someone who's been trying to kill him--the forgiveness is implied and part > of what makes it such a strange idea to someone like Draco, imo. One doesn't > have to be Christ to offer that kind of mercy. I can't see Dumbledore > basically just telling Draco to come over to his side because Voldemort will > kill him and Dumbledore will not. He wants Draco to have made a choice based > on who he really is and wants to be, not threats of what will happen to him > if he's the wrong person and makes the wrong choice. a_svirn: But you just said that choice is not Draco's to make. That he simply CAN'T kill, and therefore such option is off the table. The way I see it, it is actually a very unchristian view of the matter. After Christ suffered death to atone for the original sin, He left us responsible for our own sins. But in your interpretation Draco isn't actually responsible for his actions. His becoming or not becoming a sinner depends on other people's mercy. From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 17 18:01:22 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 17 Dec 2006 18:01:22 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/17/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1166378482.12.63915.m26@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162872 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 17, 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. http://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: From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Sun Dec 17 19:12:23 2006 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:12:23 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape Message-ID: <20061217191223.70849.qmail@web25611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162873 Jenni wrote: >>Here is a thought, ponder this. Lily gave >>her life to protect Harry. So, Harry was protected by her sacrifice - >>or the shedding of her blood for him. Dumbledore sacrificed his life >>to protect Harry. Could he possibly have done this on purpose, so that >>now Harry would still have protection through HIS sacrifice - the >>shedding of HIS blood? and then Magpie wrote: >Dumbledore's dying to save Harry is rather far removed. In a general way >he's dying for the cause, but it's not like with Voldemort and Harry. That >had to have Lily standing in front of the crib, with Voldemort offering to >spare her because he was trying to get at Harry. Dumbledore just dies >tangled in his own plots that are tangential to Harry. Surely it was not Harry for whom Dumbledore gave his life, it was Draco: Harry's invisible and immobilised and thereby not at risk. But Dumbledore was prepared to die, not for one of the good guys, the prophecy boy who he hopes will finally deal with Voldemort, but for the "worst" child of all, the one who had always espoused Voldemort's ideas, who had actively plotted to kill him. Something which I found to be a very powerful message. hwyl Ffred ___________________________________________________________ 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 a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 20:07:49 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:07:49 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162874 > Betsy Hp: > Because Draco doesn't actually *become* himself until he himself > chooses to do so. Choice is important. a_svirn: I quite agree with that. I only do not see what it has to do with that mysterious "spiritual" mercy. If choice is Draco's to make, all is needed is for him to make it. No one's mercy is required. > Betsy Hp: And by taking the safety of > Draco's family out of the equation, Dumbledore opens the door to > Draco *making* the choice. Whereas before Draco felt that he had > none. a_svirn: Which is what I've been saying all along. The mercy Dumbledore is offering is of quite practical nature. He offered safety. Draco weighted the advantages of his offer against the advantages of his glorious career as a death eater. And (maybe) started to make up his mind. From jkflipflop at btinternet.com Sun Dec 17 16:41:01 2006 From: jkflipflop at btinternet.com (jessica436805) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:41:01 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape (Re: Grey!Snape and Character Growth ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162875 > > Betsy Hp: > > I also don't understand why Snape's loyalty is suddenly crystal > > clear. Haven't you moved away from Grey!Snape here? Snape is > > Dumbledore's man and has been for the entire series. What's gray > > about that? I believe that Snape is Dumbledore's man and that he told DD all about the unbreakable vow etc. I found MM's response when told of DD's death a little bit strange. Had he not confided in her? If he was sure that this was the way that things were going to end, then surely he must have prepared MM for it. Could someone shed some light? jessica436805 From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 17 20:31:24 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 20:31:24 -0000 Subject: Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162876 > Magpie: > If pointing his wand is the closest he gets to > > killing then I don't think he's close to killing at all. > > > Alla: > > Yes, that is the closest he gets to the killing, because IMO he > cannot do it close by and because of Dumbledore giving him a chance. > But he **does** make that step, that makes me disagreeing with him > arriving at the Tower not ready to kill DD. Pippin: No, it makes him arrive at the tower ready to point his wand. That's as far as he can get because he hasn't invested the malice or the forethought needed to carry out the task of murder. He has put *some* malice and forethought into it, obviously, but he has underestimated what's required as innocent people do. Killing is harder than they think it is. Dumbledore theorizes that Draco's previous attempts were feeble because his heart wasn't in them. This is such a common metaphor that I think we forget that it *is* a metaphor, and one that represents an abstraction besides. No wonder we're having a hard time agreeing on what Dumbledore meant in concrete terms. What is the seat of understanding, feeling, and thought, really? But the practical upshot of it all is that Draco has made less of the opportunities available to him than he could have. Draco's lack of forethought shows in his poor planning and in his not realizing that Fenrir would come. Thanks to Dumbledore's forebearance he has gotten this far, but now Draco's lack of malice is the reason he cannot do more than point his wand. He could imagine killing Dumbledore in the abstract, IMO, but face to face with this ailing and feeble old man, he can see that his hatred for Dumbledore was only symbolic of the things that Draco really hates, and killing Dumbledore won't change any of it. It won't get his father out of prison, or stop Hermione from beating him in every class, or teach Harry not to snub him or amend any of the other grievances that Draco has with the world. When Dumbledore says that it's his mercy, not Draco's, that matters, I think he means that Draco's mercy can't save Dumbledore. IMO, when Dumbledore freezes Harry, he's acknowledging that he's reached a point of no return and the most that even Snape will be able to do for him now is ease his passing. I like this interpretation because it makes Dumbledore's effort to save Draco a true act of mercy with no possible benefit to Dumbledore himself. But Dumbledore's mercy matters, because he can save Draco. Even from beyond the grave, he can save Draco and his family from the vengeance of Voldemort, because Dumbledore trusts Harry and Snape to carry out his wishes even if he himself is dead. And Dumbledore can also save both Harry and Draco from the illusion that Draco is a killer. Draco lowering his wand, IMO, is Draco's acceptance that Dumbledore's reading of his character is correct. This is emphasized by Harry recalling the fear that Draco had shown on the tower as well as the lowering of the wand, and deciding that he did not believe that Malfoy would have killed Dumbledore. Draco did have the choice to reject Dumbledore's interpretation of events, say "You're wrong!" and blow Dumbledore away. But he didn't do that. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 17 21:14:15 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:14:15 -0000 Subject: NotKillingWormtail/SnapeAtXmas/Draco/Virgin/HBPbook/repliesToPostsInLiteratur In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162877 > Zanooda wrote in > : > > << I've also always wondered how Sirius and Lupin intended to kill PP. > Were they about to AK him or what? >> > > << If they were, that would be the end of Lupin too, wouldn't it? >> > > Some listies think that murder gets a long sentence in Azkaban even > without using an Unforgiveable. Pippin thinks ESE!Lupin takes that > risk to silence the one witness against him. Pippin: Zanooda asked why Peter didn't speak up, if that was the case. I think he tried to, once he realized that it was Lupin, not Sirius, who must have betrayed his identity as the secret keeper. (ESE!Lupin theory assumes that Peter was not the spy and did not voluntarily reveal himself to Voldemort.) But at first Peter thought he could let Sirius be blamed for everything so as not to admit his own guilt for yielding to Voldemort's threats and betraying the secret. IMO, by the time Peter realized that Sirius was innocent, Sirius was sick of his lies and in no mood to listen to anything Peter had to say. He roared Peter into silence. I think after that Lupin used silencing spells and legilimency to make sure Peter only said what Lupin wanted him to say. You can find the original version of ESE!Lupin at post 39362 A summary of the theory in its current state is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/146764?var=1&l=1 Pippin: > << But I'd say that JKR introduces what seem to be stock characters > and situations, then does something unexpected with them, exposing in > the process how much we prefer relying on convention to keeping an > open mind. >> Catlady: > Examples, other than ESE!Lupin? Pippin: Snape, in PS/SS, of course. But the WW itself seems first to be an idealized haven, like Oz or Narnia, where the good guys are nobler than good people are in the real world. As JKR says, that doesn't stand up. Harry hasn't landed in a sort of wonderland, but in a place where he's happier because he has friends. Pippin From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Dec 17 21:20:21 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:20:21 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4585B495.7060407@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162878 wynnleaf wrote: > Having read much of this discussion I'd like to comment on some > problems I see with a Grey!Snape who ultimately comes through for > Dumbledore's side. Here is a basic outline, as far as I see it: 1) Dumbledore had made it absolutely clear that he trusted Snape. 2) He also, indirectly, makes it absolutely clear that he is not about to tell anybody WHY he trusts Snape, except for some indirect details (which, as we have found out, requires additional knowledge to make sense out of). 3) It would take far more time than I have to find the canon evidence, but it SEEMS that, if everybody in the Order got together and compared notes, they MIGHT have enough information to deduce WHY Dumbledore trusted Snape. Certainly, from a storyline point of view, that would work out very well, regardless of which side Snape was on. 4) Harry is the hero, not Snape. Therefore, once again in terms of storyline, we can take a look at three possibilities: Snape is solidly on the side of the Tommy Riddle, Snape is solidly AGAINST Tommy Riddle, or Snape is not solidly on either side (note that canon evidence very strongly implies that the Death Eaters can be handled without Lord Deathflight around). Note: Looking how corny "Lord Deathflight" looks, I'm REALLY glad JKR chose "Voldemort". Has anybody considered "Morty"? 5) Snape having to choose sides is bad for the storyline as a whole, because it focuses too much on Snape and not enough on Harry. Especially since it's been so heavily set up for WORMTAIL to switch sides (especially since such a switch, at least according to foreshadowing, would be loyalty to HARRY, not emnity to Morty or choosing good, or anything like that). 6) I am therefore of the opinion that, unless JKR has bit off more than she can chew, Snape either always was Voldermort's man, or he never was (at least from Book 1). 5) Dumbledore is supposed to be pretty much the most powerful, most effective, most skilled wizard around (of course, the incompetence in the WW is pretty impressive, as well). There are implications (but no more than implications) that, had Dumbledore been so inclined, he could have had for himself a level of power that Voldemort craves, without even making major waves. Now, given the above, he was either right about Snape, or so wrong as to have shown more than incompetence, but malfeasance, as well. 6) However, the only way I can see Dumbledore being wrong is if he is much less than he has built up as being. The only literarilly (is that a word?) satisfying way I can see this being done is if JKR pulls a TOTAL switch; that Harry has been seeing everything from a prejudiced point of view, that Voldemort is good, not evil, and that he has been on the wrong side all along; in other words, the Jacques Derrida version. But, frankly, I don't really see her as being deconstructionist. 7) Therefore, I don't see any satisfactory way the story can end in the next volume without Snape being 100% against Voldemort. However, he has been always portrayed in a rather negative way in the stories. Thus, my "Evil but allied" label. I think that is the key. From the stories, I believe that Snape is NOT a good person, on an absolute basis. But, on a relative basis, he is far less evil than Voldemort, and would not want to live in a world where Voldemort was victorious. I would go as far to say that the last statement is literal; that he would rather die than live in a world where Voldemort was victorious. And I think that THIS is the reason why Dumbledore trusts him completely; remember, one of the themes of the series is that there are things that are worse than death. And one of Voldemort's weaknesses is that he does not understand that anybody could believe this. 8) I am going to once again harp on final conflict in HPB between Snape and Harry. If you look at what Snape is saying, he is giving Harry a set of instructions on the skills he is going to need to come out victorious. An evil Snape would have the attitude, "Harry is so stupid he couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel." A good Snape would have the attitude, "This is my last chance to give Harry the information; I can't make it too obvious, and, if I get him angry enough, maybe he'll even listen to it this time." Now which version sounds like the calculating Snape that we have come to know and love/hate? To me, the second. That's his standard teaching method, after all. My guess as how this will pan out in Book 7? Harry will be doing most of the work, but, several times in the book, he will catch a lucky break, that will not save the day, but will give him the opportunity to do so (for example, if he is tied up, there will be a shard of glass nearby, which he can use to cut the ropes if he can accio it without voice or wand). He will discover, by book's end, that Snape was responsible for these lucky breaks. Bart From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 21:31:16 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:31:16 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore,Draco, and Mercy (was:The Cabinet Plan...again... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162879 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Because Draco doesn't actually *become* himself until he himself > > chooses to do so. Choice is important. > >>a_svirn: > I quite agree with that. I only do not see what it has to do with > that mysterious "spiritual" mercy. If choice is Draco's to make, > all is needed is for him to make it. No one's mercy is required. Betsy Hp: Draco feels trapped. He feel that he *cannot* choose. Dumbledore sets him free, which is a merciful move. > >>a_svirn: > Which is what I've been saying all along. The mercy Dumbledore is > offering is of quite practical nature. He offered safety. Draco > weighted the advantages of his offer against the advantages of his > glorious career as a death eater. And (maybe) started to make up > his mind. Betsy Hp: And yet, the only negative Dumbledore puts on the Death Eater side of the equation is that it doesn't suit Draco's nature. And against all practicality, Draco lowers his wand even while everything Dumbledore has offered of a practical nature has been taken away. Betsy Hp, finally getting around to renaming this thread From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 17 21:56:34 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 16:56:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape References: Message-ID: <009201c72226$38a22300$f272400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162880 a_svirn: Yet I seem to remember Hamlet killing Polonius, Laertes, and Claudius with his own hand and arranging for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's murder. Not a bad record for someone who can't act. We can as well compare Draco with Macbeth. Magpie: People compare him to Hamlet for the "I can't act even though I feel like I should" idea--it's specific. I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to get out of comparing Draco and Macbeth. Macbeth's murders don't prove that the scene on the Tower is about Dumbledore trying to save his own life. > Magpie: > Right--but as I explained in more detail in another post, I think that's > enough. If it was only luck that kept you from seeing someone die (like the > fact that Harry was unconscious when Quirrel did), you wouldn't be able to > see Thestrals. Likewise I think the fact that Draco hasn't crossed the > barrier still holds, even if it's only by luck. It's magic. a_svirn: "Convenient, eh?" But that means that Draco's becoming or not becoming a killer does not depend on his heart or his innocence, but on the blind luck and Dumbledore's mercy. That's holding innocence rather cheap, don't you think? Magpie: One could say that it held innocence rather cheap, yes. But that's a matter to take up with Dumbledore, since he seems to say it. Draco has not yet actually killed anyone on the Tower--owing a great deal to luck, yes. But the choice of killing another human being for the first time is still before him. (And I think those close-calls had the effect of putting him off it.) When Draco arrives on the Tower making the choice to actually kill does not seem realistic simply because the text seems to keep underlining how much he's avoiding that. Honestly, to me that seems about as hard as looking at the climax in PoA and saying Peter's trying to sacrifice himself heroically or something. It's just so at odds with the character's description. So it still reads to me like a slightly different scene than the one you are describing. It's not even that unusual a set up in that sense (the non-threatening would-be not!killer). Same situation in some ways, with a person who has been put in a situation where he feel he must kill or be killed. Only it's a different character facing the situation. Which is why when I read it I got plenty of suspense, but not a trace of it came from "will Draco kill Dumbledore?" a_svirn: By the way, Dumbledore ultimately died as a result of the plan conceived and executed by Draco. Does it mean that the barrier was crossed? Magpie: I think canon makes it clear that no, it wasn't. Draco didn't kill Dumbledore. Snape did. You have to kill the person yourself, not just contribute in a roundabout way to that person dying. That can certainly cause guilt of its own, but by the way these things seem to be laid out in canon it doesn't make you a killer. Any time you choose not to kill is a choice not to kill. As with a lot of this kind of stuff in JKR's work I think it's kind of instinctual, like the circumstances that make up a Life Debt. But I think it's only when you try to dissect them they get confusing. Within the story they usually comes across fairly clearly to me. a_svirn: Setting aside that for the better part of the scene Draco and Dumbledore discussed his options in a most practical and unspiritual vein, I have a more general problem with this reading. If, as you say, Draco has no options at all, and, consequently, makes no choice whatsoever, what, if anything has changed from the beginning of HBP? The book starts with Draco being an innocent victim of the circumstances that are out of his control, incapable of killing, but quite capable - in his innocence - of arranging for people to be killed, and it ends with much the same Draco still innocent and incapable of killing, but still quite capable of orchestrating assassinations. The only difference is that this time his careful arrangements bore a fruit - Dumbledore got killed. Magpie: A discussion of killing is different than the action of killing. That distinction is the thing that gets called attention to it in the scene (and throughout Draco's role in the books, I suspect), because that's the conflict Draco is facing. He can talk about killing, and Dumbledore is happy to talk about it with him. But killing is not done by talking, it's done by doing. It's Dumbledore's who keeps bringing the chat to the same place: so why don't you do it? And Draco doesn't (which doesn't surprise Dumbledore). At the end is that Draco now admits and knows who he is, and knows what he is not. I think the scene is trying to lay out very clearly that in terms of the story he is *not* a killer (as DD means it) and now he's dealing with the reality of who he is--which is a big deal given who he is and his situation. Going from being a boy who thinks killing is easy and is planning on climbing the ranks of DEs to a boy who knows he does not want to kill and knows that he's not got the stuff to be a DE (when he pretty much already is one) is an important change. It's a change for Harry too, who's thinking about the lowered wand at the end (which I agree with Pippin is Draco's acknowledgement that Dumbledore's view of his character was correct). I think Harry's seeing that Draco could be talked out of murder would mean a lot less than Harry seeing that Draco is not a killer (as Dumbledore would say it). He saw the choice showing who he was.I think this is a more dramatic continuing situationfor the next book as well. In terms of the story I think it's a more useful one that Draco just deciding not to kill this guy in this place. That wouldn't carry over as something part of who he is. Magpie: > Not divine absolution, but offering love and compassion and a safe haven to > someone who's been trying to kill him--the forgiveness is implied and part > of what makes it such a strange idea to someone like Draco, imo. One doesn't > have to be Christ to offer that kind of mercy. I can't see Dumbledore > basically just telling Draco to come over to his side because Voldemort will > kill him and Dumbledore will not. He wants Draco to have made a choice based > on who he really is and wants to be, not threats of what will happen to him > if he's the wrong person and makes the wrong choice. a_svirn: But you just said that choice is not Draco's to make. That he simply CAN'T kill, and therefore such option is off the table. Magpie: Without the choice of murdering Dumbledore (which he doesn't have not because physical circumstances forbid it but because it doesn't seem to be something this character can or will do) the options remaining are to take the offer of mercy or do nothing either way and just be acted upon (which is what Draco's doing elsewhere in the scene). (In what I was saying we were also discussing just choosing Voldemort or Dumbledore, I thought.) In lowering his wand Draco is acknowledging himself as not being a killer. He's choosing to put his family under Dumbledore's protection and choosing to accept Dumbledore's mercy. He's breaking out of that frozen place he's been in the whole scene. I just don't see how you can inject any resolution to kill into a character when the actual description in the text is all about "Malfoy made no move to kill him...again, he made no move to kill him...he seemed compelled to keep talking...he looked like he might throw up..." etc. a_svirn: The way I see it, it is actually a very unchristian view of the matter. After Christ suffered death to atone for the original sin, He left us responsible for our own sins. But in your interpretation Draco isn't actually responsible for his actions. His becoming or not becoming a sinner depends on other people's mercy. Magpie: He is responsible for his own sins and actions. He is responsible for poisoning Ron and hurting Katie and letting DEs into the castle. But Dumbledore is offering to treat him mercifully anyway. It's not absolution, it's mercy. I don't get where Draco's being a sinner or not has anything to do with mercy. I don't see why acknowledging that Draco in the scene is portrayed as someone who is not going to commit the murder he "must" commit makes him not responsible for his own actions. Having Draco be ready to kill and having to choose whether to do it or not is not the only way to have something happen in the scene or in the story. I think the author set up something slightly different because it's what she needed to get to the end of her story (in the next book) and to illustrate her themes and that this kind of distinction between superficial similar characters is important in her series. I don't think she's interested in a choice of sides that's just about going with the best practical offer for one's hired gun. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 22:16:39 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:16:39 -0000 Subject: Draco and DD on the Tower/POA climaz WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <009201c72226$38a22300$f272400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162881 Magpie: > So it still reads to me like a slightly different scene than the one you are > describing. It's not even that unusual a set up in that sense (the > non-threatening would-be not!killer). Same situation in some ways, with a > person who has been put in a situation where he feel he must kill or be > killed. Only it's a different character facing the situation. Which is why > when I read it I got plenty of suspense, but not a trace of it came from > "will Draco kill Dumbledore?" Alla: Now, that's interesting. Because as the scene progresses the suspence I got also did not come from whether Draco kills Dumbledore or not, but **only** as the scene progresses. When JKR gives me the first glimplse at the scene, with Draco holding Dumbledore at the wand point, I was definitely thinking that Draco may do just that. ( what we were talking upthread, etc) You mention the scene in PoA when Harry decides during the scene that he does not want to kill Sirius. I mean, sure we see Harry reactions as different from what Draco does, but Harry is not Draco and vice versa. We see it more clearly because Harry IMO is a POV character and since we cannot read Draco's mind, for me it is enough to read him as being ready to kill DD when he arrives at the Tower and in process realising that he really cannot do it. JMO, Alla From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 22:21:00 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 22:21:00 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162882 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I also don't understand why Snape's loyalty is suddenly crystal > > clear. Haven't you moved away from Grey!Snape here? Snape is > > Dumbledore's man and has been for the entire series. What's gray > > about that? > >>Jen: Because it's not about the loyalty issue to me! Snape's > loyal, great, what does that mean for Harry? Harry will find out > he was wrong, he'll discover Snape was salvaging a bad situation on > the tower or following orders or whatever happened, but that's > *not* going to lead to the bigger issues of compassion or > forgiveness on Harry's part. > Betsy Hp: I *think* I'm starting to understand your view point here. You want a Snape that is only nominally loyal probably for a technical reason, but is still at heart a really evil nasty guy. That way when Harry forgives him, Harry *really* forgives him. Is that it? I have some problems with that Snape. And with that Harry, for that matter. Harry isn't that loving a boy. I don't think he has it in him to forgive Snape *unless* Snape is unabashedly DDM. Only that large of a shock (and it would be a massive shock for Harry) could possibly shake Harry out of his confidence in his current method of judging good people from bad. > >>Jen: > > So no matter what we might think of Snape or his actions, JKR is > saying handing over the prophecy, the UV and killing Dumbledore > were all almost unforgiveable deeds done by Snape. > Betsy Hp: I think Snape's involvement in the killing of Harry's parents is enough to be going on with. If Snape is honestly responsible for the circumstances that ended with Dumbledore's death (IOWs, the choice to make the UV, etc.) then I don't see Harry ever forgiving that. Instead, Harry's hate will only grow stronger. However, if Dumbledore was telling the truth about Snape feeling such strong remorse for his part in the death of Lily and James, then I think there's something there for Harry to cling to. A strong enough reason for Harry to reevaluate his view of Snape, and forgive Snape his part in the death of Harry's parents. Anything else is asking too much of Harry, IMO. > >>Jen: > And if Snape is ever going to get out of the situation he finds > himself in now because of his own choices, he is dependent on > Harry's mercy and the defeat of Voldemort. Betsy Hp: But if Snape really did kill Dumbledore, or if Dumbledore had to die because of a choice *Snape* made, Harry will not show him mercy. I've seen nothing in the books to suggest Harry has that sort of ability. Oh sure, he'd probably give Snape a quick death (or, more likely a fair trial, if Harry can swing it) but forgiveness? Not our Harry. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162878 > >>Bart: > > 7) Therefore, I don't see any satisfactory way the story can end in > the next volume without Snape being 100% against Voldemort. > However, he has been always portrayed in a rather negative way in > the stories. Thus, my "Evil but allied" label. I think that is the > key. From the stories, I believe that Snape is NOT a good person, > on an absolute basis. > Betsy Hp: I completely agree with this assessment, Bart (and wynnleaf's, too ). I don't think DDM!Snape is going to be revealed as really a benevolent guy at heart. All of his prickly actions in the previous books, his teaching methods, his clashes with Harry, are not going to get swept away. I think the lesson (or a lesson, anyway ) the "true" Snape will teach Harry is that sometimes a good guy can also be a real ass. A pleasant personality is no guarantee of a good guiding principle. IMO, anyway. Betsy Hp From a_svirn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 17 23:37:34 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:37:34 -0000 Subject: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <009201c72226$38a22300$f272400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162883 > Magpie: > People compare him to Hamlet for the "I can't act even though I feel like I > should" idea--it's specific. I'm not seeing what I'm supposed to get out of > comparing Draco and Macbeth. a_svirn: How about, "But now I am cabin'd, cribb'd, confined, bound in To saucy doubts and fears." > a_svirn: > By the way, Dumbledore ultimately died as a result of the plan conceived and > executed by Draco. Does it mean that the barrier was crossed? > > Magpie: > I think canon makes it clear that no, it wasn't. Draco didn't kill > Dumbledore. Snape did. a_svirn: Yes canon does make it clear. But that's kind of inconsistent. We know that Draco is not a murderer only by accident, because his first two plots have miscarried. That's what Dumbledore himself says. Yet his third plot actually worked, if not exactly as planned. Why, then, Draco's not a murderer? I mean, if, when he lowered his wand, he made a choice, than we could have said, "Thanks Merlin, he made a choice not to kill". But according to you he didn't. There wasn't ever a question of a choice. Yet there was a murder, one that was arranged by Draco. And ? according to you ? he didn't choose not to kill. In that case I'd say, his luck has finally failed him and he lost his innocence, after all. > Magpie: You have to kill the person yourself, not just > contribute in a roundabout way to that person dying. a_svirn: Oh, come now, Draco contributed to Dumbledore's death in a very straightforward way! He let a bunch of murderers into the castle. Or are we to assume that because Snape wasn't initially part of the group, it just another instance of Draco's extraordinary luck? If it was any other death eater Draco would be a murderer, but Snape's swift and timely action exonerate him from this charge? > Magpie: That can certainly > cause guilt of its own, but by the way these things seem to be laid out in > canon it doesn't make you a killer. Any time you choose not to kill is a > choice not to kill. a_svirn: But you said that it wasn't his choice! He simply can't kill, and never could. > Magpie: > A discussion of killing is different than the action of killing. a_svirn: It's not just a matter of discussion. Draco undertook certain actions as well. > Magpie: That > distinction is the thing that gets called attention to it in the scene (and > throughout Draco's role in the books, I suspect), because that's the > conflict Draco is facing. He can talk about killing, and Dumbledore is happy > to talk about it with him. But killing is not done by talking, it's done by > doing. It's Dumbledore's who keeps bringing the chat to the same place: so > why don't you do it? And Draco doesn't (which doesn't surprise Dumbledore). > > At the end is that Draco now admits and knows who he is, and knows what he > is not. I think the scene is trying to lay out very clearly that in terms of > the story he is *not* a killer (as DD means it) and now he's dealing with > the reality of who he is--which is a big deal given who he is and his > situation. Going from being a boy who thinks killing is easy and is planning > on climbing the ranks of DEs to a boy who knows he does not want to kill and > knows that he's not got the stuff to be a DE (when he pretty much already is > one) is an important change. a_svirn: But that what I said upthread. Draco simply accepted his own limitations. He does not object to killing, but he accepts that he's no good as a killer. And he by no means regrets his murder attempts. JKR made a point of that too. Throughout the scene Draco is boasting of them and shows no signs of remorse. So I repeat what has changed? His choice (which, according to you, is a non-choice) doesn't seem to have any moral dimension in your interpretation. He is in the end much the same person as he was at the beginning ? an innocent non- killer, who is, nevertheless, quite capable of murder. The only difference is that he does not fool himself anymore. He accepts that he can't kill. > a_svirn: > The way I see it, it is actually a very unchristian view of the matter. > After Christ suffered death to atone for the original sin, He left us > responsible for our own sins. But in your interpretation Draco isn't > actually responsible for his actions. His becoming or not becoming a sinner > depends on other people's mercy. > > Magpie: > He is responsible for his own sins and actions. He is responsible for > poisoning Ron and hurting Katie and letting DEs into the castle. a_svirn: Nope, according to Dumbledore, he isn't. Dumbledore has just called him an innocent. > Magpie: But > Dumbledore is offering to treat him mercifully anyway. It's not absolution, > it's mercy. a_svirn: Actually, it's closer to absolution, the way Dumbledore shrugs it off. The interesting part is that he ? in a rather unorthodox way ? offers absolution without waiting (or, indeed requiring) for Draco to repent his actions. > Magpie: > I don't see why acknowledging that Draco in the scene is portrayed as > someone who is not going to commit the murder he "must" commit makes him not > responsible for his own actions. a_svirn: I see you switched from *killing* to *murder*. If Draco didn't kill Dumbledore because he simply cannot kill ? that's nothing to do with responsibility, it's just as you said before ? the option is off table. If, however, he doesn't kill Dumbledore because he weighted the matter and decided not to commit a murder, after all, then he, of course, is responsible for his actions. But in that case the option *was* on the table. And had been for some time. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 00:51:58 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:51:58 -0000 Subject: Draco: Killer? (was:Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162884 > >>a_svirn: > > I mean, if, when he lowered his wand, he made a choice, than we > could have said, "Thanks Merlin, he made a choice not to kill". But > according to you he didn't. There wasn't ever a question of a > choice. > Betsy Hp: Not Magpie, obviously, but I don't recall her saying that Draco never made a choice, nor that choice wasn't ever a question. In fact, choice was *the* question of that scene. Draco felt he could not make a choice, that his postion was fixed on him by others (ie bad faith). But Dumbledore enabled Draco to make a choice. And, as you point out, we can now say, thank goodness Draco's made a choice to not kill. > >> Magpie: > > You have to kill the person yourself, not just contribute in a > > roundabout way to that person dying. > >>a_svirn: > Oh, come now, Draco contributed to Dumbledore's death in a very > straightforward way! He let a bunch of murderers into the castle. > Or are we to assume that because Snape wasn't initially part of the > group, it just another instance of Draco's extraordinary luck? If > it was any other death eater Draco would be a murderer, but Snape's > swift and timely action exonerate him from this charge? Betsy Hp: Since Draco made his choice before Snape arrived (IIRC) and since Snape didn't need Draco to bring him into the castle, I'd say that if Snape had not arrived, not only would Draco have not been a murderer, he'd have probably been murderered himself. So, yes, Snape's swift and timely action did help Draco out of a tight spot, and also maintained Draco's innocence. Draco has not killed; he is not a murderer. (Anymore than Harry is.) > >>a_svirn: > But that what I said upthread. Draco simply accepted his own > limitations. He does not object to killing, but he accepts that > he's no good as a killer. Betsy Hp: How do you get that Draco doesn't object to killing? > >>a_svirn: > And he by no means regrets his murder attempts. JKR made a point of > that too. Throughout the scene Draco is boasting of them and shows > no signs of remorse. > Betsy Hp: That's how you choose to interpert Draco's words, but it's not actual fact. The way I see it, Draco brought up his actions to protest Dumbledore calling him innocent. Draco was in essence saying, I've done bad things. The remorse and regret is implied by his considering those actions bad. It's also reinforced by Harry's ability to pity Draco by story end. At least, that's my interpertation. Betsy Hp From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 18 00:55:26 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 19:55:26 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape References: Message-ID: <00e501c7223f$357a73d0$f272400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 162885 > Magpie: > I think canon makes it clear that no, it wasn't. Draco didn't kill > Dumbledore. Snape did. a_svirn: Yes canon does make it clear. But that's kind of inconsistent. We know that Draco is not a murderer only by accident, because his first two plots have miscarried. That's what Dumbledore himself says. Yet his third plot actually worked, if not exactly as planned. Why, then, Draco's not a murderer? Magpie: His third plan was a plan to get DEs into the castle, with the understanding that after that plan worked he'd kill Dumbledore. But after that plan worked, he didn't kill Dumbledore. One could make a case for Draco being responsible for Dumbledore's death anyway, certainly. But it seems like the plot turns on his not being his murderer. It's magic that way. a_svirn: I mean, if, when he lowered his wand, he made a choice, than we could have said, "Thanks Merlin, he made a choice not to kill". But according to you he didn't. There wasn't ever a question of a choice. Yet there was a murder, one that was arranged by Draco. And -according to you - he didn't choose not to kill. In that case I'd say, his luck has finally failed him and he lost his innocence, after all. Magpie: If you take every single action someone does as a choice then Draco is indeed making the choice not to kill from the minute he comes into the scene. What I have been arguing all this time is not that Draco is not responsible for his own not killing, but that no where in the scene is there a moment where we're not seeing signs that Draco is never going to kill anyone. I'm saying that's not the central dilemma of the scene. Bullying seems to be completely outside of Neville Longbottom's character. There are scenes where Neville does not bully. I would say that bullying is "off the table" for this character. But now that I see how you're taking it I'd say Neville is making the choice not to bully just as Draco is making the choice not to kill. I tend to not frame things that way, but I will to be more clear. If we go back to Dumbledore's line about our choices showing who we are, Neville not bullying and Draco not killing are both showing who they are, so they are both choices. So imo this is a scene about showing Draco's nature as not that of what Dumbledore is calling "a killer." It's not a scene about Draco wavering between two appealing choices of killing or not killing. Killing is simply not appealing to him by this point. And that does have a moral dimension. He's not just physically unable to kill--obviously he is physically capable of it. But the prospect makes him shy away, and his voice crack, and look sick. I think the negative feelings he *does* feel over his past murders is part of what causes this. His boasts in the Tower, imo, are about what I've described elsewhere, trying to hide the fact that he does not want to kill. If you lose the idea that he feels no remorse and was fine killing before, you also lose the problem of Dumbledore offering absolution to the unrepentent for no reason. The scene makes a lot more sense and goes down much easier. So allow me to correct myself. You're absolutely right--my bad. Draco is choosing not to kill. He's choosing not to kill from the top of the scene. He's choosing not to kill at all moments except for the one moment when he's not only choosing not to kill but also choosing to accept Dumbledore's offer of protection. And that's something Harry can take ahead into the next book. Instead of a scene where Dumbledore dies trying to make a minor deal with a DE to take his family out of play that shows Harry (without moving him at all) that Draco is exactly the way he guessed he was in August, Harry's got important information about Draco's nature that he can trust and possibly use to the advantage of his cause. -m From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Dec 18 04:11:48 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:11:48 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower WAS: Re: DDM!Harry and ... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162886 > Magpie: > I don't think so, no. The scene's not written that way. To show that Draco > needs to try to kill Dumbledore so that we see he's going to do it, and then > show a change when he's looking him in the eye. a beat of confusion, for a > start. Draco's already avoiding the murder when he gets into the Tower. If > Draco had that kind of revelatory moment in the Tower not only would we as > readers see it, but so would Dumbledore. And Dumbledore would talk about it. > Instead Dumbledore is confident Draco can't kill from the moment he sees > him. >Alla: >Draco did turn the wand towards the Dumbledore though, before he lowered it, so to me this is exactly it - the moment where Draco starts to be ready to kill and finds himself incapable of it. >I think that what Dumbledore is doing may be not even characterised as lying, but expressing his hopes of the sort - NOT what Draco is but what Draco *can* be, namely not a killer. >So, yes, I am not buying that Draco comes to Tower not ready to kill Dumbledore, I think that he has every intention to do just that and his want pointed at Dumbledore indicates just that, but Dumbledore's words push him into not killing. IMO of course. Nikkalmati: I tend to take Alla's point here, in that what DD is saying is: "Draco your are not a murderer" {yet}. He is warning Draco he is about to cross a threshold that he has not crossed before, and he will not be able to go back. Draco must have thought he was going to kill DD or he would not have rushed up to the Tower by himself. However, when DD is unable to fight, Draco has the opportunity to reflect on how he really feels. Even without DD's persuasion, he probably would not have killed DD (at least not until the DEs arrived and pressured him to do it). Note he did not immediately kill DD when he could have killed him at once. The talk was all unnecessary from Draco's side, but he was unwilling to kill from the moment DD was unarmed. Was this a dawning sense of morality or cowardace? I think we are supposed to take it as a dawning sense of morality. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Dec 18 04:31:54 2006 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (puduhepa98 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 23:31:54 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] re:NotKillingWormtail. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162887 >catlady >Some listies think that murder gets a long sentence in Azkaban even without using an Unforgiveable. Pippin thinks ESE!Lupin takes that risk to silence the one witness against him. I think Lupin wass paying for his previous wrong belief against Sirius by sacrificing himself to Sirius's revenge, and perhaps hoping that both he and Sirius having to be in hiding for the rest of their lives will cause them to be hiding TOGETHER. Nikkalmati: I don't think Sirius and Lupin thought there would be any repercussions. Sirius would have to go back into hiding, of course, but Lupin would go back to work. After all, who was going to report the murder? PP was already dead. The trio had heard him confess to betraying Lily and James. Either the expected the trio to keep quiet or they thought no one would believe them. It is a pretty wild story: that Ron's rat was really a wizard who was thought dead, who was really an Animagus, who was killed in front of them by an escaped convict and their DODA teacher! (I guess SS would have believed it of Lupin even if he had not been there eavesdropping, but no one else). Alternatively they could have Confunded them or Obliterated them. No, I don't think Lupin and Sirius had any worries about being held accountable, and PP knew it or he would have tried to use that argument to save himself. Nikkalmati [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From antonia31h at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 08:51:28 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:51:28 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162888 Question: since when it is so important that Harry should forgive Snape? I don't consider him the almighty authority that will get the right to condemn and to forgive in the end. Fscts and actions will speak for themselves and if Harry will still have a grudge against Snape that is his business. Antonia From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 13:52:18 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:52:18 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162889 --- "antonia31h" wrote: > > Question: since when it is so important that Harry > should forgive Snape? I don't consider him the almighty > authority that will get the right to condemn and to > forgive in the end. Fscts and actions will speak for > themselves and if Harry will still have a grudge against > Snape that is his business. > > Antonia > bboyminn: I'm somewhat inclind to agree with Antonia here. 'Forgive' is a pretty strong word, and I don't think Harry or the Wizard World will ever forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore, but I suspect they will come to understand the choice he made, and with that understanding will come a degree of lenience. I think once Snape and Harry reconcile, Harry will have a degree of sympathy and understanding for Snape's predicament, but only a degree. Hopefully it will be enough to allow him to accept Snape's help when it is offerred. However, if Snape lives, I don't see him getting off scott free. He did what he did, and I feel he must pay a price for it, probably Azkaban, but I think that price will be tempered and moderated with some understanding. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 18 13:54:22 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:54:22 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162890 Antonia: > Question: since when it is so important that Harry should forgive > Snape? I don't consider him the almighty authority that will get the > right to condemn and to forgive in the end. Fscts and actions will > speak for themselves and if Harry will still have a grudge against > Snape that is his business. Ceridwen: Harry's "power the Dark Lord knows not" is, according to Dumbledore, Love. His feelings toward Snape are anything but loving. In the beginning of HBP, he acknowledges to himself that he would rather blame and hate Snape for Sirius's death than think about any blame he might have himself. He revels in this hatred. It makes him feel better. But, it is counter-productive, given his special power and his purpose through the books. If Love is the one thing that will defeat Voldemort, and he does seem to be clueless about Love in any form, then the one who wields that Love can't have hatred. Not the sort of hatred Harry has, and has had, toward Snape. It is an impediment, to Harry's growth as a person and a hero, and to the fate of the Wizarding World. It's like trying to drive a car with the parking brake on. Harry's forgiveness of Snape won't affect any legal or spiritual matters with Snape. I can't imagine Snape at trial and the prosecution agreeing to drop its case because Harry Potter forgave him. And if Snape should die in book 7, Harry's forgiveness won't have any bearing on that judgement, either. The forgiveness is purely personal, and will have meaning for Harry and possibly for Snape, but that's all. The concern is for Harry to shed the things that will hinder his vanquishing of Voldemort, nothing more. Hope this helps! Ceridwen. From a_svirn at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 14:33:23 2006 From: a_svirn at yahoo.com (a_svirn) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:33:23 -0000 Subject: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <00e501c7223f$357a73d0$f272400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162891 > Magpie: > If you take every single action someone does as a choice then Draco is > indeed making the choice not to kill from the minute he comes into the > scene. What I have been arguing all this time is not that Draco is not > responsible for his own not killing, but that no where in the scene is there > a moment where we're not seeing signs that Draco is never going to kill > anyone. I'm saying that's not the central dilemma of the scene. > > Bullying seems to be completely outside of Neville Longbottom's character. > There are scenes where Neville does not bully. I would say that bullying is > "off the table" for this character. But now that I see how you're taking it > I'd say Neville is making the choice not to bully just as Draco is making > the choice not to kill. I tend to not frame things that way, but I will to > be more clear. If we go back to Dumbledore's line about our choices showing > who we are, Neville not bullying and Draco not killing are both showing who > they are, so they are both choices. a_svirn: I am not sure your example works for me, though. After all, we never see Neville *making* this kind of a choice. We never see him choosing between bullying, because it, say, a proper way of dealing with Slytherins, and not bullying because it's not in his nature. We never see him having anyone at his mercy ? it's usually the other way round. Now, if we are to adopt Dumbledore's view on innocence we can, of course, say that Neville has simply been lucky that way. But, by the same logic, we must accept that we do not really know anything about Neville's nature (where bullying is concerned), because it has never been tested. > Magpie: > So imo this is a scene about showing Draco's nature as not that of what > Dumbledore is calling "a killer." It's not a scene about Draco wavering > between two appealing choices of killing or not killing. Killing is simply > not appealing to him by this point. And that does have a moral dimension. > He's not just physically unable to kill--obviously he is physically capable > of it. But the prospect makes him shy away, and his voice crack, and look > sick. > a_svirn: I understand what you are saying, and I even agree that your reading of the scene is probably very close to what JKR is trying to convey. It's just that this "not-a-killer-by-nature" idea seems very inconsistent to me. OK, Neville is not capable of bullying, and therefore he is not a bully by nature. Draco is not capable of killing, and therefore he is not a killer by nature. But he *is* capable of murder, so what does it say of his nature? Where is a scene with Draco's having an opportunity to organise a murder and turning it down? He faced this kind of choice three times an every time chose to commit a murder. Was he acting against his nature, as you suggest? Perhaps. But it only shows that it is perfectly possible for him to force his own nature whenever necessary. Which means that we can rate nature as cheaply as Dumbledore rates innocence. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 14:44:14 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:44:14 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott freeWAS: Re: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162892 Steve/bboyminn: > However, if Snape lives, I don't see him getting off > scott free. He did what he did, and I feel he must pay > a price for it, probably Azkaban, but I think that > price will be tempered and moderated with some > understanding. > Alla: Oh, but why don't you see that if you argue that Snape and Dumbledore had a plan? ( I know you argue that it was not an exact plan, but emergency plan nevertheless, right? I hope I did not confuse your position with anybody :)) I mean, if Snape killed Dumbledore **on Dumbledore's orders**, isn't that not Snape's fault? Isn't it all Dumbledore's fault? How dare he force Snape to kill him? Isn't Dumbledore the one who should be blamed in this situation? :) Shouldn't Snape indeed be given Order of Merlin and deep thanks for his services? ;) I mean, I am sort of joking but not quite. I mean, do not get me wrong, I am hoping and keeping my fingers crossed that Snape will pay for this and all his other deeds, but my ideas of what happened do not include anyone but Snape making that choice to kill Dumbledore ( I mean obviously Voldemort is involved somehow, but nobody else). Snape did the deed, Snape pays the consequences. Otherwise it seems to me that Dumbledore should go to Azkaban, not Snape who after all was only following Dumbledore's orders. JMO, Alla From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Dec 18 15:37:54 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:37:54 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott freeWAS: Re: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162893 > Steve/bboyminn: > > > However, if Snape lives, I don't see him getting off > > scott free. He did what he did, and I feel he must pay > > a price for it, probably Azkaban, but I think that > > price will be tempered and moderated with some > > understanding. > > > > Alla: > > Oh, but why don't you see that if you argue that Snape and Dumbledore had a plan? ( I know you argue that it was not an exact plan, but emergency plan nevertheless, right? I hope I did not confuse your position with anybody :)) > > I mean, if Snape killed Dumbledore **on Dumbledore's orders**, isn't that not Snape's fault? Isn't it all Dumbledore's fault? How dare he force Snape to kill him? > > Isn't Dumbledore the one who should be blamed in this situation? :) > Dungrollin: This is an interesting one. IMO it would (assuming DDM!Snape gets through book 7 without dying) depend entirely on whether a) there is any evidence that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him; b) whether the decision to kill Dumbledore and place Superspy!Snape in the DE camp and at Voldemort's right hand significantly improved the chances of Voldemort being defeated; and c) how much evidence there is to support the idea that Snape had been working against Voldemort and that he didn't kill DD in order to help the bad guys. (IMO depends on the finale, and whether Snape could provide any evidence of, for example him telling DD that he didn't want to do it, he'd rather die.) Even then, if all the information was available and it was obvious to everybody that Snape had been acting for the greater good, he should still be punished. Killing is killing, and he deliberately took a man's life with an illegal curse. It's not because I think the punishment would do him any good, neither is it because I think he would deserve it, but because if you let Snape off this time, who knows who might be let off by mistake next time? If you do it for a good reason this time, you open the door to doing it for a bad reason next time; it compromises the process of justice. Like Steve, I hope that (if DDM!Snape survives book 7) at least some information would be available at the trial to show that it was not a hate-driven murder for personal gain, and that his sentence would therefore be lenient, and I would feel deeply sorry for him. If he was let off with nothing, I'd be pleased for Snape in the short term, but very disappointed in the WW, and would be almost certain that they would be in for another Dark Lord in the near future. > Otherwise it seems to me that Dumbledore should go to Azkaban, not > Snape who after all was only following Dumbledore's orders. Lol! I can just see Mad-Eye Moody sternly telling Dumbledore's dug- up corpse that he is under arrest for his own murder! But I'm not sure that JKR really approves of the Nuremberg defence; I certainly don't. Dungrollin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 15:36:48 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:36:48 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162894 Carol: I'm going to jump in here, belatedly because I've been away from the list all weekend (Christmas preparations!) before the conversation drifts away from the points I want to make. Magpie: > > I think that's why Dumbledore can't be meaning what you are saying he means (and why I disagree with all interpretations that say that Draco didn't feel anything about Katie and Ron--if he almost-killed from a slight distance with no problem, I'd need more explanation as to why he couldn't kill Dumbledore). Dumbledore is throughout the scene, imo, saying that Draco did have a problem with murder, period. Carol responds: Dumbledore is using psychology on Draco and taking advantage of his hesitation at actually being face to face with his intended victim. But I see no indication that Draco feels any remorse about the near-deaths of Katie and Ron. His reaction after Katie is sent to St. Mungo's (I doubt he knows that Snape, whom he's talking to, saved her) is "That Bell girl must've had an enemy no one knows about" (HBP Am. ed. 322). Not a drop of remorse, not even an admission of guilt, certainly not an "I'm sorry I almost killed the wrong person." Granted, he thinks that Snape is a DE who's only worried about Draco's getting caught, but he could at least have said, "I'm sorry I was so careless." Instead, all we get is defiance and denial. And Draco doesn't say a word (that we know of) about Ron as victim of the mead intended for Dumbledore. His tears in the bathroom/restroom are over death threats and failure to do what the Dark Lord expects. ("I can't do it" clearly relates to the cabinet--which he later is so happy to have repaired that he whoops in joy and triumph--not to the inability to kill a man face to face, which he isn't ready to think about yet.) When Dumbledore mentions that Draco almost killed Ron and Katie, Draco ignores that part of DD's remarks and merely protests "vehemently" that his heart *has* been in the attempt to kill DD and that he's been working on it all year (585). When DD again brings up the necklace and the mead as "crude and badly judged" attempts that could easily go astray (desperation measures that Draco resorted to when he feared that he couldn't fix the cabinet), Draco sneers, Yeah, well, you still didn't realize who was behind that stuff, did you?" (587). And though Draco has looked at certain points as if he's going to vomit, his wand is still pointed at Dumbledore's heart. On the last reference to Katie, DD is sliding down the wall and barely manages to figure out that Draco's accomplice is Rosmerta, who has been Imperio'd, Draco taunts, "Got there at last, have you?" (588). Draco's hand is starting to shake when he realizes that Dumbledore really did know about those attempts and when he explains about the enchanted coins, but there's still no sign of remorse, only what appears to be fear, and a contortion of his mouth "as though he had tasted something very bitter" when DD points out that Draco could have AK'd him at any time (590)--he's just now realizing that he can't do the job the DEs and Voldemort expect him to do. The fear comes out into the open when DDD says that they should discuss Draco's options and Draco says, "I haven't got any options! I've got to do it! He'll kill me! He'll kill my whole family!" (591). His wand at this point is "shaking very badly indeed"--from fear of being murdered if he fails. In all this conversation, Draco expresses only pride at having figured out the cabinet plan and the means of communicating with Rosmerta, which he borrowed from "the Mudblood Granger." Not an iota of remorse for having nearly killed the "Mudblood's" friends. Magpie: > > Poisoning and planning for others to do the job was not any more in his line than killing Dumbledore himself is--not because he didn't almost do just that, obviously, but because of the way it affected him. Carol: As noted above, I don't see any evidence that it affect4ed him at all--and plenty of evidence that it didn't. Granted, he has not yet realized that he's not a killer. It takes the whole long conversation with Dumbledore (eight pages) before Draco appears (in Harry's view) to lower his wand a "fraction" (592). Magpie: > > What he's going over underlines the fact that he's making his choice from a position of strength and actually giving up what he had valued so much before. Dumbledore was at his mercy, he'd proved himself more than anyone thought he would, and yet he would not have killed Dumbledore. > > a_svirn: > Except that Dumbledore himself said that Draco got it all wrong and > it was Dumbledore's mercy that counted. And only after Dumbledore > pointed that out, did Draco start to lower his wand. Because he > finally acknowledged that he would find neither glory, nor mercy from Voldemort's hands. > > 'No, Draco,' said Dumbledore quietly. 'It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now.' > Malfoy did not speak. His mouth was open, his wand hand still trembling. Harry thought he saw it drop by a fraction - Carol: Right. Let's look at this quote. Draco does *not* lower his wand. Harry *thinks* he sees it "drop by a *fraction*. Nor does Draco *choose* not to kill Dumbledore. He can't make himself do it, even when the DEs arrive, but his wand, though it's shaking "so badly that he could barely aim," is still pointing his wand at DD when Snape enters and pushes him roughly aside (595). Far from having chosen to do anything, Draco stands irresolute, avoiding a choice until the choice is made for him. Carol, who hopes that Snape will help Draco to make the right choice, or aid him after he's made it, in the next book From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 15:53:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:53:49 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162895 > Betsy Hp: > I see Draco's statement as very fuzzy as far as truthfulness goes > because he refers to Fenrir as a "family friend", which is an > impossibility. There's no way a family as stuck on blood purity as > the Malfoys are is going to befriend a creature with a blood > disease. Draco is exaggerating, as Draco is wont to do. Carol responds: The "family friend" has nothing to do with Greyback's part in the plan, which at this point includes threatening Borgin and making sure that he does whatever is necessary on his end (fixing the other cabinet, giving draco instructions, making sure that cabinet isn't sold, and allowing the DEs to use his cabinet when the time comes?). But if Greyback is in on the plan from the beginning, he would certainly *want* to come to Hogwarts. All those juicy children to eat. He'd come whether he was ordered to or not, as Draco surely knows. Betsy Hp: > Both Alla and a_svirn are making the mistake (IMO ) of thinking > that Draco should realize he's in a novel. We, the reader, can > expect a heavily foreshadowed character like Fenrir to show up again > (especially at a school given the limited background we've learned). > But Draco is supposed to assume that out of several nameless Death > Eaters he knows (that we've never met since we've not sat on Draco's > shoulder during the entirety of his life as he's met and/or heard of > several possible Death Eaters) that the mad werewolf is going to be > the one sent? > > Sorry, but that's stretching it, IMO. To show that Draco's surprise > is fake, you'll need to show a tell that hints as such at the time he expresses his surprise. Carol responds: But Draco doesn't express surprise. We don't see his reaction when the Death Eaters enter, and in any case, he's still trying to get up the nerve to kill Dumbledore, standing there with his wand still pointing at DD, lowered only fractionally, shaking with fear and the realization that killing isn't as easy as he thought. When *Dumbldore* expresses surprise that Draco invited him, Draco denies that he did so (the one thing he *can* deny) and says that he didn't know he'd be there. Draco clearly feels revulsion, belatedly realizing that Greyback would just as soon eat Slytherins as members of any other House, but there's no indication of surprise. After all, Draco has just met the DEs, including Greyback, in the RoR and led them through the Peruvian Darkness Powder using his Hand of Glory to the foot of the Astronomy Tower where they encountered the Order members. He's gone on alone to wait for them, but he knows perfectly well that Greyback is coming. "I didn't invite him" is no doubt true. But "I didn't know he was coming" is naive at best and ceased to be true, if it ever was, when the DEs came out of the cabinet in the RoR. Carol, who does pity Draco but does not consider him an innocent in this matter From steven1965aaa at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 16:16:19 2006 From: steven1965aaa at yahoo.com (steven1965aaa) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:16:19 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162896 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Right. Let's look at this quote. Draco does *not* lower his wand. > Harry *thinks* he sees it "drop by a *fraction*. Nor does Draco > *choose* not to kill Dumbledore. He can't make himself do it, even > when the DEs arrive, but his wand, though it's shaking "so badly that > he could barely aim," is still pointing his wand at DD when Snape > enters and pushes him roughly aside (595). Far from having chosen to > do anything, Draco stands irresolute, avoiding a choice until the > choice is made for him. >\ Steven1965aaa: I agree with just about everything you said Carol, especially about Draco's lack of remorse. But I disagree with you on this last point. Harry has a special knack for spotting things others do not, we are told this at the end of SS in the room with the flying keys (I think it says something like not for nothing was Harry the youngest seeker in 100 years, he had a special knack for spotting things others did not --- or something to that effect) and we see it repeatedly, such as when Harry notices Voldemort reaching for his wand in Dumbledore's office. I trust Harry's judgment on this one. I don't however think it's evidence that Draco has now all of a sudden become a good person. I think Draco was engaging in a lot of false bravado in the face of great fear which he felt, fear which paralyzed him from acting. When Dumbledore offers him mercy (a great play on words which showed the difference between Dumbledore/Harry's type of mercy and Voldemort's (you're at my mercy) that enabled him to make a choice, and he made that choice by lowering his wand a fraction. IMO, if they hadn't been interrupted by the death eaters bursting onto the roof he would have continued to lower it and would've taken Dumbledore up on his offer - although I guess we'll never know for sure. When the death eaters got there, that took the choice out of Draco's hands. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 16:17:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:17:06 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott freeWAS: Re: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162897 > Dungrollin: > Even then, if all the information was available and it was obvious > to everybody that Snape had been acting for the greater good, he > should still be punished. Killing is killing, and he deliberately > took a man's life with an illegal curse. > > It's not because I think the punishment would do him any good, > neither is it because I think he would deserve it, but because if > you let Snape off this time, who knows who might be let off by > mistake next time? If you do it for a good reason this time, you > open the door to doing it for a bad reason next time; it compromises > the process of justice. Alla: Well,yes, if we are making RL comparison, I can see the rationale. Orders or no orders, one should take at least take some responsibility for the killing. It is just if we are talking about punishment in story like this, it seems to me that the **technical** guilt would not be punished,contrary to RL, that JKR would only want to punish Snape if he is truly guilty in his heart of hearts, hehehhe ( see another thread). Does that make sense? I suppose that we are again facing the question whether unforgivable itself is worthy of punishment. (RE: never ending question what is dark magic). But if Snape acted with the best intentions, followed DD orders, etc, in Potterverse what should he be punished for? I mean, again no punishment is big enough for him in mind, but our versions of Snape are differing a lot :), so if we are strictly looking at him as fiction without comparison with RW justice system, what should Heroic Snape and martyr for the cause be punished for? I mean, in his heart of hearts he was only following DD orders and I suppose he really resisted that, it is all Dumbledore fault. :) It should all be magic that way and he should get his reward. Alla: > > > Otherwise it seems to me that Dumbledore should go to Azkaban, not > > Snape who after all was only following Dumbledore's orders. Dungrollin: > Lol! I can just see Mad-Eye Moody sternly telling Dumbledore's dug- > up corpse that he is under arrest for his own murder! But I'm not > sure that JKR really approves of the Nuremberg defence; I certainly > don't. Alla: I am not fond of that defense as well. I would never ever blame the victim, I blame the murderer. :) From belviso at attglobal.net Mon Dec 18 16:27:36 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:27:36 -0000 Subject: The Cabinet Plan...again (was:Re: The UV (was ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162898 > Magpie: > > > I think that's why Dumbledore can't be meaning what you are saying > he means (and why I disagree with all interpretations that say that > Draco didn't feel anything about Katie and Ron--if he almost- killed > from a slight distance with no problem, I'd need more explanation as > to why he couldn't kill Dumbledore). Dumbledore is throughout the > scene, imo, saying that Draco did have a problem with murder, period. > > Carol responds: > Dumbledore is using psychology on Draco and taking advantage of his > hesitation at actually being face to face with his intended victim. > But I see no indication that Draco feels any remorse about the > near-deaths of Katie and Ron. His reaction after Katie is sent to St. > Mungo's (I doubt he knows that Snape, whom he's talking to, saved her) > is "That Bell girl must've had an enemy no one knows about" (HBP Am. > ed. 322). Not a drop of remorse, not even an admission of guilt, > certainly not an "I'm sorry I almost killed the wrong person." > Granted, he thinks that Snape is a DE who's only worried about Draco's > getting caught, but he could at least have said, "I'm sorry I was so > careless." Instead, all we get is defiance and denial. > > And Draco doesn't say a word (that we know of) about Ron as victim of > the mead intended for Dumbledore. His tears in the bathroom/restroom > are over death threats and failure to do what the Dark Lord expects. > ("I can't do it" clearly relates to the cabinet--which he later is so > happy to have repaired that he whoops in joy and triumph--not to the > inability to kill a man face to face, which he isn't ready to think > about yet.) Magpie: Yes, and I do see remorse and guilt over the earlier killings, as I've said before. Of course he's not going to say "I'm sorry I almost killed you" or even think it. He's not supposed to feel anything like that as a DE. He sees that these were bad things to do, and uses them to defend himself against Dumbledore's (accurate) description of him as not having the stomach for this kind of thing. when Dumbledore claims he's an innocent Draco disagrees with "You don't know what I've done!"--he has done bad things. He's ashamed of not being happy with that. Carol: > > When Dumbledore mentions that Draco almost killed Ron and Katie, > Draco ignores that part of DD's remarks and merely protests > "vehemently" that his heart *has* been in the attempt to kill DD and > that he's been working on it all year (585). Magpie: Yes, the lad protests too much that his heart has been in it. That seemed to be Dumbledore's view and I agreed with him. "I've been working on it all year!" is not having your heart in it. He's desperately trying to prove that his heart was in it. Carol: When DD again brings up > the necklace and the mead as "crude and badly judged" attempts that > could easily go astray (desperation measures that Draco resorted to > when he feared that he couldn't fix the cabinet), Draco sneers, > Yeah, well, you still didn't realize who was behind that stuff, did > you?" (587). And though Draco has looked at certain points as if he's > going to vomit, his wand is still pointed at Dumbledore's heart. Magpie: Everything in this scene suggests to me that Dumbledore is right and Draco is desperately trying to deny it. I don't see that as making him without remorse. I think the looking like he's going to vomit shows the truth behind the empty bragging. You see the bragging as truthful and the vomiting as a minor issue--presumably linked to fear of failure (and he's going to fail not because he has a problem with killing but because he's realized he can't look Dumbledore in the eye and kill him, though there's no actual moment in the scene where we see him make that realization). Carol: > On the last reference to Katie, DD is sliding down the wall and barely > manages to figure out that Draco's accomplice is Rosmerta, who has > been Imperio'd, Draco taunts, "Got there at last, have you?" (588). > Draco's hand is starting to shake when he realizes that Dumbledore > really did know about those attempts and when he explains about the > enchanted coins, but there's still no sign of remorse, only what > appears to be fear, and a contortion of his mouth "as though he had > tasted something very bitter" when DD points out that Draco could have > AK'd him at any time (590)--he's just now realizing that he can't do > the job the DEs and Voldemort expect him to do. Magpie: And as I've explained before, I think the "something very bitter" is the the inner turmoil which includes remorse. His mouth contorts in response to Dumbledore saying, "You haven't killed me yet." I think the bitter taste comes from all the reasons he already knows he won't kill Dumbledore, and if he felt no remorse about almost killing before, why hasn't he tried yet? I think what's important about this story, and what makes Draco grow up, is that he comes to recognize who he really is, what he wants and, ironically, what values he has. And that's the kind of wisdom he had to get through experience, not from being shepherded from one action to the next by wiser Snape and Dumbledore. Dumbledore's psychology on the Tower that I see is, far from trying to get Draco to feel remorse, is to be completely supportive of mostly everything about Draco's plan so that Draco's left with only his own issues. If Draco has nearly murdered people with no remorse, the only problem in facing Dumbledore is that he has to look him in the eyes, which is, of course, the popular "cowardly Draco" reading. That way we as readers can see him as the little murderer we and Harry always assumed he was, completely without scruples, only too cowardly to look his victim in the eye. It's the best of both worlds-not cool enough to kill, not good enough to not kill. I don't think that's the story. I think his bragging in the Tower is a cover for the physical revulsion he has of killing that he has more of now because it has some meaning to it. I think the idea of his showing remorse by expressing remorse (I felt so badly when Ron Weasley got poisoned! And poor Katie Bell! I can't bring myself to call Hermione a Mudblood when I hurt one of her friends! Please tell them I'm sorry!) is unrealistic. Draco's always covered his own problems and fear of this kind of violence with uglier talk about bragging. That's why there's a difference in his actual pride in fixing the Cabinet and that plan than his "pride" in the necklace and the poison, about which he is childishly overly-defensive. Snape covers up remorse by being treating Harry & Co. badly, Draco puts on an act of being bad and proud of it. > Carol: > As noted above, I don't see any evidence that it affect4ed him at > all--and plenty of evidence that it didn't. Granted, he has not yet > realized that he's not a killer. It takes the whole long conversation > with Dumbledore (eight pages) before Draco appears (in Harry's view) > to lower his wand a "fraction" (592). Magpie: I think the lowering is more important than the fractional because it shows the actual intention. Once he has felt that intention within himself, he can't go back, and can't ever even return to the amount of resolution he could muster at the top of the scene. That was his chance for an authentic choice and while he couldn't follow through, knowing it himself is significant. > Carol: > Right. Let's look at this quote. Draco does *not* lower his wand. > Harry *thinks* he sees it "drop by a *fraction*. Nor does Draco > *choose* not to kill Dumbledore. He can't make himself do it, even > when the DEs arrive, but his wand, though it's shaking "so badly that > he could barely aim," is still pointing his wand at DD when Snape > enters and pushes him roughly aside (595). Far from having chosen to > do anything, Draco stands irresolute, avoiding a choice until the > choice is made for him. Magpie: But Harry is right. Draco would not have killed Dumbledore. And he does choose not to kill Dumbledore, because he doesn't kill him(how else does one choose not to do something except not to do it?). What he doesn't do is declare his intention not to kill to the DEs, or openly choose against the DEs by putting his wand down, and that's true too. He's frozen, unable to declare he won't kill, but equally unwilling to kill--everyone can see he's not doing it, he's not making a move to do it (he's less resolute than before, not newly attempting to take a shot) and then the choice is taken out of his hands. But he knows what he wanted in the scene, and that's what's important. > Carol, who hopes that Snape will help Draco to make the right choice, > or aid him after he's made it, in the next book -m (Who feels Carol would be fine with Snape taking over Draco's story entirely) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 17:07:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:07:22 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162899 Jen wrote: I see the version of Snape you guys see very clearly because when I closed HBP for the first time I read the same story. I argued early on for DDM!Snape, pretty strongly if I remember . > > I didn't mean to imply that Snape and Dumbledore don't know who > Snape is (I think that's what you meant?). That's *why* the tower > was successful, because only Dumbledore and Snape know the truth. > What I meant is that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and allied to him, > but he doesn't fully accept Dumbledore's love magic just as he didn't accept Voldemort's version. I think the run across the grounds was one example, he still believes Harry must close his mind to defeat Voldemort and we know Harry must open his heart. > > But Snape *did* choose a path to be a double agent or 'dual person'. I mean, there's a reason Dumbledore has to proclaim his trust far and wide, right? Yet we find out in HBP no one else really believed Snape which means he was a helluva double-agent in the end! > > The reason I don't see this making a poor revelation is because the loyalty revelation is *not* the biggest issue on the table to me regarding Snape. Harry having an 'aha' moment about whose side Snape is on is just another Sirius moment--"I thought your were evil! You're on my side and what's more, we have a lot in common." Betsy Hp: > > But... Harry's *already* seen that Snape is a lot like him on the inside. He's had two sneak attacks of "OMG, I'm relating to SNAPE!" at current count. Do you really think Harry's feeling after the pensieve scene and his bonding with the half-blood Prince were examples of JKR spinning her wheels? > Jen: > No, no! I love these moments, as well as when Harry gets to see bits from Snape's childhood and likely when the Prank is revealed. It's just that I don't see them leading to the loyalty revelation, or leading there indirectly. Like you, I see Snape as already redeemed, he's been redeeming himself for years and Harry will get that part *after* he gets the bigger deal. Snape's role will actually be the biggest one for Harry's growth because when he can see Snape through Lily's and Dumbledore's eyes of compassion, he will finally understand the power he holds that Voldemort does not. When he can truly feel empathy for the boy Snape was, what he lost, why he made the huge mistakes he did and his genuine feelings of remorse and pain, then Harry will understand he was loyal all along. > > Even if you don't agree, maybe that's an urgh scenario for you , > that still fits the criteria for Harry learning from Snape, doesn't > it? > Carol responds: Okay, now I'm really confused because I agree with almost everything you say here. The only "urgh" part for me is "Lily's eyes of compassion," which doesn't fit with the Pensieve scene and to me is movie contamination (the Lupin/bridge scene in the PoA film). I absolutely agree that Harry will need to see and understand Snape's struggle as a step toward defeating Voldemort through Love. What I don't see is what you don't talk about here, a struggle on Snape's part with his loyalty to Dumbledore. He's already sacrificed everything he had for Dumbledore. He's not going to change sides now--especially not if Harry has to understand that Snape is already redeemed and on Dumbledore's side. Aside from that, I guess you're rejecting the DDM!Snape label because it relates only to Snape's loyalty. But as Magpie recently pointed out, Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is very important. It's a personal loyalty to the only man who trusted him, the only man he could come to for help when he wanted to change sides. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and Dumbledore's (fully merited) trust in him is the crux of the matter. Until Harry understands that the murder of Dumbledore was, paradoxically, an act of extreme loyalty to Dumbledore, not self-preservation but self-sacrifice (not of Snape's life but of everything that was meaningful and comfortable in his life), then he can't forgive Snape. He can't see all the other things that you're calling Grey!Snape." Anyway, I think that Snape's moment of decision is long past. He's been acting for Dumbledore and against Voldemort, protecting and trying to teach Harry while nevertheless hating him, walking a tightrope not in the sense of conflicting loyalties but in the sense of being in constant danger of exposure and death, since about the time Harry was born and Snape realized how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy. At any rate, it seems that we agree on more than we disagree about. I think you're rejecting the label rather than the concept, if I'm interpreting your views correctly. Maybe Redeemed!Snape would work better as a label for this view of Snape than Grey!Snape, which implies that he'll be tempted to reject Dumbledore and join Voldie in earnest (an idea that I see no evidence for anywhere). Carol, who will continue to use the term DDM!Snape because she thinks that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is the key to Harry's forgiveness of and compassion for Snape (for which the seeds have already been sown by those other revelations) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Dec 18 17:28:07 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:28:07 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162900 > Betsy Hp: > I *think* I'm starting to understand your view point here. You want > a Snape that is only nominally loyal probably for a technical > reason, but is still at heart a really evil nasty guy. That way > when Harry forgives him, Harry *really* forgives him. Is that it? Jen: If nominally loyal means anything less than Snape embracing Dumbledore's philosophy and his cause when he switched sides, then that's what I'm saying . Although I'm not certain what other people see as the cause? I'm with Snape being 100% against Voldemort as Bart phrased it, I would just say his reasons are 100% personal and 0% political i.e., not caring whether people like Voldemort flourish again. Betsy: > I have some problems with that Snape. And with that Harry, for > that matter. Harry isn't that loving a boy. I don't think he has > it in him to forgive Snape *unless* Snape is unabashedly DDM. Only > that large of a shock (and it would be a massive shock for Harry) > could possibly shake Harry out of his confidence in his current > method of judging good people from bad. Jen: I'm much more confident about my reading of Harry's trajectory than Snape's, so most of the time when analyzing Snape I'm trying to fit him around Harry's story. In this case, Harry doesn't have to be a perfectly loving boy to defeat Voldemort, he just can't be like Snape in allowing hatred and vengeance to overcome him and guide his actions. That's why I don't see the loyalty issue alone causing a dramatic *change* in Harry even if it's a shock. He operates like Snape when it comes to judging Snape in particular, so the only way to change that pattern is to realize Snape's modus operandi is wrong and likely forged out of incredible pain along the way. That's why Harry learning the missing parts of Snape's (and Lily's) story will be so crucial for Harry's internal change. > Betsy Hp: > I think Snape's involvement in the killing of Harry's parents is > enough to be going on with. If Snape is honestly responsible for > the circumstances that ended with Dumbledore's death (IOWs, the > choice to make the UV, etc.) then I don't see Harry ever forgiving > that. Instead, Harry's hate will only grow stronger. Jen: Right, I predict when Harry learns the full contents of the UV it will be another 'proof' for his hatred of Snape and anger at Dumbledore for trusting him. He'll feel that way even if Hermione or someone has started to piece together what happened on the tower and Harry realizes things were not exactly as they seemed. > Betsy Hp: > But if Snape really did kill Dumbledore, or if Dumbledore had to > die because of a choice *Snape* made, Harry will not show him > mercy. I've seen nothing in the books to suggest Harry has that > sort of ability. Oh sure, he'd probably give Snape a quick death > (or, more likely a fair trial, if Harry can swing it) but > forgiveness? Not our Harry. Jen: I don't think it ends with Harry finding out about the UV. He won't be capable of forgiving at that point, but he is capable of guilt and will blame himself for his part in weakening Dumbledore that night. Putting two and two together he will understand there may have been a different outcome if he and Dumbledore had not gone to the cave or if he had not followed orders to feed him the potion. It's likely something Snape holds against Harry, too! I see Harry's forgiveness coming to him in waves--the loyalty piece, learning about and identifying with Lily, hearing Snape's full story about how he came to be a DE (likely tragic) and finding he has some compassion for him instead of hatred. Actually, Snape blaming Harry for weakening Dumbledore is a perfect exmple of what Harry has to grow beyond to defeat Voldemort. I expect Snape's remorse for turning over the prophecy was because LV targeted someone he loved or respected, but he doesn't blame himself for the Potters dying, that's James' fault for putting his trust in his friends. *James* made Snape culpable. In the situation with Dumbledore, Snape feels pain that he had to kill Dumbledore, but he will likely blame others for putting him into that position: Harry for weakening Dumbledore, Draco for being stupid enough to actually work with Voldemort and/or actually trying to kill Dumbledore, and Bella and/or Narcissa for the UV. *They* made Snape culpable. Jen R. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Dec 18 17:31:52 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:31:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? Message-ID: <4056601.1166463112436.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162901 >Dungrollin: >This is an interesting one. > >IMO it would (assuming DDM!Snape gets through book 7 without dying) >depend entirely on whether > >a) there is any evidence that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him; > >b) whether the decision to kill Dumbledore and place Superspy!Snape >in the DE camp and at Voldemort's right hand significantly improved >the chances of Voldemort being defeated; > >and c) how much evidence there is to support the idea that Snape had >been working against Voldemort and that he didn't kill DD in order >to help the bad guys. Bart: It's been discussed before, but I'll bring it up again. We have seen all sorts of wounds healed in the WW. Even the poison that Art Weasley was hit with was curable. With Dumbledore's resources, it must be therefore at the very least considered that the reason why his hand could not be helaed was that it was already dead, and that the death was somehow blocked, might we even say "stoppered", at the end of the wound. We DO know that Dumbledore wanted Snape to do something that Snape did not want to do, and we don't know what. But it is a reasonable theory that Snape, much less than killing Dumbledore, was in fact all that was keeping him alive for the first part of HBP. Is it murder to kill a man who is already dead? Bart From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Mon Dec 18 17:56:09 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:56:09 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott freeWAS: Re: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162902 > > Dungrollin: > > It's not because I think the punishment would do him any good, > > neither is it because I think he would deserve it, but because if you let Snape off this time, who knows who might be let off by mistake next time? If you do it for a good reason this time, you > > open the door to doing it for a bad reason next time; it > compromises the process of justice. > > > Alla: > > Well,yes, if we are making RL comparison, I can see the rationale. > Orders or no orders, one should take at least take some > responsibility for the killing. > > It is just if we are talking about punishment in story like this, it seems to me that the **technical** guilt would not be > punished,contrary to RL, that JKR would only want to punish Snape if he is truly guilty in his heart of hearts, hehehhe ( see another > thread). > > Does that make sense? I suppose that we are again facing the question whether unforgivable itself is worthy of punishment. (RE: never ending question what is dark magic). > Dung: Weeelll... I think we should separate the two questions, to be honest; on the one hand punishing Snape because he used an unforgivable, and on the other hand, punishing him for murder. I don't particularly want to go into the first one, but just to say that if the law in the WW is that you get a life sentence for every Unforgivable cast, yes Snape should be punished for it; though again, mitigating circumstances should be taken into account: having made the decision to kill DD as DD had asked, was there any way that Snape could have fullfilled the purposes of killing DD without using an unforgivable, and would, say, letting him bleed to death (or any other alternatives) have been morally better? Alla: > But if Snape acted with the best intentions, followed DD orders, etc, in Potterverse what should he be punished for? > > I mean, again no punishment is big enough for him in mind, but our > versions of Snape are differing a lot :), so if we are strictly > looking at him as fiction without comparison with RW justice system, what should Heroic Snape and martyr for the cause be punished for? > Dungrollin: I think we kind of agree, actually. I'm most definitely *not* saying that killing DD was moral or good per se, but (assuming DDM!Snape caveat caveat etc etc) I think it was a better action than the alternative (which, obviously, I believe is Snape chickening out and dying from the vow, resulting in DD, Draco and possibly Harry all dead). >From my point of view, neither choice was morally brilliant, so no I don't think he *deserves* to be punished, because I don't think he had a good alternative, but I do think he ought to be. Which is horribly unfair (if you're fond of Snape), but in my little dream- world Snape's accepted that he'll be punished for it, and I imagine he would hand himself in once Voldemort's safely dead. I can even fantasise that Harry tries to persuade Snape to go into hiding like Sirius for the rest of his life, but I can't imagine Snape doing that, somehow. Alla: > I mean, in his heart of hearts he was only following DD orders and I suppose he really resisted that, it is all Dumbledore fault. :) > It should all be magic that way and he should get his reward. Dung: I can see what you mean, but if Snape were to be forgiven and let off the hook, I would definitely end the books with a sour taste in my mouth. I think I would think (it's difficult to predict my reactions to hypotheticals!) that the increasing maturity and complexity of the books had been betrayed for a sugary-sweet fairy- tale ending. I wouldn't find Snape being widely hailed as a hero and being pardoned by the Minister convincing, because he's just not hero material. Heros have to be at least superficially likeable, which Snape sooo isn't. On the other hand... if it is Snape himself who casts the Avada Kedavra which kills Voldemort (while harry's possessing him, or something) then I might find a pardon believable (though I doubt I'd think it was *right*). And yes, I might find it believable that he was hailed as a hero, simply because the WW is wierd about powerful witches and wizards, and if Snape had killed both DD and Voldy, the two most powerful wizards in, well, at least Wizarding Britain, he'd probably be hailed as a great and powerful wizard, if not necessarily a particularly nice one. I wouldn't want a sugary-sweet ending for Snape, though (as I've said before) I really really really don't want him to die. You shouldn't have to pay for your second chance by dying. Not that I'm saying that's the 'message' JKR would be sending if she wrote it that way, after all if Draco and/or Pettigrew 'turn', they might make it through alive - I just don't want it to be Snape who has to pay with his life. Nah, give him two years in Azkaban, out in eighteen months. I'd find that appropriate, both character and story-wise, and appropriate from the point of view of WW justice. Dungrollin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 18:19:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:19:59 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring.. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162903 Carol earlier: > ...and it is Harry who has to learn Dumbledore's lessons (mercy, > forgiveness, trust in Snape). Snape is Snape, and he's not going to > change, either in essential character or in loyalty, IMO. We, and > Harry, will simply find out that he is and remains DDM (or whatever). > > Jen: Yes, complete agreement. Although I feel like you are saying in most of your other arguments that there is nothing to forgive Snape > *for*, which will completely ruin this part of the story. If Harry > is to learn about mercy and trusting Snape, see him through the eyes > of compassion, there must be things Harry needs to feel merciful and > forgiving about. > Carol responds: Then I must be taking for granted what I thought was obvious: Harry has to forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore primarily, but also for revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort and thereby playing a role in the deaths of Harry's parents, even though Snape strove to prevent that from happening and has been redeeming himself ever since. (As for minor stuff like unfairness to Harry in class, which is completely balanced out by Snape's watching over and protecting and trying to teach him, I don't think that will matter in the end.) I guess I don't see how what Harry needs to forgive Snape for isn't obvious. It's the same things Snape needs to forgive himself for. > Carol: There's no room in the story for Snape's own internal > conflict, which has long since been suppressed or overcome. > > Jen: I see his loyalty as static, but his person is not. Once again > he made a mistake with the UV that contributed to an innocent > person's death and this time by his own hand. Snape salvaged a > situation that he himself had a part in setting up. Maybe Snape > expects Harry to 'thank him on bended knee' for saving his life just > like he expected James to, when he himself made a contribution to > both needing saving in the first place? Carol: Well, that's PoA, at a time when he thinks that Sirius Black and his werewolf accomplice are out to murder Harry, so naturally he expects a little gratitude. And he does dislike what he perceives as Harry's likeness to James: rule-breaking, arrogance, dishonesty, etc. But the adult Snape's Slytherinish instincts and training have always been in conflict with his principles (e.g., a debt of honor to the hated James and loyal, life-risking service to Dumbledore) just as his hatred of Harry has been in conflict with his efforts to save and protect him since at least Book 1. I think his character (if that's what you mean by "person" *is* static and has been since he made the all-important decision to "return to our side" before Godric's Hollow. His adult personality (or persona, since part of his personality is an image he's cultivated as a reaction against his pale, scraggly teenage self is not static, exactly, since he reacts differently with different people, but at least consistent with regard to Harry: cold and sarcastic most of the time, occasionally violently angry, but always secretly watchful, always trying to keep Harry out of trouble, whether it's preventing him from going to Hogwarts or keeping him from running down the wrong corridor because DD is coming downstairs. Carol earlier: > > Sad to say, Snape has had his book. We'll find out more about him, of course. We'll have to for the reveal/reversal to make sense. But most of it will be snippets of Snape's past and none of it will be insight into the inner workings of Snape's mind. > > Jen: I don't expect delving into the inner workings of Snape's mind > to reveal some information about him. POA and GOF both delved into > stories about the central figure whom Harry was going to have a > revelation about and they were quite satisfying in detail and scope > without being a therapy session. I don't understand this part? I > believe JKR has proven her ability to focus on contradictions and > still reveal a person for who he/she is. Carol again: I guess we're talking circles around each other because I don't understand what you're saying, either. I'm just saying that HBP was Snape's book and we're not going to get much more on his past except a clarification of what happened during the Prank and, I hope, during the eavesdropping. We're not going to get inside his mind. As for contradictions, JKR has been revealing Snape's contradictions (which I specified earlier in this post) since Book 1. And she's also a mistress of misdirection. So Harry will find out that he's been wrong all along, not about Snape's snarky personality and personal dislike of him, but about who and what he really is, IMO, a man of courage and principle who did a terrible deed he regrets to prevent a much greater evil., the victory of Voldemort which could have resulted from the events on the tower if Snape hadn't taken matters into his own hands. > Jen: I see Snape as part of the confluence of events, though! I > didn't mean he was outside that and life was happening to him, he > took part in the UV, he wanted the DADA job (presumably). And Snape > is weighted down with obligations he doesn't want, imo. Returning to Voldemort, carrying through with Dumbledore's plans for Harry and > having 'custody' of Draco for all intents and purposes since Narcissa has no influence over Voldemort. It's one thing to be a double-agent and appear to play both sides, it's quite another to be forced out of that role and *have* to go to the enemy camp. It's the worst possible scenario for a double-agent. Carol: I think it's all part of the job for him and that he had planned to go into the enemy camp all along. Surely both he and DD knew that the DADA curse would cause him to be exposed as a (seeming) DE. Whether he really wanted the DADA course all along, I'm not sure. I do think he knew he could teach it better than anyone else. DD knew it, too, and would have given it to him long before, IMO, if it weren't for the curse on the position. But I don't think that Snape's allegiance is going to suffer any test now. He's been risking discovery all along, sometimes in peril of his life. And he's still, in a way, a double agent, only under deep, deep cover and in greater danger. The question is, how can he communicate his real loyalties and what can he do to undermine Voldemort. DD wanted him exactly where he is. Why? > > Carol: > > But you don't need to hold your breath for Snape to show mercy. He > > has already done so. Look again at the healing scene in the > > Sectumsempra chapter. Snape is forgiving Draco for fighting the > > Chosen One and trying to kill Dumbledore, and he is letting him > > continue his assignment, very much against Snape's will, IMO, > > because Dumbledore believes in choices and second chances. > > Jen: You mean Snape would have rather let Draco die and he himself then die from the UV there than carry out Dumbledore's plan but instead did as Dumbledore would have wanted? Carol: No, no, no! Of course not. I just think that saving Draco is about more than saving both their necks or doing what dumbledore want. It's what Snape himself wants, just as he wanted to protect Draco in the first place and was willing to risk his own life by taking a UV to do so. It's also an act of mercy. He would have saved Draco, anyway, even if it weren't for the vow, assuming that he could get to him quickly enough. He's saving and protecting Draco because he cares about him and forgives him for his mission to murder Dumbledore and quite possibly sees himself in Draco. Saving Draco isn't just keeping his vow. It's a compassionate act of healing, one that shows a gentle, almost motherly side of snape that we've never seen anywhere else. It's letting Draco continue with his assignment that I think is against Snape's will. (I've got to stop writing these complex sentences! ) I'm not seeing another > option if he didn't save Draco. Not to belittle that he created a > healing means for the Sectumsempra, but once again that was his own > curse; The healing would not be necessary if he hadn't invented the > curse. Carol: I agree. That's part of the irony of the book and the situation in the chapter, along with Haarry's relationship to the HBP. And Snape, I'm quite sure, is fully aware of the irony and the implications. Nevertheless, healing Draco, who has gotten Snape and himself into this mess, is an act of mercy. Snape is trying to help Draco, and not in the way Draco thinks. Jen: Sort of like the Potters wouldn't have needed to be saved without Voldemort knowing the prophecy and Harry and Draco wouldn't need to be saved on the tower if Snape hadn't played a role in that scenario (not placing the full burden on Snape there, just saying he played a role in all these situations and seems to be continually making mistakes he then has to play a role in correcting). Carol: Exactly. Redeemed!Snape or Repentant!Snape or whatever he is is trying to undo his own mistakes (and to watch over and protect Draco as no one watched over and protected him). And Snape's anguish over the tower is intensified by all of this being the culmination of his choices, including the UV, which he took in the first place to protect Draco. I don't think any of this will make him change sides, but if it weren't for Occlumency enabling him to divorce himself from his emotions, I think he'd be on the brink of insanity now. He wanted to undo his own mistake and save the Potters, but he failed. He wanted to save Draco by taking the UV and ended up being forced to kill Dumbledore himself thanks in part to that Vow. At least he had the chance to save Draco from Sectumsempra--one mistake successfully remedied! > Jen: I'm not seeing mercy here though I once did, Dumbledore bought > Harry's and Draco's life with his sacrifice. Snape's entrusted with > them now and if Dumbledore means anything to Snape and he does > obviously as both of us see his deep pain and remorse, then Snape > will not defile his death by hurting Harry or undermining the very > plan he just sacrificed a life for. Carol: And yet Harry is taunting him and causing him emotional anguish. Snape didn't have to save Harry from that Crucio. So I think there's no question that he's capable of mercy. > >Carol, again thinking that we're not all that far apart in our views and wondering if she's ever going to get those Christmas presents to the post office! From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 18:57:06 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:57:06 -0000 Subject: NotKillingWormtail In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162904 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > > Zanooda wrote: > > I've also always wondered how Sirius and Lupin intended to kill > > PP. Were they about to AK him or what? > Catlady wrote: > As they both rolled up their sleeves, I think they were planning > something messier than AK. More spurting blood. "Accio heart!" > should splatter far more than just forearms, as I think would > levitating a grand piano over him and then smashing it down on him. > Perhaps Charm a bedspring into a sharp knife and stab him? Perhaps > order one of those magical ropes to twist around his neck and > strangle? zanooda: Wow, this is quite ingenious, even if quite creepy, as well. Compared to this, AK seems like a very nice death, quick and clean. I think though maybe Lupin and Black wouldn't want to do such bloody stuff in front of the kids. It would also require some kind of communication between them, some kind of agreement on what to do, something like:"So, what do you think, Remus, shall we rip out his heart or shall we crash him with the piano?":-). We don't see that in the book. > Nikkalmati wrote: > I don't think Sirius and Lupin thought there would be any > repercussions. Sirius would have to go back into hiding, of course, > but Lupin would go back to work. zanooda: Yeah, that's why I asked how they intended to kill him. I thought it was AK, then the ministry would know and there would be an investigation. However, if they used some other method, as Catlady suggests, no one would know, of course. From jhenderson at ithaca.edu Mon Dec 18 19:10:28 2006 From: jhenderson at ithaca.edu (jhenderson9) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:10:28 -0000 Subject: Forced to be good? was: Re: How will Snape come back? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162905 "chrusotoxos" wrote: > I'm not suggesting an UV, but rather a life's debt. James saved his life, so maybe Snape is > physically uable to kill Harry, or to stand aside while someone is hurting him. Look at PS, > for exemple: it wouldn't have been so difficult to slow down Harry's fall, as DD does in > PoA, but Snape - who at this point of the story, as he admits in HBP, even thinks that Harry > may be a new LV - feels compelled to stop him from falling. He doesn't oppose Quirrell, > though, even if, as they were sitting close, he must have known what he was doing. Maybe > he secretly approves what he's doing - only in relation to Harry, mind, not in the whole PS > business - but he *cannot* see Harry hurt. The surprise of PS/SS is that Snape is not the evil character Harry thought him to be. He does oppose the Quirrell and becomes the saver of Harry's life -- even if there is no hint I can find that Harry is committed to Snape as we are told Pettigrew will be committed to Harry at a crucial time. In each remaining book, it is reenforced in some way that Snape, however despicable, mean-spirited, and hateful, is none-the-less on the side of good. The clues and foreshadowing of HBP are intentionally obtuse and mysterious, but there is nothing in HBP that cannot fit in with the character of Snape that we learned from Book One. What HBP does set up is for Snape to continue to be misunderstood, untrusted, hated, and isolated from the Order, so that he can reemerge in Book Seven by the side of LV in a crucial scene toward the end to help Harry in his quest, perhaps needing to die for Harry (and the rest of us) to understand who he was. In only the most circumstantial way would this resemble Boromir's sacrifice. jhenderson9 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 20:42:04 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:42:04 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162906 > Dung: having > made the decision to kill DD as DD had asked, was there any way that > Snape could have fullfilled the purposes of killing DD without using > an unforgivable, and would, say, letting him bleed to death (or any > other alternatives) have been morally better? Alla: Heeee, snipping you in the midsentence because if the question is phrased that way I surely agree. Avada is much erm... cleaner way to kill. Although somebody on the list speculated once ( I do not remember who) that one of the reasons why Avada is considered unforgivable is because it kills your soul or something like that. If it is indeed true, oy, I would sure weep for Dumbledore's fate. It is as I said unsupported speculation though. > Dungrollin: > I wouldn't want a sugary-sweet ending for Snape, though (as I've > said before) I really really really don't want him to die. You > shouldn't have to pay for your second chance by dying. Not that I'm > saying that's the 'message' JKR would be sending if she wrote it > that way, after all if Draco and/or Pettigrew 'turn', they might > make it through alive - I just don't want it to be Snape who has to > pay with his life. > Alla: One learns something new every day about fellow list members indeed. I would have never, ever nailed you as sentimental type :) I mean of course we show here only small parts of who we are in our posts, but I would have never assumed that you may have any sort of emotional attachment to the characters. Now, do not get me wrong, while I hope Snape suffers horribly, I totally understand and accept the idea of hoping your favorite character will survive and have some sort of happiness etc. I mean, I never hide that the only thing that would stop me from rereading the books would be Harry's death, so I get why one would want Snape to live if one feels for him, empathises with him, etc. I totally know several Snape fans, whom I would absolutely said feel that way, but not you. I find it very interesting. Thank you, Dung :) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Dec 18 20:59:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:59:03 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: <4056601.1166463112436.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162907 Bart: > It's been discussed before, but I'll bring it up again. We have seen all sorts of wounds healed in the WW. Even the poison that Art Weasley was hit with was curable. With Dumbledore's resources, it must be therefore at the very least considered that the reason why his hand could not be helaed was that it was already dead, and that the death was somehow blocked, might we even say "stoppered", at the end of the wound. We DO know that Dumbledore wanted Snape to do something that Snape did not want to do, and we don't know what. But it is a reasonable theory that Snape, much less than killing Dumbledore, was in fact all that was keeping him alive for the first part of HBP. > > Is it murder to kill a man who is already dead? Ceridwen: Okay, I'll play. I can see a scenario where Dumbledore's hand is dead, and the death was stoppered by Snape's timely action. It would even make sense to me that not only was Death creeping up his hand and arm, but the Ring Curse as well. And if Horcrux!Dumbledore brought me flowers and candy, I would snuggle on the couch with him and even draw the shades. ;) But, I don't see a Dumbledore who is dead all through the book. I do see a Dumbledore on borrowed time, which is why I would flirt with DeadHand!, CursedHand! and Horcrux!Dumbledore. But up until he enters the cave with Harry, he is alive. Dead people don't cut themselves open and splatter blood: see the Inferi. Harry might be misled throughout the books by not understanding some things he sees and overhears, but this scene read straightforward, with no hooting owls or obscure gestures which resulted in splattered blood. Harry saw the weapon, the incision, the blood, the splatter, and the healing of the cut. We do know that there are some things which cannot be healed. Draco's grandfather died from a WW childhood disease, the Potions lessons warn us that there are poisons for which there is no antidote. The Avada Kedavra cannot be blocked, so there is no being saved from that, either, in most circumstances. And, there is a point after which there can be no help. Dumbledore is dead. I'm not wholly convinced we saw him die on the tower. He drank a nasty potion, he had tangled with a curse earlier in the year, he was, in my opinion, putting his affairs in order through the entire book. That potion could have killed him by his not getting help when it was still possible; the potion could have killed him and there never was any hope; the potion could have unstoppered the Death or the Curse that was contained in his hand. We did see Harry cast Renervate twice before Dumbledore revived. Did he revive? Or just re-animate? I just browsed the questions from the Radio City Music Hall reading again: http://boards.harrypotter.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa? threadID=35368&start=30&tstart=0 and can't see where Rowling gives anything at all away about *how* Dumbledore died. Maybe it's as straightforward as it seems, or maybe there's something hidden. I just wonder why she didn't come out and say, "Sure, he's dead, Snape killed him. It's right there on page... Or, wait, perhaps you'd rather read it on a sign over the highway?" (audience chuckles). It's a fun topic for speculation. Ceridwen. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 21:38:06 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:38:06 -0000 Subject: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <20061217191223.70849.qmail@web25611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162908 Ffred wrote: > Surely it was not Harry for whom Dumbledore gave his life, it was Draco: Harry's invisible and immobilised and thereby not at risk. But Dumbledore was prepared to die, not for one of the good guys, the prophecy boy who he hopes will finally deal with Voldemort, but for the "worst" child of all, the one who had always espoused Voldemort's ideas, who had actively plotted to kill him. > > Something which I found to be a very powerful message. Carol responds: If Dumbledore died for Draco, he also died for Harry, who was in the line of fire and would have jumped out to fight as soon as Dumbledore died and the spell was released if not for Snape's timely action, and for Snape, whom DD didn't want to die from the UV. Also, DD wouldn't have died if he hadn't made Harry forcefeed him poison, which brought about his helplessness, enabling Draco to disarm him, but also helped Harry get the fake Horcrux, which will eventually enable him to get the real one. So taking the poison was sacrificing himself for Harry even though it didn't kill him directly. The problem is, given the DEs, the poison, and the UV, Dumbledore was going to die, anyway. If he'd let Draco kill him, he'd have failed to save Draco from murder. If he had died from the poison, Harry would have rushed out to fight the DEs and most likely, both he and Snape would have been killed. If he had let snape defend him, all three--Snape, Draco, and Harry--would almost certainly have died along with Dumbledore. By having Snape kill him, DD gave his death meaning. Carol, who also sees a powerful message in DD's death but sees the chief sacrifice as having been made by Snape, who has lost his job, his reputation, his freedom, the trust of the Order, and perhaps his soul for Dumbledore and the war against LV From scarah at gmail.com Mon Dec 18 22:06:47 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:06:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612181406g2a629f76hb7108651a1c7e013@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162909 Antonia: > > Question: since when it is so important that Harry > > should forgive Snape? I don't consider him the almighty > > authority that will get the right to condemn and to > > forgive in the end. Fscts and actions will speak for > > themselves and if Harry will still have a grudge against > > Snape that is his business. > bboyminn: > > I'm somewhat inclind to agree with Antonia here. 'Forgive' > is a pretty strong word, and I don't think Harry or the > Wizard World will ever forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore, > but I suspect they will come to understand the choice he > made, and with that understanding will come a degree of > lenience. Sarah: Harry is an arbiter of justice of sorts, specifically as regards the avenging of his parents. Dumbledore discusses this in HBP during his conversation with Harry about his role in the prophecy, and it's also touched upon in the Shrieking Shack when Sirius and Lupin defer to Harry in the deciding of Wormtail's fate. Harry doesn't forgive Wormtail, but he does grant lenience. My guess is that Snape, who also played a role in the events at Godric's Hollow, will get a similar treatment. I am also guessing Snape will not exactly be jumping for joy at this development. Sarah From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 21:51:37 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:51:37 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162910 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Lupinlore, when did JKR condone child abuse? I can't find it. Certainly it > happens in the stories, but I can't see that she approves of it. > > Bruce Alan Wilson Well, at least we are in agreement that it happens. This falls into the category of messages that get sent whether JKR intends to send them or not -- and in this case I don't think she does. We have a character who is defined as the "epitome of goodness" who "knows pretty much everything that happens at Hogwarts" and who "has watched [Harry] more closely than [he] can have imagined." Well, said epitome of goodness has stood by and allowed said abuse to happen when he could easily -- being both headmaster and most powerful wizard in the world -- have stepped in and put a firm stop to it. As silence implies consent (at least in a court of law) then said "epitome of goodness" consents to said abuse and tacitly approves of it, and when your moral avatar approves of something, it is approved. There are several examples of this: the Dursleys, Snape's abuse of his students, and Umbridge being the most egregious (others might bring up DD's bizarre inaction during the Marauder era and other examples). Let us take Umbridge as one example. DD is watching Harry "more closely than [he] can have imagined." And yet DD managed to miss the little bit about Umbridge's detentions? Unbelievable. Which means that the moral avatar of the series tacitly approves of Umbridge's abuse of Harry, which means abuse is, in the moral universe of the series, approved of. The other issue, brought out be Alla on many times actually, is that DD has a seeming inability to clearly express regret and remorse over these issues. Instead he hems and haws, beats around the bush, and makes cryptic comments that imply the abuse Harry has suffered is part of some grand plan of his -- which is frankly contemptible. A precis of the issue, but there you have it. Lupinlore From fairwynn at hotmail.com Mon Dec 18 23:00:58 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:00:58 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape In-Reply-To: <3202590612181406g2a629f76hb7108651a1c7e013@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162911 > > Antonia: > > > Question: since when it is so important that Harry > > > should forgive Snape? I don't consider him the almighty > > > authority that will get the right to condemn and to > > > forgive in the end. Fscts and actions will speak for > > > themselves and if Harry will still have a grudge against > > > Snape that is his business. > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I'm somewhat inclind to agree with Antonia here. 'Forgive' > > is a pretty strong word, and I don't think Harry or the > > Wizard World will ever forgive Snape for killing Dumbledore, > > but I suspect they will come to understand the choice he > > made, and with that understanding will come a degree of > > lenience. wynnleaf Whether or not any of us think that Harry *needs* to forgive Snape, I think it's fairly clear that it is what JKR has planned, and therefore I assume *she* thinks he needs to forgive Snape. In OOTP, toward the end, Harry considers Snape and what he saw as Snape's role in Sirius' death, as well as just his general hatred of Snape. We are told: "at the sight of him Harry felt a great rush of hatred beyond anything he felt towards Malfoy ... whatever Dumbledore said, he would never forgive Snape ... never ..." If ever something was begging to be found wrong, it's that assertion. Then also at the end of OOTP, we are told of Harry focusing on aspects of Snape solely to build his own hatred. And again at the beginning of HBP, we are once again specifically told how Harry is feeding his hatred of Snape, intentionally dwelling on anything he can to build that hatred. And then JKR herself, in her long interviews right after HBP came out, made quite a point of the fact that Harry's hatred for Snape had become much more personal and that this was important for what would happen when they met in Book 7. So between JKR obviously being quite conscious of building Harry's hatred of Snape, and her evident satisfaction of that hatred, combined with her clear narrative points that much of Harry's hatred is *manufactured* by himself, and further combined with that determination of Harry's to *never* forgive Snape ---- well, I think it's fairly obvious that JKR is setting up Harry to have to overcome a massive amount of hatred *and* forgive Snape. We may or may not think Harry has to do it from a moral perspective. But I think JKR has set up the literary constructs by which Harry *must* forgive Snape. wynnleaf From anthanielc at yahoo.com Mon Dec 18 21:50:58 2006 From: anthanielc at yahoo.com (Anthony) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:50:58 -0000 Subject: Who killed Dumbledore? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162912 > Bart: > It's been discussed before, but I'll bring it up again. We have > seen all sorts of wounds healed in the WW. Even the poison that Art > Weasley was hit with was curable. With Dumbledore's resources, it > must be therefore at the very least considered that the reason why > his hand could not be helaed was that it was already dead, and that > the death was somehow blocked, might we even say "stoppered", at the end of the wound. > Ceridwen: > I just browsed the questions from the Radio City Music Hall reading > again: http://boards.harrypotter.warnerbros.com/web/thread.jspa? > threadID=35368&start=30&tstart=0 and can't see where Rowling gives > anything at all away about *how* Dumbledore died. Maybe it's as > straightforward as it seems, or maybe there's something hidden. I > just wonder why she didn't come out and say, "Sure, he's dead, > Snape killed him. It's right there on page... Or, wait, perhaps > you'd rather read it on a sign over the highway?" (audience > chuckles). Hello All, I'm new to the group and still getting a feel for what's permissable and what's not, so I hope my chiming in won't offend anyone. I'm not sure what the general consensus here is, but I have to say I'm still not convinced (depsite compelling arguments) that Dumbledore is dead. Gandalf came back, Merlin came back (in some versions). It seems to me that Rowling has remained faithful to the accepted norm when it comes to the whole development of the young hero concept, and the temporary removal of the Mentor is a big part of that tradition. And, as Ceridwen points out, it's not like JK is being straightforward when asked if Dumbledore is dead or not. I am intrigued by the idea that Dumbledore's hand was dead throughout the book and Snape "stoppered" it. Thanks for letting me chime in, all. Anthony From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 19 00:49:15 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:49:15 -0000 Subject: DD's sacrifice 9was Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: <20061217191223.70849.qmail@web25611.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162913 Ffred wrote, > Surely it was not Harry for whom Dumbledore gave his life, it was Draco: Harry's invisible and immobilised and thereby not at risk. But Dumbledore was prepared to die, not for one of the good guys, the prophecy boy who he hopes will finally deal with Voldemort, but for the "worst" child of all, the one who had always espoused Voldemort's ideas, who had actively plotted to kill him. > > Something which I found to be a very powerful message. Potioncat: And I agree. JKR said (either just before or just after HBP came out) that Dumbledore is no Jesus. No, he isn't. But she most certainly rewrote "the two thieves" on the cross scene. Here's DD about to be killed, being mocked by the Death Eaters. Here's Draco, afraid of death (for himself and his parents), being told he's dependent on a condemned-DD's mercy. Snape runs in---and whether he's Judas-the-good or Judas-the-betrayer- --it appears DD asks him to do something. Yet I don't think he was asking Snape to kill him or to save him, but to save Draco. Up until this point, I thought Draco was a toe-rag. (A word I learned in this series) and I would have shed no tears for him. Then DD goes and sacrifices his life for Draco--Darn it--and made me re-think it all. Or, I should say it differently? JKR warned girls to avoid the bad guys Draco/Snape(?) and choose good men. She indicated Draco was bad, bad, bad. Nothing more to say. (At least that was what I understood.) Then she sacrifices Dumbledore for Draco. A very powerful message. (Yes, Harry was there too, and at risk. But I think it was important to DD that Draco not only chose to not kill him, but did not get forced into killing him.) From sydpad at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 01:11:26 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 01:11:26 -0000 Subject: DD's sacrifice 9was Re: DDM!Harry and Snape/Grey!Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162914 Potioncat: >Then DD goes > and sacrifices his life for Draco--Darn it--and made me re-think it > all. > > Or, I should say it differently? JKR warned girls to avoid the bad > guys Draco/Snape(?) and choose good men. She indicated Draco was bad, > bad, bad. Nothing more to say. (At least that was what I understood.) > Then she sacrifices Dumbledore for Draco. > > A very powerful message. Sydney: As it's Christmas, would this be the message? "What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance." Luke 15 Dumbledore left his ninety-and-nine in the wilderness which might not have been the most prudent course, but surely this was the parable JKR had in mind? Regarding the "avoid bad guys" quote... the further I read in this series, the more that's coming off as JKR leaping a motorcycle over twelve flaming trucks and then tucking her helmet under her arm and saying seriously, "Now don't try this at home, kids! Bike saftey is important!" -- Sydney, Merry Christmas y'all! From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 02:21:49 2006 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 02:21:49 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162915 > >>Betsy Hp: > > I *think* I'm starting to understand your view point here. You > > want a Snape that is only nominally loyal... > > > >>Jen: If nominally loyal means anything less than Snape embracing > Dumbledore's philosophy and his cause when he switched sides, then > that's what I'm saying . Although I'm not certain what other > people see as the cause? Betsy Hp: I see Dumbledore's cause as the total defeat of Voldemort and a WW not governed by fear. I see Dumbledore's philosophy being a general sense of everyone having worth no matter species or bloodline. And I do think Snape embraced both Dumbledore's cause and philosophy when he switched sides. I was going to say that Snape did so wholeheartedly, but I'm betting he judges those who've made mistakes (including himself) a bit more fiercely than Dumbledore. And I'm betting it's much harder for Snape to forgive. IOWs, I don't think Dumbledore's philosophy comes naturally to Snape. But I think he tries really hard. > >>Jen: > I'm with Snape being 100% against Voldemort as Bart phrased it, I > would just say his reasons are 100% personal and 0% political i.e., > not caring whether people like Voldemort flourish again. Betsy Hp: Hmm, no I disagree with that. I think Snape cares a great deal that people like Voldemort not flourish again. In fact, I'm betting that's the easiest part of Dumbledore's philosophy for Snape to embrace. He'd easily get the idea that power corrupts, etc., etc. And since Snape doesn't do things by halves, he'd never want another potential tyrant rearing up again. > >>Jen: I'm much more confident about my reading of Harry's > trajectory than Snape's, so most of the time when analyzing Snape > I'm trying to fit him around Harry's story. In this case, Harry > doesn't have to be a perfectly loving boy to defeat Voldemort, he > just can't be like Snape in allowing hatred and vengeance to > overcome him and guide his actions. Betsy Hp: Okay, we're *almost* agreeing here. Only, I think it's *young*!Snape that Harry is in danger of becoming like, and I think *Snape himself* is worried about Harry making the same mistakes of his youth. (Hence the "fools who wear their emotions on their sleeves" stuff.) The way Harry wraps himself in his hatred of Snape is how I'm betting Snape wrapped himself in his hatred of James. And that's what made him such ripe pickings for Voldemort. And that's what Snape is trying to teach Harry to avoid. > >>Jen: > That's why I don't see the loyalty issue alone causing a dramatic > *change* in Harry even if it's a shock. He operates like Snape when > it comes to judging Snape in particular, so the only way to change > that pattern is to realize Snape's modus operandi is wrong and > likely forged out of incredible pain along the way. That's why > Harry learning the missing parts of Snape's (and Lily's) story will > be so crucial for Harry's internal change. Betsy Hp: Again, I agree with this. But I think Harry will learn this lesson by seeing the great mistake young!Snape made, and the incredibly painful path Snape has been on to makeup for that mistake. IOWs, I think Harry will learn of Snape's road of redemption at a moment when Harry himself is teetering in a bad direction. > >>Jen: > > Actually, Snape blaming Harry for weakening Dumbledore is a perfect > exmple of what Harry has to grow beyond to defeat Voldemort. I > expect Snape's remorse for turning over the prophecy was because LV > targeted someone he loved or respected, but he doesn't blame > himself for the Potters dying, that's James' fault for putting his > trust in his friends. *James* made Snape culpable. In the > situation with Dumbledore, Snape feels pain that he had to kill > Dumbledore, but he will likely blame others for putting him into > that position: Harry for weakening Dumbledore, Draco for being > stupid enough to actually work with Voldemort and/or actually > trying to kill Dumbledore, and Bella and/or Narcissa for the UV. > *They* made Snape culpable. > Betsy Hp: Eh, yeah, I totally disagree with this idea. I think Snape takes the blame for his past mistakes *fully* onto his own shoulders. I do think he's furious at James for not listening to him, but I don't think he uses that anger as an excuse to shift the blame to James. Otherwise I don't think Dumbledore would give as much weight to Snape's remorse, since blaming someone else doesn't really count as remorse. (Actually, if anything, I'd bet Snape takes *too* much onto his shoulders.) But yeah, I don't see Snape blaming Harry (or Draco) for Dumbledore's death. He's just not a character I see scrambling to find someone else to blame for his own mistakes. That'd be Pettigrew. (Though, I'm not all that sure Snape actually killed Dumbledore in the end anyway.) Betsy Hp From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Dec 19 03:27:51 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:27:51 -0500 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162916 Lupinlore: "There are several examples of this: the Dursleys, Snape's abuse of his students, and Umbridge being the most egregious." Anent the Dursleys, I have seen abusive guardians in my work both as a schoolteacher and as a court staffer, and their efforts in that direction are quite halfhearted. And, for all he had to put up with at their hands, he is still alive, which is certainly better than the alternative. Anent Snape, I don't see that he's abusive. Mean, yes. Unfair, yes. But abusive? No. As above, I've seen abusive teachers, and he doesn't even come close. And whatever you may say about his teaching methods, his students LEARN. Harry and Ron were able to pull off good OWL marks in Potions, and even Neville passed. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." I'd rather have a knowledgeable and competent teacher with a rotten personality than a sweet-natured but inept one any day. As for Umbridge, I agree with you there, but look what happened to her. Dumbledore, for political reasons, couldn't move directly against her, but he did the next best thing--gave her plenty of rope and let her hang herself. And one might argue that Harry's suffering under the Umbridge Regime was necessary for his development, to toughen him up. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Dec 19 03:55:44 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:55:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458762C0.2070807@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162917 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > Anent Snape, I don't see that he's abusive. Mean, yes. Unfair, yes. But > abusive? No. So, purposefully destroying a student's work to ensure that he fails is NOT abusive? Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 04:10:56 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:10:56 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <458762C0.2070807@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162918 > Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > Anent Snape, I don't see that he's abusive. Mean, yes. Unfair, yes. But > > abusive? No. > Bart: > So, purposefully destroying a student's work to ensure that he fails is > NOT abusive? Alla: Oh, that's just you know - the understandable revenge. After all teacher should be allowed to exercise revenge on those weaker than him. :) How about threatening to kill student's toad? How about assigning the detention to that student to make him **cut toads* ( paraphrase)? Nah, that is just what Snape needed to be done at that point and that is just lucky coincidence for him that **Neville** of all people, whose pet is toad and who is terrified of Snape as it is, was serving detention under Snape. Subtlety of the master of psychological abuse indeed as far as I am concerned, Umbridge is far less elegant than Severus dear, even if she goes much further in physical abuse land than him IMO. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148046 Alla, who maybe one day will understand the argument how the fact that there are much worse abusers than Snape in both real world and fiction makes Snape not just **lesser** abuser, but not abuser at all. From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Dec 19 04:21:03 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 04:21:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: Viagra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162919 Viagra To the tune of Maria from West Side Story by Bernstein/Sondheim Here's a You-Tube concert performance http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-31K0cZI7I Dedicated to Time Magazine's Person of the Year "And as if all that wasn't enough," said Fudge, barely listening to the Prime Minister, "we've got dementors swarming all over the place, attacking people left, right, and center..." Once upon a happier time this sentence would have been unintelligible to the Prime Minister, but he was wiser now. "I thought dementors guard the prisoners in Azkaban," he said cautiously. "They did," said Fudge wearily. "But not anymore. They've deserted the prison and joined He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named . "But," said the Prime Minister, with a sense of dawning horror, "didn't you tell me they're the creatures that drain hope and happiness out of people?" "That's right. And they're breeding. That's what's causing all this mist." - HBP, Chap. 1 So why are dementors breeding now, when they presumably unable to before? It may have to do with magic or Dark Arts ? but maybe there's a more mundane explanation. Viagra was approved by the FDA in March 1998, but experimental prototypes were doubtlessly gliding around the market for a couple years prior (HBP begins in the summer of 1996 ..) A SOLO DEMENTOR: Viagra . . The most bountiful plan I ever heard.... Viagra. Viagra. Viagra. Viagra... All our celibate vows are unmade so I can get laid.... Viagra. Viagra. Viagra. Viagra... Viagra! I just took a dose of Viagra And suddenly a surge Of reproductive urge I feel. Viagra! I've just been prescribed some Viagra The Dark Lord has decreed Dementors now shall breed With zeal! Viagra! Let us now do that take-cloak-off-thing And in due time we'll have us some offspring Viagra! I'll never stop taking Viagra! (The DEMENTOR dances around the room in ethereal ecstasy) Viagra! Viagra! Viagra! Viagra!, etc. It may be some will call us putrid So though I love my wife but oh you kid Viagra! I'll never stop taking Viagra! The most bountiful plan I ever heard..... - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm Alternate Couplet for Gilbert and Sullivan Fans: SOLO DEMENTOR: Mi amour, I'll no more reject her As Sir Gilbert said, "Be firm, my pecker." Exegesis here: http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/trial/discussion/tr4-3.html#firm From antonia31h at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 09:24:49 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 09:24:49 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162920 -- > Alla: > > One learns something new every day about fellow list members indeed. > I would have never, ever nailed you as sentimental type :) I mean of > course we show here only small parts of who we are in our posts, but > I would have never assumed that you may have any sort of emotional > attachment to the characters. Now, do not get me wrong, while I hope > Snape suffers horribly, I totally understand and accept the idea of > hoping your favorite character will survive and have some sort of > happiness etc. I mean, I never hide that the only thing that would > stop me from rereading the books would be Harry's death, so I get why > one would want Snape to live if one feels for him, empathises with > him, etc. > > I totally know several Snape fans, whom I would absolutely said feel > that way, but not you. I find it very interesting. Thank you, Dung :) Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other evil character? Is it because we are not sure to whom he is loyal? I really don't consider his actions being so despicable in the books so that everyone should hate him. Yes, he tends to treat his students badly, especially Harry & comp but we must also take in account that Harry seems to hate him instinctively no matter what Severus does. I don't know what you think about this but I feel that Harry is being unjust to Severus from the very beginning. I mean if a person is not that nice to us, do we have to hate him? Maybe this is just his style his personality, his way of handling things. antonia From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 13:20:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:20:37 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162921 antonia: > Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling > that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other > evil character? Is it because we are not sure to whom he is loyal? > I really don't consider his actions being so despicable in the books > so that everyone should hate him. Yes, he tends to treat his students > badly, especially Harry & comp but we must also take in account that > Harry seems to hate him instinctively no matter what Severus does. > I don't know what you think about this but I feel that Harry is being > unjust to Severus from the very beginning. I mean if a person is not > that nice to us, do we have to hate him? Maybe this is just his style > his personality, his way of handling things. Alla: Heeee, welll you asked. Older members are wholeheartedly invited to skip this post if they wish, since I doubt that they will find anything new in here. Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Well, let's separate two things first and foremost, I do not spend my time wishing suffering on real people who are not nice to me or who in my opinion may dislike me intensely. Fictional characters on the other hand - why not? That is how I tend to read the stories of this type, I want evil as I perceived it to be punished. Now, do people tend to hate Snape more than Voldemort? I don't know and I don't care to tell you the truth :) I do know that most regulars on this board seem to love Snape dearly though :). I also find him fascinating character, but as a reader it is my fondest wish to see him pay for all what he did to Harry and Neville. It is just my wish, nothing more. It is JKR's story, so I would most like be able to swallow any ending, except Harry's death. Now, do I hate Snape more than Voldemort? In some ways I absolutely do. Oh, of course I know that Voldemort is an evil maniac, who promotes genocide, murder, torture, etc. He needs to die, but in some ways he acts so idiotically that I just want to laugh sometimes. Snape on the other hand - oh, that is perfectly done everyday evil as far as I am concerned. I find him in many ways more chilling than Voldemort, because of more reality based if that makes sense. Moving on, again I am just giving you the condensed version of my views, since I wrote on this topic so very often, if you want links to some of my old posts, I can send them to you offlists. I have a feeling that we will not be able to understand each other much, because "Harry had been unjust to him from the beginning" is something that I find mind boggling. IMO, Harry came to Snape class ( yes, despite hearing some not nice things about Slytherins) perfectly willing to give Snape a chance. Narrator through Harry's eyes tells us that Snape had a "gift of keeping class quiet" that sounds to me as perfectly positive assesment of the teacher. That is till Snape IMO attacks him as vicious dog, asking questions that no "muggleraised" first year old can know, unless he is Hermione. I wanted to strangle Snape when I read that. Of course during the years Harry develops hatred of Snape ( and how could he not in my view?) But as far as I am concerned Snape is the only one to blame for that. Teacher in mid thirties is responsible for his actions towards eleven year old much more than that eleven year old. Oh, and me wishing Snape to suffer has nothing to do with his loyalties. I mean, it does - I want him to pay for Dumbledore's murder, but even if he DD!M, he to me is still abusive jerk, who felt it is possible to take out his feelings about James on the innocent child ( and no, I do not believe that Snape does not hate Harry - "you and your filfy father" convinced me that he does). And of course the fact that Snape contributed to making said child an orphan makes me want to see him suffer even more. So, does that answer your question? :) Again, I am very outspoken in my hatred of Snape, but you will find on this board plenty of people who feel as you do, don't worry :) Welcome aboard. :) Alla From sherriola at earthlink.net Tue Dec 19 13:36:54 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 05:36:54 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162922 Antonia Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other evil character? Is it because we are not sure to whom he is loyal? I really don't consider his actions being so despicable in the books so that everyone should hate him. Yes, he tends to treat his students badly, especially Harry & comp but we must also take in account that Harry seems to hate him instinctively no matter what Severus does. I don't know what you think about this but I feel that Harry is being unjust to Severus from the very beginning. I mean if a person is not that nice to us, do we have to hate him? Maybe this is just his style his personality, his way of handling things. Sherry now: Perhaps the fact that it was Snape, not Harry, who started the meanness in their relationship, singling out and humiliating Harry from the very first potions lesson in SS/PS, constantly insulting his dead father about whom Harry knows so little, treats other students unfairly ... and now the big one, murdered Dumbledore. No matter what the outcome in book seven, I don't honestly see how Harry can go away not hating Snape and still remain a human being. At this point in the story, Harry has no reason at all to feel anything but anger and hate toward Snape. Though many here feel Snape has saved Harry's life multiple times, I only count one for sure and still wonder why on earth he bothered. But with the years of vicious verbal bashing, the absolutely uncalled for remarks about his dad, and now Dumbledore, I would find Harry completely unrealistic if he felt anything but what he currently feels for Snape. sherry From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Dec 19 14:09:50 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:09:50 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162923 "antonia31h" wrote: > > Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling > that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other > evil character? Potioncat answers by quoting Jo: >From an interview with JKR 16 July 2005: MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. Potioncat, who hopes Alla doesn't go into shock when she reads this post. From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 19 14:44:30 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:44:30 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162924 > Alla: > > How about threatening to kill student's toad? How about assigning > the detention to that student to make him **cut toads* ( > paraphrase)? Pippin: A horned toad is neither a toad nor a frog. I'ts a lizard. I'm afraid it's not Snape who has the nasty imagination here. There's no doubt that Snape abuses his power and is a bully, but that is not quite the same thing as abusing students, which has to do with repeated episodes of damaging behavior, ala Umbridge. I cannot see that Neville, Harry or any other student was ever harmed in Snape's class. As for Dumbledore, I reckon he might have stopped people from abusing one another, only his time seems to have been entirely taken up with trying to get them to stop murdering. I really can't argue with his priorities. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 19 15:10:50 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:10:50 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162925 Carol: > Carol, who will continue to use the term DDM!Snape because she thinks > that Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is the key to Harry's forgiveness > of and compassion for Snape (for which the seeds have already been > sown by those other revelations) > Pippin: I agree with almost everything in your post, but I don't think Snape's loyalty is the key. Harry understands Snape's capacity for loyalty, he just thinks that it's devoted to the side of evil. What Harry doesn't get at all is Snape's capacity for remorse. According to Dumbledore, Snape was so remorseful over his remote involvement in the potential murder of James and his family that he turned his whole life upside down trying to forestall it, and then spent years trying to protect Harry as best he could from the consequences. If Harry believed that, he would understand that such a person could never have stood face to face with Dumbledore and killed him with an Unforgivable curse, not if you have to really mean them. And then, perhaps, Harry will start thinking about what really happened on the tower. It's always dangerous to predict the course of a future book, but maybe Harry will decide that he needs to explore Snape's past in order to discover his weakness, as Dumbledore's investigations revealed Voldemort's, and in the process Harry will discover the evidence of Snape's capacity for remorse. I agree that Harry will have to forgive Snape for all the humiliations that Snape put on him in class, but that will happen after Harry understands that Snape isn't any different than Sirius or Ron in his ability to ignore the pain he visits on others. It's only Harry who has that special, almost godlike gift (or curse) of not being able to shut down his compassion when he wants to, much less without even realizing that he has done so. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 15:22:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:22:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162926 Jen wrote: > > > > Actually, Snape blaming Harry for weakening Dumbledore is a perfect exmple of what Harry has to grow beyond to defeat Voldemort. I expect Snape's remorse for turning over the prophecy was because LV targeted someone he loved or respected, but he doesn't blame himself for the Potters dying, that's James' fault for putting his trust in his friends. *James* made Snape culpable. In the situation with Dumbledore, Snape feels pain that he had to kill Dumbledore, but he will likely blame others for putting him into that position: Harry for weakening Dumbledore, Draco for being stupid enough to actually work with Voldemort and/or actually trying to kill Dumbledore, and Bella and/or Narcissa for the UV. *They* made Snape culpable. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Eh, yeah, I totally disagree with this idea. I think Snape takes the blame for his past mistakes *fully* onto his own shoulders. I do think he's furious at James for not listening to him, but I don't think he uses that anger as an excuse to shift the blame to James. Otherwise I don't think Dumbledore would give as much weight to Snape's remorse, since blaming someone else doesn't really count as remorse. Carol responds: In essence, I agree with Betsy though I concede that shifting part of the blame for the Potters' deaths to Sirius Black, and to James for "arrogantly" ignoring Dumbledore's warning, made the burden more bearable--very much like Harry's blaming Snape for Black's death. Now, of course, Snape knows that Black wasn't the spy/SK and he can't feel such a satisfying hatred for the contemptible Pettigrew, so he merely takes solace in hating the memory of James for "arrogantly" dying despite his efforts to save him and he still clings to the humiliating memories of the Prank and his "worst memory," the one time (IMO) that he didn't "give as good as he got" because Sirius and James attacked him two on one at unawares. (I'll bet he learned *that* lesson-- "Constant vigilance!" as Fake!Moody says.) Still, though, he can no longer hide from his own guilt for revealing the Prophecy and failing to save the Potters, and he has worked all this time to redeem himself for that failure (and for joining the DEs in the first place). Now he has still more to feel guilty about--not the UV so much as its consequences. Unlike Jen, I see no evidence that Snape blames Narcissa for "making" him take the UV. It was his own choice to do so, another risk solely to himself, or so it seemed when Narcissa proposed it and he agreed to take it. He may well blame himself for agreeing to the third provision, but it must have seemed at the time either that he had no choice or that if he told Dumbledore about it, DD would find a way to keep the UV from ever being activated. (I think that's what the argument in the forest was about--DD taking for granted that he could allow Draco to continue doing whatever he was doing in the RoR--yes, I'm sure they knew where he was going and who the "girls" were--without activating the vow, and DD wanting Snape to continue merely watching Draco and trying to talk to him and other students in his House, measures that Snape thought were futile but which did save Draco's life when Harry hit him with Sectumsempra.) At any rate, IMO Snape is doing everything he can to help Dumbledore using the DADA knowledge which, till now, he's had to conceal because he was the Potions Master and it wasn't his job to teach, or heal, Dark Magic. (The fact that DD went to him to stop the curse on his hand indicates to me that he already had the post of DADA teacher in mind for Snape this year; he was just waiting for Slughorn to accept the Potions Master post before making it official. So Snape was telling Bella yet another half-truth; he hadn't *yet* been given the position he wanted, but I'm pretty sure he knew it was coming. And he also knew the real reason he hadn't been given it before, not because it would tempt him into his old ways [which is what he and DD want LV and the DEs to think] but because it would expose his till-now hidden DE background and force him to rejoin Voldemort). Sorry--straying from the main point, which is that I don't think Snape is blaming anyone else for the UV, which he *chose* to take, but he was plenty angry with DD on the tower for pressuring him to choose to keep rather than break it. Yet, ultimately, it *was* his choice, and it enabled him to protect both boys and get the DEs out of Hogwarts, which would not have happened if he had died along with DD. So now Snape is in a crucible of his own making, as Jen so aptly put it, but however much he may resent DD for ignoring his advice (taking too much for granted and allowing events to come to this pass), he knows full well who cast the AK that sent DD over the battlements and exactly why the Chosen One hates him. I *don't* think he'll blame Harry for weakening Dumbledore by forcefeeding him the poison when he learns about it. He knows full well what it's like to have Dumbledore order you, or make you promise to do, something that you don't want to do. I keep thinking that those parallel scenes (hatred and revulsion) and parallel promises to do what DD says even if, in Harry's case, it means leaving DD to die and, in Snape's case, it means fulfilling the UV, will be the common bond that enables them to understand and trust each other. Carol, feeling that she got off-topic a bit but "blaming" the complexity of Snape's characterization From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 15:37:21 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:37:21 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <458762C0.2070807@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162927 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > Anent Snape, I don't see that he's abusive. Mean, yes. Unfair, yes. But abusive? No. > Bart responded: > So, purposefully destroying a student's work to ensure that he fails is NOT abusive? Carol responds: But Harry didn't fail. Snape knew perfectly well that a zero for a single assignment wouldn't seriously affect Harry's end-of-year mark or prevent him from being in Potions with the rest of his class the next year. (BTW, there's no proof in the text that Snape destroyed that vial. It could have slipped when Harry put it on the desk and walked away. That sort of thing has happened to me more than once--things I thought I placed securely slipping and falling to the floor. And if Hermione hadn't Evanescoed his potion, he could have turned in a new vial. Snape is just having a moment of petty vengeance against Harry for ostensibly stealing his potion ingredients and lying about it. There are no long-term consequences--and Snape, of course, later learns that the thief wasn't Harry at all. Unfortunately, Harry further violates his trust by entering his Pensieve memory, which IMO undoes whatever fragile trust had been rebuilt when Snape realized he was innocent of stealing the gillyweed and the polyjuice ingredients.) Carol, not condoning pettiness in teachers but not considering it "abuse," either From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 15:58:02 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:58:02 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162928 Alla: > > Oh, that's just you know - the understandable revenge. After all > teacher should be allowed to exercise revenge on those weaker than > him. :) > > How about threatening to kill student's toad? How about assigning > the detention to that student to make him **cut toads* ( > paraphrase)? Nah, that is just what Snape needed to be done at that > point and that is just lucky coincidence for him that **Neville** of > all people, whose pet is toad and who is terrified of Snape as it > is, was serving detention under Snape. Subtlety of the master of > psychological abuse indeed as far as I am concerned, Umbridge is far > less elegant than Severus dear, even if she goes much further in > physical abuse land than him IMO. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/148046 > > Alla, > > who maybe one day will understand the argument how the fact that > there are much worse abusers than Snape in both real world and > fiction makes Snape not just **lesser** abuser, but not abuser at > all. > Carol responds: Snape did not threaten to poison Neville's toad. He threatened to test the potion on him without mentioning poison. He also knew perfectly well that Hermione was helping Neville with his potion. It's only after Snape saw that the potion was green and therefore correctly made that he mentioned that Trevor might be poisoned, at a time when he knew perfectly well that Neville would shrink to a tadpole, and he had the antidote to restore him in his pocket. He wanted Neville to follow directions and understand the consequences, and he rightly believed that Hermione's "help" wasn't helping him at all. (It's she, not Neville, who lost points for Gryffindor.) Granted, Snape's "tough love" approach didn't work well for Neville, but it was a desperation measure after all those melted cauldrons. What *would* make Neville learn the consequences of not following directions if melted cauldrons and docked points didn't? Regarding the horned toads, they're not toads at all but lizards, and they were already dead. Neville, being a pureblood, would have known that toads (and frogs and lizards) of all kinds were used as potions ingredients. It's just a fact of wizarding education, like being forced to face your Boggart and be attacked by Grindylows in your DADA exam or dealing with dangerous beasts in COMC. And look at the dangers that the students face after they leave the school: a Hogwarts education has to prepare them for that harsh world or it's no education at all. "Mean teachers" toughen you up so that you can face Death Eaters and Dementors without falling to pieces. (Teachers who make you write lines in your own blood are another matter; Umbridge is a power-hungry sadist, but I think that even she is under the delusion that she's helping the "children" by telling them that they're not in danger.) As for Snape as a "lesser" abuser, I thought that was your position: his abuse, as you call it, is less than Umbridge's, so in your view wouldn't he be a "lesser abuser"? Carol, confused by Alla's confusion From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 16:52:12 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:52:12 -0000 Subject: Snape getting off scott free/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162929 Antonia wrote: > > Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other evil character? Is it because we are not sure to whom he is loyal? I really don't consider his actions being so despicable in the books so that everyone should hate him. Yes, he tends to treat his students badly, especially Harry & comp but we must also take in account that Harry seems to hate him instinctively no matter what Severus does. I don't know what you think about this but I feel that Harry is being unjust to Severus from the very beginning. I mean if a person is not that nice to us, do we have to hate him? Maybe this is just his style his personality, his way of handling things. Carol responds: If you look at the Snape threads that have appeared just since you joined this group, you'll see that he's among the most-discussed characters on this list and has many defenders. Many if not most of us believe that he's DDM! (Dumbledore's man), and the hope that he "suffers horribly" is by no means universal on this list. In fact, I think it's limited to a couple of dozen people, only a few of whom post regularly. (See the Snape poll at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/surveys?id=1916317 for the varying attitudes toward Snape--the poll is still open, BTW, if you want to vote in it.) Many of us have been arguing (persistently) that Harry will have to learn to trust and forgive Snape before he can defeat Voldemort using Love. We have also argued (persistently) that Snape's killing Dumbledore was a necessary evil and that his dying with Dumbledore would have been much, much worse--not only for Draco but for Harry and, consequently, for the WW as a whole). IMO, it's important to JKR's own value system as established in the HP books that Dumbledore's judgment regarding Snape be proven correct and Harry's simply wrong. Harry must learn not to fall into the trap that Snape fell into, allowing the desire for revenge to motivate him, but he must also actively and specifically forgive Snape, whose story has been established for that exact purpose. The one-sided rapport he established with the HBP is the first step in understanding, and ultimately forgiving, Severus Snape. (I disagree with bboyminn that Snape will be understood but not forgiven; JKR is a Christian, and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us" is a central tenet of the Christian religion--which can be extended to the all-too-human Snape but perhaps not to Voldemort, who must be destroyed.) Admittedly, a few people on this list still see Snape as purely evil, others as a bad man on the good side, but many of us believe that Snape's unpleasant personality does not rule out genuine loyalty, courage, and devotion to duty on his part. I, for one, see what Snape did on the tower as a sacrifice and that he's *already* suffering horribly (witness the anguish he was suffering when the narrator compared him to the dog in the burning house). And far from wanting him to die nobly, Boromir-style, or go to a dementorless Azkaban for a year or two (as has been recently proposed as necessary for the letter of the law to be upheld), I would like to see him do community service as a Healer at St. Mungo's followed by free rein to research spells and potions and write improved textbooks for both Potions and DADA. If he wants to teach, let him teach. No one knows more about DADA than he does. Maybe Hogwarts could even add Healing spells to its curriculum and he could teach that course. But I think he'd rather do research and finally receive the recognition for his many talents and brilliant mind that he's been denied for so long. I suggest that you go back to the posts that came out right after HBP was published, starting at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/132907 to see how many posters immediately leaped to Snape's defense despite the seeming revelation that he was a "murderin' traitor." You'll see a variety of explanations for his behavior and a variety of attitudes toward him, with surprisingly few attacking him and saying "I told you he was evil all along." Carol, who would suggest a search for DDM!Snape except that it would probably yield some 10,000 or more results From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 19 17:51:16 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 17:51:16 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162930 In 162899, Carol wrote: >>> I absolutely agree that Harry will need to see and understand Snape's struggle as a step toward defeating Voldemort through Love. What I don't see is what you don't talk about here, a struggle on Snape's part with his loyalty to Dumbledore. He's already sacrificed everything he had for Dumbledore. He's not going to change sides now--especially not if Harry has to understand that Snape is already redeemed and on Dumbledore's side. Aside from that, I guess you're rejecting the DDM!Snape label because it relates only to Snape's loyalty. But as Magpie recently pointed out, Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is very important. It's a personal loyalty to the only man who trusted him, the only man he could come to for help when he wanted to change sides. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and Dumbledore's (fully merited) trust in him is the crux of the matter. Until Harry understands that the murder of Dumbledore was, paradoxically, an act of extreme loyalty to Dumbledore, not self-preservation but self-sacrifice (not of Snape's life but of everything that was meaningful and comfortable in his life), then he can't forgive Snape. He can't see all the other things that you're calling Grey!Snape." <<< SSSusan: Absolutely Snape's loyalty is important. But see, I think the way you've presented this makes the issue of Grey!Snape too Snape- centered, whereas from what I've seen Jen has been talking specifically about the potential evolution of the story from Harry's position. So it's not that the loyalty issue isn't important -- heck, it's VITAL! -- but it's just that, in this view, it's not *all* that will matter. Because what matters is what it will be necessary for *Harry* to understand. IOW, discovering in some unable-to-be- disputed manner that Snape's loyalty truly was/is to DD, even in the moment that he killed him, will not be *all* there is to Harry's task regarding Snape. More below on why that is.... Betsy wrote: >>> I have some problems with that Snape. And with that Harry, for that matter. Harry isn't that loving a boy. I don't think he has it in him to forgive Snape *unless* Snape is unabashedly DDM. Only that large of a shock (and it would be a massive shock for Harry) could possibly shake Harry out of his confidence in his current method of judging good people from bad. <<< Jen responded: >>> I'm much more confident about my reading of Harry's trajectory than Snape's, so most of the time when analyzing Snape I'm trying to fit him around Harry's story. In this case, Harry doesn't have to be a perfectly loving boy to defeat Voldemort, he just can't be like Snape in allowing hatred and vengeance to overcome him and guide his actions. That's why I don't see the loyalty issue alone causing a dramatic *change* in Harry even if it's a shock. He operates like Snape when it comes to judging Snape in particular, so the only way to change that pattern is to realize Snape's modus operandi is wrong and likely forged out of incredible pain along the way. That's why Harry learning the missing parts of Snape's (and Lily's) story will be so crucial for Harry's internal change. <<< SSSusan: I think you're right, Betsy, that Harry wouldn't have it in himself to forgive Snape unless Snape is unabashedly DDM. And I think the discovery of that position (DDM) will be a shock indeed to Harry. Where there is disagreement, I think, is: 1) in the degree of shock that people think this will bring to Harry; and 2) in whether people think this *alone* will be enough to change Harry's view of/reaction to/willingness to work with/even interest in forgiving Snape. For some people, I think we're hearing that they think that #1 will be huge and that it will be enough to make #2 happen. For Jen (and for me), I think what's being said is that #1 will be the *catalyst* for the rest of the work that Harry will need to do re: Snape. As others have mentioned in another current thread, the hatred that Harry feels towards Snape isn't only contrary to the Love that DD has told him is vital to Harry's power; it's that it's actually an *impediment* to the process of defeating Voldy. As long as Harry contains such rage, hatred & anger towards anyone, will he be able to tap into Love as he needs to? will he be able to focus on the task of defeating Voldy? If one believes the answer to that is "no," then Harry will have to deal with that hatred fully, and I'm not sure *only* discovering Snape is truly loyal to DD (and has been for some time) will be enough by itself. So I agree with Jen that the loyalty issue -- the discovery of Snape's true loyalty to DD -- will serve as a *catalyst* for Harry in beginning the process of reviewing all that "other stuff" that he holds against Snape. I definitely do NOT think that Harry yet understands all of "that stuff," knows all he needs to know about it. Rather, he has incredible rage against Snape, not just for DD's death, but for 6 years' accumulation of incidences: for what he sees as Snape's goading of Sirius, contributing to Sirius' death; for Snape's part in revealing the prophecy to Voldy & leading him to his parents; for quitting the Occlumency lessons; for continually seeing his dad in him, when he's *not* James; etc. And if he finds out about the UV and Snape's role in "helping" Draco, he'll feel even more rage! Snape may well be ultimately loyal to DD and fighting truly against Voldemort (I believe it to be so), but he has done some horrible things; he has made some awful choices; he has caused some damage along the way. Some fans are ready to explain all this away because of "extenuating circumstances" or as irrelevant because loyalty is what matters in the end or whatever. I don't agree with that, but even if I did, that's Snape-centric. I think what Jen is suggesting, and I agree with her, is that there's a lot more to Snape than JUST the loyalty issue, and there is a lot there that HARRY would need to get over in order to listen to this man, to trust this man, to work with this man. Snape's actions have appeared Grey many times; they've arguably *been* Grey many times [joining the DEs, providing the info on the prophecy to Voldy, taking the UV]. Harry will need SOMETHING to start the process going of *considering* The Whole of Snape ? who he is, who he has been, the choices he has made ? and likely the loyalty issue will be that catalyst. Some don't think it's necessary for Harry to understand all of this "Snape Stuff" and think that learning about his true loyalty will be enough for Harry to move on with Snape, but I think that he will need to reflect on it, does need to come to terms with a lot of it, even, yes, needs to forgive Snape, before he can get on with the real task at hand. I think the notion that discovering the loyalty *alone* won't be enough for Harry, as well as the fact that Snape's had some large measure of Greyness in his life/past (even if his present loyalty isn't in question!), is why there's a preference for some in thinking of it as a Grey!Snape issue, rather than "just" a DDM!Snape issue. In summary, as Jen wrote: >>> I see Harry's forgiveness coming to him in waves--the loyalty piece, learning about and identifying with Lily, hearing Snape's full story about how he came to be a DE (likely tragic) and finding he has some compassion for him instead of hatred.<<< SSSusan: Yeah. What she said. Siriusly Snapey Susan, DDM!Snaper through and through but also an appreciator of the need for *Harry* to deal with Grey!Snape! From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 19:18:01 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:01 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162931 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Snape is just having a moment of petty vengeance > against Harry for ostensibly stealing his potion ingredients and > lying about it. zanooda: The incident in question (Snape dropping Harry's potion sample) actually happened on the very first lesson after Harry saw Snape's worst memory ("Career advice"). I'm not trying to defend Snape here, but it was probably the time when Snape hated Harry the most. IMO he thinks:"You saw me humiliated, you saw me powerless, but now *I* have power over you". It's vengeance and self-assertion (is it the right word?) at the same time. Again, not defending, it's just a comment. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 19 19:34:40 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:34:40 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162932 Carol: > > Snape is just having a moment of petty vengeance against Harry > > for ostensibly stealing his potion ingredients and lying about > > it. zanooda: > The incident in question (Snape dropping Harry's potion sample) > actually happened on the very first lesson after Harry saw Snape's > worst memory ("Career advice"). I'm not trying to defend Snape > here, but it was probably the time when Snape hated Harry the most. > IMO he thinks:"You saw me humiliated, you saw me powerless, but now > *I* have power over you". It's vengeance and self-assertion (is it > the right word?) at the same time. Again, not defending, it's just > a comment. SSSusan: FWIW, I'm with you, Zanooda, in how I read this scene. However, having had this discussion/argument a couple of times before here, I can step up and explain part of the assertion against it: the potion vial/phial's shattering takes place ever-so-slightly "off screen." We see Harry turn it in, we (along with Harry, since we're in his POV) hear the glass shattering and hear Snape's "Whoops" and turn with Harry to see the damage after the fact. Again, like you, my assumption is that Snape dropped the vial intentionally, to send all kinds of messages to Harry ["I despise you, Potter" or "Don't forget that I have the power in this relationship" or "This is my kind of humor"]. However, the wall you will run up against in this assertion is that it cannot be proven as fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he did not definitively *see* Snape drop the vial. Harry "knows" it to be true, but Harry has been wrong about what he "knows" before. In this case, I think what Harry "knows" is true, but there you have it. Siriusly Snapey Susan From anthanielc at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 19:39:33 2006 From: anthanielc at yahoo.com (anthony cardno) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:39:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Petty Vengeance (was:Bad Writing?) (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061219193933.85239.qmail@web90606.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162933 zanooda: The incident in question (Snape dropping Harry's potion sample) actually happened on the very first lesson after Harry saw Snape's worst memory ("Career advice"). I'm not trying to defend Snape here, but it was probably the time when Snape hated Harry the most. IMO he thinks:"You saw me humiliated, you saw me powerless, but now *I* have power over you". It's vengeance and self-assertion (is it the right word?) at the same time. Again, not defending, it's just a comment. Anthanielc: I have to agree here. As a teacher and as the former director of a summer camp, I can honestly say that I've had those moments where a student or camper has caught me at a weak moment, and the temptation to make their lives momentarily miserable is always there. "Moments of petty vengeance" are always around us; it's what you do with the urge that marks your character. I don't think Harry is any better at resisting that temptation than Snape is, but I do think the response to percieved or actual humiliation is so ingrained in Snape's personality at this point in his life that he almost has no say in how he acts towards Harry. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 20:05:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:05:13 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162934 Carol earlier: > >>> I absolutely agree that Harry will need to see and understand > Snape's struggle as a step toward defeating Voldemort through Love. > What I don't see is what you don't talk about here, a struggle on > Snape's part with his loyalty to Dumbledore. He's already sacrificed > everything he had for Dumbledore. He's not going to change sides > now--especially not if Harry has to understand that Snape is already > redeemed and on Dumbledore's side. > > Aside from that, I guess you're rejecting the DDM!Snape label because it relates only to Snape's loyalty. But as Magpie recently pointed out, Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore is very important. It's a personal loyalty to the only man who trusted him, the only man he could come to for help when he wanted to change sides. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore and Dumbledore's (fully merited) trust in him is the crux of the matter. Until Harry understands that the murder of Dumbledore was, paradoxically, an act of extreme loyalty to Dumbledore, not self-preservation but self-sacrifice (not of Snape's life but of everything that was meaningful and comfortable in his life), then he can't forgive Snape. He can't see all the other things that you're calling Grey!Snape." <<< > > > SSSusan: > Absolutely Snape's loyalty is important. But see, I think the way > you've presented this makes the issue of Grey!Snape too Snape- > centered, whereas from what I've seen Jen has been talking > specifically about the potential evolution of the story from Harry's > position. So it's not that the loyalty issue isn't important -- > heck, it's VITAL! -- but it's just that, in this view, it's not *all* that will matter. Because what matters is what it will be necessary for *Harry* to understand. IOW, discovering in some unable-to-be-disputed manner that Snape's loyalty truly was/is to DD, even in the moment that he killed him, will not be *all* there is to Harry's task regarding Snape. > As others have mentioned in another current thread, the hatred that Harry feels towards Snape isn't only contrary to the Love that DD has told him is vital to Harry's power; it's that it's actually an *impediment* to the process of defeating Voldy. As long as Harry contains such rage, hatred & anger towards anyone, will he be able to tap into Love as he needs to? will he be able to focus on the task of defeating Voldy? If one believes the answer to that is "no," then Harry will have to deal with that hatred fully, and I'm not sure *only* discovering Snape is truly loyal to DD (and has been for some time) will be enough by itself. > > So I agree with Jen that the loyalty issue -- the discovery of > Snape's true loyalty to DD -- will serve as a *catalyst* for Harry in beginning the process of reviewing all that "other stuff" that he > holds against Snape. I definitely do NOT think that Harry yet > understands all of "that stuff," knows all he needs to know about > it. Rather, he has incredible rage against Snape, not just for DD's > death, but for 6 years' accumulation of incidences: for what he sees as Snape's goading of Sirius, contributing to Sirius' death; for > Snape's part in revealing the prophecy to Voldy & leading him to his > parents; for quitting the Occlumency lessons; for continually seeing > his dad in him, when he's *not* James; etc. And if he finds out > about the UV and Snape's role in "helping" Draco, he'll feel even > more rage! Harry will need SOMETHING to start the process going of *considering* The Whole of Snape ? who he is, who he has been, the choices he has made ? and likely the loyalty issue will be that catalyst. > I think the notion that discovering the loyalty *alone* won't be > enough for Harry, as well as the fact that Snape's had some large > measure of Greyness in his life/past (even if his present loyalty > isn't in question!), is why there's a preference for some in thinking of it as a Grey!Snape issue, rather than "just" a DDM!Snape issue. > > In summary, as Jen wrote: > >>> I see Harry's forgiveness coming to him in waves--the loyalty > piece, learning about and identifying with Lily, hearing Snape's full story about how he came to be a DE (likely tragic) and finding he has some compassion for him instead of hatred.<<< > > SSSusan: > Yeah. What she said. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, DDM!Snaper through and through but also an > appreciator of the need for *Harry* to deal with Grey!Snape! > Carol responds: Here's the problem for me, then. I actually agree with almost everything you say (I don't think that Harry cares one iota about the dropped Occlumency lessons--he just wants something else to blame on Snape--but that's a quibble. Also, Harry's resentment of Snape for supposedly contributing to Sirius Black's death is an imaginary grievance that Harry no longer needs now that he has real grievances: the eavesdropping and the tower). But aside from that, I'm not disputing anything you and Jen are saying about Snape's past or Harry's resentment of Snape--except for Jen's contention that Snape is feeling doubts about his loyalty to Dumbledore. *That* I disagree with emphatically. (And I'm not sold on Lily's supposed compassion toward Severus when they were kids, either, but again, that's a quibble.) But what I'm talking about here is the *labels.* When we use a label like DDM!Snape, we're not talking about Harry or what Harry will have to get past to understand the complex person that is Snape, including his remorse, his suffering, his loyalty, etc. When we use the DDM!Snape label on this list, we're talking about Snape, and the key question is where Snape's loyalties lie. DDM!Snape as a label *assumes* real remorse, whether it's based on Lily or the life debt or the simple realization that Voldemort was ready to murder an infant to thwart the Prophecy. Grey!Snape takes the focus away from that central bond of merited trust on Dumbledore's part and remorse for GH/loyalty to Dumbledore on Snape's, with those interrelated and inseparable emotions as the motivating factor for most if not all of Snape's actions, even his attitude toward Harry, whose very existence reminds him of his failure to save the Potters. The label Grey!Snape assumes that he's now *in doubt* about his loyalty to Dumbledore because Dumbledore "made" him cast that AK and rejoin the Death Eaters. For me, Snape's loyalty to DD is not in doubt, nor is his willingness to take responsibility for his own actions, most notably the UV and the killing of Dumbledore. He has sacrificed everything *for* DD and is not about to go back on that loyalty, any more than he's going to stop feeling remorse for Godric's Hollow, which is his motivation for helping and protecting Harry. He won't be tempted for a moment to *really* join Voldemort's side even though he's facing death or Azkaban already. He'll do what he has to do to help Harry, regardless. Now, granted, all that is going to be very hard to get across to Harry, and Harry will have to see Snape from the ground up, so to speak, to understand how the boy he actually *liked* via the notes in his Potions book and *pitied* via the Pensieve scene in OoP became the teacher he hates, not to mention the DE who revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort and was therefore indirectly responsible for his parents' death (in contrast to the more direct responsibility of Wormtail, and, especially, Voldemort). He'll have to learn the *real* reason that Snape changed sides (which DD has conceled from him and JKR from us) and realize how badly he's distorted the facts trying to make his interpretation of Snape fit what DD has told him about Snape's remorse. He'll have to fit together Snape's actions throughout their years together at Hogwarts with his actions on the tower, which now look (to Harry) like betrayal and murder. And *of course* Harry's rage and hatred of Snape are an impediment to him in fighting Voldemort. I've always said that. He *must* overcome his desire for revenge; ergo, he *must* forgive Snape. IOW, I agree with both of you regarding Snape and Harry. Or, sorry. Make that Harry and Snape. I do tend to be Snapecentric. :-) But none of that has anything to do with the *labels* we use on this list. DDM!Snape, shorthand for a Snape loyal to Dumbledore, does not deny any of this background, any of the complexity of Snape's motives for joining the DEs and then turning to Dumbledore and especially not his remorse for Godric's Hollow, which is his central motive with regard to *Harry.* Gray!Snape confuses the issue and makes his loyalties questionable. It isn't straightforward and clear like DDM!, OFH!, or ESE! I suppose we could call him Remorseful!Snape, but DDM!Snape already implies remorse. And Grey!Snape suggests that, in losing his loyalty to Dumbledore, he's lost that remorse, too. That is far, very far, from my view of Snape, who is steadfast in his loyalties and his goals, which are tied in with his remorse for Godric's Hollow and his unending attempts to atone for his failure to save the Potters after having revealed the Prophecy to Voldemort. So, since I think that Snape's loyalties are with Dumbledore, even with DD dead, that DD's trust in him was merited, that Snape is absolutely opposed to Voldemort and dedicated to his downfall, and that he is steeped in remorse which, paradoxically, makes him hate Harry, I intend to keep using the label DDM!Snape to make clear which Snape I believe in. And that *is* the Snape that Harry will need to see eventually, starting, perhaps, with Teen!Severus, who was neither a DE nor Dumbledore's man Carol, agreeing with virtually everything SSS said in her post but not with the label Grey!Snape, which implies a questioning of loyalties *after* the events on the tower From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Dec 19 20:21:47 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:21:47 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape's Demise Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162935 Yes, it's true, I'm putting a stake in Grey!Snape as a possible theory from my perspective. There are too many problems with him as others have pointed out and when you find yourself convincing no one after two weeks, the word delusional starts to creep into your brain . I appeciate everyone who responded because you guys helped me organize my thoughts and hopefully it was interesting and not too tedious (hey, keep that part to yourselves!). If nothing else I have a better sense of why adult Snape comes across as so amorphous to me and not to most others and now I can blame JKR-- she's the one who insists on building a character by omission. (And there's young Snape to look forward to since I can't find a point of identification with adult Snape, his story looked *very* promising from the snippets in OOTP.) SSSusan's post was a really great wrap-up of some possible positions within DDM!Snape and she incorporated what I felt like were the best parts of Grey: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162930 Jen, noting that if book 7 proves Snape was always loyal but somewhat morally and personally ambiguous, she'll dust off Grey!Snape with glee. But she doesn't really expect that to happen. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Tue Dec 19 21:03:24 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:03:24 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162936 SSSusan: *(snip)* > As others have mentioned in another current thread, the hatred that Harry feels towards Snape isn't only contrary to the Love that DD has told him is vital to Harry's power; it's that it's actually an *impediment* to the process of defeating Voldy. As long as Harry contains such rage, hatred & anger towards anyone, will he be able to tap into Love as he needs to? will he be able to focus on the task of defeating Voldy? If one believes the answer to that is "no," then Harry will have to deal with that hatred fully, and I'm not sure *only* discovering Snape is truly loyal to DD (and has been for some time) will be enough by itself. *(snip)* Snape may well be ultimately loyal to DD and fighting truly against Voldemort (I believe it to be so), but he has done some horrible things; he has made some awful choices; he has caused some damage along the way. Some fans are ready to explain all this away because of "extenuating circumstances" or as irrelevant because loyalty is what matters in the end or whatever. I don't agree with that, but even if I did, that's Snape-centric. I think what Jen is suggesting, and I agree with her, is that there's a lot more to Snape than JUST the loyalty issue, and there is a lot there that HARRY would need to get over in order to listen to this man, to trust this man, to work with this man. Snape's actions have appeared Grey many times; they've arguably *been* Grey many times [joining the DEs, providing the info on the prophecy to Voldy, taking the UV]. Harry will need SOMETHING to start the process going of *considering* The Whole of Snape ? who he is, who he has been, the choices he has made ? and likely the loyalty issue will be that catalyst. *(snip)* Siriusly Snapey Susan, DDM!Snaper through and through but also an appreciator of the need for *Harry* to deal with Grey!Snape! Ceridwen: I'm one of the people who think that Harry MUST get over his hatred of Snape before he can fully access this Love power he needs to defeat LV. I know it's a lot to ask of a teenage boy who has had bad relationships with the people in his life from practically the beginning, but as the Hero, he needs to get beyond it, become the Hero in every way. Benevolence, kindness, mercy and all of that. And the hatred is indeed, in my opinion, an impediment to his ability to access that Love unrestricted. Which means that he will have to deal with information about Snape that he might at first not want to hear. This may be Harry's mini- crucible, but going through the process of understanding and forgiving will temper him and make him strong enough to fulfill his destiny. As much as I love the character of Snape, I agree that this is not his story. He is only important in his role as a supporting character to Harry and the mission. In the end, everyone will have to step aside and allow Harry to do what he has to do. That includes Snape. But, I think for Harry to be able to work with Snape, trust him, etc., the loyalty issue will need to come before any other, or be the paramount issue Harry has to deal with. How can he trust someone who may not be on his side? Of course, he may have to put his trust in him anyway, but I'm trying to keep it simple. So, what you're saying is that Grey!Snape, to you, is what Harry sees and has to deal with? That's an interesting perspective. I like it, if it is what you're saying. Ceridwen. From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Dec 19 21:14:12 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 21:14:12 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162937 Carol responds: > Here's the problem for me, then. I actually agree with almost > everything you say ... > > But what I'm talking about here is the *labels.* When we use a label > like DDM!Snape, we're not talking about Harry or what Harry will > have to get past to understand the complex person that is Snape, > including his remorse, his suffering, his loyalty, etc. When we use > the DDM!Snape label on this list, we're talking about Snape, and > the key question is where Snape's loyalties lie. SSSusan: Okay, I see the point you're making. ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape and DDM! Snape each speak to what proponents believe *about Snape,* not necessarily about what they feel Harry would have to do or think in order to come to terms with that particular version of Snape. I understand why Grey!Snape as a label *in the same grouping* would be troublesome. I think that simply means it's unfortunate, then, that it's grouped with those other three, then! Because as a theory of what might be to come, Grey!Snape is a nice one, imo. Carol: > DDM!Snape as a label *assumes* real remorse, whether it's based on > Lily or the life debt or the simple realization that Voldemort was > ready to murder an infant to thwart the Prophecy. SSSusan: But *do* we all mean that? Hmmm. For me it hinges on loyalty, either to the man or to the cause or to the defeat of Voldemort, but I don't know that I'm convinced that remorse was the key to that loyalty. I believe there is remorse in Snape at this point, yes, because I believe DD when he said it was so. But I guess I'd say that not all DDM!Snapers believe wholeheartedly in an altruistic Snape or even a man who's fully aligned with all DD believes in or whose driving motivation is plain & simple remorse. I mean, in my view, it might be simply an absolute commitment to the *man.* I guess I start to squirm a little when I feel like, by virtue of saying I'm a DDM!Snaper, I'm being lumped with folks who think Snape's really "good" at the core. There may be genuine remorse over something or other -- enough to have truly convinced DD that Snape was sincere -- but I have my doubts that he was suddenly a changed man, fully in alignment with Mr. Epitome of Goodness, full of compassion & concern for all wizardkind. Sorry, that may be unfair. :) I just mean that, to me, the DDM! label speaks to the loyalty issue, end stop. It doesn't necessarily speak, even, to what KIND of loyalty -- is it to DD the man? to the Order? to whoever is fighting the fight against Voldemort? to anyone who'll be fighting Evil Overlords 'til the end of time? To me, all that is "known" is that it's just that Snape is loyal to DD to the extent that he is helping him in the fight against Voldemort. And it certainly doesn't speak to emotions inside of Snape in my view. Carol: > The label Grey!Snape assumes that he's now *in doubt* about his > loyalty to Dumbledore because Dumbledore "made" him cast that AK > and rejoin the Death Eaters. For me, Snape's loyalty to DD is not > in doubt, nor is his willingness to take responsibility for his own > actions, most notably the UV and the killing of Dumbledore. SSSusan: Now, see, I didn't think this was at all what Jen was contending in her Grey!Snape posts! It may be that that's part of what Debbie believes, but in my reading, I've not seen Jen saying she believes Snape is wavering in loyalty *now.* I'll leave this to others. Carol: > He has sacrificed everything *for* DD and is not about to go back > on that loyalty, any more than he's going to stop feeling remorse > for Godric's Hollow, which is his motivation for helping and > protecting Harry. He won't be tempted for a moment to *really* join > Voldemort's side even though he's facing death or Azkaban already. > He'll do what he has to do to help Harry, regardless. SSSusan: But can't you see that it could be more *complex* than that for Snape? Yes, I think there is remorse for his part in GH, but do we KNOW that that's his motivation for helping & protecting Harry? I sense so much *grudgingly given* in Snape. I wonder if it's not just that protecting & helping Harry is what *Dumbledore* saw as necessary, and therefore what he demanded of Snape. Snape's doing it, he's willing in his own way, but is the motivation remorse? I see it as all mixed up with that DAMN life debt business (as Snape would view it) and with abiding by DD's wishes, as well as perhaps a genuine desire to see Voldemort vanquished. To paint it "just" as remorse doesn't do it for me because I think it's highly possible that it's more layered than that. Carol: > Now, granted, all that is going to be very hard to get across to > Harry, and Harry will have to see Snape from the ground up, so to > speak, to understand how the boy he actually *liked* via the notes > in his Potions book and *pitied* via the Pensieve scene in OoP > became the teacher he hates, not to mention the DE who revealed the > Prophecy to Voldemort and was therefore indirectly responsible for > his parents' death .... He'll have to learn the *real* reason that > Snape changed sides (which DD has conceled from him and JKR from us) > and realize how badly he's distorted the facts trying to make his > interpretation of Snape fit what DD has told him about Snape's > remorse. He'll have to fit together Snape's actions throughout their > years together at Hogwarts with his actions on the tower, which now > look (to Harry) like betrayal and murder. And *of course* Harry's > rage and hatred of Snape are an impediment to him in fighting > Voldemort. I've always said that. He *must* overcome his desire for > revenge; ergo, he *must* forgive Snape. IOW, I agree with both of > you regarding Snape and Harry. Or, sorry. Make that Harry and > Snape. I do tend to be Snapecentric. :-) SSSusan: LOL. You do have a tendency to be Snapecentric. ;-) But aside from the Snapecentricity, we're TOTALLY in agreement on the above paragraph, Carol. It will be a *very* interesting turn in the story that finds Harry seeing this, somehow opening up to the idea, and actually getting it. It's very hard to imagine! But it's essential, yes, in my view. Carol: > But none of that has anything to do with the *labels* we use on this > list. DDM!Snape, shorthand for a Snape loyal to Dumbledore, does not > deny any of this background, any of the complexity of Snape's > motives for joining the DEs and then turning to Dumbledore and > especially not his remorse for Godric's Hollow, which is his > central motive with regard to *Harry.* SSSusan: Right, as long as people aren't using DDM!Snape to get into all that mushy-gushy touchy-feely stuff and good-hearted Snape as default parts of the label. :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 19 22:04:57 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 22:04:57 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162938 "lupinlore" wrote: > We have a character who is defined > as the "epitome of goodness" That in not in the books, JKR said that in a interview off the top of her head, but to tell the truth I don't recall Dumbledore ever deliberately doing something evil, although I agree sometimes his judgment is not very good. > who "knows pretty much everything > that happens at Hogwarts" That was said by Hermione in book 1, and we now know she was dead wrong. Dumbledore knew nothing of the Marauders activities for example, or that Harry had the map, and I believe there are things about Snape even the Headmaster doesn't know. lupinlore I must say your thesis that JKR is in favor of child abuse seems just a teeny tiny bit silly to me. Most of your examples are somewhat less than compelling: > There are several examples of this: the Dursleys I thought JKR explained that rather nicely in the last book. Dumbledore thought that Harry being abused by the Dursleys was preferable to the alternative, Harry being dead. And I think the man just may be on to something. > Let us take Umbridge as one example At the time Dumbledore was not the boss, Umbridge was calling the shots. > Snape's abuse of his students OK, I'll give you that one. If I'd been Headmaster I'd have thrown Snape's ass out of the school the first time he threatened to poison Neville's toad, or insulted Hermione when she was injured and in a panic or .. > DD has a seeming inability to clearly > express regret and remorse over these issues. I don't know about that but I will admit Dumbledore does have the ability to say precisely the wrong thing at precisely the wrong time. I'm not saying what he says is untrue but now is not the time to say it. At the end of book 5 I was cheering when Harry trashed Dumbledore's office, I just wish he'd taken a swing at him. But JKR being a fan of child abuse? I think not. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Dec 19 23:58:34 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:58:34 -0000 Subject: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162939 --- "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > > > Antonia: > > > > Question: since when it is so important that Harry > > > > should forgive Snape? ... > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > I'm somewhat inclind to agree with Antonia here. > > > 'Forgive' is a pretty strong word, and I don't think > > > Harry or the Wizard World will ever forgive Snape > > > for killing Dumbledore, but I suspect they will come > > > to understand the choice he made, and with that > > > understanding will come a degree of lenience. > > wynnleaf > Whether or not any of us think that Harry *needs* to > forgive Snape, I think it's fairly clear that it is > what JKR has planned, and therefore I assume *she* > thinks he needs to forgive Snape. > > ...edited... > > We may or may not think Harry has to do it from a moral > perspective. But I think JKR has set up the literary > constructs by which Harry *must* forgive Snape. > > wynnleaf > bboyminn: Oh, I absolutely agree with you WynnLeaf, JKR has set Harry's hatred of Snape up for the very purpose of tearing it down at the end. In fact, I'm convinced this will be one of the most important sub-plots of the next book. How can there not be some resolution between Snape and Harry, for better or worse; it's just unthinkable from a literary perspective. Let me diverge for a moment to discuss the nature of /forgiveness/. Part of the point I was making is that 'forgiveness' is a very strong word when taken literally. But there really is a range of /forgiveness/ that allows us to fogive people on one level, yet not forgive them on another. In a sense, there is Forgiveness (note: capital 'F') and then there is forgiveness (note: small 'f'); the two not necessarily being the same. I do disagree to some extent with Carol who seems to think the underlying theme of the series is moral forgiveness, and while that may be an element of it, I don't think it is at the heart of it. Even if moral forgiveness is there, that doesn't mean Social and Legal forgiveness are. I think Harry will reconcile his feelings and attitudes toward Snape after some fashion. He will do it to a degree that lets him accept and trust Snape's help. To me, how this will happen is one of the most intriguing aspects of the next books; though I can't imagine /how/ which is exactly what makes it intriguing. That certainly implies a degree of /forgiveness/, but that doesn't necessarily let Snape off the hook. Even under the best of circumstances in the real-world 'mercy' killing, while they may be morally understandable, still must answer to the law. Of course, in situations of extreme circumstances under extreme conditions, a mercy killing might be understandable, and certainly that understanding combine with knowledge of the extreme circumstances would bring a degree of mercy from the courts. But, none the less there would be legal action, and there would be consequences. However, that said, as I read the "Who Killed Dumbledore" thread, it occurred to me that maybe nobody killed Dumbledore; that is, nobody is to blame for his death. Taking that one step farther, perhaps he was killed by circumstances rather than by an individual. Note that may people have pointed out that the AK spell that Snape allegedly used, did not act in a fashion consistent with what we have been told about the AK spell. I have always explained that away by pointing out that the same spell can have different power under different circumstances. In one case, Harry stuns Ron and Ron simply falls over. In another case, Dumbledore's Stunning Curse had enough force to splinter a thick wooden castle door, and still have enough remaining power to substantially impact fake!Moody physically as well as stunning him. Conclusion, we are just seeing a specific power driven variation of the AK. However, if indeed that was an out of the ordinary AK cast by Snape, then perhaps we have another explanation. We do see spells that miss their targets having more physical impact than spells that hit their targets. This occurs several times thought the series. So, what if Dumbledore is already dying? What if the combination of the 'Dead Hand' curse plus the Cave potion plus Dumbledore's inability to get to treatment are actually killing Dumbledore? What if life actually left the obviously fading Dumbledore's body the instant before Snape threw the AK curse. That would explain the extreme physical impact that threw Dumbledore over the rampart. Because Dumbledore was already dead, the AK would impact like a /missed/ curse which we have ample examples of the physical power of, rather than a 'hit' AK which seems to have little physical power. So, in a sense, Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, he simply threw his dead body over the rampart. That could explain a lot of things, and if Snape can somehow establish it as fact or even as a plausable idea, it could get him off the hook with Harry and off the hook with the courts. As to his mistreatment of students that would have to be left to Karma. In a way, this is the classic re-occuring serial TV/movie show (Commander Cody, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc). We are left with a cliff hanger at the end and at the beginning of the next episode we see that things were not as they seemed in the previous episode. Classic example, the death and return of Sherlock Holms. So, to the first point, I can accept /forgiveness/ on some level, but not absolute blanket complete forgiveness regardless of whether it is social, legal, or moral. I agree with some that in some way, however large or small, Snape has to pay something. But him paying and /forgiveness/ are not mutually exclusive. It really is not an all or nothing proposition. To the second point, maybe no one killed Dumbledore, maybe he just died. Of theories I have many both large and small. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 00:48:23 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:48:23 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162940 > > Alla: > > > > > How about threatening to kill student's toad? How about assigning > > the detention to that student to make him **cut toads* ( > > paraphrase)? > > Pippin: > A horned toad is neither a toad nor a frog. I'ts a lizard. > I'm afraid it's not Snape who has the nasty imagination here. > Alla: Yes, it was brought up in the discussion that Neri's post started, are you sure JKR did as thorough research and knows that too? I am afraid she chose them for poor Neville to cut because she saw the creatures with the word **toad**. IMO of course, so yeah, I am sticking with Snape having pleasure from watching Neville cutting dead lisards,which called toads :) Pippin: > There's no doubt that Snape abuses his power and is a bully, > but that is not quite the same thing as abusing students, > which has to do with repeated episodes of damaging > behavior, ala Umbridge. I cannot see that Neville, Harry or > any other student was ever harmed in Snape's class. Alla: I am not going to go into all episodes that I consider harm done, I am not going to go into Harry being afraid to go to his first Occlumency lesson, which is IMO a perfect example of him indeed developing scare of Snape to some degree, I will just stick with lizards - toads. Are you sure ( that is if we assume) that JKR chose those creatures thinking that they are toads that it did not cause Neville any harm? Pippin: > As for Dumbledore, I reckon he might have stopped people > from abusing one another, only his time seems to have been > entirely taken up with trying to get them to stop murdering. > I really can't argue with his priorities. > Alla: I seem to recall that he did not manage to stop people from murdering each other either, so as far as I am concerned he may have tried paying some attention to abuse. > "antonia31h" wrote: > > > > Why does Severus have to suffer horribly? Why do I get the feeling > > that people hate him even more than they hate Voldemort or any other > > evil character? > > Potioncat answers by quoting Jo: > > From an interview with JKR 16 July 2005: > > MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. > Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? > > JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even > than Voldemort, who never has. > > Potioncat, who hopes Alla doesn't go into shock when she reads this > post. Alla: Oh dear, dear, dear. Why would I go into shock when it is you who said that? :) Now if that was somebody else, I just might go into shock. :) I guess I have not really said that for quite some time - trying to um... sort of stay away from Snapocentered discussions ( well, sort of - since Snape comes up in basically every topic, it is not quite possible, but at least I think for the last couple weeks or so I tried to not discuss Snape loyalties, inner workings of Snape mind etc) Since yesterday I figured I do not want to anymore. :) So, yes, as always your ability to look at the opposite side arguments is very very much appreciated. Back to the quote, you know what indeed amases me is how this quote gets discounted as IMO very strong evidence that Snape is not necessarily loyal to Dumbledore. If one does not pay attention to interviews at all, that is one story, but since I do.... He is more culpable than Voldemort.... rather chilling to me. JMO, Alla From Aisbelmon at hotmail.com Wed Dec 20 01:25:26 2006 From: Aisbelmon at hotmail.com (M.Clifford) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:25:26 -0000 Subject: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162941 - > bboyminn: > > However, that said, as I read the "Who Killed Dumbledore" > thread That sounds juicy, could I trouble someone for the link? Pleeeease 0:) Valky From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 01:43:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 01:43:16 -0000 Subject: Gerald Tarrant and Snape ( SPOILERS for Coldfire trilogy by C.J. Friedman) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162942 Well, this post is of course touches our topic of the week, and month and year ( Snape I mean), but it also concerns anti-hero from another story, which I grew to love and that again brought to my mind the thought of why I love, love, love the characters of Snape type and developed such a passionate hatred for that one. So, list member recently recommended this trilogy to me ( or more like she mentioned reading it and I decided that I would love to try it from what she told me about the story). Thank you, somebody :) These books go on my all time favorite lists and I highly, highly recommend them to anyone, but beware they are very dark in my . So, attempting not to go into the plot much, this guy Gerald Tarrant does things which are much more horrible that we ever see Snape do. I mean with book 6 Snape got sort of close, but not quite, hehehehe. This lovely man kills his own family, gruesomely ( for the purpose that I am sure made some sort of sense in his mind at the time). Oh, and without going into details he erm... hunts women to sustain his survival. Should be enough on the horrification skale to put me off? But I guess not and keep in mind that the point of view of the main character also prevails in the books - as in anti-hero gruesome deeds are not justified at all. So, I am wondering what it is different for me from Snape situation? I guess I already figured some time ago that the character taking revenge on the child is what puts me off for sure - that is for me the last level of disgustedness, but this guy also feeds on innocents ( okay, not kids, but young women) and I still feel for him. There is very important difference, I suppose is that we do see Gerald Tarrant suffer **a lot**, suffer horribly and funnily that helps me sooo much that when at the end he gets some sort of the reprieve ( it is really not too much of the spoiler, you shall see :)), I am totally okay with it. I suppose that what also helps me like Tarant is the fact that even though we look at the anti-hero through the eyes of main character ( who is quite fascinating by himself), Tarrant is also very important and we do get to hear him more than we hear Snape, we see him changing a bit **within** the story for the better. We see him committing unequivocally good deeds, while still being afraid. Oh, my God, I love the character. So, yeah, I guess the conclusion I am making is again - hey Snape, if you want me to like you tiny bit - suffer a lot in book 7 :) JMO, Alla From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 04:03:02 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:03:02 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612192003o72a466caidc4c2b00a4f8cc5d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162943 Jen: Yes, it's true, I'm putting a stake in Grey!Snape as a possible theory from my perspective. There are too many problems with him as others have pointed out and when you find yourself convincing no one after two weeks, the word delusional starts to creep into your brain . Debbie: Oh, dear, it seems to be time for concession speeches. I think I more or less made my speech a week ago when I conceded that my incarnation of Grey!Snape was a DDM! variant. But even though we end up in the same place (unquestionably so in relation to Harry), I'm still viewing Snape from a slightly different angle than most of the DDM!Snapers, so let me try to explain. Carol: > The label Grey!Snape assumes that he's now *in doubt* about his > loyalty to Dumbledore because Dumbledore "made" him cast that AK > and rejoin the Death Eaters. For me, Snape's loyalty to DD is not > in doubt, nor is his willingness to take responsibility for his own > actions, most notably the UV and the killing of Dumbledore. SSSusan: Now, see, I didn't think this was at all what Jen was contending in her Grey!Snape posts! It may be that that's part of what Debbie believes, but in my reading, I've not seen Jen saying she believes Snape is wavering in loyalty *now.* I'll leave this to others. Debbie: Yes, this is my version. In my conception, Grey! is all about Snape and not about where Harry needs to get to in relation to Snape in order to defeat Voldemort. I don't have any problems with Harry's need to let go of his hatred for Snape. Carol: Anyway, I think that Snape's moment of decision is long past. He's been acting for Dumbledore and against Voldemort, protecting and trying to teach Harry while nevertheless hating him, walking a tightrope not in the sense of conflicting loyalties but in the sense of being in constant danger of exposure and death, since about the time Harry was born and Snape realized how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy. Debbie: I don't disagree at all that Snape has been DDM! all these years, though I also think Snape relishes the double-agent tightrope, and thinks he's damn good at it (which would be consistent with OFH!Snape, a theory that I have flirted with in the past). And he relishes protecting Harry for other reasons, one of which is self-flagellation for his long-ago indiscretion in joining the DEs and setting in motion the demise of Harry's parents. Carol: So, since I think that Snape's loyalties are with Dumbledore, even with DD dead, that DD's trust in him was merited, that Snape is absolutely opposed to Voldemort and dedicated to his downfall, and that he is steeped in remorse which, paradoxically, makes him hate Harry, I intend to keep using the label DDM!Snape to make clear which Snape I believe in. And that *is* the Snape that Harry will need to see eventually, starting, perhaps, with Teen!Severus, who was neither a DE nor Dumbledore's man Debbie: I agree with 99.9% of this. I believe that Snape will prove to be DDM!, that Dumbledore's trust in him will prove to be merited, that Snape is no ally of Voldemort and is steeped in remorse for the events in Godric's Hollow. And y'all have succeeded in convincing me that since this is *Harry's* story, not Snape's, it's not really likely that we'll see his torment. Yet, I see Snape seething with rage out there beyond the Hogwarts gates. In spite of the UV, he hoped to avoid having to kill Dumbledore, and thought he could pull it off right up until he arrived at the top of the Tower. This is my Grey! starting point. Carol: Anyway, I think that Snape's moment of decision is long past. He's been acting for Dumbledore and against Voldemort, protecting and trying to teach Harry while nevertheless hating him, walking a tightrope not in the sense of conflicting loyalties but in the sense of being in constant danger of exposure and death, since about the time Harry was born and Snape realized how Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy. Debbie: Where I'm coming from is this: Crises are catalysts that prompt us, as humans (er, maybe I'm just speaking for myself), to examine how we got into the mess we're in. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore was put to a terrible test. He was asked to play the part of Judas *and* the part of Pontius Pilate while the DEs shouted "Crucify him!" He must be consumed with rage at Dumbledore for insisting that this was the right thing to do, and even asking himself: Was my loyalty worth this? Was my remorse for two long-dead classmates worth throwing away my life? I have no doubt how Snape will ultimately answer these questions. Snape will vindicate Dumbledore's trust in him, but I can't see his loyalty as unflinching. There's a soliloquy out there somewhere -- "Who calls me villain?" -- and I want to hear it. SSSusan: Right, as long as people aren't using DDM!Snape to get into all that mushy-gushy touchy-feely stuff and good-hearted Snape as default parts of the label. :) Debbie: Somehow, a Snape that never questioned why he continued to be loyal to someone who expected him to split his soul in order to save everyone else is just a little bit too close to that good-hearted Snape that I abhor. Debbie who's not sure this made sense or conceded anything, but really needs to get on with the Christmas baking [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 20 06:54:04 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:54:04 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612192003o72a466caidc4c2b00a4f8cc5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162944 > Debbie: > I don't disagree at all that Snape has been DDM! all these years, > though I also think Snape relishes the double-agent tightrope, and > thinks he's damn good at it (which would be consistent with OFH! > Snape, a theory that I have flirted with in the past). Jen: I completely agree with you on this point. Maybe DDM'ers don't want us back in their camp after all? I used a quote from OOTP to back this one up, here it is again: "That is just as well, Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters." "No--that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot back at him....there was a curious, almost satisfied expression on Snape's face when he answered. "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job." (chap. 26) I still see OFH characteristics in Snape even if he's been loyal from the minute he returned to Dumbledore. Whether that's part of the JKR misdirection or a real part of his character is hard to say. I'm banking on real. > Debbie: > I agree with 99.9% of this. I believe that Snape will prove to be > DDM!, that Dumbledore's trust in him will prove to be merited, that > Snape is no ally of Voldemort and is steeped in remorse for the > events in Godric's Hollow. And y'all have succeeded in convincing > me that since this is *Harry's* story, not Snape's, it's not really > likely that we'll see his torment. > Yet, I see Snape seething with rage out there beyond the Hogwarts > gates. In spite of the UV, he hoped to avoid having to kill > Dumbledore, and thought he could pull it off right up until he > arrived at the top of the Tower. This is my Grey! starting point. Jen: It's hard to imagine a Snape who's not enraged, that's his fallback position during stressful times. The question is where the rage would be directed? My idea from yesterday was that Snape might lay a little blame at Harry's feet because, well, that's what he does! That's consistent with how Snape operates when it comes to Harry. And technically he could feel some rage toward Draco and Narcissa, but that's not safe because he would then have to hide the impulse with Occlumency. Or would he? Draco at least could be explained away as Snape feeling enraged Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore like a real DE. I'm not sold on rage toward Draco and Narcissa like I am toward Harry, though. > Debbie: > Where I'm coming from is this: Crises are catalysts that prompt > us, as humans (er, maybe I'm just speaking for myself), to examine > how we got into the mess we're in. Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore > was put to a terrible test. He was asked to play the part of Judas > *and* the part of Pontius Pilate while the DEs shouted "Crucify > him!" He must be consumed with rage at Dumbledore for insisting > that this was the right thing to do, and even asking himself: Was > my loyalty worth this? Was my remorse for two long-dead > classmates worth throwing away my life? Jen: Good point, you do have to wonder how long the very strongest feelings of remorse would last. Maybe his remorse simply stagnated and didn't recede much? Or I believe it was Carol who suggested Harry brought back those feelings of remorse. I can't see Snape's remorse remaining at the same constant high level even so. As for feeling rage toward Dumbledore, that just seems like a normal human response. Especially since Dumbledore asked Snape to do an almost impossible task, promptly exited the situation and then left Snape to clean up the mess. That alone makes me think the pleading was not just about killing Dumbledore, DD sensed hesitation on Snape's part regarding *everything* Dumbledore was asking him to do. Looking after Harry and acting loyal to Voldemort cannot be high on the Snape wish-list and trying to accomplish these two diametrically opposed tasks at the same time....! Snape's good at what he does, but I'm not sure he's *that* good without help. Debbie: > I have no doubt how Snape will ultimately answer these questions. > Snape will vindicate Dumbledore's trust in him, but I can't see his > loyalty as unflinching. There's a soliloquy out there somewhere -- "Who calls me villain?" -- and I want to hear it. Jen: I'll draw up a chair for that one. You said earlier we won't see Snape's torment since it's Harry's story--do you think the solioquy will make it in or you just feel Snape's story calls for some agonized reflection? > Debbie: > Somehow, a Snape that never questioned why he continued to be loyal > to someone who expected him to split his soul in order to save > everyone else is just a little bit too close to that good-hearted > Snape that I abhor. Jen: Compelling POV, I'll have to think about this one. Jen, who did her own Christmas baking and is up way too late again. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Dec 20 04:23:42 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 23:23:42 -0500 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR a Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162945 Snape's behavior towards his Gryffindor students is mean and nasty, but not abusive. I had a math teacher not unlike him, and when I was in school we hated him. However, he was a good teacher. How so? Because, although we hated him, we learned the subject. I never got such good grades in math as I got from him--and math was my worst subject. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From evilemperorcassandra at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 01:15:40 2006 From: evilemperorcassandra at gmail.com (Cassandra Wladyslava) Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 20:15:40 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162946 Alla: I am not going to go into all episodes that I consider harm done, I am not going to go into Harry being afraid to go to his first Occlumency lesson, which is IMO a perfect example of him indeed developing scare of Snape to some degree, I will just stick with lizards - toads. Are you sure ( that is if we assume) that JKR chose those creatures thinking that they are toads that it did not cause Neville any harm? Cassie(Me): I never got the impression that Harry was afraid to go to his first Occlumency lesson with Snape. I think he just dreaded having to spend extra time with the man because he doesn't like him (and visa versa). In fact, i don't think Harry's EVER been afraid of Snape. As for the toads (or lizards...rather). My memory is a little foggy. He had to disembowel them, right? I think Snape set him this task because it was disgusting, not because Neville owned a toad. As I recall...Neville got guts under his nails. I'd be sickened if I got animal insides stuck under my nails. I think the idea was to set Neville a very unpleasant task ~Cassie - finally getting back into the discussion~ Potioncat answers by quoting Jo: > > From an interview with JKR 16 July 2005: > > MA: Oh, here's one [from our forums] that I've really got to ask you. > Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? > > JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even > than Voldemort, who never has. > > Potioncat, who hopes Alla doesn't go into shock when she reads this > post. Alla: If one does not pay attention to interviews at all, that is one story, but since I do.... He is more culpable than Voldemort... . rather chilling to me. Cassie (Me): I had forgotten about that quote. I wonder...does it mean platonic love (as in by a parent) or romantic love? I would find it odd if Voldemort had never been romantically loved, even if he had never returned the affection. Scenes from his past always suggest he was very handsome and talented. I'd imagine many girls would at LEAST have a crush on him. From juli17 at aol.com Wed Dec 20 07:22:51 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:22:51 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162947 Alla wrote: > > Back to the quote, you know what indeed amases me is how this quote > gets discounted as IMO very strong evidence that Snape is not > necessarily loyal to Dumbledore. > > If one does not pay attention to interviews at all, that is one > story, but since I do.... He is more culpable than Voldemort.... > rather chilling to me. > Julie: I don't remember that quote ever coming up in any discussion about Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, but maybe I missed it. In any case, how culpable Snape is or isn't for his own actions has no relation whatsoever to his goodness or badness or loyalty or lack thereof. Culpable simply means guilty or or blameworthy. One's amount of culpability for a crime is in no way related to the *magnitude* of the crime. But in JKR's world culpability *is* related to one's ability to feel and give love, of which Voldemort has none. So Snape is more culpable for his crimes, whether they are joining the DEs, passing on information to Voldemort, and abusing his power as a teacher, *or* they include torturing and killing as a DE, the cold-hearted murder of Dumbledore, or whatever else JKR may yet reveal. Harry is also more culpable for his actions--even though they are no worse than typical teenage lying, unkindness, etc--than Voldemort is for his long history of torture and murder, if we are going by JKR's words. So are Ron, Hermione, Lupin, Sirius, Dumbledore, Wormtail, Draco, etc, etc, etc--they've all been loved and can love. Julie, hoping Alla is no longer amazed at this discounting of "evidence" as Snape's culpability gives us no clue about his loyalties at all. From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Wed Dec 20 07:52:48 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:52:48 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162948 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > I just mean that, to me, the DDM! label speaks to the loyalty issue, > end stop. It doesn't necessarily speak, even, to what KIND of > loyalty -- is it to DD the man? to the Order? to whoever is fighting > the fight against Voldemort? to anyone who'll be fighting Evil > Overlords 'til the end of time? To me, all that is "known" is that > it's just that Snape is loyal to DD to the extent that he is helping > him in the fight against Voldemort. And it certainly doesn't speak > to emotions inside of Snape in my view. Quick_Silver: Exactly!! This is what intrigues me about the whole debate over the nature of a Snape that's Dumbledore's Man. Especially the concept of what exactly he's loyal too is it simply to Dumbledore, the "good" side, or his own sense of morality. I guess this comes down to how you interrupt certain concepts within the books. The flavor of DDM!Snape that seems most prevalent (here) seems to be based (loosely) around Dumbledore's continuing support of Snape throughout HBP with his statements to Harry that he trusts Snape. And to me, based on my reading of those passages, those statements by Dumbledore are actually part of the problem in the broader Harry Snape relationship. To be blunt I cringe (well almost I'm not that emotional) when I read them because Dumbledore seems to be trying to have his cake and eat it too. He wants Harry to accept Snape on his word but at the same time his training of Harry has made Harry very independent (especially in regards to authority figures). I think this same problem exists to a smaller extent among the other Order members and Snape which explains why they were so quick to turn on Snape. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that when Dumbledore says something about Snape it comes across to me as Dumbledore interfering in something that needs to be allowed to work itself. Case in point: Harry's little jaunts into Snape's memories during their Occulumency lessons (once during the lesson and once with the Pensieve). Those incidents affect Harry on a several levels (especially the Pensieve dive) and they seem to affect his view of Snape more then Dumbledore saying that he trusts Snape (which has little effect on Harry). So I see the "redemption" of Snape (in Harry's eyes) as being foreshadowed in the "redemption" of Draco (if you will). And the redemption of Draco (again in Harry's eyes) was a very "no Dumbledore" experience there was no Dumbledore saying that Draco was not a killer to Harry or that Harry should trust in Draco's goodness. Harry follows Malfoy, he secretly observes Malfoy, he interacts with Malfoy (the bathroom duel) and he observes the final meeting of Draco and Dumbledore on the Tower (unless the whole thing was staged). And that's where I get really intrigued because Harry seems to make a fair assessment of Draco after the Tower scene, i.e. realizing that he's not a killer, and he did it in an environment that was relatively free from other people's assessments of Draco. So to me the whole set-up of DDM!Snape is suspect because Dumbledore constantly seems to be pushing this one assessment of Snape onto Harry without evidence (it's the inverse of Lupin saying Harry inherited James's prejudice about Snape). On a fundamental level then I see the Dumbledore/Snape relationship and by extension the loyalty at the core of DDM!Snape as being more a barrier to Harry understanding Snape then a benefit (indeed I think Harry should ignore what Dumbledore said Snape and have his own relationship with the Snape). I don't think it's a deliberate failing on anyone's part but rather something inherent within the people involved and the circumstances. I don't want to dismiss Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore (which is huge) but rather I think it's something that can only really be understand once the entire context of Snape is understood so at this time Harry can't grasp it and what's more the killing of Dumbledore by Snape created a "false" trail if you will then may hamper Harry's understanding. Quick_Silver (acknowledging this as a very Harry-centric post) From kennclark at btinternet.com Wed Dec 20 10:03:00 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:03:00 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162951 > Carol earlier: > > > [Dumbledore couldn't understand Parseltongue] much less speak it > or he'd have been able to find and open the chamber. Not being > Slytherin's true Heir, he couldn't do it. > > > > > > > Mike: > > OK, I can't resist If only Slytherin's heir can open the > > chamber, how did Harry do it? Ginny could do it because she had a > > piece of Riddle's soul possessing her, meaning the soul of Riddle > > identified him as the heir of Slytherin. Did Harry have something in > > him that would also identify him as the heir of Slytherin, thereby > > allowing him to open the chamber?> Ken says: Surely the simplest answer and probably the most obvious is that Harry IS Slytherin's heir! We have spent a lot of time and effort trying to justify his ability to open the Chamber of Secrets on the basis of his assimilation of some of Voldemort's powers. But the Chamber is a seriously magical "thing". No one or nothing else has confused Voldemort with Harry so why should the Chamber have done so? No, it is more likely that Harry is indeed an heir - perhaps THIS is why Voldemort identified the infant Harry as his nemesis instead of Neville? Kenneth Clark From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 12:42:50 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:42:50 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162952 Julie: > I don't remember that quote ever coming up in any discussion > about Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, but maybe I missed it. > In any case, how culpable Snape is or isn't for his own > actions has no relation whatsoever to his goodness or badness > or loyalty or lack thereof. Culpable simply means guilty or > or blameworthy. One's amount of culpability for a crime is > in no way related to the *magnitude* of the crime. But in > JKR's world culpability *is* related to one's ability to > feel and give love, of which Voldemort has none. > Julie, hoping Alla is no longer amazed at this discounting > of "evidence" as Snape's culpability gives us no clue about > his loyalties at all. > Alla: I am afraid still am Julie :) Think about it - more culpable than Voldemort. Yes, we don't know which crimes she is talking about, but this quote implies to me very strongly that because Snape knew love, his crimes in some aspects are larger than Voldemort, who is as JKR called him "psychopath". To me that implies as well that Snape crimes in some aspects are more horrible than Voldemort's. But you know, probably amazed is the wrong word, since this is indeed an interpretation, so I will say surprised at your interpretation, that's all. Cassie: I never got the impression that Harry was afraid to go to his first Occlumency lesson with Snape. I think he just dreaded having to spend extra time with the man because he doesn't like him (and visa versa). In fact, i don't think Harry's EVER been afraid of Snape. Alla: He does not show it as much as Neville, that is for sure. Harry is stronger, but I cannot interpret these quotes any other way as rather subtle showing by JKR that Snape harmed Harry as well: "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold voice came out of the corner. "Shut the door behind you, Potter." Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, paperback, p.533. From sherriola at earthlink.net Wed Dec 20 14:43:01 2006 From: sherriola at earthlink.net (Sherry Gomes) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 06:43:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Snape and Umbridge and abuse again WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR a In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162953 Bruce said: Snape's behavior towards his Gryffindor students is mean and nasty, but not abusive. I had a math teacher not unlike him, and when I was in school we hated him. However, he was a good teacher. How so? Because, although we hated him, we learned the subject. I never got such good grades in math as I got from him--and math was my worst subject. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sherry now: I've never discussed this in the never-ending is Snape abusive or is he not debate, but personally, I had a Snape like teacher in high school, and he did not help me. In fact, he contributed to some serious physical and emotional issues for many years to come. I went to public school, but as there were several of us blind kids in school, we had someone called a resource teacher, a teacher there to assist with the disabled students. He was also blind and thought he knew everything there was to know about being blind, with the people skills of an earthquake. Everything he said or tried to do was wrong for me. He constantly belittled my dreams, my goals, my person, my appearance. He interfered with my relationship with my father and stepmother, interfered between my class teachers and me, spent four years coming up with every sneaky trick he could to keep me from being able to get my first guide dog and ... well, on and on and on. I developed an ulcer at age 15, seriously under performed in school due to all the stress. I am capable of getting o's in all my subjects, if I'm not constantly harassed and needled. For many, many years after leaving high school, the mere idea of more education, such as college, made me physically ill, even though I knew he would not be there. I finally went and took some night classes several years ago and thrived on the chance to revel in studying. But even as I write about this person, I feel tense and stressed though it's over 30 years since I graduated. I was also having serious family problems, so both home and school were nightmares. I was a terribly shy kid--not now--and as I felt I had noone who would care, I just suffered in silence, knowing neither my dad nor the school leadership would care or do anything about this person. And yes, it was all emotional and verbal, and I do believe it was abusive, because it cut at my confidence, my view of my self, my future and all that I was inside. So, to bring this back to Snape, I actually think Harry is able to handle most of Snape's behavior, except when Snape starts in on James. I'm ok with Harry resenting that, because he should resent someone constantly bad mouthing his martyred father! that doesn't mean I excuse it from Snape, just that I think Harry handles it better than Neville. I feel deeply for Neville, who I think does react badly internally to the abuse, emotional and verbal he receives from Snape. I believe it does affect his confidence and ability to perform in all his classes, except in ones where he has a supportive teacher. I had the same thing in my French teacher, and I excelled in that class without trying hard, because I felt I had a refuge in that class, even though that teacher was tough with high expectations. It was never the work that was hard, it was the attitude and verbal lashes I received from that resource teacher that made everyday of all four years of high school a pure living hell. Yes, I think Snape is abusive, abuses his authority as a teacher, and in its own way, it's as terrible as Umbridge's style, because it goes to the heart and soul of a person. Whenever I read the books, I wince when it comes time to read class scenes with Snape. Shudder! Sherry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 20 15:21:19 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:21:19 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162954 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Clark" wrote: > > > Carol earlier: > > > > [Dumbledore couldn't understand Parseltongue] much less speak it > > or he'd have been able to find and open the chamber. Not being > > Slytherin's true Heir, he couldn't do it. > > > > > > > > > > Mike: > > > OK, I can't resist If only Slytherin's heir can open the > > > chamber, how did Harry do it? Ginny could do it because she had a > > > piece of Riddle's soul possessing her, meaning the soul of Riddle > > > identified him as the heir of Slytherin. Did Harry have something > in > > > him that would also identify him as the heir of Slytherin, > thereby > > > allowing him to open the chamber?> > > Ken says: > > Surely the simplest answer and probably the most obvious is that > Harry IS Slytherin's heir! We have spent a lot of time and effort > trying to justify his ability to open the Chamber of Secrets on the > basis of his assimilation of some of Voldemort's powers. But the > Chamber is a seriously magical "thing". No one or nothing else has > confused Voldemort with Harry so why should the Chamber have done > so? No, it is more likely that Harry is indeed an heir - perhaps > THIS is why Voldemort identified the infant Harry as his nemesis > instead of Neville? > > Kenneth Clark Geoff: The following quote is from JKR's website. I would interpret this as a negation of Kenneth's suggestion.... Section: Rumours Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative of some description No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 15:39:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:39:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162955 Potioncat quoted JKR: > > MA: Has Snape ever been loved by anyone? > > > > JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even > > than Voldemort, who never has. Alla responded: > > > Back to the quote, you know what indeed amases me is how this quote > gets discounted as IMO very strong evidence that Snape is not > necessarily loyal to Dumbledore. > > If one does not pay attention to interviews at all, that is one > story, but since I do.... He is more culpable than Voldemort.... > rather chilling to me. Carol responds to both: Yes, but let's look at the entire quotation. You're overlooking "in some ways" (not all) and the idea that having been loved causes the culpability. Now does JKR mean that poor ickle Tom Riddle wasn't culpable for torturing smaller children at the orphanage because his father deserted him and his mother died within an hour of his birth? That the older Voldemort isn't culpable for murder and Horcruxes and Unforgiveable Curses and recruiting Death Eaters to kill, torture, and rob others of their free will? Surely not. Being unloved doesn't make a person into a sociopath and murderer and sadist or Harry would be on his way to becoming a second Dark Lord. Granted, Harry was loved for his first fifteen months, but he doesn't remember that time, and the Dursleys have treated him worse than Mrs. Cole and her employees treated Tom. And granted, Harry isn't perfect, having attempted Dark curses and not yet learned the lesson that Love, not revenge, will defeat Voldemort, but he isn't seeking immortality through murder or domination of the WW through terror and manipulation, and he has prevented two people from committing murder rather than teaching and encouraging and ordering accomplices to kill. But surely, that little bit of love Harry experienced isn't the reason he's different from Voldemort. It's his choices that make him different. What about Snape, then? He was loved, at least until he was as old as he is in the childhood memory of his mother and the shouting man who is either his father or grandfather. But he was also neglected, as his appearance as a teenager resembling a plant left in the dark indicates. Did his mother, too, die, to leaving him to be raised by unloving pureblood relatives? We don't know, but that would be a nice Harry/Voldemort/Snape parallel. Still, however he was raised, it doesn't excuse his wrong choices (mistakes, as Dumbledore calls them) any more than it excuses Voldemort's (or Harry's). What about "in some ways"? What does that mean? Clearly, Snape is not "more culpable" in every way than Voldemort. And, of course, JKR is trying not to give away too much about Snape. She can't say that he isn't culpable at all, which would be contrary to canon, and she wants us to think he's the murdering traitor that he appears to be at the end of HBP--or at least, she wants us to have our doubts about him and think that he *might* be as evil as Harry thinks he is. And, of course, if he's done nothing wrong, he can't be a candidate for redemption, whether he's been expiating his sins all along or will do so in the end by some heroic sacrifice. So what, exactly, has Snape done that makes him culpable, and how does his culpability compare to Voldemort's? Tom Riddle at eleven was torturing smaller children, stealing their small treasures as mementoes of his deeds, and hanging rabbits from the rafters. Severus Snape at eleven knew more hexes and jinxes than most seventh years. (I'm assuming that Child!Severus wasn't using Dark curses or he'd have been expelled.) Tom Riddle at sixteen had opened the Chamber of Secrets to release the Basilisk and killed a little girl using that Dark creature, murdered his father and grandparents using an Unforgiveable Curse, and was inquiring about Horcruxes with the intention of making more than one. Severus Snape at sixteen was improving the potions instructions in his textbook and inventing hexes and other spells, including one Dark curse for which he later found or invented a countercurse. Riddle/Voldemort recruited many Death Eaters, whom he ordered or encouraged to do various evil deeds. Severus Snape became a Death Eater but later switched sides and spied for Dumbledore "at great personal risk." Voldemort committed at least ten murders (Myrtle, the riddles, Hepzibah Smith, the Potters, Frank Bryce, a female member of the original Order, and Madam Bones) in person and ordered many more (including Cedric Diggory and Bertha Jorkins, if he didn't kill her himself). Snape murdered Albus Dumbledore in unusual circumstances resulting in part from the Unbreakable Vow. Voldemort tortured many people using the illegal Cruciatus Curse, including Harry and his own Death Eaters. Snape spoke sarcastically to his students, gave unfair detentions, and favored the Slytherins. He also rescued Harry from a Crucio. We have not seen him cast, or attempt to cast, the Cruciatus Curse. Voldemort interpreted the Prophecy as meaning that he had to kill the infant Harry Potter. Snape revealed the (partial) Prophecy to Voldemort and went to Dumbledore when he realized what Voldemort intended to do. Voldemort has made at least five Horcruxes, possibly six. Snape has made none. Somehow, Snape's culpability, even counting the UV among his bad deeds (and I'm not sure it belongs there), doesn't equal Voldemort's by any stretch of the imagination. There is no question that Voldemort is evil, probably irredeemably evil. Snape remains ambiguous, and even if he is loyal to Voldemort (a remote possibility), he is not nearly as evil as Voldemort, and he is almost certainly redeemable. What, then, does JKR mean by saying that because Snape was loved, he is "in some ways more culpable" than Voldemort? I think it can only mean that he knew what love was but rejected it by joining the Death Eaters and revealing the Prophecy, whereas Voldemort committed all his evil deeds without understanding that love was real and powerful. Voldemort reallly believes that "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to use it." Snape knows better--and evidently knew better when he joined the DEs as a young man and revealed the Prophecy to a man he must have known was a murdering tyrant. But Snape also knows the power of Love magic, both as it relates to Dumbledore ("Oh, yes, he has been a great wizard") and in the Healing magic he uses himself (the countercurses to Sectumsempra, the opal necklace, and the ring Horcrux); Voldemort doesn't know or acknowledge this power and holds Love magic in contempt. What about the UV and the killing of Dumbledore? Are they more bad choices for which Snape is "culpable" or are they the fruits of earlier bad choices? It can even be argued that the UV is the *result* of love, agape love for Draco and his mother, and the killing of Dumbledore an act of sacrificial love and loyalty more painful to Snape than the choice to die would have been. It all depends, of course, on whether Snape is DDM. All this is to say that I don't know what JKR means by her culpability quote, but I seriously doubt that it means what Alla thinks it means. Carol, who feels more chills down her spine from Tucson's unseasonably cold weather than from that quotation From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 20 15:45:42 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:45:42 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162956 Carol: > But what I'm talking about here is the *labels.* When we use a > label like DDM!Snape, we're not talking about Harry or what Harry > will have to get past to understand the complex person that is > Snape, including his remorse, his suffering, his loyalty, etc. When > we use the DDM!Snape label on this list, we're talking about Snape, > and the key question is where Snape's loyalties lie. SSSusan: > Okay, I see the point you're making. ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape and DDM! > Snape each speak to what proponents believe *about Snape,* not > necessarily about what they feel Harry would have to do or think in > order to come to terms with that particular version of Snape. I > understand why Grey!Snape as a label *in the same grouping* would > be troublesome. > > I think that simply means it's unfortunate, then, that it's grouped > with those other three, then! Because as a theory of what > might be to come, Grey!Snape is a nice one, imo. Ceridwen: > So, what you're saying is that Grey!Snape, to you, is what Harry > sees and has to deal with? That's an interesting perspective. I > like it, if it is what you're saying. Jen: I think some background information may help here. Way back when I wrote my first Grey post, which was almost a year ago, I looked at the loyalty issues and trust issues as *well* as character issues. Debbie liked the post and chimed in with a version she'd written that also dealt with the loyalty issue. Grey lasted one thread and was dropped. So when Debbie picked up the discussion again recently, she naturally started with the issue of loyalty because that's the point the theory had evolved to when last discussed (and because loyalty also continues to be part of her thinking as she mentioned last night). As the most recent discussion evolved, and Grey was a theory in progress which meant it got messy, I found myself realizing the loyalty issue was not at the heart of Grey!Snape for *me*. That I was proposing Snape as grey in the sense of his morality (for lack of a better word) and philosophy about the WW at large. That he could be loyal to Dumbledore and completely devoted to defeating Voldemort while having some OFH characteristics *too*, that he's not black/white. Snape didn't completely embrace Voldemort's philosophy imo or when LV targeted the Potters he wouldn't have batted an eyelash or felt remorse or considered turning. In that same vein, I don't believe Snape completely embraces Dumbledore's view of the WW even though his loyalty is beyond reproach. I turned to Harry's POV at that point and Grey became something other than a Snape loyalty theory, meaning it couldn't be grouped in the DDM/OFH/ESE mix. Which doesn't mean there's not a place for a grey Snape the *character* within DDM, as Susan pointed out! Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 16:11:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:11:03 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162957 Alla wrote: > > He does not show it as much as Neville, that is for sure. Harry is > stronger, but I cannot interpret these quotes any other way as > rather subtle showing by JKR that Snape harmed Harry as well: > "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold > voice came out of the corner. > "Shut the door behind you, Potter." > Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was > imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529 > > > "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and > Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his > temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, > paperback, p.533. > Carol responds: I think that Harry in these quotes could be described as nervous and apprehensive rather than fearful. Certainly, he's had unpleasant experiences with Snape and doesn't want to be there. OTOH, in both instances, Harry is overreacting. Snape doesn't torture him or keep him in permanent custody. He tells Harry what Occlumency is and why he needs to learn it, and he teaches it as it must be taught, using the Legilimens spell, which Harry is supposed to repel using any spell he can think of, or better, using a mental method like the one he used to repel Fake!Moody's Imperius Curse (a much Darker spell worthy of a life sentence in Azkaban). And the tensing when Snape raises his wand is wholly unjustified. All Snape does is remove thoughts from his own head. So in a sense, Harry's nervousness is misdirection, suggesting that Harry has reason to be afraid of him. But the context shows that the need for caution or escape or self-defense is all in Harry's head. He's in as much danger as he'd be going into a dentist's office, enduring discomfort for his own good. No, the Occlumency lessons are not fun, and are ultimately futile, but Harry's sense that he's walking into danger or about to be attacked by anything worse than the Legilimens spell (against which he's free to defend himself using his wand) is just plain wrongheaded. Snape does not harm him here, nor is there any indication that his previous sarcasm and point deductions have caused Harry any lasting harm (other than a desire for revenge against Snape that I hope will be rectified in Book 7). Carol, understanding perfectly well why Harry doesn't like Snape but seeing no indication that Harry need fear actual harm From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 16:07:53 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:07:53 -0000 Subject: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162958 > Jen: I completely agree with you on this point. Maybe DDM'ers don't > want us back in their camp after all? zgirnius: Y'all are welcome to sit next to me at our campfire. :D > Jen: > I used a quote from OOTP > to back this one up, here it is again: "That is just as well, > Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are neither special nor > important, and it is not up to you to find out what the Dark Lord is > saying to his Death Eaters." "No--that's your job, isn't it?" Harry > shot back at him....there was a curious, almost satisfied expression > on Snape's face when he answered. "Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes > glinting. "That is my job." (chap. 26) > > I still see OFH characteristics in Snape even if he's been loyal from > the minute he returned to Dumbledore. Whether that's part of the JKR > misdirection or a real part of his character is hard to say. I'm > banking on real. zgirnius: I'd say it's real; what I don't see is why this would make Snape OFH! in the big picture. Snape's a person, not an automaton. Since I believe he's DDM! (and I tend to share Carol's idea that it is his remorse over the prophecy that pushed him into that camp) he's working for the defeat of Voldemort/on Dumbledore's side, and not simply because he thinks they are going to win, or make his life better (OFH!). He can still feel pride in his contributions, though, that's normal human behavior. > Jen: I'll draw up a chair for that one. You said earlier we won't see > Snape's torment since it's Harry's story--do you think the solioquy > will make it in or you just feel Snape's story calls for some > agonized reflection? zgirnius: I'm betting we get something of this sort (*blushes, that she does not recognize the source of the quote*). Probably in a scene with Harry. If we get a Spinner's End style scene with a dramatic narrrator again, I would guess it will be more Snape and Death Eaters, so again it will be ambiguous and not a time for Snape to express himself. zgirnius, who does see Snape as emotional and having his doubts, but doesn't doubt Dumbledore placed his trust wisely. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 16:26:26 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:26:26 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162959 > Alla wrote: > > > > He does not show it as much as Neville, that is for sure. Harry is > > stronger, but I cannot interpret these quotes any other way as > > rather subtle showing by JKR that Snape harmed Harry as well: -OOP, paperback, p.529 - OOP, > > paperback, p.533. > > > Carol responds: > I think that Harry in these quotes could be described as nervous and > apprehensive rather than fearful. Certainly, he's had unpleasant > experiences with Snape and doesn't want to be there. > > OTOH, in both instances, Harry is overreacting. Snape doesn't torture > him or keep him in permanent custody. He tells Harry what Occlumency > is and why he needs to learn it, and he teaches it as it must be > taught, using the Legilimens spell, which Harry is supposed to repel > using any spell he can think of, or better, using a mental method like > the one he used to repel Fake!Moody's Imperius Curse (a much Darker > spell worthy of a life sentence in Azkaban). > > And the tensing when Snape raises his wand is wholly unjustified. All > Snape does is remove thoughts from his own head. Alla: Whether Harry's fear is justified at this particular moment is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make. That point would be that during their interractions of the previous five years Snape made Harry develop that fear and at that point this fear as I see it materialised and lead to how Harry felt during those lessons. Alla, who thinks that Snape torturing Harry may still be in store. From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 20 16:51:19 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:51:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162960 > Carol responds: > I think that Harry in these quotes could be described as nervous and > apprehensive rather than fearful. Certainly, he's had unpleasant > experiences with Snape and doesn't want to be there. > > OTOH, in both instances, Harry is overreacting. Snape doesn't torture > him or keep him in permanent custody. He tells Harry what Occlumency > is and why he needs to learn it, and he teaches it as it must be > taught, using the Legilimens spell, which Harry is supposed to repel > using any spell he can think of, or better, using a mental method like > the one he used to repel Fake!Moody's Imperius Curse (a much Darker > spell worthy of a life sentence in Azkaban). > > And the tensing when Snape raises his wand is wholly unjustified. All > Snape does is remove thoughts from his own head. Magpie: Which also makes it funny.:-) (Remember that scene in Raiders of the Lost Arc with the coat hanger?) But I agree--and I think this is the kind of subtle misdirection JKR excels at, leaving you often thinking certain things have happened or people have done certain things when they haven't. I was thinking about it recently when Harry's early impressions of Draco came up and JKR is a master of using the Harry-filter that way. I think that filter often gets accused of doing too much--like making Harry literally not see what's in front of him or make up things in front of him--when it doesn't do that. What it does do is imbue scenes with emotions and lull you into mixing up Harry's reaction to someone with what you've actually seen. But I think that in general what we actually see is more important. Sometimes there's a grey area where we might like or dislike someone in a way that disagrees with Harry. But often if Harry thinks of someone in a positive way but a close look shows the person doing some cruel things (let's say, for instance, Fake!Moody) that might be important. With Snape Harry's emotions are so engaged in every moment (with Draco's too, though Snape even more) that we rarely got a truly neutral description of the person. This is a perfectly example. Lots of students would feel, upon arriving for a private class with a teacher they hate and who hates them, that shutting the door is like locking yourself in prison. But that's describing Harry's emotions to the situation, not the literal situation or a rational fear. And Snape's lifting his wand also, imo, speaks not just to Harry's mistrust of Snape and his fantasies of what Snape would do to him if they were alone, but to his feeling at sea about Occlumency in general. He doesn't know what to expect-Snape raises his wand and he flinches. Harry tends to feel defensive a lot of the time, and that sometimes makes him feel like he's acting defensively even when he's not. Like, for instance Harry is angry at how violated he feels during the lessons, and he and Ron even wonder if Snape isn't opening Harry's mind up more to help Voldemort. But really it seems more likely that the kind of mind violation Harry's suffered is part of anyone's learning Occlumency--how could it not be? Snape seems to handle it that way, brushing off things he sees in Harry's mind in a way very neutral for Snape (Who's dog was it? struck me as a rather positive reaction). Yet Harry still feels violated and blames Snape for everything he hates about the lessons (not just not liking the way he teaches it with the yelling etc.). But then he himself blatantly violates Snape by diving into the Pensieve, and although he has a moment of feeling caught and guilty, he quickly goes back to feeling defensive again. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 17:03:19 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:03:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162961 > Magpie: > Harry tends to feel defensive a lot of the time, and that sometimes > makes him feel like he's acting defensively even when he's not. > Like, for instance Harry is angry at how violated he feels during > the lessons, and he and Ron even wonder if Snape isn't opening > Harry's mind up more to help Voldemort. But really it seems more > likely that the kind of mind violation Harry's suffered is part of > anyone's learning Occlumency--how could it not be? Alla: How can it not be? Um, easy, IMO. :) We do not see anybody else's lessons of Occlumency, no? That is why it of corse can be perfectly normal reaction to the lessons, or it can be indeed Snape opening Harry's mind to Voldemort. Is there anything in the text to contradict that? JMO, Alla. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 20 17:45:59 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:45:59 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162962 > Alla: > > Yes, it was brought up in the discussion that Neri's post started, > are you sure JKR did as thorough research and knows that too? Pippin: Thorough research? "The horned toad is not a toad" is one of those 'fun facts' about the English language that us Hermione types absorb as children: (eg, "grey horses are white","a starfish is not a fish") and I have known it for fifty years. It's possible, of course that JKR didn't know this, even though she does identify with Hermione, but I think it's fairly common knowledge among native speakers. Maybe we should take a poll? > Pippin: > > There's no doubt that Snape abuses his power and is a bully, > > but that is not quite the same thing as abusing students, > > which has to do with repeated episodes of damaging > > behavior, ala Umbridge. I cannot see that Neville, Harry or > > any other student was ever harmed in Snape's class. > > Alla: > > I am not going to go into all episodes that I consider harm done, I > am not going to go into Harry being afraid to go to his first > Occlumency lesson, which is IMO a perfect example of him indeed > developing scare of Snape to some degree, I will just stick with > lizards - toads. Are you sure ( that is if we assume) that JKR chose > those creatures thinking that they are toads that it did not cause > Neville any harm? Pippin: Where is the harm? Hermione cleaned off Neville's hands, and after that he seemed none the worse for it. So if JKR did mean it to be toads, then Neville is tougher than you think. Besides, if toads *are* potion ingredients then he has got to learn to deal with that. If somebody needs a toad based antidote, what will future potioneer Neville do about it? Proof of fear is not proof of harm, or Hermione has been harmed by McGonagall, and Molly's been harmed by dead!Ron. > Alla: > > I seem to recall that he did not manage to stop people from > murdering each other either, so as far as I am concerned he may have > tried paying some attention to abuse. Pippin: That's pretty fatalistic. People are going to die anyway, so they'd better get on with it? Well, I guess it goes with the season "If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population." - Ebeneezer Scrooge Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 20 18:12:14 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:12:14 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162964 > > Magpie: > > But really it seems more likely that the kind of mind violation Harry's suffered is part of anyone's learning Occlumency--how could it not be? > > Alla: > > How can it not be? Um, easy, IMO. :) We do not see anybody else's > lessons of Occlumency, no? That is why it of corse can be perfectly > normal reaction to the lessons, or it can be indeed Snape opening > Harry's mind to Voldemort. > > Is there anything in the text to contradict that? Pippin: Yup. "I have already said that it was a mistake for me not to teach you myself, though I was sure, at the time, that nothing could have been more dangerous than to open your mind even further to Voldemort while in my presence--" OOP ch 37 Even Dumbledore would have had to open Harry's mind further during the lessons. There's no way Snape could have avoided it. He might indeed have been taking advantage of it to help Voldemort, but if that's the case, how come Snape never reported that Harry didn't know what was in the Department of Mysteries? Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Wed Dec 20 18:38:12 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:38:12 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162965 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > Harry tends to feel defensive a lot of the time, and that sometimes > > makes him feel like he's acting defensively even when he's not. > > Like, for instance Harry is angry at how violated he feels during > > the lessons, and he and Ron even wonder if Snape isn't opening > > Harry's mind up more to help Voldemort. But really it seems more > > likely that the kind of mind violation Harry's suffered is part of > > anyone's learning Occlumency--how could it not be? > > Alla: > > How can it not be? Um, easy, IMO. :) We do not see anybody else's > lessons of Occlumency, no? That is why it of corse can be perfectly > normal reaction to the lessons, or it can be indeed Snape opening > Harry's mind to Voldemort. > > Is there anything in the text to contradict that? Magpie: Given what Occlumency is, I can't honestly see how one would teach it without ever getting into someone's mind. The point is that the person doing Occlumency is trying to block you, and since they don't yet know the skill, the person is going to get into their mind at first. Teaching Occlumency without the violation of someone in your mind seems to me like imagining someone teaching you how to bat without your ever striking out. Unless you already have the skill, you're going to miss sometimes. It's no different than Lupin actually letting a boggart loose to turn into a fear to practice Patronuses. [Thanks to Pippin for providing actual canon of Dumbledore referring to this opening of the mind as part of the teaching] -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 20 18:39:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:39:18 -0000 Subject: Is Snape's Life Debt Paid? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162966 One of the disturbing things about the Unbreakable Vow is that it seems to come between Snape and his duty to Harry. How can he pledge his life to defend Draco when it's supposedly already pledged to defend Harry Potter. Isn't it a conflict of interest? But what if Snape's life debt is already paid? Of course we don't know exactly what it takes to incur a life debt, much less pay one off, but we may speculate that it requires two things. First, the rescuer must go beyond the call of duty, and second, he must take the danger on himself. So James's rescue of Snape qualifies because James was not a prefect and he himself was endangered by the werewolf. Harry's rescue of Peter qualifies because he had no duty to save Peter and because Harry stood facing the wands. Snape's counterjinx on the broomstick didn't count because he was doing his duty as a teacher, and Harry's rescue of Ginny didn't count because, although Harry's life was in danger, he couldn't have been possessed. Note that death does not have to be certain for a debt to be incurred -- it is possible that the werewolf wouldn't have killed Snape even if James had not intervened. Apparently it's enough that a mortal danger exists and the rescuer knows it. Now, what about Snape sending the Order to rescue Harry at the MoM? IMO, he was going beyond his duty as a teacher since Harry was not at the school, and going beyond his duty as an Order member if he disobeyed orders and broke his cover. He was putting himself in identical danger (assuming that Voldemort would want Snape dead if he found out.) It would be just like JKR to sneak this past us. It could set up some interesting situations for the next book. For one thing, Wormtail's debt will have the stage to itself. For another, should Snape happen to save Harry *again*, it will put Harry in debt to Snape and allow Harry (and us) to experience what it means to owe your life to someone you hate, and give Harry some insight into what Snape must have been feeling all those years. --- "I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating your father's memory in peace..." Harry tried to understand this, but it made his head pound so he stopped. -- PS/SS ch 17. -- It's been six years since Dumbledore said that, and Harry still doesn't understand what he meant. Pippin From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 18:58:54 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:58:54 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? / Petty Vengeance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162967 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > SSSusan: > Again, like you, my assumption is that Snape dropped the vial > intentionally, to send all kinds of messages to Harry ["I despise > you, Potter" or "Don't forget that I have the power in this > relationship" or "This is my kind of humor"]. However, the wall > you will run up against in this assertion is that it cannot be > proven as fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he did not > definitively *see* Snape drop the vial. > > Anthanielc wrote: > > "Moments of petty vengeance" are always around us; it's what you > > do with the urge that marks your character. zanooda: I have to admit I never thought that the flask breaking could not be Snape's fault. It never even crossed my mind until I read your post and Carol's. I reread this scene, and I still think Snape did it on purpose, but you are absolutely right, it is impossible to prove. The point of my post was that this flask breaking incident was the one and only time when I could understand Snape's anger and hatred of Harry. I'm not trying to justify Snape's behavior, because you just don't exercise your "petty vengeance" over someone who is not in a position to respond (I agree with you 100%, Anthanielc). I just wanted to say that this time Snape's hatred was understandable, and in all other cases it seems very irrational to me. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 19:16:14 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:16:14 -0000 Subject: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162968 --- "M.Clifford" wrote: > > - > > bboyminn: > > > > However, that said, as I read the "Who Killed > > Dumbledore" thread > > > That sounds juicy, could I trouble someone for the link? > Pleeeease 0:) > > Valky > bboyminn: Sorry, it was a current discussion in this group at the time I posted, but the posts come pretty fast and it's been moved back a page or two. I believe it starts here - Re: Who killed Dumbledore? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145003 While the discussion was interesting, it was more reading the Title after having read the thread we are currently in that caused the idea to pop into my mind. I saw the question "Who killed Dumbledore?" and it occurred to me that maybe nobody killed Dumbledore. Certainly several people are responsible, in my theory, for contributing to the circumstances that lead to Dumbledore's death, including Dumbledore himself, but none of them is actually responsible for killing him. He just died. What I'm looking for is an in-story means that would allow Snape to somehow bring Harry into his confidence. I believe Snape's story has been too strongly set up, and now after Dumbledore's death too tightly tied to Harry's for Snape to simply fade away. Snape is important, he will certainly, in my view, play a substantial role in helping Harry, but how can that transition come about? How can we make Harry who hates Snape and saw what he saw ever trust Snape again? Harry doesn't have to love him, he doesn't have to like him, he doesn't have to forgive him, but somehow he will have to bring himself to trust Snape to some functional degree, and I am speculating on how that can possibly happen. I find this one of the most intriguing sub-plots in the books right now because I know it will have to happen but can't imagine how. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 19:22:28 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:22:28 -0000 Subject: Correction: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162969 --- "Steve" wrote: > > --- "M.Clifford" wrote: > > > > - > > > bboyminn: > > > > > > However, that said, as I read the "Who Killed > > > Dumbledore" thread > > > > > > That sounds juicy, could I trouble someone for the link? > > Pleeeease 0:) > > > > Valky > > bboyminn: Sorry, here is the actual beginning of the "Who Killed Dumbledore?" Thread Subject: 'Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice in Potterverse again.' From: Zgirnius Date: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:13 pm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144961 Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 20 19:41:54 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:41:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Nasty, nasty teacherses. Message-ID: <27614872.1166643714847.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162970 Alla: >How can it not be? Um, easy, IMO. :) We do not see anybody else's >lessons of Occlumency, no? That is why it of corse can be perfectly >normal reaction to the lessons, or it can be indeed Snape opening >Harry's mind to Voldemort. > >Is there anything in the text to contradict that? Bart (in agreement): There apparently were only two people who could have taught Occlumancy (mency? I don't have the books handy) to Harry; Sevvy and Alby. And it was clear that "Split Soul" Riddle would have loved to use that connection as a weapon against his old Transfiguration prof, so it was up to the not-so-good Professor Snape to teach the lessons. Dumbledore DID underestimate the animosity between the two, however, not to mention the fact that Harry didn't WANT to learn it. He has to be the hero, bursting in and saving the day for everybody, rather than playing the Slytherin and laying low, carefully preparing until the right opportunity. Has anybody else noticed the similarity and the contrast between Professor Snape and ex-headmaster Black? They are both nasty, mean, and sarcastic, but, when Phineas speaks to Harry, Harry GETS it. Too bad Phineas wasn't the teacher and Snape wasn't the portrait... Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 19:38:43 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:38:43 -0000 Subject: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162971 > Magpie: > Given what Occlumency is, I can't honestly see how one would teach > it without ever getting into someone's mind. The point is that the > person doing Occlumency is trying to block you, and since they don't > yet know the skill, the person is going to get into their mind at > first. Teaching Occlumency without the violation of someone in your > mind seems to me like imagining someone teaching you how to bat > without your ever striking out. Unless you already have the skill, > you're going to miss sometimes. It's no different than Lupin > actually letting a boggart loose to turn into a fear to practice > Patronuses. > > [Thanks to Pippin for providing actual canon of Dumbledore referring > to this opening of the mind as part of the teaching] Alla: Uh, hate to spend my fifth post of the day on this, but that is not what I meant. Yes of course, without trying to enter in somebody's mind Occlumency ceases to become such, but I thought that in your post you were arguing that ""feeling weakened"" after Occlumency's lessons - was a given and that I disagree with. Snape may have had to enter Harry's mind, but I disagree that Snape's way of entering Harry's mind was the only one possible ( I mean it is possible of course, but we don't know that IMO) As to canon that Pippin's provided, personally I really hope that this was an awkwardly construed sentence and it does not mean what it looks like, otherwise DD does not come out very good here in my opinion . From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 20 20:07:23 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:07:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Snape's Life Debt Paid? Message-ID: <18364773.1166645243941.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162972 From: pippin_999 >One of the disturbing things about the Unbreakable Vow is that >it seems to come between Snape and his duty to Harry. How can >he pledge his life to defend Draco when it's supposedly already >pledged to defend Harry Potter. Isn't it a conflict of interest? Bart: Either that, or there was no conflict of interest. Snape's attitude when he took the vow was that he wasn't promising to do anything that he wasn't going to do anyway (which is why Trixie's jaw kept bouncing off the floor). Maybe it was Occlumancy, or maybe it was because it fit neatly into Snape and Dumbledore's plans. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 20 20:19:52 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:19:52 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Correction: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore Message-ID: <13348451.1166645992444.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162973 bboyminn: > >Sorry, here is the actual beginning of the > >"Who Killed Dumbledore?" Thread > >Subject: 'Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice > in Potterverse again.' >From: Zgirnius >Date: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:13 pm >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144961 Bart: Mine came first: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162901 Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:31 pm Bart From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Wed Dec 20 20:21:10 2006 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (Inge) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:21:10 -0000 Subject: Chamber of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162974 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: Geoff: <<>> Inge: JKR of course knows. And sure, everyone tells Harry he looks like James, but Harry also notices the physical resemblence between himself and Riddle (in the Chamber) so no wonder people start speculating... From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 20 20:29:05 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:29:05 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: Coincidences do happen. Message-ID: <876477.1166646545771.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 162975 WOW! Just looked at the years. Who would have thought that the threads would come almost exactly a year apart!!!! Almost as unlikely as, say, Dumbledore dying from the poison... Bart -----Original Message----- >From: Bart Lidofsky >Sent: Dec 20, 2006 3:19 PM >To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Correction: Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore > >bboyminn: >> >>Sorry, here is the actual beginning of the >> >>"Who Killed Dumbledore?" Thread >> >>Subject: 'Who killed Dumbledore? WAS: Re: Karmic justice >> in Potterverse again.' >>From: Zgirnius >>Date: Sun Dec 18, 2005 8:13 pm >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/144961 > >Bart: > >Mine came first: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162901 >Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:31 pm > >Bart > From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 20:28:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:28:04 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <458762C0.2070807@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162976 --- Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > > Anent Snape, I don't see that he's abusive. Mean, yes. > > Unfair, yes. But abusive? No. > Bart: > > So, purposefully destroying a student's work to ensure > that he fails is NOT abusive? > > Bart > bboyminn: I've been meaning to make this comment in this thread but really, until now, haven't been able to find a place where it was relevant to the conversation. But I think now the door has been open. Though I will admit up front that it is a very minor comment. This alleged act by Snape is not abusive, certainly annoying but not abusive, because the grade/marks for that one lesson, indeed for that entire year, and even further for their entire time at Hogwarts are meaningless. The only thing that /counts/ is the marks on the Standardized Test (OWL/NEWT). Those test represent your qualifications when you go into the wizard world and apply for a job. I seriously doubt that any potential employer is going to look at your yearly school grades when they have the results of your OWLs and NEWTs in front of them. Also note that we never see a student held back or required to re-take a course until /AFTER/ OWL tests. The reason, I speculate, is that yearly school marks are merely a progress report for the students and parents, to measure the level of learning leading up to the Standardized Tests. But while yearly school marks do exits they simply don't count for anything. It is the OWL test the represent you true qualification. If you fail an OWL test, you either accept the failure, or you retake the course and the OWL test. So, while I'm sure it annoyed the heck out of Harry that Snape was so petty and vindictive that he would ruin one of the few potions Harry did well in class, it was of no really consequence. Since both the assignment marks and the class marks are meaningless, it's hard for me to assign substantial meaning to Snape's actions. On a smaller scale they were petty, mean, vindictive, and just plain not nice, they hardly constitute abuse. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 20:43:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:43:13 -0000 Subject: Snape and toads WAS: Re: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162977 REPOSTED TO ADD. Alla: > > > > Yes, it was brought up in the discussion that Neri's post started, > > are you sure JKR did as thorough research and knows that too? > > Pippin: > Thorough research? > > "The horned toad is not a toad" is one of those 'fun facts' about > the English language that us Hermione types absorb as children: > (eg, "grey horses are white","a starfish is not a fish") and I have > known it for fifty years. It's possible, of course that JKR didn't know > this, even though she does identify with Hermione, but I think > it's fairly common knowledge among native speakers. > > Maybe we should take a poll? Alla: LOL. You can be right of course and JKR knows that, but I find it highly suspicious that during GoF AFAIR JKR gives us one Neville's detention with Snape and what he is require to do is to gut, not cut it, which is actually much more gross IMO ( which as somebody pointed to me off list - thank you :)) lizards, called "horned toads" and Neville owns a toad. I think that it may point out to Snape's nasty, sadistic nature, but you can be right and it is just word play, which means nothing, because of different meaning. But as I said, I will for now stick to my suspicions ( or more like Neri's suspicions since his post reminded me of that quote in the first time) ETA: I would like to report that my obsessiveness erm passion reached new level. Pippin, I am happy to report that I actually conducted a minipoll in my office, tee hee. I polled fifteen attorneys in my office and while I do not know if they qualify under your standards as Hermione types, they are **all** native speakers and rather well educated people. They thought that maybe I ate something wrong for lunch since I am asking such a weird question, but they replied regardless. Eleven people responded so far and only two of them knew that horned toads are lizards. Everybody else's answer was that when they hear that, they think of the toads. Of course maybe every other native speaker knows the difference, but as I said I am sticking with my suspicions which are now rather strengthened. Oh, and even if JKR knew the difference, she could have chosen the word specifically to make a point about Snape, as in maybe in her world those are toads ( as she plays with mythology creatures, but they are not exactly what they are in mythology, not always at least) Alla. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Dec 20 21:11:44 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:11:44 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? / Petty Vengeance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162978 SSSusan: > > However, the wall you will run up against in this assertion is that it cannot be proven as fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he did not definitively *see* Snape drop the vial. Anthanielc wrote: > > > "Moments of petty vengeance" are always around us; it's what you do with the urge that marks your character. zanooda: > I have to admit I never thought that the flask breaking could not be Snape's fault. *(snip)* I'm not trying to justify Snape's behavior, because you just don't exercise your "petty vengeance" over someone who is not in a position to respond (I agree with you 100%, Anthanielc). *(nsip)* Ceridwen: I went back to read it, because I had convinced myself that Harry *saw* Snape drop the flask. He didn't. Harry had turned away. When I'm supremely indignant, when I think I've really spoken my mind well - for instance, in an on-line discussion where things are heated but still friendly and people are putting forth their views in persuasive language, and I've added my little bit in what I think is biting, incisive, and thoroughly clear language - I do something stupid. I misspell, or I go back and edit and forget to delete the first draft portion, or I have forgotten to put in a word or a phrase, say the person's name I'm talking about, and there it is, and me with egg on my face. Or, like giving someone a piece of my mind, then turning around and walking face-first into a wall. We've all done things like that to some extent or other. Harry was feeling very pleased with himself, he thought he might at least get an 'E', and then... CRASH! And Snape says, "Whoops." It's possible the "Whoops" and not the broken potion was Snape's "petty vengeance". I've done that, when someone has gotten a good one over on me, then turned around and made a blooper like the ones I mentioned above. Not maliciously, but perhaps with more than just a touch of self-righteous superiority and the feeling that they got what was coming to them. Ceridwen. From anthanielc at yahoo.com Wed Dec 20 21:11:42 2006 From: anthanielc at yahoo.com (Anthony) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 21:11:42 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162979 Steve/bboy: > So, while I'm sure it annoyed the heck out of Harry that > Snape was so petty and vindictive that he would ruin one > of the few potions Harry did well in class, it was of no > really consequence. Since both the assignment marks and > the class marks are meaningless, it's hard for me to > assign substantial meaning to Snape's actions. On a > smaller scale they were petty, mean, vindictive, and just > plain not nice, they hardly constitute abuse. Anthanielc: Excellent points, Steve! I never considered the fact that no-one ever seems to really fail at Hogwarts. What an interesting twist on our real world educational systems. I know quite a few students who wish tests and classroom participation didn't matter. Of course, in the muggle world, students get standardized tests pretty much every year and not one of them really have an impact on future employment. Semantically, I'd argue that there is very little Snape does that is of "no real consequence," but educationally speaking you are correct in this case. The ire it stirred up in Harry is quite another matter, of course. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 20 22:00:27 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:00:27 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162980 > > > SSSusan: > FWIW, I'm with you, Zanooda, in how I read this scene. However, > having had this discussion/argument a couple of times before here, I > can step up and explain part of the assertion against it: the potion > vial/phial's shattering takes place ever-so-slightly "off screen." > We see Harry turn it in, we (along with Harry, since we're in his > POV) hear the glass shattering and hear Snape's "Whoops" and turn > with Harry to see the damage after the fact. > > Again, like you, my assumption is that Snape dropped the vial > intentionally, to send all kinds of messages to Harry ["I despise > you, Potter" or "Don't forget that I have the power in this > relationship" or "This is my kind of humor"]. However, the wall you > will run up against in this assertion is that it cannot be proven as > fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he did not definitively > *see* Snape drop the vial. Harry "knows" it to be true, but Harry > has been wrong about what he "knows" before. > > In this case, I think what Harry "knows" is true, but there you have > it. > wynnleaf The problem with this kind of incident is that, in my opinion, we have to assume that what JKR "appears" to be telling us in the text is in fact what occurred *unless* we can envision her coming back at a later time and showing us that what we thought occurred did not actually happen in the way we thought, or for the reasons we thought. In this incident, JKR had that piece of the action occur "off screen." Yet she did it in such a way that Harry would assume (and therefore most readers) that Snape dropped the vial, and dropped it intentionally. If JKR was actually intending Harry to be wrong about his assumption, then she was also attempting to deceive the reader at the same time. It is pointless to deceive the reader unless she intends to fill us in on the truth later. Is it possible that JKR will come back in Book 7 and have Harry, Snape or another character revisit this incident? Well, I suppose JKR could plan some long dialogue between Harry and Snape, or perhaps between Harry and some other character, where an awful lot of misconceptions get cleared up. Would this be one? Weeeellll, I could maybe see Harry bringing it up to Snape in some sort of litany of "why I know you hate me and why I hate you." But it seems sort of a stretch to me. Still, my point is that if Snape didn't drop that vial, even though JKR made sure almost all of her readers would *assume* he dropped it, then she has to have planned on revisiting that incident later. Any thoughts on the likelihood that she'll revisit it? wynnleaf From scarah at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 16:53:48 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 08:53:48 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612200853l63e25e9fx36b35cffc16f8ce9@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162981 Ken: No one or nothing else has confused Voldemort with Harry so why should the Chamber have done so? Sarah: I don't think Harry's related to Slytherin, as in the quote Geoff put in his reply. But I wanted to point out that Harry has probably been confused with Voldemort before. "Saturn, dear, the planet Saturn!" said Professor Trelawney, sounding definitely irritated that he wasn't riveted by this news. "I was saying that Saturn was surely in a position of power in the heavens at the moment of your birth. . . . Your dark hair. . . your mean stature...tragic losses so young in life. . . I think I am right in saying, my dear, that you were born in midwinter?" "No," said Harry, "I was born in July." -GoF She almost always sees the right stuff and interprets it wrong, so there's probably some small clue in Trelawney providing a description of Tom Riddle here and thinking it's about Harry. I don't know who the Dementors mistake Harry for. Maybe they just think he's crunchy with catsup. Sarah From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 00:09:19 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:09:19 -0000 Subject: Snape and toads WAS: Re: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162982 > > Pippin: > > Thorough research? > > > > "The horned toad is not a toad" is one of those 'fun facts' about > > the English language that us Hermione types absorb as children: > > (eg, "grey horses are white","a starfish is not a fish") and I have > > known it for fifty years. It's possible, of course that JKR didn't > know > > this, even though she does identify with Hermione, but I think > > it's fairly common knowledge among native speakers. > > > > Maybe we should take a poll? > Alla: > I would like to report that my obsessiveness erm passion reached new > level. Pippin, I am happy to report that I actually conducted a > minipoll in my office, tee hee. > > I polled fifteen attorneys in my office and while I do not know if > they qualify under your standards as Hermione types, they are **all** > native speakers and rather well educated people. > > Eleven people responded so far and only two of them knew that horned > toads are lizards. Everybody else's answer was that when they hear > that, they think of the toads. > Neri: Why not ask JKR? As I pointed out in the original thread, the horned toads that Neville gutted could not be lizards, because he canonically returned to the Gryffindor common with "frog gut" under his fingernails (GoF, Ch. 14). Now, some of you (like Ginger in the original thread) might have a problem with this because frogs are not toads either. But interestingly, I've learned since then about a canon development: it turns out that a list of corrections to the UK edition of GoF were released by Bloomsbury in the summer of 2004. You can find this list here: http://www.hp-lexicon.org/about/books/gf/changes_gf.html These changes are now recognized by the Lexicon as canon (they include, among others, the correction of the infamous order of Lily and James's echoes coming out of Voldemort's wand). And as it turned out, JKR also corrected the "frog guts" under Neville's fingernails to "toad guts". In the American edition, AFAIK, "frog guts" was not changed, but I would be glad to hear from anybody here who has a new paperback GoF. Now, what can we learn from this? To me it's obvious that JKR doesn't know that horned toads are lizards. She think they belong to the order Anura (frogs and toads). This is why she wrote "frog guts" in the beginning, and when she corrected it she changed it to "toad guts", in order to clarify that these guts were indeed from the toads that Neville gutted. Neri, who didn't know that grey horses are white. From scarah at gmail.com Wed Dec 20 17:17:53 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:17:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and Umbridge and abuse again/ Ending for Snape In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612200917s5d5b4b14labc4d946fe5446a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162983 Cassie: I would find it odd if Voldemort had never been romantically loved, even if he had never returned the affection. Scenes from his past always suggest he was very handsome and talented. I'd imagine many girls would at LEAST have a crush on him. Sarah: Miss Hepzibah certainly seems quite taken in. I wouldn't be surprised if other women weren't either, but I don't think this sort of thing qualifies as real "love" in JK's mind. No one has ever loved him, therefore Bellatrix doesn't. So techicalities exist like fawning adoration, devotion, etc. not being the same as love. When I first read the Occlumency lessons, I thought Snape's behavior and treatment of Harry was surprisingly nice and forthcoming compared to his usual standard. He started in on a couple of thoughts I would have really liked to hear him finish, but of course Harry interrupted him. Sarah From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 02:42:18 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:42:18 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162984 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > As for Umbridge, I agree with you there, but look what happened to >her. Well, not much happened to her, as I recall. And none of it is directly related to her abuse of Harry, which is what is called for in this situation. > Dumbledore, for political reasons, couldn't move directly against her, but he > did the next best thing--gave her plenty of rope and let her hang herself. Well, if DD is not moving for political reasons, I would call that ... contemptible. Not a good position for an "epitome of goodness." And > one might argue that Harry's suffering under the Umbridge Regime was necessary > for his development, to toughen him up. > Yes, one might say that. JKR might say that, in fact. I don't know if she would (in fact I don't think she would say that, at least not in that particular way), but she might. To which my reply would be, that is explicitly approving of child abuse. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 02:33:26 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 02:33:26 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162985 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > > > There are several examples of this: the Dursleys > > I thought JKR explained that rather nicely in the last book. > Dumbledore thought that Harry being abused by the Dursleys was > preferable to the alternative, Harry being dead. And I think the man > just may be on to something. Except, of course, that Dumbledore's explanation does not make clear why he did not step in and put a firm stop to the Dursleys abuse of Harry -- something that the most powerful wizard in the world could have easily accomplished. Thus, the epitome of goodness tacitly approves of child abuse. > > > Let us take Umbridge as one example > > At the time Dumbledore was not the boss, Umbridge was calling the shots. > But she wasn't. When Umbridge's abuse of Harry began the Ministry had not yet put her in charge of Hogwarts, nor even expanded her powers. Once again, DD stands by and tacitly consents to Harry being abused. Thus, abuse being approved by the "epitome of goodness," is approved. At least in the message which I don't think JKR intends to send. Lupinlore From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 03:08:02 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 03:08:02 -0000 Subject: Is Snape's Life Debt Paid? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162986 >Pippin wrote: > One of the disturbing things about the Unbreakable Vow is that > it seems to come between Snape and his duty to Harry. How can > he pledge his life to defend Draco when it's supposedly already > pledged to defend Harry Potter. Isn't it a conflict of interest? > Neri: So? I thought that vow was full of loopholes anyway . >Pippin: > But what if Snape's life debt is already paid? > > Of course we don't know exactly what it takes to incur a life > debt, much less pay one off, but we may speculate that it > requires two things. First, the rescuer must go beyond the > call of duty, and second, he must take the danger on himself. > > So James's rescue of Snape qualifies because James was not > a prefect and he himself was endangered by the werewolf. > Harry's rescue of Peter qualifies because he had no duty to save > Peter and because Harry stood facing the wands. > Neri: Was Harry in danger of being killed by Sirius and Lupin? I don't think he was. >Pippin: > Snape's counterjinx on the broomstick didn't count because > he was doing his duty as a teacher, Neri: You make here an additional hidden speculation: that the repaying of the debt is subject to the exact same terms that create the debt in the first place. This isn't self evident. Especially not in Snape's case, because Snape originally owed his debt to James, and James is dead because of, in part, Snape's actions. And of course, there's a much more straightforward reason why the broomstick counterjinx wouldn't count: that Hermione saved Harry while robbing Snape of his ability to do so. >Pippin: > and Harry's rescue of > Ginny didn't count because, although Harry's life was in danger, > he couldn't have been possessed. Neri: So, because Harry couldn't die the exact same way Ginny was dying, it didn't count, even though he almost died in several other ways? I find this rather arbitrary. >Pippin: > Now, what about Snape sending the Order to rescue Harry > at the MoM? IMO, he was going beyond his duty as a teacher > since Harry was not at the school, and going beyond his > duty as an Order member if he disobeyed orders and broke > his cover. Neri: I'd say this depends on the Order's priorities. If the Order's objectives of keeping Harry alive and the prophecy out of Voldemort's hands were considered more important than keeping Snape's cover, then Snape's duty as an Order member would certainly be to prevent Harry from going to the DoM, even at the price of his cover. It is of course possible that the Order considered Snape's cover more important than Harry and the prophecy combined, but somehow I doubt it. >Pippin: > He was putting himself in identical danger > (assuming that Voldemort would want Snape dead if he > found out.) > Neri: It doesn't look like identical danger to me. Snape would certainly blow his cover, but he'd still be at Hogwarts and protected by Dumbledore. Harry OTOH was going straight into Voldemort's hands. >Pippin: > It would be just like JKR to sneak this past us. Neri: Sounds like a waste of good plot potential to me. "Hey, remember that debt of Snape from Book 1? Well, actually it was active until Book 5, and then I sneaked it past you." >Pippin: > --- > "I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year > because he felt that would make him and your father > quits. Then he could go back to hating your father's > memory in peace..." > > Harry tried to understand this, but it made his head > pound so he stopped. -- PS/SS ch 17. > -- > It's been six years since Dumbledore said that, and > Harry still doesn't understand what he meant. > Neri: Precisely. What's the point in settling the debt if Harry (as well as many readers) have never realized Snape was indebted in the first place? Anyway, it's exactly the above quote that convinces me Snape hasn't paid his debt yet. Because he's still not "hating James's memory in peace". There isn't any change in the way he treats Harry. Right after the tower scene he doesn't mention Dumbledore at all, but he mentions James *twice*. It's obvious he's more obsessed with James than ever. Neri From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 04:23:46 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:23:46 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Forgiving Snape / Grey!Snape and Character Growth In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612202023g7dc9b0a1pb8bf76da4cde76ff@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162987 zgirnius: > Y'all are welcome to sit next to me at our campfire. :D Debbie: Why, thank you! Jen: > > I still see OFH characteristics in Snape even if he's been loyal > from > > the minute he returned to Dumbledore. Whether that's part of the > JKR > > misdirection or a real part of his character is hard to say. I'm > > banking on real. Debbie: I'm banking on real, too. I'd say he's got OFH! tendencies regardless of his loyalties because, in a very real sense, Snape is doing this for himself. He is either doing penance for his sins of his own accord or fulfilling a life debt or bringing down the contemptible Tom Riddle, but these are all personal to Snape. I don't think he's loyal to Dumbledore because he wants the WW to be a better place. > zgirnius: > I'd say it's real; what I don't see is why this would make Snape OFH! > in the big picture. Snape's a person, not an automaton. Since I > believe he's DDM! Debbie: No one characteristic *makes* Snape OFH! (or DDM! or anything else for that matter). It's just a piece of evidence to consider. Overall, he makes too many choices that are probably inconsistent with an OFH! label, but he is not a selfless, magnanimous creature. One of the reasons he's Dumbledore's man is that Dumbledore has better things to offer *to Snape* than Voldemort. > > Jen: I'll draw up a chair for that one. You said earlier we won't > see > > Snape's torment since it's Harry's story--do you think the solioquy > > will make it in or you just feel Snape's story calls for some > > agonized reflection? Debbie: I feel that Harry's path to forgiving Snape will seem flat and one-sided without seeing the parallel Snape story. As it is now, I'm not sure that Harry will appreciate just how difficult Snape's choices have been. So, I think the story calls for it. zgirnius: > I'm betting we get something of this sort (*blushes, that she does > not recognize the source of the quote*). Probably in a scene with > Harry. If we get a Spinner's End style scene with a dramatic > narrrator again, I would guess it will be more Snape and Death > Eaters, so again it will be ambiguous and not a time for Snape to > express himself. Debbie: I'm voting for a Snape-Harry scene near the end of the book (perhaps one of those scenes JKR has been envisioning for 12 years). I don't think an ambiguous scene will work, and it wouldn't give Harry the understanding I think he needs. Debbie still putting off the baking, but she did write a grocery list and wrap all her presents [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 21 05:02:50 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 05:02:50 -0000 Subject: Order Members' Motivations for Joining Up? (Re: Harry Forgiving Snape ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162988 > zgirnius: > I'd say it's real; what I don't see is why this would make Snape > OFH! in the big picture. Snape's a person, not an automaton. Since > I believe he's DDM! (and I tend to share Carol's idea that it is > his remorse over the prophecy that pushed him into that camp) he's > working for the defeat of Voldemort/on Dumbledore's side, and not > simply because he thinks they are going to win, or make his life > better (OFH!). He can still feel pride in his contributions, > though, that's normal human behavior. Jen: OFH was a bad choice there, 'personal' is a better choice. In the quote from OOTP (chap. 26), Snape had a 'curious, almost satisfied expression' about discovering what the Dark Lord says to his DE's. I'm sure he feels pride because frankly he's doing a job NO one else can do given his superb Occlumency skills. But my guess is one huge part of his satisfaction is holding power over Voldemort in a way that Voldemort once held over him (speculation). I believe remorse took Snape to Dumbledore's door and was the basis of their trust, but think a fury for personal vengeance fuels Snape's desire to defeat Voldemort. Other Order members aren't motivated purely for the good of the WW either, imo. All have personal reasons for joining the Order and all seem to share in common only an intense loyalty to Dumbledore and a desire to defeat Voldemort. I'm just speculating that Snape wants LV destroyed for the sake of his destruction and not for a personal reason which also includes value for other people (beyond what all Order members share, i.e., defeating Voldemort is good for the WW). Examples include Lupin hoping to gain rights for oppressed werewolves or Molly wanting her family to be safe or Arthur hoping Muggles will get better treatment. Sirius was motivated to join out of hatred toward his family but also because he believed pureblood prejudice was wrong and felt loyalty toward his friends (and hating the dark arts too?). What do others think, why do Order members join up and are all personally motivated by something *other* than the defeat of Voldemort, something contributing to the WW at large? I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason for certain characters like Mundungus or even the twins (Voldemort seems good for business at the moment ). Jen, thanking zgirnius for the friendly welcome to Camp DDM and finding the smores quite tasty. :-) From mohammedkapadia at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 04:16:07 2006 From: mohammedkapadia at gmail.com (Mohammed) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:16:07 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162989 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > Except, of course, that Dumbledore's explanation does not make > clear why he did not step in and put a firm stop to the Dursleys > abuse of Harry -- something that the most powerful wizard in the > world could have easily accomplished. Thus, the epitome of > goodness tacitly approves of child abuse. > But she wasn't. When Umbridge's abuse of Harry began the Ministry > had not yet put her in charge of Hogwarts, nor even expanded her > powers. Once again, DD stands by and tacitly consents to Harry > being abused. Thus, abuse being approved by the "epitome of > goodness," is approved. At least in the message which I don't > think JKR intends to send. Lupinlore, DD was keeping the bigger picture in mind which is to defeat LV. If you take the Dursleys' abuse of Harry, DD could have easily stopped them but then what if they could throw Harry out of the house before he came of age? Harry would have ended up dead. LV cannot touch him at the Dursleys' place and the rest of the time Harry is either at the Burrow (short time almost each year) or Hogwarts where he is well protected. Consider Umbridge's abuse of Harry, DD could have done little there. He knew Umbridge was there to keep an eye on DD on Fudge's order and did not want to give Umbridge the chance to get the better of DD. Also what Umbridge was doing (detentions) was within the right of a Teacher. Yes she was causing Harry pain but I don't think she was doing anything unlawful. Overall all these abuses have made Harry stronger over the years and will definately help him in his fight against LV. MDKAP From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 06:13:43 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 06:13:43 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? No. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162990 "lupinlore" wrote: > Dumbledore's explanation does not > make clear why he did not step in > and put a firm stop to the Dursleys > abuse of Harry With the exception of one scene in book 2 where he's locked in his room, the Dursley's actions would not be considered criminal child abuse; and even Dumbledore can't order them to love Harry, or command them to develop good parenting skills. > When Umbridge's abuse of Harry > began the Ministry had not yet > put her in charge of Hogwarts Remember, it was not Dumbledore's idea to bring Umbridge to Hogwarts, and she may not have had the official title of Headmaster but from day one it was pretty clear that she was the one making the important decisions at Hogwarts not Dumbledore. > abuse being approved by the "epitome of goodness," Gee, you sure like that phrase, pity it's not in any of the books. > [ ] is approved. At least in the message which I don't think JKR intends to send. Now I'm confused. First you say JKR is a great fan of child abuse then you say that is not the message she wants to send. Personally I don't think JKR is terribly interested in sending messages, she just wants to tell a good story and several million readers, including me, think she hasn't done too badly. You don't earn a billion dollars by being incompetent. Eggplant From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 06:40:27 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:40:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Chamber of Horcruxes In-Reply-To: <3202590612200853l63e25e9fx36b35cffc16f8ce9@mail.gmail.com> References: <3202590612200853l63e25e9fx36b35cffc16f8ce9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0612202240t107adb18gf98d2d10a9e3d802@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 162991 Ken says: Surely the simplest answer and probably the most obvious is that Harry IS Slytherin's heir! We have spent a lot of time and effort trying to justify his ability to open the Chamber of Secrets on the basis of his assimilation of some of Voldemort's powers. But the Chamber is a seriously magical "thing". No one or nothing else has confused Voldemort with Harry so why should the Chamber have done so? No, it is more likely that Harry is indeed an heir - perhaps THIS is why Voldemort identified the infant Harry as his nemesis instead of Neville? Lynda: I haven't spent a lot of time and effort on that, and consider Harry being Slytherin's heir far from likely. Yes, I've seen the theory before, but pretty much dismissed it. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 21 12:16:13 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:16:13 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162992 > SSSusan: big snip However, the wall you > will run up against in this assertion is that it cannot be proven as > fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he did not definitively > *see* Snape drop the vial. Harry "knows" it to be true, but Harry > has been wrong about what he "knows" before. > > In this case, I think what Harry "knows" is true, but there you have > it. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan Potion-"The Wall"-cat: "Oops!" One of my favorite things to discuss! Probably one that will be even less important than "Is Harry's cousin, Mark Evans, going to be a Muggle or a wizard?" I think Draco broke the vial, and Snape said "Oops" in support of Draco....one of those sweet bonding moments between Mentor and Protege. My main reason for thinking that it wasn't Snape, is that it seemed different from his usual mistreatment of Harry. Usually he's using his power, but for a teacher to drop the vial seems weak. I can't see Snape making himself look weak in front of the class. However he often supports Slytherin misbehavior against Gryffindors cough"I see no difference"cough and this seems more in that vein. You realise, Snape doesn't come out any better if Draco is the one who broke it. Wynnleaf wrote in 162991: Still, my point is that if Snape didn't drop that vial, even though JKR made sure almost all of her readers would *assume* he dropped it, then she has to have planned on revisiting that incident later. Any thoughts on the likelihood that she'll revisit it? "The Wall": Yeah, it's a petty little moment. No, I doubt we'll ever know. Well, unless Draco, in his last gasp of life confesses to Harry. This is going to seem to like an odd twist of the thread, but here's something similar. Something in HBP has nagged at me. It's one of those things that's probably been discussed but I haven't followed the right thread. It's another Snape-off-the-page moment. McGonagall, scolding Harry about the bathroom incident says something along the line of "Professor Snape told us precisely what happened..." Isn't that clever? How do we really know "what" he told the teachers? She doesn't ask Harry for his side, does she? Potioncat, waving to SSSusan, and happy to see her posting again. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 13:06:29 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:06:29 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162993 > Potion-"The Wall"-cat: > Usually he's > using his power, but for a teacher to drop the vial seems weak. I > can't see Snape making himself look weak in front of the class. > However he often supports Slytherin misbehavior against Gryffindors > cough"I see no difference"cough and this seems more in that vein. > > You realise, Snape doesn't come out any better if Draco is the one > who broke it. Alla: Well, I agree with Wynnleaf whom I snipped completely that this is just supposed to be what it is IMO. But when Potioncat enters the discussion of that episode, Alla usually abandons her stance of Snape was the one and only who broke the vial, since Snape never stops from anything to execute revenge on Harry and agrees with Potioncat that somebody else could have done that indeed. But not Draco, surely he won't be that bold in front of whole class? That was Snape twins helping out and unde invisibility cloak too. Disclaimer: Please refer to Potioncat for all further questions as to Snape twins backstory. She is the one responsible for their existance after all ;) Alla, running away and fast. From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 14:22:31 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:22:31 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162994 > > > Potion-"The Wall"-cat: > > > Usually he's > > using his power, but for a teacher to drop the vial seems weak. I > > can't see Snape making himself look weak in front of the class. > > However he often supports Slytherin misbehavior against > Gryffindors > > cough"I see no difference"cough and this seems more in that vein. > > > > You realise, Snape doesn't come out any better if Draco is the one > > who broke it. > > Alla: > > Well, I agree with Wynnleaf whom I snipped completely that this is > just supposed to be what it is IMO. wynnleaf -- (who sees that the door is open on JKR's site) I didn't say that "this is just suppose to be what it is." I said that if one is going to theorize that all was not as it seemed, then you also have to theorize how or why JKR is going to reveal the real circumstances in Book 7. I thought that sounded unlikely, but was quite willing to see anyone's ideas for why JKR might do that. After all, there may be many things revealed in Book 7 that we don't expect, or that are new perspectives on things we thought trivial in the past. Further, I think the notion of proposing that some other student intentionally caused the vial to drop and Snape did nothing about it is quite a stretch. Snape may let Slytherins get by with things, but what we've been shown in the past are incidents where Slytherins do something that Snape doesn't see and could possibly "excuse" himself with the notion that he didn't really have proof of a Slytherin doing it. If Draco caused the vial to break in full view of Snape, yet Snape did nothing and even taunted Harry with it, then this goes beyond what we've been shown in the past of Snape's allowances for Slytherins. If Snape did not actually drop the vial, and JKR was deceiving both Harry and the reader, then it would almost certainly be because she wanted Harry to think something bad about Snape that wasn't exactly true. Simply to have Harry and the readers deceived about the type of nastiness, just so Snape can be "differently bad" is pointless. If Snape didn't drop the vial, then it was more likely that he did nothing more wrong than taunt Harry with Harry's own mistake or accident in placing the vial so that it toppled on its own. But as I've said before, if Snape didn't drop the vial, we'll have to find out in Book 7, or any "deception" on JKR's part regarding this has no point. wynnleaf -- From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 15:04:36 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:04:36 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape's Demise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162995 Jen wrote: > Yes, it's true, I'm putting a stake in Grey!Snape as a possible > theory from my perspective. There are too many problems with him > as others have pointed out and when you find yourself convincing > no one after two weeks, the word delusional starts to creep into > your brain . I appeciate everyone who responded because you > guys helped me organize my thoughts and hopefully it was > interesting and not too tedious (hey, keep that part to > yourselves!). SSSusan: Awwww!! I was just getting going, Jen. :) Jen: > SSSusan's post was a really great wrap-up of some possible > positions within DDM!Snape and she incorporated what I felt like > were the best parts of Grey: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162930 > > Jen, noting that if book 7 proves Snape was always loyal but > somewhat morally and personally ambiguous, she'll dust off Grey! > Snape with glee. But she doesn't really expect that to happen. SSSusan: I do, I do!! Or, at least, I think Book 7 will reveal/reiterate that Snape WAS that, even if by the time of Voldy's graveyard reincarnation, he was no longer quite so much so. Ceridwen said to SSS: > So, what you're saying is that Grey!Snape, to you, is what Harry > sees and has to deal with? That's an interesting perspective. I > like it, if it is what you're saying. SSSusan: Okay. Since Jen's issued a TKO on the tag Grey!Snape (if for no other reason than that it gets too confusing when placed alongside ESE!Snape, OFH!Snape and DDM!Snape), then I'm just going to have to think up something else to keep this going as a theory of what's to come. Because I like it, too, and I think Jen's thoughts deserve to go on. (Uurgh, I think I'm channeling Celine Dion there.) Let's see. Something that would get at the notion that this is about the Whole of Snape... something that would emphasize that we're talking about Harry's journey, Harry's task, Harry's need to acknowledge & reconcile himself to that mishmash of bad and good that is Severus Snape. How about... NoHarryHe'sDDM!ButHe'sNotAlwaysGoodAndSoYou'llHavetoDealwithThat! Snape Well, *that* sure flows off the tongue, doesn't it? Welcoming any assistance (Potioncat, you're good at this kind of thing!), Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's SO excited that we now have the title of the 7th book!!!! From balrogmama at wi.rr.com Thu Dec 21 15:25:32 2006 From: balrogmama at wi.rr.com (laurawkids) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:25:32 -0000 Subject: JK's secret door is open for the title of book 7!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162996 go to mugglenet if you need hints on how to get in! Yippee!! Then we can chew on what it might mean. Merry Christmas! Laura From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 15:40:12 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:40:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162997 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower. Please note that all page references are from the cloth U.S. edition. Summary: Harry and Dumbledore emerge from the water outside of the cave. Harry hoists a weakened DD unto the nearest boulder and takes him via side-along apparition to Hogsmead (Q1). When they arrive, Harry briefly imagines that he sees Inferi lurking in the street and realizes that he has a "searing stitch in his side" (580) (Q2). Despite DD's condition, Harry is triumphant. "We did it, Professor We got the Horcrux!" (580-1). Triumph is immediately replaced with concern as Harry sees DD's fragile state. DD has difficulty holding his balance after apparating and he looks even more ashen in the lamplight. Harry inquires about DD's health. DD replies that he has "been better" and that the potion was "no health drink." (580) (Q3). Harry indicates that DD must be taken to Madam Pomfrey. DD indicates that he cannot walk that far and that it is Severus Snape, not Madam Pomfrey, who is needed. Harry looks for a place for DD to wait in safety and reiterates his intention to find Madam Pomfrey, only to be gently rebuked by DD's instance on seeing Snape (Q4). Harry hears footsteps, and Madam Rosemerta is hurrying toward them wearing "high-healed, fluffy slippers and a silk dressing gown embroidered with dragons" (580) (Q5). She indicates that she saw them apparate as she was pulling her bedroom curtains. She notices DD's condition and stops short. Harry asks her to shelter DD while he returns to Hogwarts. Madam Rosemerta quickly points out that Harry cannot go to Hogwarts alone as the Dark Mark is hanging over the school. Turning in the direction of Hogwarts, Harry is filled with trepidation, knowing that the Dark Mark is left behind when DEs have entered a building and someone has been murdered (Q6). DD takes command of the situation. He asks Rosemerta a few questions and then inquires after transportation. Harry accios two brooms from behind Rosemerta's bar. DD orders Harry to put on his Invisibility Cloak, and Harry and DD speed off toward the castle. DD, who seemed so frail moments ago, (Q7) flies over the grounds with a firm purpose, lifting the enchantments surrounding the castle and its grounds to allow Harry and himself to pass. On the trip, Harry wonders if a member of the DA has been killed and if so would he be responsible for the death of another friend (Q8)? In a short time, they arrive on the Astronomy Tower under the Dark Mark. They find the tower deserted and after a brief look around, DD orders Harry to wake Snape as quickly as possible without speaking to anyone or removing his cloak (Q9). Harry begins to obey when he hears footsteps on the other side of the door. The door bursts open and someone yells, "Expelliarmus!" (584). Harry is instantly immobilized and confused; then he understands: DD froze Harry and in the moment that it took to do so was disarmed and now faces Draco Malfoy (Q10). Malfoy, spotting the extra broom, demands to know who else is present. DD declines to answer asking Malfoy, if he is acting alone. Malfoy indicates that there are DEs below. DD praises Malfoy's ingenuity for finding a way past his defenses. They have a long exchange where DD recounts Malfoy's attempts to kill him throughout the school year. All the while he maintains that Malfoy is not a killer and does not have the heart to complete his task (Q11). Malfoy continues to talk, hesitating to murder DD. He reveals that Voldemort has threatened his family, the plan to use the two vanishing cabinets to gain access to Hogwarts (Q12), how he used the cursed necklace, and poisoned the mead. DD acknowledges these attempts and admits that not only was he aware of Malfoy's actions, but that Snape has been watching Malfoy under his orders all year. Malfoy sneers at DD rejecting this idea and claims that Snape's loyalties lie with Voldemort (Q13). DD then asks the question that Malfoy has yet to answer: Who has been helping him outside of the castle? But even as he asks, DD knows. Rosemerta is Malfoy's co-conspirator. She has been under the Imperius Curse and Malfoy has used enchanted coins to communicate with her. DD is gradually weakening. Malfoy confesses that "they" put the Dark Mark over the tower to lure DD up here. Meanwhile we learn that a battle rages below between the Order and the DEs and one person may be dead. DD offers to help Draco, to hide him and his family. He states, "He (LV) cannot kill you if you are already dead we can hide you more completely than you can possibly imagine" (592) (Q14). DD also indicates that LV fully expects Malfoy to fail in his attempt and to die in the process. Malfoy states, "[Y]ou're in my power. . .I'm the one with the wand. . . You're at my mercy. . ." "No, Draco," said Dumbledore quietly. "It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now" (592) (Q15). The door bursts open and four DEs enter (Amycus, Alecto, Fenrir and a fourth unnamed person). Dumbledore is familiar with at least three and they begin taunting him. DD expresses his surprise that Draco would invite Fenrir (a known werewolf with a penchant for children) into the castle. Draco claims that he was unaware that Fenrir would be present (Q16). Fenrir indicates his bloody mouth, and states that he has been sampling the prey below. DD expresses surprise as it is not the full moon. Fenrir indicates his willingness to finish DD for Draco. The unnamed DE intervenes. He indicates that they have orders to let Draco finish DD. Members of the Order are heard shouting below in their attempt to access the tower. It seems as if the stairs have been blocked. The DEs urge Draco to finish his task. Fenrir attempts to finish the job himself, but the unnamed DE blasts him out of the way (Q17). Harry, panicked and frustrated, witnesses the scene while paralyzed. He wishes he could aim a curse under his cloak. Suddenly the door bursts open and Snape erupts onto the scene. DD softly calls "Severus..0." (595). Harry is chilled by the pleading sound in DD's voice (Q18). Snape pushes his way toward DD with "revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face" (595). DD again pleads "Severus please " (595). Snape shouts "Avada Kedavra" (596). The spell knocks DD into the air. DD rises up and falls over the wall and out of sight (Q20). QUESTIONS: 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? 2. On page 580, after they return to Hogsmead from the cave, Harry notes that he has a "searing stitch in his chest." Is this a cramp from exertion or could it be something else? 3. Are you reassured by Dumbledore's wry humor about the potion in the cave ("That was no health drink")? How grave is his condition? Is there any possibility for recovery? 4. Harry wants to bring DD to Madam Pomfrey (or vice versa), but DD insists on seeing Snape. Harry's reluctance is understandable, but what do you make of DD insistence that he see Severus? 5. What do you make of Rosemerta's sudden appearance? Her attire? Is there any indication at this point of her (albeit unwilling) duplicity? 6. When you first read that the Dark Mark was flying over Hogwarts, what was your initial reaction? Did you think that someone had been murdered? If so, who? Did you believe that the "major death" had already occurred or were you prepared for something more? 7. Did you see Dumbledore's strength on the flight back to the castle as a sign that he might recover from his injuries? Or simply a rally due to adrenaline? 8. On page 583, as they speed toward the Dark Mark, Harry wonders if he would again be responsible for the death of a friend. What death(s) does Harry feel responsible for? Is he really responsible? 9. Upon reaching the deserted tower, Dumbledore orders Harry again to wake Severus and bring him to DD. If there is a possibility that DEs are in the castle, why send Harry into the castle on an errand? Why not accompany him? Why does he order him to talk to no one? Why not alert some one like McGonagall or Hagrid, if Harry should meet them along the way? 10. Why does DD immobilize Harry? How can he be sure that Harry will be safe under his cloak? Doesn't this ultimately leave Harry defenseless? Is this a mistake? Is Harry ever in danger on the tower? 11. What do you make of the exchange between Draco and DD? Is DD stalling? Why would he praise Draco's plan to get DE's into the castle? Is DD right about Draco not being a killer? Might he become one? 12. The vanishing cabinets have been around for awhile, at least since CoS. Is it possible that someone else is aware of their connection? Why does DD conclude so quickly that there must be a pair? 13. Draco and DD disagree about who Snape is working for Well, I am going to ask again: Where do Snape's loyalties lie? Okay, okay you don't have to answer that ? just see the last 10,000 posts. 14. This has also been covered at length, but just for consistency's sake, who else might be in hiding? Might LV also have someone in hiding? 15. How are Draco and Dumbledore using the term "mercy?" Why is it Dumbledore's mercy that matters now? 16. Dumbledore indicates his surprise that Draco would allow/agree to let Fenrir Greybeck enter the castle. Why is it that Draco might want to prevent Fenrir from coming? This is the second time we have been reminded of Draco's connection to Greybeck. Why? What is the connection? 17. The DEs are insistent that Draco finish the job himself, or at least the unnamed DE is. Why is this important? Does it really matters who finishes the job? Will there be consequences for Draco or Snape since Draco did not ultimately murder DD? 18. Again a common question: Why does DD plead with Snape? What is he pleading for? Why does his tone frighten Harry more than "anything he had experienced all evening?" 19. And again, sigh: What is the hatred and revulsion on Snape's face? What revolts him? 20. Why is this Avada Kedavra spell different from the others we have seen? (Note: Cedric simply crumples to the ground). Or is it? Why does DD's body fly up in the air and then fall slowly back toward the earth? Thanks to everyone in advance for their thoughtful responses. I look forward to the ensuing discussion and to the next chapter. Also, I would like to thank Shorty Elf for her helpful editing suggestions Beatrice. NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU HBP Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 15:53:55 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:53:55 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162998 SSSusan wrote previously: > FWIW, I'm with you, Zanooda, in how I read this scene. However, > having had this discussion/argument a couple of times before here, > I can step up and explain part of the assertion against it: the > potion vial/phial's shattering takes place ever-so-slightly "off > screen." > Again, like you, my assumption is that Snape dropped the vial > intentionally, to send all kinds of messages to Harry . However, > the wall you will run up against in this assertion is that it > cannot be proven as fact, since we're with Harry in his POV and he > did not definitively *see* Snape drop the vial. Harry "knows" it > to be true, but Harry has been wrong about what he "knows" before. Wynnleaf replied: > The problem with this kind of incident is that, in my opinion, we > have to assume that what JKR "appears" to be telling us in the > text is in fact what occurred *unless* we can envision her coming > back at a later time and showing us that what we thought occurred > did not actually happen in the way we thought, or for the reasons > we thought. > If JKR was actually intending Harry to be wrong about his > assumption, then she was also attempting to deceive the reader at > the same time. It is pointless to deceive the reader unless she > intends to fill us in on the truth later. SSSusan: Wynnleaf, I think this is just the question to ask! WHY would she put this in, in such a way as to leave it open, if she is unlikely to revisit the scene and give us the real scoop eventually? In fact, IIRC, I have used that very unlikeliness myself as part of the argument that what Harry "knew" in this scene must have been what actually happened. Since it does seem highly unlikely that we'd ever have cause to revisit it, why would JKR want us to think it *wasn't* Snape? (But see below.) Potion-"The Wall"-cat added: > "Oops!" One of my favorite things to discuss! Probably one that > will be even less important than "Is Harry's cousin, Mark Evans, > going to be a Muggle or a wizard?" > > I think Draco broke the vial, and Snape said "Oops" in support of > Draco....one of those sweet bonding moments between Mentor and > Protege. My main reason for thinking that it wasn't Snape, is that > it seemed different from his usual mistreatment of Harry. Alla chimed in: > But not Draco, surely he won't be that bold in front of whole > class? > > That was Snape twins helping out and under invisibility cloak too. > > Disclaimer: Please refer to Potioncat for all further questions > as to Snape twins backstory. She is the one responsible for their > existence after all ;) > > Alla, running away and fast. SSSusan again: LOL! Dare I say I'd actually *forgotten* about the Snape twins? Interesting thought, Potion-"The Wall"-cat (is that your WWF moniker, I wonder?): that it was DRACO who dropped the vial and Snape was just adding his measure of support [as Ceridwen said, his "Whoops" was his petty vengeance, his glee that Harry had "gotten his," even if he hadn't caused it]. It's definitely possible it was Draco. One question which would still remain, though, is, "Why would JKR write it this way? Why wouldn't she *show* us that scene of Draco being a jerk and Snape enjoying it?" And I have another question. Isn't it possible that this didn't seem to fit the type of mistreatment Snape usually dished out to Harry because Snape was SO enraged over the Occlumency incident? Maybe this was over the top because his rage was over the top? Wynnleaf wrote: > If Snape did not actually drop the vial, and JKR was deceiving > both Harry and the reader, then it would almost certainly be > because she wanted Harry to think something bad about Snape > that wasn't exactly true. SSSusan: Hey! Maybe that's precisely it, Wynnleaf! Maybe JKR was just adding ONE MORE THING to Harry's arsenal of Reasons Why I Loathe Snape. Maybe it doesn't really matter whether it was Snape, Draco, Peeves, one of the Snape twins , or Harry having failed to place the vial far enough from the edge. Maybe what mattered to JKR was giving us yet another piece of Harry Perspective, another thing to build up his own case for hatred of Snape. Which gets me back to that other thread, heh, the one where we've been talking about the work Harry's likely going to have to do regarding Snape, if he's ever going to be able to trust a DDM! Snape.... > Potioncat, waving to SSSusan, and happy to see her posting again. Thanks, Potioncat. It's hard to carve out the time for HPfGU regularly, but I sure do realize how much I've missed the place once I'm back posting! Siriusly Snapey Susan, who still thinks Snape did it From sam2sar at charter.net Thu Dec 21 16:22:23 2006 From: sam2sar at charter.net (Stephanie) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:22:23 -0000 Subject: JK's secret door is open for the title of book 7!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 162999 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" wrote: > > go to mugglenet if you need hints on how to get in! Yippee!! Then we > can chew on what it might mean. > > Merry Christmas! > Laura I is quite the adventure. I got a few things by myself but needed help for the rest. I am sooo overwhelmed by what this could mean that I can not think straight. Oh the theories that will come up. I don't want to spoil it just yet. Have fun and Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all. Sam > From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 15:21:22 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:21:22 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? No. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163000 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > > Now I'm confused. First you say JKR is a great fan of child abuse then > you say that is not the message she wants to send. Never said any such thing. What I did say was that JKR sends multiple messages in her books, some intentional and some not. Some she is clearly VERY interested in getting across. Where she gets into trouble is when her unintended messages interfere with her intentional ones. Like it or not, JKR has made EXTREMELY clear that she wants people to have a certain view of Dumbledore. Fine and dandy, but if she wants people to have that view, then she is responsible for any deviations from that picture. DD's consent to Harry being abused, and his seeming inability to clearly express regret, remorse, or apology for many of the instances (even totally ignoring the Umbridge situation altogether) create massive noise in the "Dumbledore frequency." Then again, noise on the frequencies is nothing new. Tolkien used to swear up and down that people were not supposed to equate Sauron and Hitler. But the message he sent, probably unintentionally, said otherwise to lots of folks. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 15:12:58 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:12:58 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163001 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mohammed" wrote: > ]h > > Lupinlore, DD was keeping the bigger picture in mind which is to > defeat LV. Well, if that is DD's excuse, my reply is that he is a reprehensible old idiot. Child abuse is never allowable, no matter what the political cause. Not to mention that DD was taking an awful big risk with his "weapon." (If he was indeed thinking of Harry that way. These kinds of threads tend to inevitably lead to the weapon metaphor).h If you take the Dursleys' abuse of Harry, DD could have easily stopped them but then what if they could throw Harry out of the house before he came of age? Harry would have ended up dead. LV cannot touch him at the Dursleys' place and the rest of the time Harry is either at the Burrow (short time almost each year) or Hogwarts where he is well protected. > > Overall all these abuses have made Harry stronger over the years and > will definately help him in his fight against LV. > > Well, if that is the tack JKR takes, I would say that amounts to explicitly approving of child abuse. Lupinlore From elfundeb at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 16:41:06 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:41:06 -0500 Subject: Book 7 Title Message-ID: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163002 As Laura has reported, the title of Book 7 has been revealed behind the (now unlocked) door on JKR's site. If you want to discuss out how to navigate your way through the door to the title, please ask on the OT-Chatter list. If you're ready to speculate on the title's meaning, read on . . . . *** spoiler space*** X X X X X X X X X After an initial stopped-dead-in-my-tracks 'huh', I'm ready to dissect its meaning: 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do so), so it must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a place. 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in some fashion. 3. Is it deathly because many people die there, because it is in the underworld or is heaven, or something else? Until I think up something better, I'll bet only the pure in heart can go there and emerge unscathed. 4. Is it the Locked Room? That would make it a bit like heaven, too. Please dissect, rip apart, and otherwise discuss. Debbie who didn't bother to navigate the site; someone told her the answer [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 16:53:49 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:53:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163003 Beatrice wrote: > 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest > boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and > saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? SSSusan: See, I just love this question! Why not, indeed? I may be way off, but when a question like this comes up, I always have an image of JKR doing a forehead smack and saying, "Eh, I should have thought of that!" I do think that I've heard postulated the idea that DD wasn't sure of the *precise* location of the cave, though, only its general area. If that were the case, and given the difficult terrain around the cave, it's possible that DD would not have wanted to shoot for something too specific and then end up, say, on some craggy, 2'x2' outcropping 50' above the sea, rather than in the cave. > 3. Are you reassured by Dumbledore's wry humor about the potion > in the cave ("That was no health drink")? How grave is his > condition? Is there any possibility for recovery? SSSusan: I've long held that DD knew only too well how dire his situation was at this point. Frankly, I think he used the humor to comfort Harry, who had real reason to be worried. > 4. Harry wants to bring DD to Madam Pomfrey (or vice versa), > but DD insists on seeing Snape. Harry's reluctance is > understandable, but what do you make of DD insistence that he see > Severus? SSSusan: That Snape has the history, of course -- that he knows about what happened to DD's hand, that he would be more likely to understand any Dark Magic involved in the potion & cave water, that he would know without any explanation or protestation how very serious the situation was and how there was no time to lose. There's also always that possibility that DD knew he was dying and was going to "make" ("ask"? "command"? "beg"?) Snape to do the deed they'd talked about before.... > 6. When you first read that the Dark Mark was flying over > Hogwarts, what was your initial reaction? Did you think that > someone had been murdered? If so, who? Did you believe that > the "major death" had already occurred or were you prepared for > something more? SSSusan: I definitely thought someone(s) had already been murdered, yes. I'm sure my mind ran through any number of possibilities, but I don't think I settled on any one candidate or candidates. > 7. Did you see Dumbledore's strength on the flight back to the > castle as a sign that he might recover from his injuries? Or > simply a rally due to adrenaline? SSSusan: I get so sad just thinking about this scene. :-( Yes, I saw it exactly as a rally due to adrenaline and dire need. I think that because the Dark Mark was there, DD was able to muster enough strength -- and only enough so -- to fly back to Hogwarts, so that he could see what had happened and if he could help in any way. I believe he was worried beyond belief for his students and staff and knew that he had to find a way to get back. I also believe it took almost all that he had left to do so. > 9. Upon reaching the deserted tower, Dumbledore orders Harry > again to wake Severus and bring him to DD. If there is a > possibility that DEs are in the castle, why send Harry into the > castle on an errand? Why not accompany him? Why does he order > him to talk to no one? Why not alert some one like McGonagall or > Hagrid, if Harry should meet them along the way? SSSusan: I think DD didn't accompany Harry because his strength was sapped and he physically couldn't. I think he instructed Harry to stop and talk to no one because he knew his remaining time was very, very short without Snape's intervention. > 13. Draco and DD disagree about who Snape is working for Well, I > am going to ask again: Where do Snape's loyalties lie? Okay, okay > you don't have to answer that ? just see the last 10,000 posts. SSSusan: Heh. Well, of course Draco is wrong and Snape's working for DD and against Voldy. :) But it will prove beneficial that Draco still believes Snape's on Voldy's side, as it will help Snape to be in a position to convince Draco to give up the DE path. >14. ... Who else might be in hiding? SSSusan: Amelia Bones. Maybe! ;-) > 18. Again a common question: Why does DD plead with Snape? What > is he pleading for? Why does his tone frighten Harry more > than "anything he had experienced all evening?" SSSusan: Because he can sense the horribleness inherent in whatever it is DD is "saying" to Snape (which is that he must kill DD, of course!). > 19. And again, sigh: What is the hatred and revulsion on > Snape's face? What revolts him? SSSusan: That this is what he must do by virtue of having promised DD he'd do whatever necessary to assist him. I suspect, also, that he's truly revolted by having to kill (dare I say "again"??). I believe he sincerely wanted to leave that in his PAST, not be called upon to resort to killing, even for a cause, even in wartime. Not to mention he may well be pissed that DD's forcing him to lose the (apparently already weak) trust of the Order members and to have to leave Hogwarts and go on the run. Just my two knuts, of course. Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 16:52:42 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:52:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's motivations (Was: Order Members' Motivations for Joining Up?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163004 Jen: OFH was a bad choice there, 'personal' is a better choice. In > the quote from OOTP (chap. 26), Snape had a 'curious, almost > satisfied expression' about discovering what the Dark Lord says to > his DE's. I'm sure he feels pride because frankly he's doing a job > NO one else can do given his superb Occlumency skills. But my guess > is one huge part of his satisfaction is holding power over Voldemort > in a way that Voldemort once held over him (speculation). Carol responds: Funny how differently we react to scenes. I read Snape's curiously satisfied expression as resulting from *Harry's* realizing what Snape's job was. It was a first step toward, if not reconciliation, at least mutual understanding of their roles as allies. Yes, Snape takes pride in his dangerous work, but he wants recognition for it, specifically from Harry because Harry needs to understand that Snape really is risking his life for the Order and for Dumbledore or they'll never get anywhere. ("Do you get it now, Potter? We're allies. You are neither special nor important, merely the Prophecy Boy who became so through no action or merit of his own. You can't defeat Voldemort without my help.") Only Snape can't say that directly without blowing his cover and/or revealing too much to Voldemort when he unavoidably exposes some of Harry's memories through the Occlumency lessons. If encounters with Snape are revealed, best that they be unpleasant. But, yes, his motives are personal, particularly his relationship to Dumbledore, who trusts him and believes in him. And yes, no one else could do his job, both because of his superb Occlumency skills and because no one else in the Order can spy on the DEs and pass as one of them. But still, I'm sure that Snape's satisfaction in this scene relates specifically to Harry. Jen: I believe remorse took Snape to Dumbledore's door and was the basis of their trust, but think a fury for personal vengeance fuels Snape's desire to defeat Voldemort. Carol: I don't see that fury for personal vengeance against Voldemort, even though I do believe that he sincerely wants to help bring Voldemort down. All of the fury we've seen from Snape relates in some way to James Potter, who had the colossal nerve to die without allowing Snape to fulfill his life debt, and/or Sirius Black, who wanted (in Snape's view) to murder him and who (Snape thought till proven wrong) had betrayed the Potters to their deaths, making Snape's efforts to undo his revelation of the Prophecy futile. If only he could have just prevented their deaths and be done with it! But now he has the dangerous role of double agent, which in some ways he relishes because, as you say, only he can do it. But his hatred seems to me to be reserved for the dead James and for Harry, who constantly reminds Snape, by his appearance and behavior, of his failure to save James. Also, I think, he feels genuine remorse for Lily's death--not that he *loved* her or that she showed him compassion (I don't see it in the Pensieve scene, sorry), but that he didn't want an innocent woman to die). If he hadn't wanted to prevent her death and that of her infant, I don't think he'd have gone to Dumbledore in the first place. So Harry reminds him of his failure to save Lily as well as James and of the inadvertent results of his revelation of the Prophecy, the creation of Harry's scar and Voldemort's prophesied nemesis. So, yes, he wants Voldemort destroyed and he wants an important part in that destruction, but he doesn't seem to feel the same sort of passionate hatred toward Voldemort, whom he regards more as a deadly menace than a personal enemy, IMO. The closest Snape comes to expressing "fury" with regard to Voldemort is his words to Harry: "Do not speak the Dark Lord's name!" For some reason, the name Voldemort seems to activate Snape's Dark Mark and make it painful. (My own theory is that the DM is sentient, much as a wand or a Foe Glass is sentient, and knows that Snape is its master's enemy.) But the enmity isn't as personal as his hatred of James or his loyalty to Dumbledore. It's more intellectual, a knowledge that this Dark Wizard must be deatroyed combined with the belief that his own varied knowledge and skills (Occlumency, the Dark Arts, DADA, possibly Potions), not to mention his DE connections (notably the Malfoys) are essential to the job. So I suppose I agree with you about Snape's attitude toward his own contributions, just not the reading of the scene with Harry or the "fury" toward Voldemort. Jen: I'm just speculating that Snape wants LV destroyed for the sake of his destruction and not for a personal reason which also includes value for other people (beyond what all Order members share, i.e., defeating Voldemort is good for the WW). Carol: I don't see how an impersonal desire for Voldemort's destruction (which is also what I see in Snape) is consistent with the "fury" you attribute to Snape, which would have to result from some personal wrong that Snape wants to avenge (for example, Voldemort murdered Snape's mother). I'm pretty sure that, for Snape, it's all about the Potters (and Dumbledore's trust). So Snape's personal vendetta against Voldemort, if he has one, would be for killing the Potters despite his efforts to thwart him.(?) Also, once he had tried to prevent the murders and spied on Voldemort for Dumbledore, he became Voldemort's secret enemy and there was no going back. If Voldemort found out, he was dead, so he might as well continue to fight, secretly, on Dumbledore's side, as only he could, and at the same time earn the trust and respect he craved. > > Jen, thanking zgirnius for the friendly welcome to Camp DDM and > finding the smores quite tasty. :-) > Carol, who's glad to have you with us and grateful for the warm campfire since it's unusually cold in Tucson (Homemade fruitcake, anyone?) From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 17:05:03 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:05:03 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163005 Debbie: > As Laura has reported, the title of Book 7 has been revealed > behind the (now unlocked) door on JKR's site. > > > > > *** spoiler space*** > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > > > > > > After an initial stopped-dead-in-my-tracks 'huh', I'm ready to dissect its meaning: > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do > so), so it must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a > place. > > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in > some fashion. > > 3. Is it deathly because many people die there, because it is in > the underworld or is heaven, or something else? SSSusan: My favorite dictionary also does not provide a noun version of "hallows," so I'm with you on the person, place or thing guess. I think one of the most obvious place options, especially given the almost-play on words, would be Godric's Hollow. Is it perhaps considered sacred or holy because it is rather like a cemetery, as the site of the atrocious double-murder of James & Lily? perhaps even also because it is the site where Harry was able to temporarily reduce Voldy to almost-death? Debbie: > Until I think up something better, I'll bet only the pure in heart > can go there and emerge unscathed. SSSusan: So our Harry would have to go there solo, do you think? ???? Debbie: > 4. Is it the Locked Room? That would make it a bit like heaven, > too. SSSusan: Aaaargh! I can't wrap my head around this yet! I need some of you super-creative, innovative thinkers to help out here! Siriusly Snapey Susan, who also didn't figure out the clues at JKR's site; I'm never patient enough (let alone talented enough! ;-)) for that From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 21 17:09:32 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:09:32 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163006 Debbie: > *** spoiler space*** > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > > After an initial stopped-dead-in-my-tracks 'huh', I'm ready to > dissect its meaning: > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do > so), so it must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a place. Jen: I thought of All Hallow's Eve after looking up the word in my dictionary and that made me think of Godric's Hollow. Like the Deathly Hallows (Eve). > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in some > fashion. > > 3. Is it deathly because many people die there, because it is in > the underworld or is heaven, or something else? Until I think up > something better, I'll bet only the pure in heart can go there and > emerge unscathed. > > 4. Is it the Locked Room? That would make it a bit like heaven, > too. Jen: I really like this idea, especially since the Locked Room is the most likely place for Voldemort to meet his end given the dual themes of death and love. Then that might mean Godric's Hollow and the Deathly Hallows of the Locked Room are linked in JKR's mind, Voldemort's demise was a combination of Lily's sacrifice and what Harry has to do in book 7 to finally defeat him. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:09:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:09:34 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163007 Lupinlore wrote: > > But she wasn't. When Umbridge's abuse of Harry began the Ministry had not yet put her in charge of Hogwarts, nor even expanded her powers. Once again, DD stands by and tacitly consents to Harry being abused. Thus, abuse being approved by the "epitome of goodness," is approved. At least in the message which I don't think JKR intends to send. Carol responds: I'd still like to see evidence that Dumbledore knew what was happening in Umbridge's detentions, which I do see as abuse. Harry wasn't seeing DD face to face and he refused to report the incidents to McGonagall. There was no gossip in the school about the detentions (no one but HRH and Lee Jordan, who received a similar detention, seems to know about them, and the schoolboy code will prevent Lee and his friends, the Twins, from snitching on Umbridge. Instead, Lee gets revenge with the Nifflers.) Yes, we have Hermione's statement way back in SS/PS that DD knows almost everything that happens in the school, but how? He's not omniscient, and I'm sure he's not spying on his teachers in their classrooms or offices. There are no portraits (or ghosts or even Poltergeists) to witness what Umbridge is doing to Harry, only those foul kittens gamboling on their plates. And they're not likely to report dear Dolores's actions to Albus Dumbledore. Again, Dumbledore can't be blamed for not acting on what he doesn't know about, and I see no way he could know about what goes on in Umbridge's detentions. Now he did know, thanks to Snape, that Umbridge was trying to use Veritaserum on Harry and that Snape had provided her with fake Veritaserum. And he can't help but be aware of the Educational Decrees, which are not in his power to revoke because they're Ministry approved. He lets the other teachers and the students undermine them--and, with the exception of Trelawney, they do a superb job of it. But the detentions? How could he possibly know about them given Harry's silence on the matter and the absence of a portrait or other spy to report to him? Carol, just asking for a little canon evidence for DD's awareness of Umbridge's cruel detentions From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 17:11:02 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:11:02 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> References: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40612210911w6bd0b733q52aad647bb1dcdef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163008 On 12/21/06, elfundeb wrote: > > As Laura has reported, the title of Book 7 has been revealed behind the > (now > unlocked) door on JKR's site. If you want to discuss out how to navigate > your way through the door to the title, please ask on the OT-Chatter list. > > If you're ready to speculate on the title's meaning, read on . . . . montims: The Oxford English dictionary shows: hallow /*hal*o/ ? *verb* *1* make holy; consecrate. *2* honour as holy. *3* *hallowed*greatly revered. ? *noun* archaic a saint or holy person. and Halloween (also *Hallowe'en*) ? *noun* the night of 31 October, the eve of All Saints' Day. ? ORIGIN contraction of *All Hallow Even* All Hallows is 1st November - All Saints Day. I think it might refer to the fateful night and another Halloween when Harry and Voldemort complete the prophecy... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rondynella at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 16:11:08 2006 From: rondynella at yahoo.com (Rondee) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:11:08 -0000 Subject: JK's secret door is open for the title of book 7!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163009 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "laurawkids" wrote: > > go to mugglenet if you need hints on how to get in! Yippee!! Then we > can chew on what it might mean. > > Merry Christmas! > Laura > The title is a bit... It sounds a bit ominous! Not a children book anymore. Rondee From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:03:15 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:03:15 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163010 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb wrote: > > If you're ready to speculate on the title's meaning, read on . . . . > > *** spoiler space*** > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > X > > After an initial stopped-dead-in-my-tracks 'huh', I'm ready to dissect its > meaning: > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do so), so it > must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a place. > > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in some > fashion. > A "hallow" can also be a physical object. New Age movement versions of the Arthurian legend sometimes refer to various of the objects associated with Arthur (the Grail, Excalibur, etc) as "hallows." A "deathly hallow" would be a holy or powerful object associated with death -- in other words, a horcrux. Thus the title, I strongly suspect, simply reads "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes." Lupinlore From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 21 17:35:00 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:35:00 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JK's secret door is open for the title of book 7!!!!!!!!! Message-ID: <32175492.1166722500571.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163011 >The title is a bit... It sounds a bit ominous! Not a children book >anymore. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER Bart: After the Half-Blood Prince, I would be almost unsurprised if it turned out that a key element of the story is Sirius communicating through the mirror, getting Harry's attention yelling, "Hallowwwwwwww! Hallowwwwwwwww!" ALMOST unsurprised. Bart From ljuk at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 17:28:06 2006 From: ljuk at hotmail.com (James Little) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:28:06 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163012 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Debbie: > > *** spoiler space*** > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > > > After an initial stopped-dead-in-my-tracks 'huh', I'm ready to > > dissect its meaning: > > > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do > > so), so it must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a place. > > Jen: I thought of All Hallow's Eve after looking up the word in my > dictionary and that made me think of Godric's Hollow. Like the > Deathly Hallows (Eve). > > > > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in some > > fashion. > > > > 3. Is it deathly because many people die there, because it is in > > the underworld or is heaven, or something else? Until I think up > > something better, I'll bet only the pure in heart can go there and > > emerge unscathed. > > > > 4. Is it the Locked Room? That would make it a bit like heaven, > > too. > > Jen: I really like this idea, especially since the Locked Room is > the most likely place for Voldemort to meet his end given the dual > themes of death and love. Then that might mean Godric's Hollow and > the Deathly Hallows of the Locked Room are linked in JKR's mind, > Voldemort's demise was a combination of Lily's sacrifice and what > Harry has to do in book 7 to finally defeat him. > I have been looking at the other titles in the series and it seems to me that they all refer to the main adventure which Harry follows through that year(even if the main villian has little to do with it). I wonder if the Horcrux Hunt is being referred to here as it would be a suitable thing to keep the action going and the disposal of them is deathly to Voldemort, and could be hazardous to whoever is looking for them. From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:37:47 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:37:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JK's secret door is open for the title of book 7!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <469577.1992.qm@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163013 wrote: go to mugglenet if you need hints on how to get in! Yippee!! Then we can chew on what it might mean. Merry Christmas! Laura ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The title is a bit... It sounds a bit ominous! Not a children book anymore. Rondee ============================================= Jeremiah replies: True, the title doesn't sound as juvanile (meaning young... not in the nasty way...) I was a bit disappointed, though. It lascks the pizzaz the other titles have but it definitely makes sense. Actually, I think it's the only title that makes sense in the context of already knowing the story. However, if I had never read any of the books (*gasp* what would life be like if that had happened... Oh, sadnes...) I wouldn't have understood it. But, then again... maybe I don't! :) She's like that, ya know? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cress11net at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:29:13 2006 From: cress11net at yahoo.com (lysippe11) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:29:13 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40612210911w6bd0b733q52aad647bb1dcdef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163014 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Janette wrote: > > On 12/21/06, elfundeb wrote: > > > > As Laura has reported, the title of Book 7 has been revealed behind the > > (now > > unlocked) door on JKR's site. If you want to discuss out how to navigate > > your way through the door to the title, please ask on the OT-Chatter list. > > > > If you're ready to speculate on the title's meaning, read on . . . . > > > > montims: > The Oxford English dictionary shows: > hallow > > /*hal*o/ > > ? *verb* *1* make holy; consecrate. *2* honour as holy. *3* > *hallowed*greatly revered. > > ? *noun* archaic a saint or holy person. > and > Halloween > > (also *Hallowe'en*) > > ? *noun* the night of 31 October, the eve of All Saints' Day. > > ? ORIGIN contraction of *All Hallow Even* > All Hallows is 1st November - All Saints Day. > > I think it might refer to the fateful night and another Halloween when Harry > and Voldemort complete the prophecy... > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > I think the significant OED entry is the following: 2. In pl. ["Hallows," as used in the title] applied to the shrines or relics of saints; the gods of the heathen or their shrines. In the phrase to seek hallows, to visit the shrines or relics of saints; orig. as in sense 1, the saints themselves being thought of as present at their shrines. Cf. quot. c1440 in 1. Now this is really interesting...a "relic" which contains a person's "presence"...sounds like another way of saying a horcrux to me. Also, there's a pilgrimage overtone to the word, perhaps referring to Harry's search for each of the horcrux/relics in turn? Just a thought, Lysi From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:44:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:44:30 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163015 wynnleaf wrote: > I think the notion of proposing that some other student intentionally caused the vial to drop and Snape did nothing about it is quite a stretch. If Draco caused the vial to break in full view of Snape, yet Snape did nothing and even taunted Harry with it, then this goes beyond what we've been shown in the past of Snape's allowances for Slytherins. Carol responds: I agree. It was either Snape breaking it "accidentally" in full view of the students, which seems almost equally unlikely, or the potion vial slipping when Harry's back was turned, which Draco and Snape found amusing and which Snape used, once he realized that Hermione had Evanescoed the rest of Harry's potion, as a reason to give Harry a zero, just as at other times he's given Harry a zero based on the appearance of the potion. Harry's anger was not at Snape for ostensibly breaking the potion vial, which breaks when his back is turned, but for the unfair point deduction. > wynnleaf: > If Snape did not actually drop the vial, and JKR was deceiving both > Harry and the reader, then it would almost certainly be because she > wanted Harry to think something bad about Snape that wasn't exactly > true. But as I've said before, if Snape didn't drop the vial, we'll have to find out in Book 7, or any "deception" on JKR's part regarding this has no point. Carol: I disagree. I think that not seeing what Snape actually did or didn't do contributes to Snape's ambiguity. It's also yet another example of Harry's pov creating a reality that doesn't necessarily exist. Another minor example that won't be returned to--Harry doesn't see Snape throw the jar of cockroaches, which merely explodes above his head, but he assumes that he threw it. However, the exploding jar looks to me more like accidental magic of the kind that causes sparks to fly from Snape's wand in PoA and caused Harry to "blow up" Aunt Marge. we won't be told, either, that Snape knew perfectly well that DD was coming downstairs and kept Harry there to keep him from running off down the wrong corridor, which I'm pretty sure is what really happened despite Harry's conclusion that Snape was trying to thwart him. The scenes are open to different interpretations and allow us to draw our own conclusions about Snape, which may or may not be the same as Harry's. But there's no need to show whether Snape did or didn't drop the vial. It's the point deduction that was unfair. But, as I think I suggested in another post (in which I brilliantly attributed the scene to the wrong book), and as Steve has explained in some detail, the individual marks have yet to keep Harry from passing Potions, especially since this scene actually occurs in his OWL year, when the end-of-year mark can have no bearing on whether he passes the class or not. We're not going to get the missed bits of the Quirrell/Snape conversation Harry overhead in SS/PS or of the Draco/Snape conversation that he overheard in HBP. (The Snape/DD conversation that *Hagrid* partially overheard and inadequately reported is another matter.) We just need to be aware that what Harry "knows" is not always accurate and that offpage action is subject to varying interpretations. (Harry's interpretation, as presented by the narrator or by Harry himself in dialogue, may or may not be right--all too often, when we do discover what really happened, Harry is wrong.) But until or unless the "whoops!" moment is explained, what actually happened will remain ambiguous. Which is fine with me. Not everything can or should be explained, and if JKR were to account for all the times that Harry has been wrong, even just wrong about Snape, she'd have to write several chapters of pointless and boring exposition. It's a character moment and a conflict moment and its best left with the reader suspecting, but not knowing, that Snape dropped the vial. Carol, who still thinks that it was Harry who carelessly placed it, causing both Snape and Draco a moment of unexpected and vindictive pleasure From tifflblack at earthlink.net Thu Dec 21 17:47:28 2006 From: tifflblack at earthlink.net (tiffany black) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 09:47:28 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <004101c72528$15a394b0$6402a8c0@TIFFANY> No: HPFGUIDX 163016 Debbie: > As Laura has reported, the title of Book 7 has been revealed behind > the (now unlocked) door on JKR's site. > Tiffany: Argh! It's not on the text only site yet. Could someone please email me privately so as not to spoil it for anyone else and let me know what it is? My address is tifflblack at earthlink.net From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 17:49:22 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:49:22 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163017 S P O I L E R S P A C E FaLaLaLaLa LaLaLaLa Lupinlore: > A "hallow" can also be a physical object. New Age movement versions > of the Arthurian legend sometimes refer to various of the objects > associated with Arthur (the Grail, Excalibur, etc) as "hallows." > > A "deathly hallow" would be a holy or powerful object associated > with death -- in other words, a horcrux. Thus the title, I strongly > suspect, simply reads "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes." SSSusan: Eww. I see where you're coming from, but I don't like it. I mean, since "holy" is likely a part of this, could that fit into a horcrux?? Yes, a powerful object associated with death sounds like a horcrux. But a *holy* object associated with death does not, to me. If this is one's line of thinking, though, how about some as-yet- unseen-in-the-series object that helps to DEFEAT death? That that's the "association with death" you mention? Siriusly Snapey Susan, who's used up her posts for the day (darn it!), and so who needs to say in her sig line that she really liked the idea just posted that the "deathly hallows" could refer to two Halloweens -- the fateful first one of GH and perhaps the next Halloween to come! From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 17:50:57 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:50:57 -0000 Subject: JK's secret door is open!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163018 Laura wrote: > > go to mugglenet if you need hints on how to get in! Yippee!! Then we > can chew on what it might mean. > Carol adds: Or Leaky. And BTW, don't use Netscape 7.2 unless you want to be left, literally, in the dark. I had to resort to IE (ugh), but it also works from Netscape 8.1. BTW, CMC might try FILKing a certain tidbit to the tune of "Deck the Halls" once it becomes generally known, but I don't want to say too much at this point! Carol, who suggests clicking around blindly for awhile before you resort to either Mugglenet or Leaky From tonks_op at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 18:04:33 2006 From: tonks_op at yahoo.com (Tonks) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:04:33 -0000 Subject: JK's secret door is open!!!!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163019 I just posted a link on OT that tell you step by step how to get into the room and what to do there. It also just tells you the title if you don't want to mess with all of that. Tonks_op Who has been off on a 'secret mission' at Yahoo Answers. From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 18:13:22 2006 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:13:22 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163020 S P O I L E R A L E R T What a great holiday treat! I kept hoping for something! Perhaps "deathly hallows" refers to the different places where horcruxes are hidden? Each place either becomes a "deathly hallow" when a horcrux is hidden there. A horcrux is meant to prevent a death, yet ironically can only be created by a death, and the ground where one is hidden would be considered hallowed? Or perhaps it is a clue to where the horcruxes can be found? So far LV has placed 2 of the 3 known horcruxes in places associated with his crimes against others (the cave where he tortured the children, and the house of gaunt,where he learned of his father, decided to kill him, and framed his uncle?). I'm really disturbed by having "deathly" in the title. . . might not bode well... Beatrice From Aixoise at snet.net Thu Dec 21 18:15:29 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:15:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: <004101c72528$15a394b0$6402a8c0@TIFFANY> Message-ID: <023901c7252b$ff7270e0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163021 Tiffany wrote: Argh! It's not on the text only site yet. Could someone please email me privately so as not to spoil it for anyone else and let me know what it is? Stacey now: Or you can just go to Amazon- it's already there! Stacey (who just signed up for an email alert when the book is for sale but who knows full-well that she'll probably find out the sale date from here or any of the other HP sites well before that email arrives). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From tidblgr72 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 18:30:55 2006 From: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com (J) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:30:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) Message-ID: <741451.5219.qm@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163022 S P O I L E R ! ! ! C A U T I O N ! ! ! ! Jeremiah However, if he's going to Godric Hollow it is a play on words... I think Hallow has the meaning of "to honor as holy; venerate" and Hollow is:"without meaning or signifgance." Also, there is a "Hallow Victory" and this is introduced in the first book when Dumbledore's Chocolate Frog Card informs us that he destroyed the Evil Wizard (for got his name I think it's Grindlevald or something like that) in 1947 (or a date in that era). So, while Harry would be able to defeat Voldemort it is a Hallow Victory because there will always be evil...? So will we have a Hallow Victory in Godric Hollow? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rosered2318 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 18:19:33 2006 From: rosered2318 at yahoo.com (rosered2318) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:19:33 -0000 Subject: Meaning of Book 7 Title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163023 Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Looking back on the titles of the past 6 books, the first four directly related to the plot of the book, but the last two did not. The Order of the Pheonix had almost nothing to do with Harry's fifth year. However, if we look at the function of the Order of the Pheonix, it was to protect Harry and draw out Lord Voldemort. Half Blood Prince - if you believe Snape is a good guy - can have the same connotation. IN fact, the only one that doesn't readily fit into this is the Chamber of Secrets, but if you squint around the edges it certainly did draw out Lord Voldemort now that we know the diary was a Horcrux. The two definitions that Merriam-Webster online for Hallow is 1)to make holy or set apart for holy use and 2)to respect greatly. Looking at these definitions from the perspective of protecting Harry, Godric's Hollow itself is a the primary factor, but what his mother did for him can be seen as "set apart for holy use." In addition, Dumbledore was "respect[ed] greatly" so his death may factor in as protecting Harry. >From the perspective of drawing Voldemort out, if Hallow is used as a noun then Horcrux is the antonym. In addition, the events at Godric's Hollow is what is going to allow Voldemort to be permanently drawn out and put away. Could Deathly Hallows be referring to the series of events that will allow Harry to do battle with, and permanently "vanquish," Voldemort? rosered From heidi at heidi8.com Thu Dec 21 18:33:40 2006 From: heidi at heidi8.com (heiditandy) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:33:40 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title and Anagrams In-Reply-To: <023901c7252b$ff7270e0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163024 Crossposting from the discussion thread on FictionAlley ( http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=121178 ) as I was playing with the Anagram Generator, and found some things that might be clues to things in Book Seven: LAD LAY THE HOWLS: Does this mean a breakup between Tonks and Remus when Sirius returns? A WAD HELLS HOTLY: This probably would involve Lucius AT WAY HOLDS HELL: Someone makes an Orpheus-trip into the Underworld? LAW SAY DOTH HELL: A reformation of the wizarding government? That would be wonderful! LAY WAS DOTH HELL: Stomach monster issues again? Meh. And the ones that I actually think means something, given Harry's wand? LAD SAT HEW HOLLY LAD SAW THE HOLLY I know it's far-fetched but it is possible that he'll see the holly tree his wand came from, which would mesh nicely with Book 5, which contains a reference to the bird from which the core of his wand comes. Heidi From fairwynn at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 18:36:46 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 18:36:46 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: <741451.5219.qm@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163025 > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > ! > ! > ! > > C > A > U > T > I > O > N > ! > ! > ! > ! > wynnleaf Here is a link that's floating around on the Lexicon Forum and might be of interest in reading about "hallows" as sacred objects. http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm Go to Arthurian A-Z and click "H" to read about "hallows." Don't know how much this applies to HP and the DH, but it *could.* Seems to fit with the idea possibly hallows being horcruxes -- maybe. wynnleaf From kjones at telus.net Thu Dec 21 18:58:52 2006 From: kjones at telus.net (Kathryn Jones) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:58:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458AD96C.4000601@telus.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163027 Beatrice23 wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Chapter > 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower. > > QUESTIONS: > > 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest > boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and > saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? KJ: I believe that much of the business of the cave was a training expedition for Harry. Harry needed to travel the same path as Voldemorte in order to be able to sense any magical traces. It seemed to me that Dumbledore had already been there and was aware of the protections. It seemed like he wanted to run Harry through them. > 2. On page 580, after they return to Hogsmead from the cave, > Harry notes that he has a "searing stitch in his chest." Is this a > cramp from exertion or could it be something else? KJ: I think that it is a physical reaction to the sub-conscious knowledge that Dumbledore might be dying and that he had a hand in it by forcing the potion on him. > 3. Are you reassured by Dumbledore's wry humor about the potion > in the cave ("That was no health drink")? How grave is his > condition? Is there any possibility for recovery? KJ: Even when Dumbledore asked for Snape, I did not have the feeling that it was for medical treatment. I think that Dumbledore was dying and knew it. > 4. Harry wants to bring DD to Madam Pomfrey (or vice versa), but > DD insists on seeing Snape. Harry's reluctance is understandable, > but what do you make of DD insistence that he see Severus? KJ: I think that he wanted Snape for some other reason. Perhaps he wanted the opportunity to demonstrate Snape's loyalty to Harry before he died or to talk to them both about what was about to occur. > 5. What do you make of Rosemerta's sudden appearance? Her > attire? Is there any indication at this point of her (albeit > unwilling) duplicity? KJ: I just thought that it was lucky that she was there. Imperius never occurred to me. > 6. When you first read that the Dark Mark was flying over > Hogwarts, what was your initial reaction? Did you think that someone > had been murdered? If so, who? Did you believe that the "major > death" had already occurred or were you prepared for something more? KJ: I took it to mean that the castle was under attack. I felt that it was Dumbledore they were after from the beginning, so I didn't think that they would leave until Dumbledore returned. > 7. Did you see Dumbledore's strength on the flight back to the > castle as a sign that he might recover from his injuries? Or simply a > rally due to adrenaline? KJ: I wondered about that at the time. It must have been a reaction to adrenaline, but he was a little too perky in my opinion. > 8. On page 583, as they speed toward the Dark Mark, Harry > wonders if he would again be responsible for the death of a friend. > What death(s) does Harry feel responsible for? Is he really > responsible? KJ: I think that there is no doubt that Harry could consider his actions as responsible for the death of Sirius. He feels responsible for Cedric in that he died instead of Harry. Harry is suffering from survivor's guilt over Cedric. > 9. Upon reaching the deserted tower, Dumbledore orders Harry > again to wake Severus and bring him to DD. If there is a possibility > that DEs are in the castle, why send Harry into the castle on an > errand? Why not accompany him? Why does he order him to talk to no > one? Why not alert some one like McGonagall or Hagrid, if Harry > should meet them along the way? KJ: I think that Dumbledore just wanted him out of there at any cost. I think that the plan was arranged with Snape and DD did not want Harry to see it. DD told Draco that he knew that his task was to kill him. He could only have been given this information by Snape. I also think that DD suspects that there is still an unidentified spy in the order or the castle and he does not want Harry at risk. He is desperately trying to save Snape's life in order to have him in place with Voldemorte. > 10. Why does DD immobilize Harry? How can he be sure that Harry > will be safe under his cloak? Doesn't this ultimately leave Harry > defenseless? Is this a mistake? Is Harry ever in danger on the > tower? KJ: Dumbledore made the best of a bad situation. His options are narrowing and he just wanted Harry to not interfere. Harry was not in danger as long as he was not discovered. DD kept everyone's attention fixed on himself. > 11. What do you make of the exchange between Draco and DD? Is DD > stalling? Why would he praise Draco's plan to get DE's into the > castle? Is DD right about Draco not being a killer? Might he become > one? KJ: DD was definitely stalling. He knew Draco was unlikely to be able to kill him, and he knew that the disturbance would have Snape up before long. Snape knew exactly where to go, as well, so whatever Snape knew, DD knew. He did not want to lose Draco to the Dark, but it would also have saved Snape. It would not have left him in as good a position with Voldemorte. > 12. The vanishing cabinets have been around for awhile, at least > since CoS. Is it possible that someone else is aware of their > connection? Why does DD conclude so quickly that there must be a > pair? KJ: I think that he just knows how they work. Why he would have a Vanishing cabinet in the school, knowing that they are paired, is beyond me. > 13. Draco and DD disagree about who Snape is working forWell, I > am going to ask again: Where do Snape's loyalties lie? Okay, okay > you don't have to answer that just see the last 10,000 posts. KJ: Snape is DD's man all the way. I am still convinced that the statements made by DD after drinking the potion are Snape's and that DD is carrying them in the safest place he could find. This seems to me to be the resulting conversation that followed Snape's return to DD after finding out what Voldemorte intended to do about the prophecy. > 14. This has also been covered at length, but just for > consistency's sake, who else might be in hiding? Might LV also have > someone in hiding? KJ: I don't believe that Amelia Bones or Emmaline Vance are dead. If Amelia Bones has anything to do with Hufflepuff's cup, it might explain her disappearance. She may contact Harry in book 7. I believe that DD had the wandmaker stashed for the same reason. Voldemorte might have taken Fortescue. I think he has another spy. I think that DD suspects McGonnagle because he has never given her a straight answer since the first book. > 15. How are Draco and Dumbledore using the term "mercy?" Why is > it Dumbledore's mercy that matters now? KJ: I think that DD could still protect himself if he chose. By giving himself up, he is protecting Draco while still making his own agenda go forward. > 16. Dumbledore indicates his surprise that Draco would > allow/agree to let Fenrir Greybeck enter the castle. Why is it that > Draco might want to prevent Fenrir from coming? This is the second > time we have been reminded of Draco's connection to Greybeck. Why? > What is the connection? KJ: I don't read a connection into it. I think that DD is expressing his belief that Draco would not stoop so low as to risk his friends. > 17. The DEs are insistent that Draco finish the job himself, or > at least the unnamed DE is. Why is this important? Does it really > matters who finishes the job? Will there be consequences for Draco > or Snape since Draco did not ultimately murder DD? KJ: I think that this is sort of an initiation for Draco. If he fails, he will have proven that he is not DE material. He would still be useful as Lucius' son and heir for the provision of funds. I don't think that Voldemorte will do anything permanent to him. Snape will not be punished, as it had already been determined that Draco could not do it, so Snape is going to come out a hero to Voldemorte. It might make Voldie a bit nervous as Snape managed what Voldemorte could not. > 18. Again a common question: Why does DD plead with Snape? What > is he pleading for? Why does his tone frighten Harry more > than "anything he had experienced all evening?" KJ: Dumbledore had to plead with Snape because Snape had already refused to do it. He perhaps believed that he would be incapable of killing DD which is what might be meant by his assetion that DD took too much for granted. If Snape had chosen to defend DD, his plan would be over, as would Snape, and possibly Harry. I think that once Snape realized that Harry was there, his choices were over. > 19. And again, sigh: What is the hatred and revulsion on Snape's > face? What revolts him? KJ: He hates being forced into such a corner, he hates Harry for being the reason for it, he probably hates himself for getting himself into the whole situation in the first place, and I have no doubt that he momentarily hates Dumbledore for making him do it. > 20. Why is this Avada Kedavra spell different from the others we > have seen? (Note: Cedric simply crumples to the ground). Or is it? > Why does DD's body fly up in the air and then fall slowly back toward > the earth? KJ: He might not have been able to do it, and may have used a non-verbal spell to get the job done. He might also have been hoping that DD survived the experience. He would not have known how weak he was. > > Thanks to everyone in advance for their thoughtful responses. I look > forward to the ensuing discussion and to the next chapter. Also, I > would like to thank Shorty Elf for her helpful editing suggestions > > Beatrice. From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 21 19:05:19 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:05:19 -0500 Subject: Nothing much happened to Umbridge? (!!!!) Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163028 Not much happened to her? Being gang-raped by a herd of centaurs is 'not much' in your estimation? (JKR doesn't say so in so many words, but (a) anyone familiar with Classical mythology know what centaurs' reputation is, and (b) Umbridge's state after she is rescued from the forest certainly is consistent with post-rape trauma. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 21 19:05:19 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:05:19 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163029 We don't know what was in DD's letter, but if there was a non-interference clause, it would explain a lot. The WW considers breaking contracts and vows to be a very serious thing. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aliasnance at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 19:22:03 2006 From: aliasnance at yahoo.com (aliasnance) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:22:03 -0000 Subject: SPOILER! Book 7 Title - Definition of Word Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163031 SPOILER ******* SPOILER ******* SPOILER ******* WARNING ******* SPOILER ******* ******* ******* ******* ******* Jo is so great to give us, her fans, such wonderful Christmas presents! I wasn't sure if I knew the meaning of the word "Hallows", so I did a Google search. Here is what it came up with: Definitions of HALLOWS on the Web: name used by some traditions for Samhain, or Halloween crypt.eldritchs.com/wicca/glossary.html ("holy" or "holy night") the Oct. 31 Greater Sabbat, also called November Eve, the Celtic Samhain ("sow-en"); the beginning of the Celtic winter, and of the Celtic year; the beginning of the Witches' Year, when the Veil Between the Worlds grows thin and the spirits of the dead may return to Earth; the Descent of the Goddess to the Underworld; the final Harvest festival www.ravenquest.net/WyldeWoods/h.html Halloween, Oct. 31, 1981 Godric's Hollow. Harry is going to Godric's Hollow, and obviously there is something of importance there for him to find/learn. But what intriqued me the most was this: "when the Veil Between the Worlds grows thin and the spirits of the dead may return to Earth." The Veil in the Department of Mysteries will figure prominently in the story. I think that Harry is going to be in contact with Lily, James, Sirius, and possibly Luna's mother, who was a powerful witch, if I remember correctly from OOTP. (I'm at work on my lunch hour.) Also, I think the final battle will end in the locked room in the Department of Mysteries - the room which is filled with LOVE, which Harry possesses in abundance and Voldemort possesses not at all. I think I read on Leaky Cauldron about the prophecies smashed in the Dept. of Mysteries in OOTP about "at the solstice" and "none will come after." My thought is the final battle will come at the Summer Solstice, which is usually close to the end of Harry's school year, and the "none will come after" refers to Voldemorte, that an evil of such magnitude will never come again. Just my thoughts . . . THANK YOU, JO ROWLING, for giving me and all of your fans a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!! Nance From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 19:44:25 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:44:25 -0000 Subject: Deadly Saints Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163032 My first impression upon reading the new title this afternoon, was of Lupin's statement in the kitchen at 12GP, back in OoP. Then, I decided that the Hallows was just a reference to that notoriuos Halloween we've all been expecting to revisit in Book 7, at GH. Well, no doubt that *is* on tap. But, on further consideration, maybe the title does multiple duty. Deathly certainly does include the meanings: causing death, fatal, etc. Check the dictionary closest to you. Hallows also means Saints. As in *All Hallows* = *All Saints.* We've seen a few saints invoked in canon and Potter apocrypha (Hedwig, Walpurgis, etc.), sufficient to indicate Rowling's interest in this area. Interestingly enough, my ancient Roget's links *saint* to *phoenix* (Saint: good person 985: 5. ...phoenix). How's that for a noun. So, Deathly Hallows can be both a certain fatal holiday or some Deadly Saints. So back to that little quip of Lupin's. A little something that needs clarification in Book 7. You recall, the one were he tells Harry (Mr. Face death and Voldemort at every turn) that Harry is too young to join the Order of the Phoenix because : "There are dangers involved of which you can have no idea, any of you " (US 97). Well, I say there have been a number of significant Order on Order killings so far. Sirius and DD, to name a few. Deadly Saints, indeed. Guilty!DD rides again! Looking forward to it. Talisman From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 21 19:53:33 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:53:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Meaning of Book 7 Title Message-ID: <15530089.1166730813853.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163033 Spoilers removed. From: rosered2318 >The two definitions that Merriam-Webster online Merriem-Webster is one of the two dictionaries in contention for the definitive AMERICAN English dictionary (the other being the American Heritage Dictionary). Perhaps it would be better to look up the terms in question in a BRITISH English dictionary (unfortunately, last time I looked, Oxford was subscription only, so somebody is going to have to go to a library unless they subscribe). Bart From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Thu Dec 21 19:58:04 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:58:04 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Behind the Door & Spoilers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163034 Greetings from Hexquarters! Those of you who have solved JKR's latest puzzles are now in possession of news about Book Seven. We realize this information has been released into the public domain, and so while we are do not require Spoiler Space or Spoiler prefixes, we do appreciate those who are employing them. We also ask that, 1) that subject lines don't give away specific information to those who still wish to solve the puzzles for themselves; 2) that readers who do not know the hidden content and do not wish to have it revealed to them exercise caution. We repeat that the place to discuss features of JKR's website itself (as opposed to any canon in might contain) is OTChatter, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter As we have done in the past we will delete any messages requesting or giving help with navigation. These will be returned so that they may be reposted to OTC. Many thanks, Shorty Elf, for the List Elves From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:01:47 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:01:47 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc HBP 27, The ...Tower: To & From the Cave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Beatrice wrote: > > > 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest > > boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and > > saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? > > SSSusan: > See, I just love this question! Why not, indeed? I may be way off, > but when a question like this comes up, I always have an image of > JKR doing a forehead smack and saying, "Eh, I should have thought of > that!" > > I do think that I've heard postulated the idea that DD wasn't sure > of the *precise* location of the cave, though, only its general > area. ...edited... bboyminn: Here is the obvious difference between going to the cave and returning to Hogwarts. Going to the Cave is an unknown. Dumbledore knows the cave is protected, but he doesn't know specifically how and where those protective enchantments are placed, so logically, he arrives at a distance and proceeds with caution. Hogwarts/Hogsmead however is very much a known quantity. He can apparate directly there and know exactly what he will find and where he will find it. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:02:32 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:02:32 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163036 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > Here is a link that's floating around on the Lexicon Forum and might > be of interest in reading about "hallows" as sacred objects. > > http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm > Great link wynnleaf! I especially like the connection to Lugh. Brings to mind my old post from Aug. 18, 2002, HPfGU #42864, which includes, in pertinent part: ********************* Holly is also associated with the Celtic sun-god Lugh, the patron of sorcery no less. (I noted before posting that the Lugh connection has been suggested by Ronale7; see earlier discussions of this myth in various threads by searching for "Lugh"). A reading of the myth of Lugh provides many fertile comparisions between the Celtic hero and Harry: Oidche Lugnasa (Lugh's feast day) is HP's Birthday, July 31; Prophesy that evil king Balor (Lugh's grandpa) would be killed by grandson leads to Balor's failed attempt to kill Lugh; Lugh was brought up in the care of a master magician, to keep him safe; when Balor (a Fromorian) tries to take over the Tuatha de Danann, and has killed the Tautha king, Lugh emerges as the hero of the battle and the new king of his people. hmmmm. ********************** And from my #42894, of the same date: *************** In consideration of the interest in Stoned!Harry, here's a little something for you, Eloise. Lugh killed his evil grandfather with a *stone.* ********************* Lots of fertile ground with the Gaurdians of the Hallows, as well. Talisman, who did say the title does "multiple" duty. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:16:40 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:16:40 -0000 Subject: Nothing much happened to Umbridge? (!!!!) Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163037 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Not much happened to her? Being gang-raped by a herd of centaurs is 'not much' > in your estimation? Not really, no, since we have no indication that such is, in fact, what happened. Now, were we to be specifically told that, it might alter the equation, but all we know as of now is that she was frightened in some way. Which just makes for loose end number 5679 for JKR to pick up, or not, in Book VII. Doubtless, that is one reason it is becoming, according to news reports, very stressful. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:20:22 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:20:22 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163038 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > > We don't know what was in DD's letter, but if there was a non- interference > clause, it would explain a lot. The WW considers breaking contracts and vows to > be a very serious thing. > Yes, if there were such it would be very helpful as far as explanations go. Unfortunately, as of now we are completely in the dark as to that. And, barring revelations from Portrait!Dumbledore, I don't know how we would find out. It isn't as if Petunia is forthcoming with these kinds of things. Of course Ron and Hermione will be on hand to provoke things, so something might come out in anger. I suppose DD might have left a will or a pensieve moment, as well. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:25:14 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:25:14 -0000 Subject: Book VII title possibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163039 Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Spoiler Space Now for another take on the title of Book VII. Anyone familiar with Civil War Americana has run up against the term, "the Hallowed Dead" in reference to Confederate casualties. JKR isn't referring to that, but it is suggestive. Perhaps the Deathly Hallows Harry must deal with are the revered dead, or the causes of the revered dead. He must deal, in other words, with avenging his parents, Sirius, and Dumbledore. Given that, perhaps one theme of the book would be moving beyond the Deathly Hallows -- that is learning to let the revered dead rest and live his own life. In this perhaps he could be helped by Lupin, who has been moving through the world in a kind of suspended animation himself, but whose shipping developments might presage an awakening. Just a thought. Lupinlore From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Dec 21 20:32:38 2006 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:32:38 -0000 Subject: format of the book 7 title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163040 S P O I L E R S P A C E Was anyone else a little surprised at the format of the book 7 title? It doesn't seem to fit with the titles of the rest of the series. Most of the titles are, "Harry Potter and the Something of Something." I wonder why she didn't call book 7, "Harry Potter and the Hallows of Death" or Hallows of whatever else. I think it would have been just as effective and just as creepy. Just wondering. Allie (who leaves the dissection of the meaning of the title to others) From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 20:29:22 2006 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:29:22 -0000 Subject: Who's the OoP/castle spy?? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163041 It's been a long standing theory that there is a spy inside of the OoP, other than Snape that is. Some say McGonagall because DD never seems to be quite forward with her. She's second in charge of the school yet seems to be out of the loop a lot compared to even the Weasleys and Lupin. Others say it's Mundungus Fletcher. His constant thieving from the Black household aren't for self gain, but to give to Voldemort for what ever his reasons are. What do you think with the upcoming book having such a heavy plot ground betrayal and loyalness? Also what person do you think will have a very important role to play in book 7 that is not a "major" person in the story? Me personally, I believe it will be Professor Trelawney. Her predictions (though as crazy and hazy as they may seem at times) have all come true. From the first time you meet her and she tells Neville he'll break the tea set, to the prediction of great doom awaiting Umbridge, and Harry and the grim. This is what leads me to believe that Harry will indeed die in the last book. She has talked about his death soon to come a million times. But I do believe while he might die, it will be a type of supernatural death and will be brought back to life. Mitchell From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Dec 21 20:50:44 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:50:44 -0000 Subject: Deadly Saints In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163042 Talisman: > But, on further consideration, maybe the title does multiple duty. > > Deathly certainly does include the meanings: causing death, fatal, > etc. Check the dictionary closest to you. > > Hallows also means Saints. As in *All Hallows* = *All Saints.* Dungrollin: Indeed, that was my first thought, but then I thought of the Lord's Prayer, and "hallowed be thy name", and thought hang on a minute... Why does Hogwarts celebrate Halloween? Who exactly are the Hallows they are honouring? Could it perhaps be the founders? I wonder if the original point of the holiday was to forget about house rivalry? Perhaps the reason they used to celebrate it has been lost since the founders' split. And that "deathly"? Like dead, but not. Are the founders ghosts? Or are they still alive, perhaps? Hmm... Dungrollin. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 21:02:56 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:02:56 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 - Esoteric Wording In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163043 --- "wynnleaf" wrote: > wynnleaf > Here is a link that's floating around on the Lexicon > Forum and might be of interest in reading about > "hallows" as sacred objects. > > http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm > > Go to Arthurian A-Z and click "H" to read about "hallows." > > Don't know how much this applies to HP and the DH, but > it *could.* Seems to fit with the idea possibly hallows > being horcruxes -- maybe. > > wynnleaf > bboyminn: Excellent link, and most importantly, it does put it into the framework of a noun, and opens up new possibilities. If you notice, this provided link is to the Four Hollows of Ireland - 1. The Pole of Combat; 2. The Sword of Light; 3. The Cauldron of Cure; 4. The Stone of Destiny. or as represented in more modern terms - 1. The Sword; 2. The Spear; 3. The Cup; 4. The Pentacle. However at the bottom of this 'hollow' citation is a link to the 13 'Hollows of Britian'. Which again are sacred, but not necessarily religiously 'holy' objects. 'Hallow' while it does mean to make 'holy', I think is more commonly used to represent people, places, and things that are venerated, revered, or held with great respect or honor. That seems to fit more accurately with the list of Four Venerated Irish object and the Thirteen Revered British objects. http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm#HOB Another aspect I find intriguing is that it is /DeaTHly/ not /DeaDly/ Hollow. Deadly implies lethal; capable of causing death. However, to my way of thinking, 'Deathly' implies having a air, aura, or feel impling death, but not death itself. More formally: /Of, resembling, or characteristic of death/. For example; /a deathly silence/ impling a death-like silence. In short, 'Deadly' = death, but 'Deathly' = death-like. So, we seem to have a venerated object and objects having an essense or aura of death about them. Admitedly that could be the Horcruxes; it is possible that the title is simply setting up the McGuffin of the next book. The Hallows or Horcruxes will be the thing that everyone focuses on as the story evolves, but they may not necessarly be the key to resolving the story. Though it really does not take a rocket scientist to know that the next and final book will be about the Horcruxes. That is certainly the primary thing that is going to be on Harry's mind. So, maybe JKR just went an esoteric wording of what we already know. It's too bad we don't know what JKR's other two choices for the book title were, having all three would most certainly give us some real clues. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Dec 21 20:47:27 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:47:27 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612211247v75f5fcc8k6cb1064ca278bdb7@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163044 S P O I L E R S P A C E Was anyone else a little surprised at the format of the book 7 title? It doesn't seem to fit with the titles of the rest of the series. Most of the titles are, "Harry Potter and the Something of Something." I wonder why she didn't call book 7, "Harry Potter and the Hallows of Death" or Hallows of whatever else. I think it would have been just as effective and just as creepy. Just wondering. Allie (who leaves the dissection of the meaning of the title to others) =========================================== Jeremiah Relipes: Yes. I was suprised. but then I thought about thisngs like, "Order of the Phoenix" and that one stumped me... we have Philosopher's Stone/ Sorcerer's Stone, Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire, Order of the Pheonix, Half Blood Prince. So, really, only half of the titles are the X of X. HOWEVER! They are all "Things" Each one os not a something "of" something... they are all Proper Nouns. Where is the Deathly Hallow and/or what is the Deathly Hallow? Maybe "WHO" is the Deathly Hallow, since we can see that Sirius is/was the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and there is a "Goblet of Fire" and there are lots of people that make up the "Order of the Phoenix." It is a noun. (Yes, I say so, so it must be!!! LOL) Ok, Inmy opinion is is a noun. :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 21 21:24:42 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:24:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163045 > > We don't know what was in DD's letter, but if there was a non- > interference > > clause, it would explain a lot. The WW considers breaking > contracts and vows to > > be a very serious thing. > > > > Yes, if there were such it would be very helpful as far as > explanations go. Unfortunately, as of now we are completely in the > dark as to that. And, barring revelations from Portrait!Dumbledore, > I don't know how we would find out. It isn't as if Petunia is > forthcoming with these kinds of things. > > Of course Ron and Hermione will be on hand to provoke things, so > something might come out in anger. I suppose DD might have left a > will or a pensieve moment, as well. Magpie: I find it hard to imagine a non-interference clause from the King of i Interfere Whenever I Think It's Best. The guy left a baby on their doorstep in the middle of the night (for hours!) with a note. Would he really say, "Please take care of this baby...and I swear I won't ever interfere at all up until I take him to my school when he's 11 and you'll barely see him again?" There's never seemed to be any doubt that Dumbledore was in charge of this kid ultimately when he wants to be. I'm not sure why he'd even think that kind of clause was necessary. More than one book has featured scenes where the Dursleys are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint of Wizard interference. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 21:36:00 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:36:00 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163046 Carol: Just one small correction to Beatrice's excellent summary. Wasn't it Rosmerta, not Draco, who poisoned the mead? She would have done so under Draco's orders and then sold it to Slughorn with no direct involvement on Draco's part. Rosmerta, of course, would know of DD's fondness for her mead, and we know that it was Draco's idea to smuggle in the poisoned mead, but how did either of them know in advance that Slughorn would be buying it as a Christmas present for DD? Sorry to raise new questions here, but that part has always confused me! > > QUESTIONS: > > 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest > boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and > saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? Carol: That has puzzled me, too. I can only guess that they weren't exactly sure where the cave mouth was or that it was risky to Apparate, especially side-along Apparition, onto a cliff edge. Apparating to Hogsmeade, a known target that Harry can picture clearly in his mind (Destination, Determination, Deliberation). Also, of course, the streets of Hogsmeade are considerably flatter and less precarious than a cliffside or a boulder. > > 3. Are you reassured by Dumbledore's wry humor about the potion > in the cave ("That was no health drink")? How grave is his > condition? Is there any possibility for recovery? Carol: The fact that DD can respond with wry humor (and British understatement) reassures me that he's still Dumbledore--intelligent and unafraid of death or danger. But the understatement is exactly that, IMO. I think he knows that he's either dying or in grave danger. Clearly, Madam Pomfrey can't help him. *If* there's a chance of recovery, it depends on Snape. Without Snape's help, which turns out to be impossible under the circumstances, I think that DD had no chance of survival. If the DEs (or Snape or Draco) didn't kill him, the potion would have done so, especially since he was already weakened by the ring Horcrux. (Even Amycus can tell that DD is dying.) > 4. Harry wants to bring DD to Madam Pomfrey (or vice versa), but > DD insists on seeing Snape. Harry's reluctance is understandable, > but what do you make of DD insistence that he see Severus? Carol: Ah! "Severus" is interesting, isn't it? It's one thing to address Snape by his first name, as DD habitually does with almost everyone, but to speak of him to Harry, not as "Professor Snape" (which he has always used before in speaking of Snape to Harry) but as "Severus"? Claerly, their relationship is closer, more like great-grandfather and great-grandson, than it appears to outsiders like Harry and the reader. It's not just trust, it's affection, and something disturbingly like dependency (even if we don't question Snape's loyalty). It's as if DD *knows* he can't manage this by himself. Either he needs Snape to heal him as before (or to "stopper death" again since the damage from the ring curse can't be completely undone) or he desperately needs to communicate with him before he dies, something related to a longterm plan involving Snape's return to the DEs and Draco and the UV. (I don't mean a prearranged plan for Snape to kill DD.) Even when DD knows that the DEs are in the castle and the UV is in danger of being activated, he still wants to see Snape, whether to save him if possible or to avert danger to Draco and to Snape himself is an open question. But this scene clearly shows that he *does* trust Snape completely and suggests, though it doesn't prove, that Snape knows about the Horcruxes. There's another reason to want to see Snape, the man who dealt with the curses on both the ring Horcrux and the opal necklace. If there's a curse on the Locket!Horcrux, Snape could find it and counter it. If, that is, it were the real Horcrux and the Dark Mark hadn't interfered with that plan. (Carol imagines Snape opening up the locket in front of DD and Harry and finding the note from RAB. Oh, the might have beens!) > 5. What do you make of Rosemerta's sudden appearance? Her > attire? Is there any indication at this point of her (albeit > unwilling) duplicity? Carol: I'm not sure about earlier hints (I'd have to go back and reread the book since all I can remember is Blaise Zabini lolling against a column in the Three Broomsticks), but I do think she was watching out the window for DD's return and was under orders to make sure he saw the Dark Mark, which had been set over the Astronomy Tower to lure him there. And the colorful description of her slippers and dressing gown that you quoted suggests that she was already dressed. She even had her excuse for looking out the window ready (she saw him as she was pulling the curtains). But her awareness of the Dark Mark (she's not surprised to see it) and her statement that it wasn't there when she put the cat out a few minutes ago don't go together. Still, I think her surprise and concern at seeing DD's condition and her warning to Harry not to go into the school alone are real. She knows not what she does? > 6. When you first read that the Dark Mark was flying over Hogwarts, what was your initial reaction? Did you think that someone > had been murdered? If so, who? Did you believe that the "major > death" had already occurred or were you prepared for something more? Carol: I wish I could remember! I'm sure I must have thought that someone had been murdered (that's the usual reason for sending up a Dark Mark, as Harry reminds us), but I think I was pretty sure that it was Dumbledore (or Snape because of the sinister imagery surrounding the UV) who was going to die. I certainly didn't anticipate a trap, with Harry and DD flying right into it. (Where's a *mental* Time-Turner that will enable us to recall initial reactions? Hindsight makes it impossible to recapture them.) > 7. Did you see Dumbledore's strength on the flight back to the > castle as a sign that he might recover from his injuries? Or simply a rally due to adrenaline? Carol: Adrenaline or the strength of his will (which is what I still think). He's clearly flying on empty, using resources even he didn't think he had. I didn't anticipate recovery. I anticipated exhaustion or worse. Clearly, he was in no shape to battle DEs or reenact his performance in the MoM. I do remember wondering whether he was weakening Hogwarts's defenses by removing the anti-flying protection permanently, as if it mattered when DEs had clearly gotten into Hogwarts. > 8. On page 583, as they speed toward the Dark Mark, Harry > wonders if he would again be responsible for the death of a friend. > What death(s) does Harry feel responsible for? Is he really > responsible? Carol: I'm sure that Harry would blame himself for having his friends watching Draco (and Snape) and becoming involved with DEs (again), Felix or no Felix, just as he would have blamed himself if any of them had died going with him to the MoM. There's a shadow or undercurrent of Sirius Black here, IMO; Harry may be implicitly acknowledging his role in that death, fearing that he's again brought his friends into danger that they wouldn't have been in if he'd let them stay safely in their beds. He wouldn't really be responsible since it was their choice to become involved, but he would *feel* responsible. And that's all to the good. > 9. Upon reaching the deserted tower, Dumbledore orders Harry again to wake Severus and bring him to DD. If there is a possibility > that DEs are in the castle, why send Harry into the castle on an > errand? Why not accompany him? Why does he order him to talk to no > one? Why not alert some one like McGonagall or Hagrid, if Harry > should meet them along the way? Carol: DD is in no shape to accompany Harry, and Harry has his Invisibility Cloak. Neither Hagrid nor McGonagall, however loyal they may be, can do him any good. He specifically needs "Severus," either for his Healing skills or because of the UV and their plans for his continued role in fighting LV and/or protecting Draco. He trusts Snape *completely*--Snape and only Snape, evidently. No one else will understand, and if Harry stops to talk to anyone else, it may be too late for whatever DD has in mind. And, of course, none of the others is bound by the UV, and none of them knows what Draco is up to. On a side note, McGonagall is already alerted. She's one of the Order members/staff members on the watch for DEs getting into the castle. DD has deliberately kept Snape off that duty, probably to make it look to the DEs as if he's not a loyal Order member and to prevent his having to fight DEs, which would make it impossible for him to go undercover. Whatever job DD wants Snape to do, whether it's heal him or carry out the UV if need be, only he can do it. And the confrontation with Draco can no longer be postponed. Above all, DD doesn't want Draco to kill or be killed, and again, only Snape can prevent that. > 10. Why does DD immobilize Harry? How can he be sure that Harry > will be safe under his cloak? Doesn't this ultimately leave Harry > defenseless? Is this a mistake? Is Harry ever in danger on the > tower? Carol: Dumbledore's move to immobilize and silence Harry is very sensible. The conversation on the tower is as much for Harry's benefit as for Draco's, but, more important, Harry is impetuous and would rush out to fight Draco, endangering both their lives. DD knows that the DEs are coming, and the only way to keep Harry out of harm's way is to keep him from moving or speaking. As long as Dumbledore--or Snape--makes sure that there's no fight, with spells flying everywhere, Harry is safe. Only when DD dies and Harry is released from the spell is he in danger, but by that time Snape has gotten DD's body off the tower and snatched up Draco, giving the DEs no reason not to obey his orders and follow him. By the time Harry is released from the spell, the last DE is leaving and Harry, though no longer invisible, can safely petrify him from the back. (BTW, if Harry's IC is still on the tower, that's another reason to go back to Hogwarts.) > 11. What do you make of the exchange between Draco and DD? Is DD > stalling? Why would he praise Draco's plan to get DE's into the > castle? Is DD right about Draco not being a killer? Might he become one? Carol: The interrogation has a dual purpose, to persuade Draco that he's not a killer and to reveal information that may be useful to Harry later, for example, Rosmerta's being under the Imperius Curse. (Surely, DD knows that he won't survive the night and won't be able to pass on the information himself.) He wants to make sure that, whatever happens, Draco doesn't try to kill him. Praising Draco's plan for getting DEs into the castle is excellent psychology. Draco is proud of his accomplishment, coming up with a plan that neither Snape nor DD figured out and doing what all the grownups thought was impossible, getting DEs into the castle. I imagine that DD used similar tactics on Kreacher, extracting information that the person (or house-elf) otherwise wouldn't want to reveal by praising the person's ingenuity. I don't think that Draco will become a killer, but he's going to remain confused about his loyalties and options for awhile. And since he's an accessory to murder, he's going to find his movements rather restricted as well. But I don't think he's going to want to serve Voldemort, who threatened to kill him and his parents, now. He's going to have to rethink his priorities. And, somehow, DDM!Snape will have to get through to him. > 12. The vanishing cabinets have been around for awhile, at least > since CoS. Is it possible that someone else is aware of their > connection? Why does DD conclude so quickly that there must be a > pair? Carol: I don't think that anyone else is aware of the connection, which must have been set up long ago. Caractacus Burke is dead and Borgin seems to have known about it only because of Draco's, erm, project. Neither Snape nor DD knew about it, and they're the sharpest people at Hogwarts. Nor did Voldemort, even though he used to work at Borgin and Burke's, or he'd have invaded Hogwarts long before, DD or no DD. DD concluded that there must be a pair because the one in the RoR could not have been used to bring them if there weren't another somewhere else that provided a passageway (rather like the passageway between Hogwarts and Durmstrang, which I'm guessing will play a role in Book 7.) > 13. Draco and DD disagree about who Snape is working for Well, I > am going to ask again: Where do Snape's loyalties lie? Okay, okay > you don't have to answer that ? just see the last 10,000 posts. Carol: Anyone who doesn't know my views on this topic hasn't been on the list very long! DDM! DDM! DDM! > 14. This has also been covered at length, but just for > consistency's sake, who else might be in hiding? Might LV also have > someone in hiding? Carol: I'm not sure what you mean about Lv having someone in hiding, but certainly one Bellatrix Lestrange is hiding from the law after the MoM fiasco, probably, IMO, beneath the Malfoys' drawing room. (Why else mention that room in CoS?) And a rat with the alias of Wormtail is or was hiding at Spinner's End now that the MoM know that Sirius Black was innocent of Wormtail's crimes. Snape and Draco will certainly have to keep a low profile if they don't want to get caught. As for good guys who may be presumed dead, my candidate is Emmeline Vance. I'd love to find that Snape gave her the Draught of Living Death to fake her death. Ollivander and Florian Fortescue are still unaccounted for, as is one of the original Order members, Caradoc Dearborn, but I can't see faking his death all these years. As for RAB, I know some people think he's alive, but I take JKR at her word that he's dead. > 15. How are Draco and Dumbledore using the term "mercy?" Why is > it Dumbledore's mercy that matters now? Carol: Can you ask a harder question, please? Draco is using the term in a pretty standard way--he thinks that DD is at his mercy, just as Harry is later at Snape's mercy, except that Snape could easily have killed or Crucio'd Harry had he so chosen. Draco has a weak, sick (dying?), unarmed old man at wandpoint, and like a teenager with a gun, he can kill him at any time if he can only find the nerve (not so easy with no DE backup, especially when the old man is a superb psychological manipulator. By the time the DEs arrive, of course, he has lost his nerve altogether.) But Draco is wrong: DD is not at his mercy. He isn't really in a position to show Dumbledore compassion or forbearance (as Snape is with Harry) because he isn't capable at this point in his life of killing him. DD's life *isn't* really in Draco's hands, and Dumbledore knows it. You can't show mercy if you can't withhold it. All Draco shows, increasingly throughout the scene, is irresolution. He starts out by disarming him, thinking that all he has to do is wait for the DEs so he can kill him, and then he finds out that he can't even do that, even if it means being at Voldemort's nonexistent mercy. Clearly, Dumbledore has a more complex understanding of mercy. He knows, first, that he's not at Draco's mercy. But he *can* show mercy--compassion and understanding if not exactly forbearance (he's in no position to harm Draco even if he wanted to)--to a boy who thinks DD is his enemy. He offers him refuge and protection (exactly how he expects to arrange that given the DEs who will show up any moment is unclear, but maybe he has some sort of prearrangement with Snape). Dumbledore's mercy, however we define it, *is* what matters now. It's what convinces Draco that he's not a killer. And just possibly DD's mercy to Draco involves asking Snape to keep his UV, sacrificing DD's life (which is forfeit anyway) and Snape's freedom, reputation, job, ad infinitum to keep Draco unharmed in body and soul. That's a huge burden to place on Snape, but Dumbledore has already shown him mercy by trusting and forgiving him. It's Draco's turn now. > 16. Dumbledore indicates his surprise that Draco would > allow/agree to let Fenrir Greybeck enter the castle. Why is it that > Draco might want to prevent Fenrir from coming? This is the second > time we have been reminded of Draco's connection to Greybeck. Why? > What is the connection? Carol: I think the connection is simply that they're both Death Eaters, and Greyback has been part of the plan from the beginning. Draco is in no position to prevent Greyback from coming--true, he didn't *invite* him, but it was naive not to expect him to show up, and he certainly saw him when he climbed out of the vanishing cabinet. But possibly Draco's daydreams of his "glorious" accomplishment didn't include Greyback as one of the DEs he invited into Hogwarts. Endangering his own friends along with everyone else was no part of his plan. > 17. The DEs are insistent that Draco finish the job himself, or > at least the unnamed DE is. Why is this important? Does it really > matters who finishes the job? Will there be consequences for Draco > or Snape since Draco did not ultimately murder DD? Carol: I think that the DEs are under orders to make Draco do it, but there's no question in my mind that if he had hesitated long enough (and Snape hadn't shown up to take matters out of their hands), they'd have resorted to torturing or even killing him and finished off DD themselves. Certainly, that's what Greyback wants, and Amycus tells Draco to kill DD or stand back and let one of them do it. It's only Brutal-face who insists on letting Draco do it. The others aren't big on following orders. They want murder and mayhem, as we see when another DE, the big blond, sets Hagrid's house on fire and one of the DEs (Blondie or Amycus, since it must be a man or Harry wouldn't think it was Snape) starts to Crucio Harry. BTW, I'm sure the the Brutal-face DE is Yaxley; otherwise, Snape's mentioning that name in "Spinner's End" is pointless. By the same token, Amycus and Alecto must be the Carrows, mentioned at the same time). I think that Voldemort will be pleasantly surprised, even elated, that "the only one he ever feared" is dead, and if Snape is right that "he means for me to do it in the end," he's not going to punish Snape. And Snape, still bound by his word of honor if not by the second provision of the UV, will want to protect Draco. All he has to do is to point out that Draco repaired the Vanishing Cabinet against all odds and let the DEs into Hogwarts, without which DD would not be dead. Probably, LV expected heavier losses than one dead DE and two petrified (and presumably arrested). And Snape has "proven" his loyalty. It's a field day for LV, and if he really wants to Crucio somebody, it will probably be Blondie for accidentally killing Gibbon (little ape?). Carol: > 18. Again a common question: Why does DD plead with Snape? What is he pleading for? Why does his tone frighten Harry more than "anything he had experienced all evening?" Carol: I'll keep this mercifully short, without arguments or canon support, all of which can be found in other posts. I think that DD is pleading with Snape to keep his vow because only by killing DD himself can he save Draco and the invisible Harry, get the DEs out of Hogwarts, and go under deep cover. He has to plead because Snape, understandly, would rather die futilely but nobly than murder his mentor and trade pointless glory for purposeful infamy. As for Harry being frightened by DD's pleading tone, he's never heard DD in a position like this, helpless and (seemingly) at the mercy of a traitor. He senses that DD is going to die by Snape's hand and knows that he, Harry, will be powerless to prevent it. He's right that DD is pleading; he just doesn't understand that it's not a plea for mercy for DD himself. > 19. And again, sigh: What is the hatred and revulsion on Snape's > face? What revolts him? Carol: You know what I'm going to say, right? Self-hatred and revulsion at the deed required of him, and maybe some fury at DD for placing him in this position, akin to Harry's fury at Snape for "causing" Sirius Black's death. Snape will get over the anger at DD, IMO, but the self-hatred will be impossible to block except through Occlumency, which compartmentalizes his emotions and keeps the agony at bay. > 20. Why is this Avada Kedavra spell different from the others we > have seen? (Note: Cedric simply crumples to the ground). Or is it? > Why does DD's body fly up in the air and then fall slowly back toward the earth? Carol: I have mixed feelings about this question because it's not just the body floating over the battlements that makes this AK different from the one that kills Cedric. There's no blinding flash, no sound, no expression of surprise on DD's face, no open eyes. Maybe DD knew what was coming and had time to close his eyes, but his features are also composed, which would be hard to do in the split second it took to hit him with the AK once Snape finally raised his wand. And if Snape's AK is powerful enough in itself to send DD over the battlements even though he spoke the words rather than screaming them into the night like Wormtail, where is the flash that was so bright Harry could see it through his closed eyelids and the whishing or whirring sound (I've forgotten the exact description)? I can think of only two possibilities: Either it's some other spell masked as an AK (we know that Snape can do nonverbal spells, and other spells, such as Impedimenta, could send DD over the battlement and create a jet of green light) or another nonverbal spell (such as Wingardium Leviosa) combined with an AK, so Snape can fulfill his vow by killing DD but also get his body off the tower so that Greyback won't get it and the DEs will have no reason to stay. If it's the first possibility, then DD must have died from some other cause than the fake AK, possibly from the potion or "unstoppered death" and Snape merely allowed that to happen. Since he took Draco's task on himself and DD died, the UV wouldn't care how he did it. The DEs, not being very bright, would have heard the words "Avada Kedavra," seen the green light, and watched the dead (or seemingly dead) DD float over the battlements. They wouldn't question the absence of a flash or a sound because it all happened too fast and they wouldn't have seen DD's face. The advantage to Snape of the second option is that there's no AK on his wand (assuming that he can't use Prior Incantato, or whatever the singular is, to remove it himself) and there's no split soul because he hasn't killed DD, only allowed him to die. But the story is probably better with the first option, an irregular AK and a deliberate removal of DD's body, if only because it makes Snape a more tragic and tormented figure, actually having committed the crime that everyone but the DEs hates him for and suffering the consequences of his own free will for the greater good in obedience to DD's last wishes. Thanks for the great questions. It's hard to work on a much-discussed chapter, I know! Carol, who would never, ever string four prepositional phrases together (blushes and crosses her fingers behind her back) From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 21 21:21:05 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:21:05 -0500 Subject: What the centaurs did to Umbridge, was Re:Nothing much happened to Umbridge? (!!!!) Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163047 We do have indications. As I said, anyone familiar with classical mythology (and JKR was a Classics major, remember) knows that it is the sort of thing centaurs are infamous for. And Umbridge wasn't just 'frightened' by whatever happened in the woods, she was reduced to near catatonia accompanied with the gibbering horrors. Of course JKR wouldn't say it in so many words--this is, basically, a kids' series after all--but she does strongly imply it. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 21:50:51 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:50:51 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163048 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > FaLaLaLaLa > > LaLaLaLa > > > Lupinlore: > > A "hallow" can also be a physical object. New Age movement versions > > of the Arthurian legend sometimes refer to various of the objects > > associated with Arthur (the Grail, Excalibur, etc) as "hallows." > > > > A "deathly hallow" would be a holy or powerful object associated > > with death -- in other words, a horcrux. Thus the title, I strongly > > suspect, simply reads "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes." > > > SSSusan: > Eww. I see where you're coming from, but I don't like it. I mean, > since "holy" is likely a part of this, could that fit into a > horcrux?? Yes, a powerful object associated with death sounds like a > horcrux. But a *holy* object associated with death does not, to me. zgirnius: I'm liking Lupinlore's suggestion. The objects in question are believed to be relics of the four Founders. Voldemort is just putting them to a most unholy use... From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Thu Dec 21 21:38:30 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:38:30 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163049 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "wynnleaf" wrote: > > > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > ! > > ! > > ! > > > > C > > A > > U > > T > > I > > O > > N > > ! > > ! > > ! > > ! > > > wynnleaf > Here is a link that's floating around on the Lexicon Forum and might > be of interest in reading about "hallows" as sacred objects. > > http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm > > Go to Arthurian A-Z and click "H" to read about "hallows." > > Don't know how much this applies to HP and the DH, but it *could.* > Seems to fit with the idea possibly hallows being horcruxes -- maybe. > > > That's a fascinating link, Wynnleaf. One of the 13 Hallows of Britain caught my eye - The Mantle of Arthur confers invisibility to wearers. I can't help but wonder what connection that has with Harry's Invisibility Cloak. Does that imply a connection between the Potters and Arthur, or Merlin? If Harry's IC is in fact the Mantle of Arthur, did James leave the cloak with Dumbledore because of its historic importance? Or did James leave the cloak with Dumbledore because it was originally in the Dumbledore family? Then why would Dumbledore say it was time it was "returned" to Harry? And what this has to do with our story, I'm not sure. kibakianakaya From celizwh at intergate.com Thu Dec 21 22:45:10 2006 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 22:45:10 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: <741451.5219.qm@web54502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163050 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > ! > ! > ! > > C > A > U > T > I > O > N > ! > ! > ! > ! Hallow=saint or spirit? As in All Hallows' E'en or Halloween, the night of Voldemort's attack on the Potters? houyhnhnm From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 21:00:19 2006 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:00:19 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163051 I think everyone is taking the title a little too Overboard in the meaning!! I mean look at the Half-Blood prince! Almost EVRYONE I came into contact with about the title believed that it was Harry finding out he was royalty of some sort. Coming up with all kids of theories that the price is the meaning to almost being in total power. And that the half blood would be the key he and Voldemort shared that would be the linking factor to the final battle. Who would have guessed it had to do with a potions book that belonged to Snape!? Now it seems it's happening again with stuff like the "guardians" this and "Sacred objects" that. Im not disputing ANYONE'S theories. But I'm seeing people put others down in mean ways and racking their brains STRESSING! The most logical and simple answer is usually the correct one. DEATHLY HALLOWS in my view is Harry having to return to Godric's Hollow as he said he would and the final battle taking place there! The place where everything seem to have started (from the scar, parents' place of death and place of betrayal ((Deathly)), his first home) to the ending battle. Mitchell From Schlobin at aol.com Thu Dec 21 22:59:05 2006 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 17:59:05 EST Subject: title discussion - spoiler alert! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163052 Whoa....frankly the title scares me. Perhaps I have dived into the river of denial. I refuse to consider that Harry might in fact die (if he does I'm sure it will be in order to destroy Voldemort). I remember asking my 9 and 7 year old if they thought Harry would die, and my 9 year old son said "No way! She wouldn't do that!" (She is referring to J.K. Rowling). I am familiar with the pagan/ancient meaning of Hallows, which of course does refer to Samhain, the time when the veil between the worlds is the thinnest...I would not rule OUT communication between Sirius and Harry, or for that matter between Harry and Professor Dumbledore -- Lily and James, although dead, communicated to Harry at the end of the Goblet of Fire -- giving him useful advice, and in fact helping him. In pagan/wiccan traditions, of course, All Hallows Eve is also the time when the god is conceived, when we honor our ancestors, the harvest is gathered, the fields lie fallow...the gates of life and death are opened.... However, J.K. Rowling is not a pagan or a witch, and I think it would be most helpful to look at the British Isles tradition of the Hallows... Look at this etymological definition that the Hallows is a spell of warm weather after the first frost, what we here in the U.S.A. often call Indian Summer... first recorded 1778, Amer.Eng., perhaps so called because it was first noted in regions inhabited by Indians, or because the Indians first described it to the Europeans. No evidence connects it with the color of fall leaves or a season of Indian attacks on settlements. It is the Amer.Eng. version of British All-Hallows summer, Fr. ?t? de la Saint-Martin (feast day Nov. 11), etc. Also colloquial was St. Luke's summer (or little summer), period of warm weather occurring about St. Luke's day (Oct. 18). Hmmmm...well that doesn't give us many clues...... Hallows IS considered the time when the dead are remembered, feasted, and communicated with... and there is also the idea that if an acceptable sacrifice is made, the forces of evil would be contained. Well, I'm ready to sacrifice Snape. Susan McGee (Harry Potter for Grownups Over Forty listserve, contact me at _SusanGSMcGee at aol.com_ (mailto:SusanGSMcGee at aol.com) ) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 21 23:18:27 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:18:27 -0000 Subject: title discussion - spoiler alert! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163053 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Schlobin at ... wrote: > > Whoa....frankly the title scares me. Perhaps I have dived into the river of > denial. I refuse to consider that Harry might in fact die (if he does I'm sure > it will be in order to destroy Voldemort). I remember asking my 9 and 7 year > old if they thought Harry would die, and my 9 year old son said "No way! She > wouldn't do that!" (She is referring to J.K. Rowling). Alla: Heee, funnily enough my belief that Harry will not die now much increased, I cannot explain why though. Maybe because the title would be too much of the spoiler in a sense if Harry dies. Susan Mcgee: > Hallows IS considered the time when the dead are remembered, feasted, and > communicated with... > and there is also the idea that if an acceptable sacrifice is made, the > forces of evil would be contained. > > Well, I'm ready to sacrifice Snape. > Alla: Ohh, if this is also one of the underlying reasons why she chose the title, I think Harry indeed would at least try to make a sacrifice and will be resurrected ( come back from the veil or whatever). Alla, who always ready to sacrifice Snape, but for whom Living Snape but suffering forever Snape would be more satisfying conclusion :) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 21 23:39:19 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:39:19 -0000 Subject: Not wasting time Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163054 Potioncat here. Borders already had signs in the store encouraging shoppers to register for the as yet un-named 7th book. Here's the current e-version. Looks pretty cool! I know, it's their promotion, but it's still cool. http://www.bordersstores.com/features/feature.jsp?file=harrypotter7 Potioncat (hoping the link works) From scarah at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 00:11:22 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:11:22 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: title discussion - spoiler alert! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612211611uc755b24vebe43b0485344f25@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163055 Alla: Alla, who always ready to sacrifice Snape, but for whom Living Snape but suffering forever Snape would be more satisfying conclusion :) Sarah: I propose a compromise. He suffers forever as a ghost. He wouldn't want to go behind the veil with the Marauders would he? But seriously, I think you've just nailed down the reason I have always reckoned Harry for a goner. I *don't* want him to suffer, and I think the odds are in favor of him being sort of a hot mess by the time this thing is over. My first thought was that the Hallows are benevolent dead people, and the "Deathly" is just there because they look, well, dead. I didn't like the Hallows-as-relics/Horcruxes at first, because the implications of the word "Hallows" seem too positive to refer to Horcruxes even with a "Deathly" slapped on the front of it. I'm warming up to this quick, though. The Cup/Sword/Stone/Pole thing is just too convenient. Sarah From thursdaymorning at outgun.com Thu Dec 21 23:53:05 2006 From: thursdaymorning at outgun.com (thursday) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:53:05 -0000 Subject: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163056 2 questions please: 1) Is there anything official on whether the Ministry can seize Gringott's accounts or if the goblins would thumb their noses at anyone who tried? Under what circumstances do you think the first could occur and/or how long do you think the goblins would hold an account intact waiting for a valid claim? 2) If the Ministry kept raiding Malfoy Manor why didn't Lucius just place it under the fidelis charm so they couldn't find it anymore? Do you think he's read "The Purloined Letter"? Perhaps he's got other properties under the fidelis and doesn't want anyone speculating about where he really lives? thursday From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 22 01:05:45 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:05:45 -0000 Subject: title discussion - spoiler alert! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163057 Susan McGee: > > Whoa....frankly the title scares me. Perhaps I have dived into > > the river of denial. I refuse to consider that Harry might in > > fact die.... Alla: > Heee, funnily enough my belief that Harry will not die now much > increased, I cannot explain why though. Maybe because the title > would be too much of the spoiler in a sense if Harry dies. SSSusan: Indeed, I found it interesting to contrast what Susan just said with what a friend said to me when I told him the title is "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows." He said: "Well I'm glad it's not Death of the Hallowed Harry Potter." Heh heh. Siriusly Snapey Susan, still holding out for a living, breathing HP at the end. From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 00:31:07 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:31:07 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163058 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Lupinlore wrote: > > > But she wasn't. When Umbridge's abuse of Harry began the Ministry > had not yet put her in charge of Hogwarts, nor even expanded her > powers. Once again, DD stands by and tacitly consents to Harry being > abused. Thus, abuse being approved by the "epitome of goodness," is > approved. At least in the message which I don't think JKR intends to > send. > > Carol responds: > > Yes, we have Hermione's statement way back in SS/PS that DD knows > almost everything that happens in the school, but how? He's not > omniscient, and I'm sure he's not spying on his teachers in their > classrooms or offices. There are no portraits (or ghosts or even > Poltergeists) to witness what Umbridge is doing to Harry, only those > foul kittens gamboling on their plates. And they're not likely to > report dear Dolores's actions to Albus Dumbledore. > And yet DD has watched Harry "more closely than [he] can have imagined." How can someone who watches that closely not notice a small detail like Harry bleeding after each of his detentions with Umbridge? So DD was not watching closely before and after detentions? Certainly there are portraits all around the Gryffindor common room, including one guarding the door, and Harry appears bleeding in front of them several times. Indeed, his initial revelation to Ron about the detentions takes place, as I recall, very nearly under the Fat Lady. All of this assuming that DD is indeed using the portraits and not some other mechanism. So DD is watching closely enough to know about Harry's activities in PoA (at least he so implies) but not closely enough to notice the effects of the detentions? Totally unbelievable. Once again, the "epitome of goodness" has, by his silence, indicated assent to Harry being abused. Lupinlore, who thinks this is issue gnumber 003 out of about 150 issues that JKR needs to clear up if she really wants to sell her view of Dumbledore From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 22 01:53:24 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:53:24 -0000 Subject: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612211247v75f5fcc8k6cb1064ca278bdb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163059 Allie: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > Was anyone else a little surprised at the format of the book 7 > title? It doesn't seem to fit with the titles of the rest of the > series. Most of the titles are, "Harry Potter and the Something of > Something." I wonder why she didn't call book 7, "Harry Potter and > the Hallows of Death" or Hallows of whatever else. I think it would > have been just as effective and just as creepy. Jeremiah Relipes: > Where is the Deathly Hallow and/or what is the Deathly Hallow? Maybe "WHO" is the Deathly Hallow, since we can see that Sirius is/was the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and there is a "Goblet of Fire" and there are lots of people that make up the "Order of the Phoenix." Ceridwen: Maybe it's another organization, the members of which are called Deathly Hallows. Or, maybe it's a place where eerie or ominious things have been rumored to happen. Could that be what locals call Godrick's Hollow nowadays? Or, maybe a special day - All Hallow's Evening is shortened to Hallowe'en, this may be another hallowed day. Ceridwen. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 22 03:12:56 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:12:56 -0000 Subject: Bad Writing? No. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: > > > Then again, noise on the frequencies is nothing new. Tolkien used to > swear up and down that people were not supposed to equate Sauron and > Hitler. But the message he sent, probably unintentionally, said > otherwise to lots of folks. > > People equated Sauron with Hitler because of when the books were written and because he was still on their minds. No matter how many people made that connection it was still a misreading. Sauron is a Satan analog, sort of. Tolkien had a direct Satan analog and Sauron was his chief minion. Melkor was long gone from the scene by the time of the LOTR and Sauron had taken over the franchise after Melkor's departure. It is a natural mistake to make I suppose but if you have read much about Tolkien and World War 1 it is easy to see that much of the story is drawn from his experience in that war. But it would also be a mistake to think it is an analog of WW1. All authors draw from their experience. LOTR is not an analogy of anything except, perhaps, northern European legend. The ease with which that mistake was made and the apparent correctness of it should serve as warning to all who try to interpret Rowling and other authors. The ruling ring was so obviously the atomic bomb to the legions of Tolkien's baby boomer readers (this one included) that no other interpretation was possible. The bomb was our generation's nightmare though. Tolkien's generation had a far older nightmare. Ken From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 03:18:33 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:18:33 -0000 Subject: Spoiler! Book Seven Title Thoughts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163061 SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! I haven't read the other threads, so as not to prejudice my thoughts one way or another, so please forgive me if I've duplicated someone else's thoughts. The Deathly Hallows. When I read about the title, my first thought was, "Sounds a lot like Godric's Hollow." Then, I thought of All Hallows Eve, when the spirits of those departed are believed to return to earth. I also thought about the term "hallowed" as used in the Bible to mean holy (as in the land you stand on is hallowed ground, hallowed be Thy name, etc.). I definitely believe that there will be some "crossing over" in this last book, probably on Halloween. But the "Deathly" part is what makes it intriguing. Deathly, according the the Merriam-Webster dictionary online, means "fatal; of relating to or suggestive of death." One one hand, the phrase Deathly Hallows almost seems redundant because souls/spirits would by definition be persons who have already died. Unless the souls/spirits can help to cause someone's death? Perhaps Voldemort's? I keep returning to what I see as the relationship between the previous titles and Harry's journey. In one way or another, the titles have related to someone or something that has moved Harry further along in his journey toward the final confrontation with Voldemort. So, how does "Deathly Hallows" fit in that scheme? Perhaps the Deathly Hallows is the collective name of the spirits who help Harry in the final book to kill Voldemort and avenge the people he loves? Or perhaps a combination of Dumbledore's Army and the Order of the Phoenix? Or perhaps the place of the final confrontation -- the "real" name of the Department of Mysteries??? Just some random, excited thoughts from someone who hasn't posted in a while. Angie From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Dec 22 03:27:16 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:27:16 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?FILK:_I_Saw_=91Mentors_Kissing_Barty_Crouch?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163062 This is one of those filks that once you think of it, you think, "Why didn't I think of it before?!" I Saw `Mentors Kissing Barty Crouch (GoF, Chap. 36) To the tune of I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus a You-tube simulation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PboiGmaI2j0 Dedicated to the Deathly Hallows THE SCENE: Pomfrey's infirmary. As Harry convalesces, McGONAGALL enters abruptly.... "What has happened?" said Dumbledore sharply, looking from Fudge to Professor McGonagall. "Why are you disturbing these people? Minerva, I'm surprised at you - I asked you to stand guard over Barty Crouch -" "There is no need to stand guard over him anymore, Dumbledore!" she shrieked. "The Minister has seen to that!" McGONAGALL: I saw `Mentors kissing Barty Crouch Underhanded tactics used tonight As Snape & I stood watch So who drops in but Fudge. He then had Bart's soul sucked up By dementors in a flash! DUMBLEDORE (to Fudge): You had `mentors kissing Barty Crouch Trying him in court we must preclude Voldemort is on the loose But Corny, you're so obtuse, Thanks to you, we've not been kissed, we're screwed! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From gelite67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 03:33:47 2006 From: gelite67 at yahoo.com (gelite67) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:33:47 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spolier... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163063 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, J wrote: > > > > S > > P > > O > > I > > L > > E > > R > > ! > > ! > > ! > > > > C > > A > > U > > T > > I > > O > > N > > ! > > ! > > ! > > ! > > Hallow=saint or spirit? As in All Hallows' E'en or Halloween, the > night of Voldemort's attack on the Potters? > > houyhnhnm Angie here: Ooh, Interesting. How do do you believe that relates to Harry's journey, given that the other titles in some way relate to a person or thing that furthers Harry along the road toward the ultimate smackdown with Voldemort? Are you suggesting that perhaps Harry will be able to travel back in time to that fateful night or somehow communicate with his parents about that night and ... I don't-know-what-to put here!? Could that in some way help him find the Horcruxes? From formerlysane at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 22 03:29:31 2006 From: formerlysane at sbcglobal.net (seventeensilversickles) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 03:29:31 -0000 Subject: title discussion - spoiler alert! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163064 SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER TITLE COMING UP NEXT! TURN BACK NOW! I looked up the definition of hallow in two dictionaries today and both said "to make holy, sanctify, consecrate" which raised a horrifying and interesting thought. Now, I certainly don't want Harry to die, but *if* he did while destroying Voldemort, he would become one heck of a hero in the wizarding community and be revered like a holy figure. This is the classic battle between good and evil. Isn't that struggle the crux of every holy figure's history? Sometimes holy figures even gave up their lives in the battle against evil. I don't think we should under estimate the title because every word Rowling writes is deliberate: you can be sure the choice of title is deliberate too. What if "Deathly" refers to what we all must know must happen to Voldemort and "Hallows" unfortunately refers to Harry? Just an idea. Seventeen Silver Sickles From talisman22457 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 04:42:55 2006 From: talisman22457 at yahoo.com (Talisman) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:42:55 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163065 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" wrote: >Once again,the "epitome of goodness" has, >by his silence, >indicated assent to Harry being abused. > > > Lupinlore, who thinks this is issue gnumber 003 out of about 150 > issues that JKR needs to clear up if she really wants to sell her > view of Dumbledore. Wicked Talisman explains all: You know LL, there are a lot of people who consider their (various iterations of)God to be the *epitome of goodness,* as well. This, notwithstanding the Almighty's apparent tolerance for--or,as you would have it, *silent assent to*--a great deal of innocent suffering in this world. Inasmuch as Rowling has indicated a *Xian* (though presumably not standard issue) level to her tale, you might try crediting her with engaging this difficult question, not at all of her own invention. Talisman, pointing out, yet again, that the HP series is written predominantly in Romance mode, wherein DD is most certainly the displaced god. (He isn't an actual god, because this isn't mythology proper, but he serves the literary purpose.) From juli17 at aol.com Fri Dec 22 04:54:39 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 23:54:39 EST Subject: Book 7 Title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163066 S p o i l e r S p a c e montims: The Oxford English dictionary shows: hallow /*hal*o/ ? *verb* *1* make holy; consecrate. *2* honour as holy. *3* *hallowed*greatly revered. ? *noun* archaic a saint or holy person. and Halloween (also *Hallowe'en*) Julie: Following from this, what if Hallows are "saints" or "holy persons"--or more accurately souls that been somehow sanctified by going beyond the veil? So the title refers to Harry and those behind the veil who will eventually help him defeat Voldemort--James, Lily, Sirius, Dumbledore... The Deathly could refer in some way to their state of being. This would tie in perfectly with the concept of Harry defeating Voldemort by taking him beyond the veil, where Voldemort (sans Horcruxes) would die, and Harry would somehow (with the help of Sirius perhaps) come back to the living side and survive. Julie, feeling certain Deathly Hallows doesn't refer to horcruxes as those have already been dealt with at length, and JKR doesn't tend to repeat herself in that manner. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From theadimail at yahoo.co.in Fri Dec 22 07:25:58 2006 From: theadimail at yahoo.co.in (theadimail) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:25:58 -0000 Subject: A theory on title 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163067 Hi all, When I first read the title it sounded so hollow to me. But, at last I've become reconciled to it. Since morning I am doing nothing but reading the various theories over and over again and the best theory seems to be the four treasures one. Anyway I did like the suggestion by someone here that the deathly hallows could refer to hallowed dead people of the wizarding world. I don't remember the exact context but in the Lord of The Rings, the main wizard calls an army of the dead to fight isnt it? Maybe Harry has to raise up an army of dead, like Voldie's inferi but this time hallowed people so good people to fight the battle. In that sense this could refer to the climactic battle when the two armies clash after the horcrux hunt is over and they are all destroyed and Voldie is vulnerable once again. Just a few thoughts. But, one has to say that the title grows on you once you get over the intial shcok. Unlike half-blood prince which became worse with time and aprticularly after reading the book because it seemed so pointless. bye From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 07:43:50 2006 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:43:50 -0000 Subject: Ignoring the obvious Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163068 ... discussion going on about the book title S P O I L E R ? ? (probably not, but just in case) How significant do you think the obstacles to the book title are? The hang(ed)man's game and the spider by the mirror certainly suggest a specific individual to me (and he happens to have a saint's name). Didn't an earlier puzzle have a lily which grew when a potion was dropped on it? Could this all be happenstance? lealess From leslie41 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 07:57:34 2006 From: leslie41 at yahoo.com (leslie41) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:57:34 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163069 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote: > > > S > p > o > i > l > e > r > > S > p > a > c > e > > > > > montims: > The Oxford English dictionary shows: > hallow > > /*hal*o/ > > ??? *verb* *1* make holy; consecrate. *2* honour as holy. *3* > *hallowed*greatly revered. > > ??? *noun* archaic a saint or holy person. > and > Halloween > > (also *Hallowe'en*) > > > > Julie: > Following from this, what if Hallows are "saints" or "holy persons"- -or > more accurately souls that been somehow sanctified by going beyond > the veil? So the title refers to Harry and those behind the veil who will > eventually help him defeat Voldemort--James, Lily, Sirius, Dumbledore... > The Deathly could refer in some way to their state of being. > > This would tie in perfectly with the concept of Harry defeating Voldemort > by taking him beyond the veil, where Voldemort (sans Horcruxes) would > die, and Harry would somehow (with the help of Sirius perhaps) come > back to the living side and survive. > > Julie, feeling certain Deathly Hallows doesn't refer to horcruxes as > those have already been dealt with at length, and JKR doesn't tend > to repeat herself in that manner. > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] I think this is a good point--I don't think Rowling would be so fey as to disguise the horcruxes with a trick name. It's not like her with regard to her titles. All of her titles are really self-explanatory. Harry Potter and the... Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone Chamber of Secrets Prisoner of Azkaban Goblet of Fire Order of the Phoenix Half-Blood Prince In some cases we have to learn who or what the person/thing is, but the name itself is never a trick or a riddle. So, like Julie, I lean towards the simple answer--"deathly" meaning "having the appearance of death" or "deathlike". (You might say it can also mean "deadly," which it can in context, but I think if Rowling had wanted to use the word "deadly," she would have. "Deadly" and "deathly" are subtly different.) "Deathly" can be either an adverb or an adjective, depending on whether a noun or verb follows it. "Hallow" can be a verb, but "Hallows" cannot, at least in this context. So it's an adjective modifying a noun. What is, then, a "hallow"? All Hallow's Eve means, literally, All Saints Eve. All Saint's Day is still a very holy day in the Catholic and Anglican churches. It celebrates the "faithful departed". It's a feast day. All Saints Day started actually as "All Souls Day". So what we get, in the end, from Rowling's title is: "Harry Potter and the Deathlike Souls/Saints". Which will doubtless make complete sense to us, just like that famous Prisoner of Azkaban and the Half-Blood Prince, only once the book comes out. From bamf505 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 08:24:56 2006 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 00:24:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <807846.10714.qm@web31504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163070 --- lupinlore wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, elfundeb > wrote: > > > > > If you're ready to speculate on the title's > meaning, read on . . . . > > > > *** spoiler space*** > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my > dictionary does not do > so), so it > > must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a > place. > > > > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must > be sacred in some > > fashion. > > > > A "hallow" can also be a physical object. New Age > movement versions > of the Arthurian legend sometimes refer to various > of the objects > associated with Arthur (the Grail, Excalibur, etc) > as "hallows." > > A "deathly hallow" would be a holy or powerful > object associated with > death -- in other words, a horcrux. Thus the title, > I strongly > suspect, simply reads "Harry Potter and the > Horcruxes." > > > Lupinlore bamf here: I'm inclined to agree with Lupinlore and that the Deathly Hallows are in reference to the Horcruxes. Hallowed meaning sacred or holy, mayhaps even revered. Voldie Mort holds his immortality in such esteem that he divided his essence up. bamf There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From sunflowerlaw at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 09:28:16 2006 From: sunflowerlaw at gmail.com (Lindsay) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 01:28:16 -0800 Subject: Foreign Language Titles Give It Away! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163071 Apparently, the "official" Dutch title for book seven is "Harry Potter en de Dodelijke Heiligen" - heiligen, in Dutch, means literally saints, nothing else. However, I'm not able to confirm if this is the actual official title, or just what the media is reporting as a translated title. Although, when the official titles /are/ released in other languages, it will certainly be a clue as to whether or not she means saints or relics. --Lindsay From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 05:25:19 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:25:19 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163072 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Talisman" wrote: > > > > Talisman, pointing out, yet again, that the HP series is written > predominantly in Romance mode, wherein DD is most certainly the > displaced god. (He isn't an actual god, because this isn't mythology > proper, but he serves the literary purpose.) > Yes, I've seen that interpretation before from various people. To which my answer is, if Dumbledore is God, sign me up for the First Church of Satan. Sorry, but his failure to protect Harry from abuse really is, I think, that contemptible. This does bring up a point that was made long ago in the context of a Dursley discussion. The basic problem with DD is that he begins as a walking plot device in what is essentially a fairy tale. By Book VI, he is supposed to be a full-fledged character in a very different type of story (dark fantasy or melodrama or whatever you want to call it). But he still has to carry the duties of a walking plot device, even as he is trying to act like a full-fledged character. And the two functions sometimes don't coordinate very well, leaving him with huge problems of consistency and presentation -- especially in situations like the end of OOTP or the middle of HBP when he's trying to act like a character but has to still work as a plot device. Lupinlore From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 05:34:14 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 05:34:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163073 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Magpie: > I find it hard to imagine a non-interference clause from the King > of i Interfere Whenever I Think It's Best. The guy left a baby on > their doorstep in the middle of the night (for hours!) with a note. > Would he really say, "Please take care of this baby...and I swear I > won't ever interfere at all up until I take him to my school when > he's 11 and you'll barely see him again?" There's never seemed to > be any doubt that Dumbledore was in charge of this kid ultimately > when he wants to be. I'm not sure why he'd even think that kind of > clause was necessary. More than one book has featured scenes where > the Dursleys are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint > of Wizard interference. > All very true, Magpie. One very justifiable response from the Dursleys might have been "Just where the H#ll have you been the last fifteen years?" You drop the kid off, say and do nothing, and suddenly NOW you want to be all concerned? As I've said in another thread, DD's basic problem is that he begins as a plot device and evolves, kind of, into a character while still having to fulfill plot device functions. This creates all sorts of problems with consistency and internal logic, sometimes leading the "epitome of goodness" to take irresponsible, idiotic, and downright reprehensible courses of action (like letting an attempted murderer run around free at Hogwarts). Lupinlore, who is quite serious that if DD were God he would sign up for the First Church of Satan, since cruelty and malice may be tolerable in a deity but incompetence never is From antonia31h at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 09:52:21 2006 From: antonia31h at yahoo.com (antonia31h) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:52:21 -0000 Subject: Spouses of the wizards in book 7 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163074 I know that everyone is excited about the newly-revealed title for book 7 (as I am too), but for now I don't really have any ideas about what it means, so I will keep the speculations to myself. Anyway don't know if this topic might interest anyone now that we are into the title speculations, but here it goes: I heard that JKR said in an interview that some of the teachers at Hogwarts have spouses and that will have an important significance in book 7. So, I was thinking about who could those teachers be: Minerva, Trewlaney, Slughorn? For a moment I thought that even Snape could have a wife, although JKR never mentioned this (but she does say that someone loves/loved him) and in the Spinner's End chapter there was nobody else in the house (maybe she was out shopping :)) I know this is far-fetched and Snape is not the kind of character to get a wife, but I think we should expect all sorts of twists of plot in the new final book. antonia From mi_shell16 at btinternet.com Fri Dec 22 12:00:08 2006 From: mi_shell16 at btinternet.com (michelle439731) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 12:00:08 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - spoiler In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0612210841g285caa95k88390161a587013a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163075 S P O I L E R S P A C E I've been thinking about this title for a time now and it just seems wrong to me. "Deathly Hallows", it just doesn't *sound* right. The word Deathly being used to the Hallows. All the book titles so far have described people, places or objects. I just had a thought about this title though. What if it's a spell. Perhaps not the actual words of the spell but perhaps the English translation of Avada Kedavera? Or one of the Prince's spells that Harry hasn't come across yet? Or the translation of Horcrux, hence the plural? That's what they are, little hollows for part of your soul that is torn out of your body by someones death. Pockets of your soul hidden in a hollow. Hmm, I think that's an original idea. michelle From violet_verdi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 12:07:47 2006 From: violet_verdi at yahoo.com (:::: Violet ::::) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 04:07:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spoiler! Book Seven Title Thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <564215.58320.qm@web59101.mail.re1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163076 SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! SPOILER! I?ve read a fair amount of theories and, since I did not find some of the ones that came to me ? which is slightly scary because it means that either no one thought of them or they are so far fetched everyone just tossed them ? I decided to add my first two cents to the group. Angie wrote: <> My first thought was along those lines as well, I thought, ?It must be a place!? So I started to try and find out what the place could in fact be. I came up with a few possibilities and it will be a rather short list for organizational purposes only: - Godric?s Hollow: even though I don?t believe Rowling meant Godric?s Hollow to be the Deathly Hallows, she might?ve given us a clue there: same names, same type (as in both being a place); - At first I had thought about the locked room of the Department of Mysteries, but then, reading Angie?s post, it said: <> And I thought it might be it since no one really knows what goes on in there and most things are deathly (or even deadly). Following the line of what-can-we-find-in-the-department-of-mysteries, I came across the veil. Remember Luna told Harry, in book 5, that they would see them (them being the people who had died) again? What if she didn?t mean after death, what if she really meant ?one day they will come back to help us when we need it most?? I know it?s far-fetched, but it got me thinking. - I also thought about the cave where the necklace/locket was hidden in. That was a sacred place for Voldemort and it did contain death (deathly things and deadly things as well), so, perhaps, Rowling is only refering to the places where Voldemort has hidden the horcruxes? Still thinking about things that are holy/sacred for Voldemort, Rowling could be speaking of the horcruxes. It's too simple and obvious (not to mention plain and slightly boring if that's it) but maybe that's her way of fooling us. ~*~ Violet ~*~ "Who knows, maybe a lightening can strike." From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 22 14:02:01 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:02:01 -0000 Subject: Spouses of the wizards in book 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163077 Antonia: > I heard that JKR said in an interview that some of the teachers at > Hogwarts have spouses and that will have an important significance in > book 7. So, I was thinking about who could those teachers be: > Minerva, Trewlaney, Slughorn? Potioncat: This is one of the fun discussions. Because it's all speculation, and anyone's guess. I'd encourage you to scroll down to the Portkey on the home page here, then go Quick quotes Quill. You might be able to find JKR's acutual wording. I don't recall she said it would be significant, just that it's a secret. My guess on currently married professors would be Flitwick. He's never at the Christmas Dinner. No spouses were mentioned at the Yule Ball---but that could just be a case of Clueless Harry. It may be significant if we discover one of the teachers had been married in the past but is not now. Could be any of them. (Except I think Trelawney is supposed to be an Old-maid figure.) >Antonia: > I know this is far-fetched and Snape is not the kind of character to > get a wife, but I think we should expect all sorts of twists of plot in > the new final book. Potioncat: There are a couple of theories that involve Snape having had a wife with or without a child who was/were harmed during the first war. Florence is one of the main contenders. His twins, however, are a figment of my overactive imagination coupled with reading an interview too quickly. (Thanks, Alla, for reminding me. It gave me a good chuckle.) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Dec 22 14:10:20 2006 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:10:20 -0000 Subject: Foreign Language Titles Give It Away! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163078 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lindsay wrote: > > Apparently, the "official" Dutch title for book seven is "Harry Potter > en de Dodelijke Heiligen" - heiligen, in Dutch, means literally > saints, nothing else. > > However, I'm not able to confirm if this is the actual official title, > or just what the media is reporting as a translated title. > > Although, when the official titles /are/ released in other languages, > it will certainly be a clue as to whether or not she means saints or > relics. > > --Lindsay > Hickengruendler: I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but I live in Germany and here everybody is reporting in the News that the title is "Harry Potter und die todbringenden Heiligen". This news, however, is wrong. No German has been officially confirmed and I'm sure no German title will be officially confirmed until after the release of the book in English. (At least that's how it was with all the other books). My guess is, that it's the same in the Netherland and that the so called title is nothing more but a lucky-guess-translation by a reporter. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 22 14:26:29 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:26:29 -0000 Subject: Foreign Language Titles Give It Away! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163079 > Hickengruendler: > > I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but I live in Germany and > here everybody is reporting in the News that the title is "Harry Potter > und die todbringenden Heiligen". This news, however, is wrong. No > German has been officially confirmed and I'm sure no German title will > be officially confirmed until after the release of the book in English. > (At least that's how it was with all the other books). My guess is, > that it's the same in the Netherland and that the so called title is > nothing more but a lucky-guess-translation by a reporter. Potioncat: This from the Charlotte Observer (as if Charlotte, NC USA has any contact with the WW) from a link at HPANA: "Asked what the title meant, a spokeswoman for Scholastic, which publishes the Potter books in the United States, admitted that people in her office had rushed to an unabridged dictionary. Hallows "means holy person or saint. But we really don't know what the title means," Kristen Moran said." Hmmm, Come to think of it, the writing style is quite a bit like the Daily Prophet. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 14:44:46 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:44:46 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163080 lupinlore wrote: > Lupinlore, who is quite serious that if DD were God he would sign up > for the First Church of Satan, since cruelty and malice may be > tolerable in a deity but incompetence never is So you want to support someone who is *good* at cruelty and malice? Amiable Dorsai From bex753 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 22 14:23:45 2006 From: bex753 at yahoo.co.uk (Brian W) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:23:45 -0000 Subject: the title of book seven no clues there ? Message-ID: <009201c725d4$caab8000$6501a8c0@MAIN> No: HPFGUIDX 163081 I think you are all being to literal, looking at how JKR titles her books says volumes. Philosopher's Stone first novel fair enough this is at the heart of the story she has not started getting sneaky yet if you googled that it would give you massive clues about the book. Chamber of Secrets at the centre of the book but gives no clue what it's about in the title. Prisoner Of Azkaban is not really about that at all she is leading us down the garden path here right till near the end of the book. Goblet OF Fire just a prop in the boo not at the heart of the story at all bit at the beginning and port key at the end that's all. Goblet of fire gives no clues in the title what the books about. Order of the phoenix not what the books about at all , HP and the Hall Of Prophesies would be a more fair title but would be giving out massive clues. Half Blood prince fair enough at the centre of the story (sort of) but did anyone have any idea what this was about before the book came out. I for one expect she is giving no clues in the title of the new book. Brian W [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 22 15:30:49 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:30:49 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Gringotts / Malfoy Manor Message-ID: <6673044.1166801449827.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163082 thursday: >1) Is there anything official on whether the Ministry can seize >Gringott's accounts or if the goblins would thumb their noses at >anyone who tried? Under what circumstances do you think the first >could occur and/or how long do you think the goblins would hold an >account intact waiting for a valid claim? Bart: I assume that, at the time of the HP novels (at least the first 7), the goblins and the Ministry are in cooperation with each other. I assume that the Miinstry can seize accounts under much the same circumstances as the British government can seize accounts of their own citizens. thursday >2) If the Ministry kept raiding Malfoy Manor why didn't Lucius just >place it under the fidelis charm so they couldn't find it anymore? >Do you think he's read "The Purloined Letter"? Perhaps he's got >other properties under the fidelis and doesn't want anyone >speculating about where he really lives? Bart: Lucius Malfoy was posing as an upstanding, law-abiding citizen who was victimized by certain elements in the Ministry, and who, having a lot of possessions and a long-established family, may inadvertently have owned a few forbidden items, but was certainly not trying to HIDE anything. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 15:50:55 2006 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:50:55 -0800 Subject: Hallow an alternate spelling for 'hallo' Message-ID: <700201d40612220750t3b5a8290qf57dcff24667e6cc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163083 Dictionary.com lists 'hallo' pronounced huh-loh to mean noun 3. a shout of exultation verb used without object 4. to call with a loud voice; shout; cry, as after hunting dogs verb used with object 5. to incite or chase (something) with shouts and cries of 'hallo!' 7. to shout (something) Does someone have an OED? I suppose I could go to the Idaho Falls Library... but I doubt they'd have one... If Harry was more urban perhaps the titled would be 'the Deathly Holla Back!" Kemper, who learned about the title via text message in the bowels of southern Idaho From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 16:15:21 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:15:21 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163084 Lupinlore wrote: >Certainly there are portraits all around the Gryffindor > common room, including one guarding the door, and Harry appears > bleeding in front of them several times. Amiable Dorsai: Erm, no. Harry worked quite hard at concealing his injury. I don't recall any mention of portraits *in* the Gryffindor common room. Where do we learn about them? Lupinlore: > Indeed, his initial revelation to Ron about the detentions takes > place, as I recall, very nearly under the Fat Lady. Amiable Dorsai: Who, as I recall, was sleeping during the revelation. Amiable Dorsai From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 22 16:39:33 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:39:33 -0000 Subject: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163085 thursday: 1) Is there anything official on whether the Ministry can seize > Gringott's accounts or if the goblins would thumb their noses at > anyone who tried? Under what circumstances do you think the first > could occur and/or how long do you think the goblins would hold an > account intact waiting for a valid claim? Ceridwen: Didn't Sirius have access to his account while he was on the run? I seem to think he did. I could have gotten this from fan fiction, though. However, there was something for Harry to inherit when Sirius died, so the accounts must not be forfeit, even if they're frozen. Sirius was in Azkaban for twelve years, and the account was held. That's longer than real life banks might hold things - I think the limit is seven years and then the funds revert to the state. Of course, the account could have been newer, dating from the death of the last Black before Sirius became heir... *my head hurts* Ceridwen. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 17:10:24 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:10:24 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470612211247v75f5fcc8k6cb1064ca278bdb7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470612220910s3c44a033v119cb01075993b3e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163086 Allie: > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > Was anyone else a little surprised at the format of the book 7 > title? It doesn't seem to fit with the titles of the rest of the > series. Most of the titles are, "Harry Potter and the Something of > Something." I wonder why she didn't call book 7, "Harry Potter and > the Hallows of Death" or Hallows of whatever else. I think it would > have been just as effective and just as creepy. Jeremiah Relipes: > Where is the Deathly Hallow and/or what is the Deathly Hallow? Maybe "WHO" is the Deathly Hallow, since we can see that Sirius is/was the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and there is a "Goblet of Fire" and there are lots of people that make up the "Order of the Phoenix." Ceridwen: Maybe it's another organization, the members of which are called Deathly Hallows. Or, maybe it's a place where eerie or ominious things have been rumored to happen. Could that be what locals call Godrick's Hollow nowadays? Or, maybe a special day - All Hallow's Evening is shortened to Hallowe'en, this may be another hallowed day. Ceridwen. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremiah: I seriously doubt it. PS/SS is an object. CoS is a place. PoA is a person (Sirius) GoF is an object. OotP is a group (so, I can see where you were going with that thinking) HBP is a person (Snape) What we know is Deathly means: os or pertaining to death. Hallow has an interresting meaning: a sacred object created through ritual. What do we know that is "Of Death" and is also an "Object (folloing the whole "proper name" thing) created through ritual?" It's a Horcrux. The title can read: Harry Potter and the Horcruxes. (yes, that is the plural... and I still want it to be Horcruxides... just like ephemerus is ephemerides... because it makes me laugh... [forgive my spelling]). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sydpad at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 17:59:13 2006 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:59:13 -0000 Subject: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163087 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" wrote: > thursday: > 1) Is there anything official on whether the Ministry can seize > > Gringott's accounts or if the goblins would thumb their noses at > > anyone who tried? > Ceridwen: > Didn't Sirius have access to his account while he was on the run? Sydney: He must have had access to cash, because he bought Harry his broom. Gringotts seems to me like a Swiss bank-- they ask no questions and keep their client's secrets, which seems in character for the Goblins, what little we've seen of them. A little googling about Swiss Banks provided this: "These portions of the banking law have been interpreted, both in practice and by the courts, to make it a serious offense to divulge any information about a bank customer to a third party, including official requests of foreign governments, except in some very special and clearly defined situations". Those 'situations' seem to be criminal but it still seems to be difficult to impossible to seize the assets of deposed dictators, Bin Laden, etc., so I guess a mere mass-murderer suspect would be okay. Some interesing background on Swiss bank secrecy here: http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/banking/secrecy/history.html If the client doesn't contact the bank for longer than 10 years, the account goes dormant but does not revert to the state or to anybody else, it just sits there, from what I can see. This is why dormant accounts from the 30's and 40's are sometimes in the news today. A little about dormant account law here: http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/banking/dormant_accounts/index.html So if Sirius hadn't written a will, I think the house would have gone to Bellatrix (or Regulus! if he's still alive), and his private money would have sat in a vault basically for ever. -- Sydney, google queen From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 17:18:26 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:18:26 -0000 Subject: Deadly Saints In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163088 > Dungrollin: > Indeed, that was my first thought, but then I thought of the Lord's > Prayer, and "hallowed be thy name", and thought hang on a minute... > > Why does Hogwarts celebrate Halloween? Who exactly are the Hallows > they are honouring? Could it perhaps be the founders? I wonder if > the original point of the holiday was to forget about house rivalry? > Perhaps the reason they used to celebrate it has been lost since the > founders' split. > > And that "deathly"? Like dead, but not. Are the founders ghosts? Or > are they still alive, perhaps? > > Hmm... > > Dungrollin. > maria8162001: I guess the title deathly hallows is a plural, so it would fit perfectly about the founders of Hogwarts have something to do in book 7, if not the founders then maybe all the ghosts in Hogwarts will have a role in books 7 including those portraits, especially Dumbledore. My favorite definitions of deathly that would have a close fit to book 7 are ghostlike, ghostly & spectral. We'll not find hallows in any dictionary, only hallow, that's why I guess the title is in plural form. If the 4 founders and the Hogwarts ghosts including all the portraits( especially of the dead headmasters) will not play an important role in book 7, I would like to guess that deathly hallows would be the gryff sword & the cup of one of the founder. I also love the suggestion of the other list members that it have somtheing to do with the 2 halloweens, the past halloween when Harry's parents and some muggles were killed and the coming halloween. And if it's a place I think it would be the veil, were Harry would journey which maybe because he he have a pure heart would be able to go in and out of it without dying and of course the locked room in the DOM. Gee, looks like my thinking is so muddy. I hope anyone would be able to make sense of it. MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE. Merry christmas Tonks, I see you have resurface from your deep secret mission? maria8162001 From ladymela99 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 17:21:00 2006 From: ladymela99 at yahoo.com (Melanie) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 09:21:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061222172100.36521.qmail@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163089 Well, couldn't all of his possible ignorance OOP be explained away by the fact that he is in fact afraid of Voldemort finding out about how close he is to Harry. I'm assuming that if we want something to be done for Harry Dumbledore would have to do it himself, considering the state the school was in with Delores Umbridge and he brigade stomping around. Thus, he would have had to open up to Harry and by such exposing himself to the dark lord. I found Dumbledore in a way more selffish in book five. I realize he was doing this prevent his death..figuring he would still be needed. We could say that Sirius was being irrational..not thinking of Harry's interests in the long run. However, in the short term, it is correct to say that Dumbledore was looking at his own self interests and seemingly ignoring Harry's. I assume that he felt that this was not any worse than what he endured at the Dursley's. In some way I think this was far worst because these were people who he was told to trust. And finding out your government is a terrible entity is a little discomforting. However, with the Dursely's it was always that way...and always will be. ~Melanie From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 22 18:23:26 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:23:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: Book Titles Message-ID: <7786725.1166811806216.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163090 (Spoilers removed) From: leslie41 >All of her titles are really self-explanatory. Harry Potter and >the... > >Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone >Chamber of Secrets >Prisoner of Azkaban >Goblet of Fire >Order of the Phoenix >Half-Blood Prince > >In some cases we have to learn who or what the person/thing is, but >the name itself is never a trick or a riddle. Bart: Looking for commonalities, in every case, it is something that endangers Harry's life, but always indirectly. He risks his life protecting the Philosopher's Stone, stopping the basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets, he is endangered by the events brought into play by Sirius' escape, he is led into the trap by the Goblet of Fire, the battle at the Ministry is due to his involvement (and desire for more) in the Order of the Phoenix, and The Half-Blood Prince is involved in the danger in the last scene (alternatively, his new and unearned expertise in Potions blocks his willingness to put his efforts into harder subjects, like DADA). Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Dec 22 18:25:13 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:25:13 -0000 Subject: My thoughts on the title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163091 So what does "Deathly Hallows" mean? It would certainly help if we knew if "Hallows" was a verb or a noun, but here are my guesses. 1) The most obvious guess a Horcrux, perhaps too obvious. 2) An elite group of Death Eaters, the best of the best, or perhaps I should say the worst of the worst. Yes, I know "hallows" can mean saints, but I think calling someone a member of the Deathly Hallows is a little like calling Josef Mengele the "Angel of Death"; and "Hell's Angels" does not conjure up images of sweetness and light. 3) Perhaps it just refers to a graveyard. 4) Maybe it's a time not a place or thing, the time Lilly and James were murdered, Halloween night. It was a good choice to use the word "Deathly" rather than the more common word used it titles "Deadly", to my ears deathly has a more sinister ring to it. It's also interesting that this is the first Potter book to have death in the title, and given that this is the last book well, I think Harry would have difficulty buying life insurance about now. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 18:42:03 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 18:42:03 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - Objects of Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163092 --- "leslie41" wrote: > > --- juli17@ wrote: > > > > > > Spoiler > > poiler > > oiler > > iler > > ler > > er > > r > > > > Space > > pace > > ace > > ce > > e > > > > > > > > > > montims: > > The Oxford English dictionary shows: > > hallow > > > > /*hal*o/ > > > > *verb* *1* make holy; consecrate. *2* honour as holy. > > *3* *hallowed* greatly revered. > > > > *noun* archaic a saint or holy person. > > and Halloween > > > > (also *Hallowe'en*) > > > > > > > > Julie: > > ... if Hallows are "saints" or "holy persons"- or ... > > souls that been ... sanctified by going beyond the > > veil? So the title refers to Harry and those behind > > the veil who will eventually help him ...edited... > leslie41: > > ...I don't think Rowling would be so fey as to disguise > the horcruxes with a trick name. It's not like her > with regard to her titles. > > All of her titles are really self-explanatory. > Harry Potter and the... > > Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone > Chamber of Secrets > Prisoner of Azkaban > Goblet of Fire > Order of the Phoenix > Half-Blood Prince > > In some cases we have to learn who or what the person or > thing is, but the name itself is never a trick or a > riddle. > > So, like Julie, I lean towards the simple answer-- > "deathly" meaning "having the appearance of death" or > "deathlike". ... > bboyminn: On the interpretation of 'Deathly', we agree, I think it refers far more to 'death-like' that to 'death' itself. However, there is still an aspect of 'Hallows' that you are ignoring. > leslie41: > > ... "Hallow" can be a verb, but "Hallows" cannot, at > least in this context. So it's an adjective modifying a > noun. > bboyminn: Here is the part where we disagree. I think the 'S' on the end is the very thing that makes this a Noun. As discussed in another thread - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163043 'Hallows' can be revered or venerated objects; in other words a Noun. In Irish and British history there exists sacred objects that are referred to has 'Hallows'. Here is a quote from the 'Mystical' 'Arthrian A-to-Z' website - "The Hallows across most legends are seen to represent the royal regalia carried by the King, or the objects sought by someone such as a 'Grail Quester' in both ancient and modern stories." Four Irish Hallows - http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm (scroll down to 'Hallows') Thirteen British Hallows - http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm#HOB Given JKR's seemingly deep knowledge of Mythology and history, it seems she is at least aware of 'Hallows' in this context. > leslie41: > > What is, then, a "hallow"? All Hallow's Eve means, > literally, All Saints Eve. ... > > All Saints Day started actually as "All Souls Day". > > So what we get, in the end, from Rowling's title is: > > "Harry Potter and the Deathlike Souls/Saints". > > Which will doubtless make complete sense to us, ..., > only once the book comes out. > bboyminn: Keep in mind, I'm not trying to shoot down your interpretation; it is a valid as any, but I think you are drawing your conclusions from a limited set of data. I'm simply expanding the available data. As a side note, and one of extremely limited worth, at some point in the past either Warner or the Publishers copyrighted the names- HP and... ...the Hallows of Hogwarts ...Hogwarts Hallows (quoted from memory; found in some Leaky Lounge discussion) ...though given that these are very old, we can only give limited weight to them. But they do indicate that JKR has had the 'Hallows' concept in her mind for a long time, and that she did give it a great deal of though. Given that there is a historical precident in both Ireland and Britian for 'Hallows' to be venerated, revered and/or magical objects, I conclude that they could indeed be the 'Horcruxes'. But, they could also be 'sacred objects' that are imbued with the power of good, and that will assist Harry; the Gryffindor Sword for example, plus objects of power he will discover but of which we are not currently aware. Perhaps 'objects of power' from each of the founders. In a sense, Harry defeats Voldemort by doing whata Voldemort failed to do, by gathering objects of power from each of the founders, and uniting them into a force for good. This seems to be the nature of 'Hallows' as objects; that is, that they are objects of magical power. (Pole of Combat, Sword of Light, etc...) Further, they could be objects of 'evil', that will come into play in the story. They could perhaps be the combined non-horcrux power of the objects Voldemort has already gather, but perhaps he does not understand their true power. Again, I'm not trying to discredit your interpretation of 'Deathly Hallows' as saints or souls, simply asking you to consider that there is reasonable evidence for 'Hallows' as objects. Either way these persons, places, or things clearly seem to lean more toward nouns than other components of speech. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 22 18:37:25 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:37:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Spouses of the wizards in book 7 Message-ID: <5482873.1166812645911.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163093 From: antonia31h >I know this is far-fetched and Snape is not the kind of character to >get a wife, but I think we should expect all sorts of twists of plot in >the new final book. Bart: Maybe Peter Pettigrew used to be his lover. It WOULD explain a lot... Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Dec 22 19:00:20 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:00:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor Message-ID: <20997228.1166814020540.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163094 Ceridwen: >However, there was something for Harry to inherit when Sirius died, >so the accounts must not be forfeit, even if they're frozen. Sirius >was in Azkaban for twelve years, and the account was held. That's >longer than real life banks might hold things - I think the limit is Bart: Only if the bank cannot find the owner. They knew EXACTLY where Sirius was, and, after all, if he got kissed, there WERE potential heirs. How many crimes do you know of where part of the penalty is a fine of everything you own? Bart From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Fri Dec 22 19:22:10 2006 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:22:10 -0000 Subject: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163095 Thursday asked: > 2) If the Ministry kept raiding Malfoy Manor why didn't Lucius just > place it under the fidelis charm so they couldn't find it anymore? > Do you think he's read "The Purloined Letter"? Perhaps he's got > other properties under the fidelis and doesn't want anyone > speculating about where he really lives? SSSusan: I think that putting Malfoy Manor under a Fidelius Charm so that it could no longer be located would only make Lucius look guiltier! I mean, Lucius himself would still be out & about in the WW, right? How would he explain to Ministry officials why they could no longer find his home without appearing, all the more, that he is hiding things? Nah, better to just find new hiding places for the incriminating stuff, in my view. Siriusly Snapey Susan From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 19:19:49 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:19:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Book 7 Title - Objects of Power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612221119h16eb0cefy11711995856adbb4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163096 bboyminn: As a side note, and one of extremely limited worth, at some point in the past either Warner or the Publishers copyrighted the names- HP and... ...the Hallows of Hogwarts ...Hogwarts Hallows (quoted from memory; found in some Leaky Lounge discussion) ...though given that these are very old, we can only give limited weight to them. But they do indicate that JKR has had the 'Hallows' concept in her mind for a long time, and that she did give it a great deal of though. Given that there is a historical precident in both Ireland and Britian for 'Hallows' to be venerated, revered and/or magical objects, I conclude that they could indeed be the 'Horcruxes'. But, they could also be 'sacred objects' that are imbued with the power of good, and that will assist Harry; the Gryffindor Sword for example, plus objects of power he will discover but of which we are not currently aware. Perhaps 'objects of power' from each of the founders. In a sense, Harry defeats Voldemort by doing whata Voldemort failed to do, by gathering objects of power from each of the founders, and uniting them into a force for good. This seems to be the nature of 'Hallows' as objects; that is, that they are objects of magical power. ------------------------------------- jeremiah: That makes total sense. Since we suspect that the other horcruxes are to be items from the founders of Hogwarts. It completes the theme ot Hallows as sacred objects and this idea of "saints" that has been mentioned. It also plays with the theme of transformation, or what someone becomes through choices. The founders had things that were special or sacred to them, like the sword, and Voldemort would have "chosen" to transform them into a horcrux in his own quest for transformation. Then the Deathly pertains not only to how Voldemort achieves the creation of a horcrux but also to the fact that (to be blunt) the founders of Hogwarts are dead. On a lighter note... maybe, since Prof. Sprout is into Herbology maybe Hhelga Hufflepuff was a gardener as well..., and we will discove Hufflepuff's Hoe? ohhh... the sacred Hoe of Hufflepuff! OR since Professor Vector is Raveclaw (? and I right in that? Oh, will i think this is funny anyway) the will have Ravenclaw's Abacus. "The Sacred Abacus of Ravenclaw!" hee hee... Hmmmm... Ok, I'm done with being silly for the time being. So I think it all ties together. I think it plays nicely with different levels of sacred and things that pertain to death. We also know that Dumbledore had that shriveled hand from one of the horcruxes and he could have dies (i get that implication from the quick discussion he has with Harry about it). Plus, DD nearly dies trying to get the "fake" horcrux... so even searching and destroying one is "deathly." Ah, cleaverness. I love you so! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 18:50:38 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:50:38 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My thoughts on the title In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612221050ma540773rf578bf899fe5c2f0@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163097 Eggplant: 1) The most obvious guess a Horcrux, perhaps too obvious. ============================== Jeremiah: Yes, I thought of that, too. I said, "Oh! It's a Horcrux... naaahhh.... that's way too easy." And then I remembered her comment concerning the 6th book. She talked about how all the hints and clues are now completely out with the 6th book. If you've read carefully and clearly then you should be able to figure out the last book. (ok, it's not a direct quote but I'm @ work!) :) So then I thought, "Horcrux. Well, yes. That would make sense and even if it is 'too easy' I can feel comfortable knowing that she's not pulling any punches at this point." So, there will be no "It was in book 2!" BLAM! "a horcrux? what the frigg is that?" Or, what was that kid's name... Michael Evans? woopsie! Or, atleast, that's what she's told us. i'm sure there are twists and turns and it will be a very harrowing adventure to the end, but since we know that Harry's main goal right now is to get the Horcruxes then the title makes complete sense. Sometimes the right answer is the simplest answer. (P.S. I don't think there is any correlation to her use Hallow and it's relevence to All Hallow's Eve in the Pagan traditions. I come to that conclusion because she has never once refered to the holiday using the Pagan name. It's a red herring, in my opinion... and you can gloat and point your finger at me while sniggering if I'm wrong). (Or send me to an Amish village wearing colored buttons. Oh, the shame). jeremiah (formerly with the email address: tidblgr72 at yahoo.com). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 22 20:08:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:08:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163098 > Magpie: . More than one book has featured scenes where the Dursleys > are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint of Wizard > interference. Pippin: Counterbalanced by scenes in which the mere hint of Wizard interference makes things even worse. If the MHOWI gets Harry a decent bedroom, it also gets Harry locked into said bedroom with bars on the windows and starvation rations. There's something imperialist about the hope that the great white wizard father will use his mighty powers to make those savage non-believers behave. One suspects such an intervention would be no more successful that Hermione's attempts to liberate the House Elves. Nor does there seem to be a lot of evidence from the real world that punitive measures against child abusers work. I'm no expert, but it seems that some studies show that families with unconfirmed incidents of child abuse and families with confirmed incidents of child abuse re-enter the system at about the same rate. In other words, the imposition of consequences hasn't been shown to reduce the number of repeated incidents. What is thought to work is reducing the risk factors, and it's hard to see how punishment could accomplish that in the Dursleys' case. It wouldn't increase their feeble parenting skills or force them to bond with Harry. A number of risk factors would be with Harry where ever he went. He's an orphan, the victim of a violent crime, a walking war zone, and his abilities are freakish even from a wizard's point of view. Those things would put a strain on any family, and punishments wouldn't change them either. Pippin From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 17:59:23 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:59:23 -0000 Subject: title discussion - spoiler alert! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163099 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "seventeensilversickles" wrote: > > SPOILER > > > SPOILER > > > SPOILER > > > SPOILER > > > TITLE COMING UP NEXT! TURN BACK NOW! > > I looked up the definition of hallow in two dictionaries today > and both said "to make holy, sanctify, consecrate" which raised > a horrifying and interesting thought. Now, I certainly don't > want Harry to die, but *if* he did while destroying Voldemort, > he would become one heck of a hero in the wizarding community > and be revered like a holy figure. > > What if "Deathly" refers to what we all must know > must happen to Voldemort and "Hallows" unfortunately refers to > Harry? graverobber23: I guess I will put my two sickles in this one. I will agree with you on the Deathly meaning what must happen to Voldemort. I think that Hallows isn't just referring to Harry. If you notice it's Hallows, not Hallow. Meaning more than one Hallow. So I wonder if JK is referring to Ron, Hermione, Neville, and Harry (the good guys). Could she also be referring to the entire Order? From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 20:16:52 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:16:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Four Horcruxes (was: Title of Book 7 - Esoteric Wording) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163100 SPOILER SPACE: if you don't know yet what is the title of Book 7, go and find out (please). SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE SPOILER SPACE > > wynnleaf > > Here is a link that's floating around on the Lexicon > > Forum and might be of interest in reading about > > "hallows" as sacred objects. > > > > http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/arthuriana2z/h.htm > > > > Go to Arthurian A-Z and click "H" to read about "hallows." > bboyminn: > > Excellent link, and most importantly, it does put it into > the framework of a noun, and opens up new possibilities. > If you notice, this provided link is to the Four Hallows > of Ireland - > > 1. The Pole of Combat; > 2. The Sword of Light; > 3. The Cauldron of Cure; > 4. The Stone of Destiny. > > or as represented in more modern terms - > > 1. The Sword; > 2. The Spear; > 3. The Cup; > 4. The Pentacle. > Neri I tend to agree that the new title refers to the missing Horcruxes, with an allusion to the myth of the Four Hallows of the Tuatha de Danaan. The match is definitely too good to be mere coincidence. First there's the word "hallows", secondly there's the word "deathly" (and not "dead" or "deadly") that fits the Horcruxes well. Thirdly there is the number: Four Hallows against four missing Horcruxes. And then there's already a good match in the identities of three out of the Four Hallows: 1. Gryffindor's Sword 2. An unknown Ravenclaw trinket 3. Hufflepuff Cup 4. The Slytherin Locket I remind you that JKR had already used Tarot symbolism in HBP: the name of the chapter "The Lightning-Struck Tower" is the name of a Tarot card depicting a person falling off a tower. Of course, JKR is known to employ mythical symbolism in a rather loose way, and even if she does use the allusion to the Four Hallows, she's hardly obliged to do it consistently. But still, it would be interesting to see how the Four Hallows parallel might help us with Horcruxes clues and speculations. The first clue is that there are indeed four Horcruxes left, and that they should correspond to the four Houses. The Slytherin Locket and the Hufflepuff Cup already correspond well with the Pentacle (also known as "the Jewel") and the Cup. The next nice clue is for the Ravenclaw Horcrux. Some of us have already hypothesized immediately after HBP that this should be RR's old wand, because of the Tarot symbolism (in the Tarot version of the Four Hallows "The Spear" is also known as "The Wand"). This would fit with the Ravenclaw Horcrux being the lone wand in Ollivander's window in SS/PS. There are several additional clues that go well with that wand: i) The Ollivanders being in business since several hundreds of years BC, which would make it easy for them to manufacture RR's wand merely 1000 years ago. ii) The fact that a wand only fits one Wizard, meaning that after RR's death, her wand would not be in use anymore. iii) JKR recently saying that we will learn more about the relationship between the Wizard and the wand in Book 7 (should I start writing DH? DEHA?). iv) Tom Riddle refusing Dumbledore's offer to take him to Diagon Ally to buy his school things. This means Tom could notice the wand in Ollivander's window without Dumbledore knowing about it. v) The suspicious disappearance of Ollivander in HBP. There's also the fact that Neville bought the last wand before this disappearance. It could be that Ollivander slipped the Ravenclaw wand to Neville, or at least that Neville saw some important clue when he was there. Now to the even more intriguing part: the Gryffindor Horcrux. Generally the Four Hallows/Four Houses parallel seems to work against Nagini being a Horcrux, since she's not related to Gryffindor and not to the Four Hallows. This agrees with what some of us have been suspecting for some time, that Nagini being a Horcrux is a red herring. Strictly, the Four Hallows/Four Houses parallel would suggest that the Gryffindor Horcrux should be the Sword. However, I find it difficult to believe that Dumbledore could be so stupid as to never realizing this in all the years he had it, not to mention that Harry had already used the sword while disposing of another Horcrux. I guess the Sword can still be one of the four founder's Hallows, even if not strictly a *deathly* Hallow (that is, not a Horcrux) just for completeness. There's another possibility, however: Voldemort might try to steal the Sword from Hogwarts in Book 7 in order to make it his last Horcrux. This would fit with the theory that one of Voldemort's soul is inside Harry, and Voldemort has been suspecting it for some time, and making plans to retrieve it in order to encase it in another Horcrux. I've theorized Nagini was slated to be this Horcrux, but maybe Voldemort has plans for the Sword. Another interesting clue of the parallel is that, as in the original myth, the Four Hallows might have Four Guardians. These may have been originally appointed to guard the Founders' trinkets. So perhaps the Smiths were appointed guardians of the Cup, the Gaunts guardians of the Locket, the Ollivanders guardians of the Wand and the Dumbledores guardians of the Sword. Alternatively this clue might also mean that Voldemort appointed his own guardians for each of the Horcruxes, just as Lucius was appointed to guard the diary. It is hinted in Spinner's End that Bellatrix was a guardian of a Horcrux but isn't anymore, maybe because she lost it. And perhaps Regulus learned about the Locket from a guardian who talked too much. Neri From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 22 20:44:53 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:44:53 -0000 Subject: Book Seven Tolkien Connection? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163101 spoiler space spoiler space spoiler space spoiler space spoiler space spoiler space 'The Hallows' is the name of the section of Minas Tirith where the dead are laid to rest. It is reached via Fen Hollen ('the closed door') and no one is supposed to enter there except at times of funeral or to maintain the tombs. Could the Deathly Hallows be behind the locked door at the Ministry of Magic? Pippin From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Dec 22 21:19:50 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:19:50 -0000 Subject: Gringotts/ Malfoy Manor and Re: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612220910s3c44a033v119cb01075993b3e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163102 Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Gringotts / Malfoy Manor http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163094 Ceridwen: >However, there was something for Harry to inherit when Sirius died, >so the accounts must not be forfeit, even if they're frozen. Sirius >was in Azkaban for twelve years, and the account was held. That's >longer than real life banks might hold things - I think the limit is Bart: > Only if the bank cannot find the owner. They knew EXACTLY where Sirius was, and, after all, if he got kissed, there WERE potential heirs. How many crimes do you know of where part of the penalty is a fine of everything you own? Ceridwen: The only crime I know of that takes what you own is drug trafficking, and then only what you used for the trafficking: private plane, car, house/land, etc. That doesn't mean there isn't something else, it just means this is all I know about. I was mistakenly thinking of the Feds, or in this case the Ministry, possibly watching activity on an account to try and apprehend a criminal. If a bank sees an account not active, and Sirius's account would not be active during his imprisonment from the little we get from the books, I was also saying that real life banks I know of would have closed the account for seven years' inactivity and the money would have reverted to the state, or heirs if any are listed on the account or found through a search, after seven years (presumed dead). Of course, there was a lot of talk in 2001-2002 about the possibility of freezing binLaden's assets, and later the same discussion about Saddam Hussein's, despite heirs. Once Sirius escaped from Azkaban, the bank did not know exactly where he was and neither did the Ministry. Why not shut it down then? Or freeze it? Or put a watch on activity, which they apparently did not do? I think Sydney had it right in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163087, and the goblins do not cooperate with the Ministry except in extraordinary circumstances. Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: format of the book 7 title http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/163086 Jeremiah: > Where is the Deathly Hallow and/or what is the Deathly Hallow? Maybe "WHO" is the Deathly Hallow, since we can see that Sirius is/was the "Prisoner of Azkaban" and there is a "Goblet of Fire" and there are lots of people that make up the "Order of the Phoenix." Ceridwen: > Maybe it's another organization, the members of which are called Deathly Hallows. Or, maybe it's a place where eerie or ominious things have been rumored to happen. Could that be what locals call Godrick's Hollow nowadays? Or, maybe a special day - All Hallow's Evening is shortened to Hallowe'en, this may be another hallowed day. Jeremiah: > I seriously doubt it. PS/SS is an object. CoS is a place. PoA is a person (Sirius) GoF is an object. OotP is a group (so, I can see where you were going with that thinking) HBP is a person (Snape) Ceridwen: So, you're suggesting a pattern in the titles? One and four are objects, two and five are either place or group, three and six are people, so seven should be on a level with one and six and be a thing? Why not change the variable on the second round of sixes and have one/four and three/six be variable while two-five remains static? Jeremiah: > What we know is Deathly means: os or pertaining to death. Hallow has an interresting meaning: a sacred object created through ritual. What do we know that is "Of Death" and is also an "Object (folloing the whole "proper name" thing) created through ritual?" It's a Horcrux. Ceridwen: It's possible we're supposed to be *deathly* afriad when we hear or read that title, but to tell you the truth, I'm not. I rather like it. Since this whole discussion has been going on, I've been thinking, and at the moment, I think the title means "Hallows Unto Death". Not an offering to death, but a place where you could very easily die. Or, conversely, people or things that could very easily kill you. I think we all agree that "Hallows" has to be a noun - a person, place or thing - since it is modified by "Deathly". What we don't know is what JKR will do with this. She could mean anything, from the site of the last battle where (*fingers crossed*) Harry will defeat LV decisively, to a group in the Ministry that has an even more secret mission than the Unspeakables, to the horcruxes. She has played the "Purloined Letter" with us too many times, fooling us with clues that are obvious (to her, and to us once we've read the book), to discount that she will be so transparent. She may mean to be, she may just see this as a poetic way of saying horcruxes. So, we don't know if the correct definition of "Hallows" is a sacred object created through ritual. First, we don't know that the sacred object is created through ritual at all, or if it became sacred by being the site, or at the site, of centuries of the building of sacred power... Or, of magic. In this case, Hogwarts itself could be a Hallow, or Hallowed Place as grounds, the castle could be a Hallow, or Hallowed Object. Godrick's Hollow could be a Hallowed Place because of what happened there: not just the deaths of James and Lily, but the vaporization of Voldemort, and the activation of the prophecy foretelling that One would come who could vanquish the Dark Lord. Many if not all cultures venerate places where such auspicious things have happened, marking them in some way, with altars or holy buildings, making pilgrimages to the sites, and so on. So, the Hallows may be the places, or one place with niches like a catacombs, where LV hid the horcruxes he did not entrust to frail mortal henchmen, or where he is now putting them because the potion in the cave did indeed alert him that someone had tried to drink it, and he is scrambling to get the remaining pieces of his soul and their containers into a safe new place. Jeremiah: > The title can read: Harry Potter and the Horcruxes. (yes, that is the plural... and I still want it to be Horcruxides... just like ephemerus is ephemerides... because it makes me laugh... [forgive my spelling]). Ceridwen: I thought it would be "horcruces", or "horcruci", but by canon, as you say, it's "horcruxes". *shrug* Common usage, probably. Off-topic: So, if "ephemerides" is the plural of "ephemerus", then is "tides" the plural of "tus"? ;) BTW, I do know what an ephemeris is, I have the NASA ephemerides pages on my list of favorites, so that was a joke. Ceridwen. From amiabledorsai at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 22:10:13 2006 From: amiabledorsai at yahoo.com (amiabledorsai) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:10:13 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163103 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > > Magpie: > . More than one book has featured scenes where the Dursleys > > are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint of Wizard > > interference. > > Pippin: > Counterbalanced by scenes in which the mere hint of > Wizard interference makes things even worse. If the MHOWI > gets Harry a decent bedroom, it also gets Harry locked into > said bedroom with bars on the windows and starvation rations. Amiable Dorsai: And of course, by the possibility of the worst consequence of all: Petunia deciding she's had enough and throwing Harry out, at which point, Harry, in his younger years, at least, is dead. It's a tragic little irony: The shield of Lily's blood, so strong against a powerful dark Wizard, is as delicate as a soap bubble to one Muggle woman. Amiable Dorsai From jnferr at gmail.com Fri Dec 22 23:01:18 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 17:01:18 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My thoughts on the title In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612221050ma540773rf578bf899fe5c2f0@mail.gmail.com> References: <948bbb470612221050ma540773rf578bf899fe5c2f0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40612221501p2133fee7q2b7208e41ae28ac1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163104 > > Jeremiah: > (P.S. I don't think there is any correlation to her use Hallow and it's > relevence to All Hallow's Eve in the Pagan traditions. I come to that > conclusion because she has never once refered to the holiday using the > Pagan > name. It's a red herring, in my opinion... and you can gloat and point > your > finger at me while sniggering if I'm wrong). (Or send me to an Amish > village > wearing colored buttons. Oh, the shame). montims: sorry - being picky - All Hallow's Eve is the Christian name for the festival. The pagan name, strictly, would be Samhain or Hallowe'en, if you like - a corruption of the Christian term. "Hallow" means versions of "holy", in the Christian sense. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Fri Dec 22 23:43:24 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:43:24 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - OED definitions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163105 S P O I L E R S P O I L E R Deathly: adj 1. Subject to death, mortal. 2. Causing death, deadly. 3. Of the nature of or resembling death, deathlike; gloomy, pale, etc. as death. 4. Of or pertaining to death. Deathly: adv 1. In a way causing or tending to death. 2. To a degree resembling death. cf. deadly. Both have derivation of OE and OHG, so old English and old high German. Hallows: sb (substantive) First entry, usually in plural hallows: 1. A holy personage, a saint (Little used after 1500, and now preserved only in All-Hallows and its combinations. 2. In plural applied to the shrines or relics of saints; the gods of the heathen or their shrines. 3. Hallow- in combinations (chiefly in Scotland) is used for All- Hallow- = All Saints'-, in Hallow-day, Hallow-e'en,Hallowmas, Hallow- tide; also hallow-fair, a fair or market held at Hallowmas; hallow- fire, a bonfire kindled on All-hallow-e'en, an ancient Celtic observance. Hallow itself, in the singular, has other meanings, including to make holy, to keep (a day or festival) holy, to chase or pursue with shouts, and the parts of the hare given to hounds after a successful chase. the derivation of hallow is OE, OHG, nad ON, so Old English, Old High German, and Old Norse. My OED is the two-volume one, from 1979. I find the third definition of Hallow interesting, chiefly for its note of usage in Scotland. The date of All-hallows is November 1. Do you think Harry has a visit to the MoM? Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From dklopp at ptd.net Fri Dec 22 22:21:38 2006 From: dklopp at ptd.net (Diane Klopp) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:21:38 -0000 Subject: Hogwart's Cemetery Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163106 Does anyone remember during the filming of POA that JKR said there was a cemetery at Hogwarts? Perhaps this cemetery could be the Deathly Hallows were Volemort and Harry have their final showdown. Diane Klopp --Its been far too long since my last post. From belviso at attglobal.net Sat Dec 23 00:07:43 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 19:07:43 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) References: Message-ID: <011401c72626$5eed2100$52b4400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163107 ----- Original Message ----- From: "pippin_999" To: Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 3:08 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) > >> Magpie: > . More than one book has featured scenes where the Dursleys >> are intimidated into better behavior by the mere hint of Wizard >> interference. > > Pippin: > Counterbalanced by scenes in which the mere hint of > Wizard interference makes things even worse. If the MHOWI > gets Harry a decent bedroom, it also gets Harry locked into > said bedroom with bars on the windows and starvation rations. > > There's something imperialist about the hope that the great > white wizard father will use his mighty powers to make those > savage non-believers behave. One suspects such an intervention > would be no more successful that Hermione's attempts to > liberate the House Elves. > > Nor does there seem to be a lot of evidence > from the real world that punitive measures against child > abusers work. I'm no expert, but it seems that some > studies show that families with unconfirmed incidents of > child abuse and families with confirmed incidents of child > abuse re-enter the system at about the same rate. In other > words, the imposition of consequences hasn't been > shown to reduce the number of repeated incidents. > > What is thought to work is reducing the risk factors, and > it's hard to see how punishment could accomplish that > in the Dursleys' case. It wouldn't increase their feeble > parenting skills or force them to bond with Harry. > > A number of risk factors would be with Harry where ever > he went. He's an orphan, the victim of a violent crime, a > walking war zone, and his abilities are freakish even from > a wizard's point of view. Those things would put a > strain on any family, and punishments wouldn't change them > either. Magpie: Logical from a real life standpoint, but JKR still seems to quite happily use Wizard interference for happy endings when she wants to--and they often work. The Dursleys more ignore Harry than anything as the years go by. I can't for the life of me remember everything about the beginning of CoS, but isn't that punishment for Wizard trickery rather than Wizards making the Dursleys stay in line? Harry's happy to threaten them with Sirius, the Order shows up to put the fear of God into them at the end of OotP--if those things make for happy endings (of a sort) in those books. Ironically Petunia's throwing Harry out, which Amiabledorsai brought up, was not the result of Wizard interference but Petunia's reaction to an outside magical threat brought to the house by Harry. It was averted by Wizard Interference--Dumbledore's threatening letter. Which is why, as I originally said, I have a hard time buying that Dumbledore's letter included any sort of promise to not interfere. You've given defenses as to why maybe it was better for him not to, but that in itself seems to suggest that he could if he wanted to do it. -m From bex753 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 22 22:53:22 2006 From: bex753 at yahoo.co.uk (Brian W) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 22:53:22 -0000 Subject: Book Seven Tolkien Connection? References: Message-ID: <015401c7261b$fba0f270$6501a8c0@MAIN> No: HPFGUIDX 163108 Pippin Said >> 'The Hallows' is the name of the section of Minas Tirith where the dead are laid to rest. It is reached via Fen Hollen ('the closed door') and no one is supposed to enter there except at times of funeral or to maintain the tombs. Could the Deathly Hallows be behind the locked door at the Ministry of Magic? << Brian W: I definitely think the locked room full of "????" is the key to the end of LV and due to Harry's unique nature hopefully his survival, but I don't think it's anything to with the title of the book, that's probably in the search for one of the Horcruxes prob the last one, maybe. Brian W From scarah at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 00:17:52 2006 From: scarah at gmail.com (Scarah) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:17:52 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwart's Cemetery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3202590612221617q34d23172l5fd1a039138ea6f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163109 Diane: > Does anyone remember during the filming of POA that JKR said there was > a cemetery at Hogwarts? Perhaps this cemetery could be the Deathly > Hallows were Volemort and Harry have their final showdown. Sarah: Cuaron gave the interview about JK telling him this, and mentioned that she said it would be important in book six. Later, in book six, it's heavily implied that no one has been buried at Hogwarts (at least not other headmasters or headmistresses) and that Dumbledore is the first. Together with the fact that Dumbledore's tomb appears to stand alone, I think this may have already come to pass, and we have seen the graveyard, which only contains one lone tomb. Sarah From saraandra at saraandra.plus.com Sat Dec 23 00:14:24 2006 From: saraandra at saraandra.plus.com (amanitamuscaria1) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:14:24 -0000 Subject: Celtic new year Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163110 Just another reminder to throw into the brew! Hallow-e'en, October 31, is the night of Samhain, or the Celtic New Year, November 1st is All Hallows Day, the Christian take-over of the Celtic festival. So I guess Hogwarts has been celebrating the two 'new years' all along. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 22 23:15:24 2006 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:15:24 -0000 Subject: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163111 > Jeremiah: > > What we know is Deathly means: os or pertaining to death. > > Hallow has an interresting meaning: a sacred object created > > through ritual. What do we know that is "Of Death" and is > > also an "Object (folloing the whole "proper name" thing) > > created through ritual?" It's a Horcrux. > > Ceridwen: > I think the title means "Hallows Unto Death". Not an > offering to death, but a place where you could very easily > die. Or, conversely, people or things that could very easily > kill you. Mitchell: It seems to me that the deathly hallows are the places in which Harry and the scoobies will have to travel in order to find the final fragments of Voldemort's soul. The most simple answer is usually the right one!! We all know Harry is on a mission to find them. We also all know there will be certin death coming!! Deathly Hallows = Sacred places of the Horcruxes! They'll be found in the places that meant most to Voldemort and were sacred to him!! The diary in the chamber of Secrets. The locket in the cave he brought the children. I believe the others to be in the Slytherin dorms, the orphange he grew up in, Godric's Hollow, and the others......well I'm not too sure about. I'll just have to re-read all the books again. lol... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 01:04:58 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:04:58 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: <011401c72626$5eed2100$52b4400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163112 > Magpie: > Which is why, as I originally said, I have a hard time buying that > Dumbledore's letter included any sort of promise to not interfere. You've > given defenses as to why maybe it was better for him not to, but that in > itself seems to suggest that he could if he wanted to do it. Alla: I snipped everything I agree with, I just want to mention once again why I am not really buying the possibility of existance of non- interference clause in the first place. That is of course because of Order members feeling that it is Okay to interfer at the end of OOP. Now, even though I do believe JKR when she says that she plotted the story long time ago, etc, I do believe that she sidestepped at least to answer fans questions and changed something at least few times. Of course I cannot prove it, but I strongly suspect that this scene was written because she felt the need to pacify fans who were scratching their heads and asking why wizards indeed would not intefer. As I said, this is just a suspicion, because otherwise that makes no sense for me whatsoever, if non- interference clause was supposed to exist in that letter. I mean, what exactly changed at the end of OOP? The only thing changed that it was a bit too little too late and of course Petunia did not throw him out after listening to Moody, Weasleys, etc. As you said, the threat to throw out was indeed stopped by **wisarding interference** and by Dumbledore indeed, nobody else. Oh, and as to Pippin's argument that it would be imperialistic for Dumbledore to impose his values on Dursleys? Honestly, I am not sure that I care whether it would be imperialistic or not. If Dumbledore cared that much about not imposing his values on Dursleys, he should have find a better place for Harry to stay IMO ( yes, yes, I know we went back and forth on blood protection, if I see that it works in book 7, I would feel so much better buying it). If he deemed possible to leave Harry there, he in my view had a responsibility to check on him and yes, IMO do whatever it takes to protect the kid from what Dursleys did to him. So, if JKR did not put that scene in, I would assume at least the possibility of its existance, but since when Harry became fifteen they finally figured they can have a talk with them, I do not think it is ever existed. IMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 01:47:00 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:47:00 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys,: What Changed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163113 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > Which is why, as I originally said, I have a hard > > time buying that Dumbledore's letter included any > > sort of promise to not interfere. > > > > You've given defenses as to why maybe it was better > > for him not to, but that in itself seems to suggest > > that he could if he wanted to do it. > > Alla: > > ... I just want to mention once again why I am not > really buying the possibility of existance of non- > interference clause in the first place. > > That is of course because of Order members feeling that > it is Okay to interfer at the end of OOP. ... > > ... > > I mean, what exactly changed at the end of OOP? The > only thing changed that it was a bit too little too > late ... bboyminn: I'm not buying the non-interference clause for the same reasons Alla is not buying it. If it existed then why did the eventually /interfer/? I can buy that there was something in the letter saying that Dumbledore and the wizard world would leave them alone in general unless they felt the need to intervene. But hardly more that that, if even that. As to why now, and not sooner, I can answer that easily. In the past, Harry Potter - The Boy Who Lived was really just a concept to them, to them all. From his distant outpost, I suspect Dumbledore reminded himself that Harry was safe everytime he started to doubt the wisdom of leaving Harry with the Dursley. As to everyone else, they had little or no contact with Harry and little or no news of his status. He represented a fond memory, but no connected reality to them. But now things are different, they all know Harry personally, and that changes him from Harry Potter - The Boy Who Lived to Harry Potter - The Boy I Know and Care About. Given everything that has happened to Harry in GoF and OotP, I don't see how his friends in good conscience could separate themselves from Harry's fate at the Dursleys. The Statue of Secrecy, in a sense, forbids them to interfer in any substantial way, but they are determined that Harry's already over the top misery should not be added to. I think what changed is that Harry and his fate are now very personal to them, and that makes a difference. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Dec 23 01:34:52 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:34:52 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys, was Re: Bad Writing? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163114 "Amiable Dorsai: And of course, by the possibility of the worst consequence of all: Petunia deciding she's had enough and throwing Harry out, at which point, Harry, in his younger years, at least, is dead. It's a tragic little irony: The shield of Lily's blood, so strong against a powerful dark Wizard, is as delicate as a soap bubble to one Muggle woman. Amiable Dorsai" Exactly. As miserable as Harry may be living with the Dursleys, he is LIVING with them; which is better than the alternative. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 00:31:01 2006 From: twowaykid2525 at yahoo.com (mitchell) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:31:01 -0000 Subject: Hogwart's Cemetery In-Reply-To: <3202590612221617q34d23172l5fd1a039138ea6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163115 Diane: > > Does anyone remember during the filming of POA that JKR said there was > > a cemetery at Hogwarts? Perhaps this cemetery could be the Deathly > > Hallows were Volemort and Harry have their final showdown. Sarah: > Cuaron gave the interview about JK telling him this, and mentioned > that she said it would be important in book six. Later, in book six, > it's heavily implied that no one has been buried at Hogwarts (at least > not other headmasters or headmistresses) and that Dumbledore is the > first. Together with the fact that Dumbledore's tomb appears to stand > alone, I think this may have already come to pass, and we have seen > the graveyard, which only contains one lone tomb. > > Sarah I believe that the text said there's never been a HEADMASTER/MISTRESS burried at Hogwarts before. Along with the fact that DD's request was to be buried there might mean there's an existing grave site. DD being the first headmasted buried there maught have just been givin a Tomb all his own from the grave. At this point in time its anyones guess. "mitchell" From kking0731 at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 02:35:42 2006 From: kking0731 at gmail.com (snow15145) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:35:42 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163116 Snipped summary, on to Excellent questions by Beatrice: QUESTIONS: 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? Snow: I wondered the same thing and passed it off, initially, as protection from the area itself but later reevaluated and thought that it might be a learning experience for Harry; Dumbledore is always teaching the little tyke even though he is unaware most of the time (Draco and the Tower scene). 2. On page 580, after they return to Hogsmead from the cave, Harry notes that he has a "searing stitch in his chest." Is this a cramp from exertion or could it be something else? Snow: I never thought too much about this at all. I pretty much felt the straightforward assumption was the cause of the pain. 3. Are you reassured by Dumbledore's wry humor about the potion in the cave ("That was no health drink")? How grave is his condition? Is there any possibility for recovery? Snow: There was a chance of recovery but that was not part of Dumbledore's overall agenda. 4. Harry wants to bring DD to Madam Pomfrey (or vice versa), but DD insists on seeing Snape. Harry's reluctance is understandable, but what do you make of DD insistence that he see Severus? Snow: I think it was two-fold, not only could Severus heal the situation but it was dire that Snape be available to do what he ultimately did do. 5. What do you make of Rosemerta's sudden appearance? Her attire? Is there any indication at this point of her (albeit unwilling) duplicity? Snow: I think she was still under the imperious curse; Dumbledore can certainly recognize if someone has been cursed and Dumbledore insists that Harry can retrieve the broomsticks. 6. When you first read that the Dark Mark was flying over Hogwarts, what was your initial reaction? Did you think that someone had been murdered? If so, who? Did you believe that the "major death" had already occurred or were you prepared for something more? Snow: These types of questions are so hard, I think I was stunned but totally thought at that point someone had been killed because of Arthur's warning in GOF of seeing the Dark Mark over the house meant someone had just died at the deatheaters hands. 7. Did you see Dumbledore's strength on the flight back to the castle as a sign that he might recover from his injuries? Or simply a rally due to adrenaline? Snow: Sorry in advance for the Star Wars similarity but it so reminded me of Yoda barely able to walk with a cane but when he was fighting, he would have kicked Bruce Lee's butt. 8. On page 583, as they speed toward the Dark Mark, Harry wonders if he would again be responsible for the death of a friend. What death(s) does Harry feel responsible for? Is he really responsible? Snow: Harry felt responsible for putting his best friends in danger in SS and most of the books after. None of his friends ever died because they helped Harry but many of his friends wouldn't care if they did. In OOP when the Threstrals came, Harry didn't want Neville, Luna and Ginny to be involved; I don't think it was because he didn't find their help valuable, it was fear that they may be hurt in the process from their inexperience. 9. Upon reaching the deserted tower, Dumbledore orders Harry again to wake Severus and bring him to DD. If there is a possibility that DEs are in the castle, why send Harry into the castle on an errand? Why not accompany him? Why does he order him to talk to no one? Why not alert some one like McGonagall or Hagrid, if Harry should meet them along the way? Snow: This all comes down to one answer; Dumbledore has a plan already in effect, especially where it concerns Snape. 10. Why does DD immobilize Harry? How can he be sure that Harry will be safe under his cloak? Doesn't this ultimately leave Harry defenseless? Is this a mistake? Is Harry ever in danger on the tower? Snow: Again, it's about `the plan'. Harry is not aloud privileged information about the plan or else the plan may fail, again concerning Snape. (you see Harry is aloud information about Draco and the deatheaters but not about Snape) 11. What do you make of the exchange between Draco and DD? Is DD stalling? Why would he praise Draco's plan to get DE's into the castle? Is DD right about Draco not being a killer? Might he become one? Snow: Dumbledore already surmised from Draco's first failed attempt at Dumbledore's life that Draco was not a killer (his heart wasn't in it). Dumbledore's drawn out exhibit with Draco was for Harry's understanding. 12. The vanishing cabinets have been around for awhile, at least since CoS. Is it possible that someone else is aware of their connection? Why does DD conclude so quickly that there must be a pair? Snow: I have stated already that Snape was the first one to hear the account of what happened with Montague and the cabinets, since Snape was the one to his rescue. Even if Montague couldn't speak at the time of rescue, Snape was surely capable enough to legilimence the information about the interaction between the two cabinets. Any idiot could figure out at that point that it could be a welcoming wagon to anyone who needed to enter the castle undetected and Dumbledore is no idiot. 13. Draco and DD disagree about who Snape is working for Well, I am going to ask again: Where do Snape's loyalties lie? Okay, okay you don't have to answer that ? just see the last 10,000 posts. Snow: Snape has his own agenda it does coincide with Dumbledore's plan however! 14. This has also been covered at length, but just for consistency's sake, who else might be in hiding? Might LV also have someone in hiding? Snow: The first question might be answered in OOP when Mad Eye is reminiscing over lost Order members but the second question might be well answered by Pippin. 15. How are Draco and Dumbledore using the term "mercy?" Why is it Dumbledore's mercy that matters now? Snow: Because it is Dumbledore that is dying for the `cause' and not Draco! 16. Dumbledore indicates his surprise that Draco would allow/agree to let Fenrir Greybeck enter the castle. Why is it that Draco might want to prevent Fenrir from coming? This is the second time we have been reminded of Draco's connection to Greybeck. Why? What is the connection? Snow: Draco used the connection with Fenrir but does not want to use Fenrir for the connection. 17. The DEs are insistent that Draco finish the job himself, or at least the unnamed DE is. Why is this important? Does it really matters who finishes the job? Will there be consequences for Draco or Snape since Draco did not ultimately murder DD? Snow: As Snape so rightly puts it, `I think he means me to do it in the end'. It's all about Snape! 18. Again a common question: Why does DD plead with Snape? What is he pleading for? Why does his tone frighten Harry more than "anything he had experienced all evening?" Snow: I think Harry recognizes that familiar tone from Dumbledore in the cave when Harry felt he had to keep giving Dumbledore a drink that may kill him. 19. And again, sigh: What is the hatred and revulsion on Snape's face? What revolts him? Snow: The revulsion was pain! Snape didn't want to have to do what he had been bound to do if this unrealistic moment actually occurred anymore than Harry wanted to keep feeding Dumbledore the potion that may kill him. 20. Why is this Avada Kedavra spell different from the others we have seen? (Note: Cedric simply crumples to the ground). Or is it? Why does DD's body fly up in the air and then fall slowly back toward the earth? Snow: Snape could not mean the spell with all his hatred heart because his heart is not full of hatred for Dumbledore. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 02:36:51 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:36:51 -0000 Subject: Rowling's Dream - Did she tell us something? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163117 Mike: JKR admitted that although she hadn't dreamed about the Potterverse in the past, she recently had one for the first time. Most news outlets only reported this, but one revealed further info on that dream. Here's the link that I used: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061220/wl_uk_afp/afpentertainmentbritain _061220211515 This is the salient part of her revelation: ****************************************************************** She then described her odd dreams about Harry's world, which Potter fans are sure to scour for clues about what may happen in the final book. "For years now, people have asked me whether I ever dream that I am 'in' Harry's world," Rowling wrote. "The answer was 'no' until a few nights ago, when I had an epic dream in which I was, simultaneously, Harry and the narrator. "I was searching for a Horcrux (a magical object in Rowling's books created through the use of the Dark Arts) in a gigantic, crowded hall which bore no resemblance to the Great Hall as I imagine it. "As the narrator I knew perfectly well that the Horcrux was jammed in a hidden nook in the fireplace, while as Harry I was searching for it in all kinds of other places, while trying to make the people around me say lines I had pre-arranged for them. ****************************************************************** Mike again: A while back, we had a short thread about the four founders' related Horcruxes with the speculation that there were also four founder related secret rooms. The thought was that possibly the CoS and the RoR were both hiding places for Voldie's Horcruxes and if we (well, Harry) could find Helga's and Godric's rooms, we (I mean Harry, of course) would find the other two Horcruxes. Slytherin has the CoS, Ravenclaw? has the RoR (speculation that it was hers). What were the other two, if they existed? I postulated that Gryffindor's was entered via a fireplace, fire being his earth sign. Then I read this news of JKR's dream and I'm thinking, *Did I nail one of the book 7 plot lines?* After coming to and coming to my senses I realise that I came as close as Trelawney does during her conscious-moment predictions ("A dark young man, possibly troubled ..." indeed, Draco was as pale as the moon). So now I'm wondering, was this just a dream, no relation to what's going to happen in book 7? Did we not get some of the context, such as say, "This wasn't my dream, but you get the gist of my POV dichotomy."? This revelation wasn't phrased in JKR's usual obscure hinting style, it came out way too straight forward. On the other hand, maybe JKR did just inadvertently (and astoundingly indiscretely) release some vital clue about book 7. Is this somewhere we want to explore? Does anybody else think we can take this as a legitimate clue? Would love to hear other thoughts on this interview. Mike, who's not sure what to think about this. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 02:49:49 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 02:49:49 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?) In-Reply-To: <20061222172100.36521.qmail@web33208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163118 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Melanie wrote: > > I found Dumbledore in a way more selffish in book five. I realize > he was doing this prevent his death..figuring he would still be > needed. ...in the short term, it is correct to say that > Dumbledore was looking at his own self interests and seemingly > ignoring Harry's. Hi Melanie! DD's actions in OotP, as unwise as they were, never seemed selfish to me. What he did (or rather didn't do), he did mostly to protect Harry. At least this is how DD explains it himself:"I was trying, in distancing myself from you, to protect you". Next he says:"Voldemort's aim in possessing you, as he demonstrated tonight, would not have been my destruction. It would have been yours. He hoped, when he possessed you briefly a short while ago, that I would sacrifice you in the hope of killing him" (p.828, US). I don't think DD is lying here. I'm one of the people who still like Dumbledore, and I refuse to believe that he is *that* hypocritical. I think he should have found the way to let Harry know what was going on, even if he didn't want to take the risk and talk to him in person. That was not very smart, IMO, but I still don't think DD acted like this only to "prevent his death", as you say. Take care, Melanie! zanooda From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Dec 23 04:21:55 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:21:55 -0000 Subject: Hogwart's Cemetery In-Reply-To: <3202590612221617q34d23172l5fd1a039138ea6f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163119 > Sarah: > Cuaron gave the interview about JK telling him this, and mentioned > that she said it would be important in book six. Later, in book six, > it's heavily implied that no one has been buried at Hogwarts (at least > not other headmasters or headmistresses) and that Dumbledore is the > first. Together with the fact that Dumbledore's tomb appears to stand > alone, I think this may have already come to pass, and we have seen > the graveyard, which only contains one lone tomb. Potioncat: I remember a great flurry after Cuaron's statement. But I also recall JKR stating that she didn't remember that conversation. I really think Cuaron had wanted to put a cemetary into the Hogwarts "set" but she had nixed the idea. IMHO the important cemetary in the HP series is the one where LV has his rebirth. Oh drat...I never caught on to the irony of someone being born in a cemetary. Doh! From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 23 04:32:03 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 04:32:03 -0000 Subject: A theory on title 7 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163120 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "theadimail" wrote: > > I don't remember the exact context but in the Lord of The Rings, > the main wizard calls an army of the dead to fight isnt it? Maybe > Harry has to raise up an army of dead, like Voldie's inferi but this > time hallowed people so good people to fight the battle. In that > sense this could refer to the climactic battle when the two armies > clash after the horcrux hunt is over and they are all destroyed and Essentially but not quite. The army of the dead was bound to the earth because they had failed to come to the aid of a King of Gondor as they had sworn to do. Their spirits were not allowed to pass on until they honored their oath. Only a king of Gondor could release them. It was Aragorn, heir to the throne of Gondor, who ordered them to follow him into battle and who then released them when they complied. The appearance of the army of the dead at the battle of Minas Tirith was a Jackson invention. In "reality" Aragorn released the dead after an offstage battle in the south. Aragorn and Gondor's southern army were then able to sail north in ships captured from the attackers and turn the tide for good in the battle for Minas Tirith. The HP movies may not be satisfying for readers in every respect but so far they have avoided the savaging that Jackson gave LOTR, be thankful for that. Your idea has some merit. In a sense Harry has already used an army of the hallowed dead to defeat Voldemort--in the graveyard scene at the Riddle house. Guessing the conclusion from the title is a tall order if previous titles are any guide. There have been a lot of interesting suggestions floated here, perhaps they will add up to something. Ken From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 05:50:40 2006 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:50:40 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0612222150u40eaaa76ta7aa6b82c9232e9d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163121 Mitchell: The most simple answer is usually the right one!! Lynda: Of course! The problem here is I've read no less than three (perhaps more) posts claiming that the poster's idea is the simplest answer. And they are all good answers, but it could be any of those answers, or one we haven't thought of yet. My theory, some 27 hours after learning the title of book seven is that it refers to 7 deathly (ghostlike?) hallowed beings. But that's just my theory... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dougsamu at golden.net Sat Dec 23 06:16:54 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 01:16:54 -0500 Subject: Harry Potter and the Four Horcruxes (was: Title of Book 7 - Esoteric Message-ID: <67990088-11E6-4E4C-8AA5-219868007637@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163122 Neri: Now to the even more intriguing part: the Gryffindor Horcrux. Generally the Four Hallows/Four Houses parallel seems to work against Nagini being a Horcrux, since she's not related to Gryffindor and not to the Four Hallows. This agrees with what some of us have been suspecting for some time, that Nagini being a Horcrux is a red herring. Doug: Harry Potter and the Dark Night of the Soul Offending signature line removed. Bong! Bong! Bong! __________________ From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 23 12:58:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:58:56 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - OED definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "amanitamuscaria1" wrote: > Hallows: sb (substantive) First entry, usually in plural hallows: > 1. A holy personage, a saint (Little used after 1500, and now > preserved only in All-Hallows and its combinations. > 2. In plural applied to the shrines or relics of saints; the gods of > the heathen or their shrines. > 3. Hallow- in combinations (chiefly in Scotland) is used for All- > Hallow- = All Saints'-, in Hallow-day, Hallow-e'en,Hallowmas, Hallow- > tide; also hallow-fair, a fair or market held at Hallowmas; hallow- > fire, a bonfire kindled on All-hallow-e'en, an ancient Celtic > observance. Geoff: Having gone away for five days just as this topic surfaced, I'm trying to keep up to speed on a family computer 180 miles away from home and divorced from my HP and Tolkien books and my other sources of assistance. On the subject of "Hallow", just enlarging on the comments above, the word can be a noun, a verb or an adjective. We can dispense with the adjective since that is usually only found as "hallowed" and as a verb, "hallows" only occurs as a third person singular whereas the structure of the book title really only supports its use as a noun. It is not a word which you would find thrown around idly in everyday conversation, except currently on HPFGU :-), but I would think that UK English speakers would only latch onto Hallowe'en or place names such as Allhallows-on-Sea if the matter was raised with them. As has been often pointed out, Hallowe'en is a contraction of All Hallow's Eve - the night before All Hallows Day, better known as All Saints Day. So usage might dictate that we are looking at deathly saints or a deathly place with conections to saints. So, will Harry be able to call on the help of now- deceased wizards, perhaps through portraits or information left by them or will things come to an end at a place of historical wizarding significance? It's a bit early to get too deeply into speculation; I think a number of people burnt their fingers over HBP this way but my gut feeling leans towards the latter scenario. The jury's going to be out for a long time, folks... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 16:29:07 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:29:07 -0000 Subject: HP&theDH Title: People, Places, and Things Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163124 We have been speculating for a few days on the nature of one particular word in the title of the new book. Perhaps we could take a systematic approach and explore the possibilities of each of the possible catagories. Though I am quite sure we will never actually resolve it. I think that should be enought Intro that key words are not likely to appear in the summary, so to the point. I think we can agree that 'Deathly Hallows' is a noun; meaning people, places, and things. Let' start with - THINGS- Well the obvious 'things' is the Horcruxes, they are certainly tied nicely to 'Deathly', which as has been noted several times, is quite different than 'deadly'. The are objects that are certainly critical to the next and final book. Perhaps the simplest answer really is the simplest answer. Other 'things' could be Objects of Power. Objects of Power are not all that uncommon in fantasy. It is possible the Harry will have to gather Objects of Power as a means of gathering strength or perhaps unique power to defeat Voldemort. So, in this sense, he is gather object of Good Power. It is possible that the /objects/ are objects of Bad Power. That is, they are objects the Voldemort will gather to aid himself. In this case, 'deathly' takes on much more significants. It is possible that the 'things' are a combination. That is the Objects of Power may be objects of power specifically of the four founders of Hogwarts. The previous books imply that Voldemort selected object that were already magically powerful, apparently thinking that magical power would add to the power of his Horcruxes. So, perhaps in gathering the Objects of Power of the four Founders, he will also have to gather at least some of the Horcruxes. I like this idea because gathering all the Horcruxes seems like such an impossible task. So, perhaps as I have long suspected, Harry will not find all the Horcruxes, but he will find the critical key Horcruxes. So, having these Objects of Power will override, or perhaps overpower, not having all the Horcruxes. In a sense, in this scenario, needing to destroy all the Horcruxes is something of a Red Herring. If you can think of any additional ways that 'things' could be applied, please add them. PEOPLE- I think in this case we need to be careful not to take the 'Saints' aspect of 'hallow' to much to heart. It really mean venerated or revered people, which saints certainly are. Yet, I don't think 'saints' literally works in the wizard world. Some have specualated Harry will gather his own army of undead, but of venerated/good undead. Somehow, he will draw on the power of substantail revered by probably dead people in the wizard world. Some people have speculated that Harry will call on the power of ghosts or spirit; either the Hogwarts ghost/spirits or the spirits of the Founders. In a sense, in gathering the Founders Objects of Power, he is in essense calling on the spirits of the spirits of the founders themselves. This could also tie together the idea of uniting the Houses. Part of what I am trying to say is that I think we need to come up with non-religious more secular applications of the word 'Hallows'. The 'saintly', 'holy', 'sacred' aspect is certainly valid and undeniable, but as I said, applied in a more secular fashion. Other have speculated that it could be an organization in the wizard world. Perhaps the SS branch of the Death Eaters. Some have speculated it could be a group working for the side of good, though I personally doubt that. It seems we have the good guys and bad guys already nicely divided up, so I don't see the need for any new secret organizations to be added. Still, if you can think of any way to apply 'people' to 'Deathly Hallows', please feel free to add them. I'm trying to get all the ideas we've had so far in one place. PLACES - 'Hallowed Ground' usually refers to the location of great historical battles, and/or the resulting graveyards. In most cases, graveyards in general are considered 'hallowed ground'. I suspect if there is hallowed ground associated with Godrics Hollow, it is more likely associated with the graveyard where Harry's parents are buried. Though, others have speculated it might be the location of what I will now call 'the Battle of Godrics Hollow' in which Harry's parents died. Certainly that was important, but I'm not sure it is significant enough to be considered 'hallowed'. Still, it did result in the Boy Who Lived, and who is also the one person with the potential to defeat Voldemort, so we can't discount its significants all together. Since the title is 'hallowS' meaning more than one, can anyone think of away of tying several Hallowed places into the story? Please, my goal here is to try and gather all the ideas we have so far into one thread. If you have more ideas, or variations in any of these catagories, or if you want to expand on an existing idea, please do so, but do so by catagory (people, places, things) to help us keep track. Thank you and good night. Steve/bboyminn From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Dec 23 16:43:56 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 10:43:56 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP&theDH Title: People, Places, and Thing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40612230843w766f4652re484cd3c394f2efe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163125 Steve/bboyminn: > > We have been speculating for a few days on the nature of > one particular word in the title of the new book. Perhaps > we could take a systematic approach and explore the > possibilities of each of the possible catagories. Though > I am quite sure we will never actually resolve it. > > I think that should be enought Intro that key words are > not likely to appear in the summary, so to the point. > > I think we can agree that 'Deathly Hallows' is a noun; > meaning people, places, and things. > > Let' start with - > > THINGS- > > Well the obvious 'things' is the Horcruxes, they are > certainly tied nicely to 'Deathly', which as has been > noted several times, is quite different than 'deadly'. The > are objects that are certainly critical to the next and > final book. Perhaps the simplest answer really is the > simplest answer. > > Other 'things' could be Objects of Power. Objects of Power > are not all that uncommon in fantasy. It is possible the > Harry will have to gather Objects of Power as a means of > gathering strength or perhaps unique power to defeat > Voldemort. So, in this sense, he is gather object of Good > Power. > > It is possible that the /objects/ are objects of Bad Power. > That is, they are objects the Voldemort will gather to aid > himself. In this case, 'deathly' takes on much more > significants. > > It is possible that the 'things' are a combination. That > is the Objects of Power may be objects of power > specifically of the four founders of Hogwarts. The > previous books imply that Voldemort selected object that > were already magically powerful, apparently thinking that > magical power would add to the power of his Horcruxes. > So, perhaps in gathering the Objects of Power of the four > Founders, he will also have to gather at least some of > the Horcruxes. > > I like this idea because gathering all the Horcruxes seems > like such an impossible task. So, perhaps as I have long > suspected, Harry will not find all the Horcruxes, but he > will find the critical key Horcruxes. So, having these > Objects of Power will override, or perhaps overpower, not > having all the Horcruxes. In a sense, in this scenario, > needing to destroy all the Horcruxes is something of a Red > Herring. > > If you can think of any additional ways that 'things' > could be applied, please add them. > > PEOPLE- > > I think in this case we need to be careful not to take > the 'Saints' aspect of 'hallow' to much to heart. It > really mean venerated or revered people, which saints > certainly are. Yet, I don't think 'saints' literally works > in the wizard world. > > Some have specualated Harry will gather his own army of > undead, but of venerated/good undead. Somehow, he will > draw on the power of substantail revered by probably dead > people in the wizard world. > > Some people have speculated that Harry will call on the > power of ghosts or spirit; either the Hogwarts > ghost/spirits or the spirits of the Founders. In a sense, > in gathering the Founders Objects of Power, he is in > essense calling on the spirits of the spirits of the > founders themselves. This could also tie together the > idea of uniting the Houses. > > Part of what I am trying to say is that I think we need > to come up with non-religious more secular applications > of the word 'Hallows'. The 'saintly', 'holy', 'sacred' > aspect is certainly valid and undeniable, but as I said, > applied in a more secular fashion. > > Other have speculated that it could be an organization > in the wizard world. Perhaps the SS branch of the Death > Eaters. Some have speculated it could be a group working > for the side of good, though I personally doubt that. It > seems we have the good guys and bad guys already nicely > divided up, so I don't see the need for any new secret > organizations to be added. > > Still, if you can think of any way to apply 'people' to > 'Deathly Hallows', please feel free to add them. I'm > trying to get all the ideas we've had so far in one place. > > PLACES - > > 'Hallowed Ground' usually refers to the location of great > historical battles, and/or the resulting graveyards. In > most cases, graveyards in general are considered > 'hallowed ground'. I suspect if there is hallowed ground > associated with Godrics Hollow, it is more likely > associated with the graveyard where Harry's parents are > buried. > > Though, others have speculated it might be the location > of what I will now call 'the Battle of Godrics Hollow' in > which Harry's parents died. Certainly that was important, > but I'm not sure it is significant enough to be considered > 'hallowed'. Still, it did result in the Boy Who Lived, > and who is also the one person with the potential to > defeat Voldemort, so we can't discount its significants > all together. > > Since the title is 'hallowS' meaning more than one, can > anyone think of away of tying several Hallowed places > into the story? > > Please, my goal here is to try and gather all the ideas > we have so far into one thread. If you have more ideas, > or variations in any of these catagories, or if you want > to expand on an existing idea, please do so, but do so > by catagory (people, places, things) to help us keep > track. montims: I still like the idea of it being dates - the Eve of All Hallows (Hallowe'en) when Harry's destiny started, and the Eve of All Hallows when the prophecy is fulfilled one way or another... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Sat Dec 23 16:52:06 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:52:06 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - OED definitions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163126 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" > Geoff: Snip - > > As has been often pointed out, Hallowe'en is a > contraction of All Hallow's Eve - the night before > All Hallows Day, better known as All Saints Day. > > So usage might dictate that we are looking at deathly > saints or a deathly place with conections to saints. > So, will Harry be able to call on the help of now- > deceased wizards, perhaps through portraits or > information left by them or will things come to an > end at a place of historical wizarding significance? Lilygale here: I think the clues do point to Harry calling on the help of now deceased "hallowed wizards'. Additional clues suggest a title with multilayered meaning; numerous posters here and on other sites have pointed out the Celtic tradition that the "veil" between this world and the next is thin, easily breached on All Hallows Eve. Furthermore, I speculate that there may be places in this world where the veil is particulary breachable. One place may be the literal veil in the DOM. Since Rowling reserved Hallows of Hogwarts as a potential title, perhaps there are other places in Hogwarts, places we may have seen (Chamber of Secrets) or not yet discovered. Dumbledore referred to Hogwarts secrets while talking to Harry in HBP about Tom's desire to be at Hogwarts as a teacher in order to uncover magical secrets. As John Granger has pointed out, each HP book involves a figurative journey to the underworld which Harry survives. I believe that we will see Harry journeying to the underworld/otherworld literally in the last book, and I certainly want him to live to be a beacon of goodness and hope for the world - both the WW and RW. > It's a bit early to get too deeply into speculation; I > think a number of people burnt their fingers over HBP > this way but my gut feeling leans towards the latter > scenario. > > The jury's going to be out for a long time, folks... Totally agree - but it's so much fun speculating! Lilygale From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 23 18:05:07 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:05:07 -0000 Subject: HP&theDH Title: People, Places, and Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163127 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > PEOPLE- > > I think in this case we need to be careful not to take > the 'Saints' aspect of 'hallow' to much to heart. It > really mean venerated or revered people, which saints > certainly are. Yet, I don't think 'saints' literally works > in the wizard world. > > Some have specualated Harry will gather his own army of > undead, but of venerated/good undead. Somehow, he will > draw on the power of substantail revered by probably dead > people in the wizard world. > > Some people have speculated that Harry will call on the > power of ghosts or spirit; either the Hogwarts > ghost/spirits or the spirits of the Founders. In a sense, > in gathering the Founders Objects of Power, he is in > essense calling on the spirits of the spirits of the > founders themselves. This could also tie together the > idea of uniting the Houses. > > Part of what I am trying to say is that I think we need > to come up with non-religious more secular applications > of the word 'Hallows'. The 'saintly', 'holy', 'sacred' > aspect is certainly valid and undeniable, but as I said, > applied in a more secular fashion. Geoff: Sadly, there is a misconception that saints are venerated people which has been propagated in particular by the Catholic Church. The New Testament writings always refer to /any/ Christian believers as 'saints'. Paul often begins his letters by addressing them as, for example, the saints in Ephesus or Galatia or wherever... And they didn't all have haloes or beatific expressions on their faces. Speaking as one of that number - definitely sans halo - I see no reason why Hallows, in the Wizarding world, cannot cover those who seek a world aiming to help magical folk to a settled and peaceful way of life and looking to the downfall of the Voldemorts and Grindelwalds who seek only the victory of the dark side. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Dec 23 18:14:04 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:14:04 -0000 Subject: HP&theDH Title: People, Places, and Things In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163128 Steve/bboyminn: > Since the title is 'hallowS' meaning more than one, can anyone think of away of tying several Hallowed places into the story? Ceridwen: The places where Voldemort hid his horcruxes. These places would be hallowed to Voldemort. Since at least two of the horcruxes have belonged to Founders, their being in those places would, to some, hallow those places, without Voldemort's soul bits even being involved. Any place of significance, really. I still think that, if Hallows refers, even in part, to places, then Godrick's Hollow would count. This is where LV was first vaporized, and where the WW first saw the hope that he could be defeated. The significance of Hallowe'en 1981 is very strong. Secret rooms created by the Founders. I don't recall where the books give any indication that the other three created their own hiding places, but the books also don't say they didn't. IF there are such places, these would be significant, perhaps even revered because of who the Founders were. If they exist, they may also contain objects which would help Harry in his quest. We've already seen Gryffindor's sword, but there may be other things we haven't heard of yet. Ceridwen. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 18:32:37 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:32:37 -0000 Subject: Hallow an alternate spelling for 'hallo' In-Reply-To: <700201d40612220750t3b5a8290qf57dcff24667e6cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163129 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > Dictionary.com lists 'hallo' pronounced huh-loh to mean > noun > 3. a shout of exultation > verb used without object > 4. to call with a loud voice; shout; cry, as after hunting dogs > verb used with object > 5. to incite or chase (something) with shouts and cries of 'hallo!' > 7. to shout (something) > > Does someone have an OED? I suppose I could go to the Idaho Falls > Library... but I doubt they'd have one... > > If Harry was more urban perhaps the titled would be 'the Deathly Holla Back!" > > Kemper, who learned about the title via text message in the bowels of > southern Idaho > maria8162001: Well in Belgium and Netherlands they say "halo" which means hello. This goes together with your definiton but only with one "l". Cheers From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 23 21:25:13 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 21:25:13 -0000 Subject: Ministry of Magic - St. Mungos Seasonal Message Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163130 The Ministry of Magic would like to extend Season's Greetings to all Witches and Wizards. As a public service St. Mungos publishes this pamphlet every year at this time to update and provide a refresher to the magical community. Unfortunately, this season also seems to bring out the ridiculous in some of the Wizarding World. St. Mungos would appreciate it if wizarding families could take care of minor hexes, curses, injuries and magical mishaps themselves. With the increased rate of maladies in the season and the added trouble caused by Lord ... Thingy, St. Mungos could stand a break from those lesser problems. ****************************************************************** Lukinda Mouth, St. Mungos asst healer. I was stuck with... I mean... It will be my pleasure to present this years St. Mungos refresher. 1. Countering Minor Hexes. Every witch and wizard should know the old standard "Finite Incantatum" which will break the minor nuisance spells/hexes. This is an example of a counter-curse, in this case, non-specific. Use a counter-curse when you know what hex was placed on the victim, and use this general one if you don't know the specific counter-curse for the specific hex. Some effects may take longer to wear off after using a general counter-curse. (The little brat probably deserved it anyway) 2. Specific Counter-curses or Counter-charms. Some curses, hexes or charms require a specific counter...whatever, to remove them. Like, you know how "Nox" counters "Lumos" well some curses require the same. For instance, you use "Libracorpus", nvbrl, to counter "Levicorpus". If you don't know what spell was used, find the culprit... ahhh, the spell caster and use "Priori Incantatum" on their wand. 3. Healing. OK, there has been a lot of shoddy spell casting going on out there Anyway, if the spell or mishap has caused an injury, you can't counter-charm it, it's too late, you should have blocked it in the first place. You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...well, some of you can, but that's just gross. Every household should have a copy of *The Healer's Helpmate* or similar publication for healing minor wounds, bruises, abrasions or such. I think Gilderoy Lockhart published his own version of healing charms a while back, but he doesn't remember it. There is a great healing charm to close serious wounds, umm ... I forget the name... you know the one that sounds like a chanted song. If you've never learned it, you could get a lesson from Professor Dumbl... sorry, too late for that. You could ask Professor Sna... oh ... yeah, you probably won't find him. Well, just send an owl to St. Mungos and we'll schedule a training session. Also, keep a small supply of "dittany" on hand to prevent scarring after you heal the wound. 4. Potion, Animal and Plant Poisons will require specific antidotes. If you keep a decent stock of potion ingredients and have your old potions book, you can most likely whip up the antidote yourself. Of course, serious magical poisonings will require a visit to St. Mungos, but it better be serious. OK, that's about it. "St. Mungos appreciates your full involvement in the Healing Arts. Everyone has an inner Healer, it's up to you to make it blossom". ****************************************************************** Ahhh, The Ministry would like to thank Healer Mouth for that fine refresher course from St. Mungos. If there are any questions (or complaints), please contract St. Mungos directly, the Ministry had nothing to do with that pamphlet, we just published it. ___________________________________________________________________ Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukkah, Happy Holidays, or whatever your flavor is :-) Mike From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 00:34:32 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 00:34:32 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163131 Elfundeb wrote: > > *** spoiler space*** > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > X > > > > 1. Hallows is used as a noun (although my dictionary does not do > so), so it must be a person, place or thing. I think it is a place. > > > > 2. Hallow means sacred or holy, so the place must be sacred in some fashion. > > > Lupinlore responded: > A "hallow" can also be a physical object. New Age movement versions > of the Arthurian legend sometimes refer to various of the objects > associated with Arthur (the Grail, Excalibur, etc) as "hallows." > > A "deathly hallow" would be a holy or powerful object associated with death -- in other words, a horcrux. Thus the title, I strongly > suspect, simply reads "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes." Carol responds: Merlin's beard! Why didn't I think of the Arthurian connection? I don't think that the reference is to the Horcruxes, which are anything but hallowed, but maybe the (non-Slytherin) Founders created something akin to sacred objects, the Sword of Gryffindor being one, that are the antithesis of the Horcruxes, helpful to Harry but "deathly" to Voldemort or Nagini? Say, a wand and a tiara? I don't like the idea of Book 7 turning into a scavenger hunt, though, or of objects doing all the work for Harry. There's also the problem of the relative absence of religion in the books so far. Yes, JKR is a Christian and we've had references to baptism and to very secularized Christian holidays (Christmas and Easter), but a quest for sacred objects would make me think I'd fallen into the wrong story. And the idea of the "hallows" being the Horcruxes just doesn't sit right with me. They're not hallowed; they're desecrated. At any rate, "hallows" *is* clearly a noun modified by an adjective, "deathly, following the pattern of "Philosopher's Stone" and "Half-Blood Prince." It could refer to a time (All Hallows Eve and All Hallows, aka Halloween and All Saints Day), the time when the Potters were killed or a place (hallowed ground such as a graveyard or a churchyard). The etymology of "hallow" in All Hallows or Hallowmas doesn't seem very helpful. I think, though, that "hallows" as JKR uses it must mean holy or hallowed objects or a hallowed place (singular with a plural ending). The "deathly hallows" may have hallowed at one time but become corrupted, for example, a graveyard infested with Inferi. (I don't like that idea, either--I don't want Book 7 to turn into "Night of the Living Dead"!) At any rate, I'd rather that the hallows be a place than the Horcruxes, but all the ideas I get for the meaning give me the creeps. I wish she'd chosen one of her alternate titles! Carol, who just spent fifteen minutes talking with two thirteen-year-old boys about DH ("Deadly Hallows"), including why Snape might be a good guy after all, who's going to die, and what an epilogue is From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 02:02:05 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 02:02:05 -0000 Subject: Grey!Snape's Demise In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163132 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" wrote: > > Jen wrote: > > Yes, it's true, I'm putting a stake in Grey!Snape as a possible > > theory from my perspective. > > SSSusan: > Okay. Since Jen's issued a TKO on the tag Grey!Snape ... then I'm > just going to have to think up something else to keep this going... > > Let's see. Something that would get at the notion that this is > about the Whole of Snape... > > How about... > NoHarryHe'sDDM!ButHe'sNotAlwaysGoodAndSoYou'llHavetoDealwithThat! > Snape > > Well, *that* sure flows off the tongue, doesn't it? > > Welcoming any assistance (Potioncat, you're good at this kind of > thing!), > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, Mike: A little while back I came up with this little moniker for Snape. It springs from my belief that Snape is mostly OFH (for personal reasons he wants revenge on Voldemort), partly DDM (he sees Dumbledore and his Order as the best way to exact that revenge), and although not really ESE, definitely all a##hole (anybody need an explanation?). Even DDMers must admit that Snape still has an allegiance to the Malfoy family, at least Narcissa and Draco. He maintains an outward allegiance to Lucius as well as LV. At the same time, Snape maintains a certain outward (and in some cases probably some actual) dislike for the good guys, even though those good guys still respect Snape and what he does for the Order and the individuals in the Order (except Sirius). This is it: Multiply Influenced Snape; Never Obvious. Maintains Enmity, Respect IOW, MISNOMER. So SSSusan, is this one any good? I admit I'm no Potioncat. Mike, who finally decided to run this one up the flagpole From catlady at wicca.net Sun Dec 24 05:33:15 2006 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 05:33:15 -0000 Subject: Not killing Peter / Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Vanishing Cabinets Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163133 Zanooda wrote in : << Wow, this is quite ingenious, even if quite creepy, as well. Compared to this, AK seems like a very nice death, quick and clean. >> I had a lot of practice, as soon as GoF told us about Avada Kedavra, the Killing Curse, answering the question 'Back in PoA, how did Harry intend to kill Sirius when he didn't know Avada Kedavra yet?" My favorite answer then was one I omitted this time because it seems creepier than some others: to Transfigure the victim's aorta into tissue paper, so that the victim dies almost instantly from massive internal hemorrhage. Without getting any literal blood on the killers' hands. << I think though maybe Lupin and Black wouldn't want to do such bloody stuff in front of the kids. It would also require some kind of communication between them, some kind of agreement on what to do >> Black wasn't thinking about 'in front of the kids' anymore than he was thinking about clearing his name. Lupin's willingness to be bloody in front of the children is no less inexplicable than his willingness to murder Peter in front of witnesses, or at all. If they weren't thinking of something bloody or messy, why did they roll up their sleeves? (The attempt to understand or explain Lupin's problematic behavior in this scene is probably the reason why the ESE!Lupin and MAGIC DISHWASHER theories were created. According to MAGIC DISHWASHER, Lupin is not trying to kill Peter but rather trying to goad Harry into saving Peter's life because Dumbledore has decided to send LV a servant with a life debt to Harry Potter. One of their axioms is that using the blood of a life-indebted servant for the re-embodiment spell creates a flaw that makes the re-embodied LV vulnerable to Harry, which is why DD's eye twinkled when he heard that part of the Graveyard events. I believe that explanation of the twinkle without believing that the Shrieking Shack scene was a set-up.) Maybe as young men or as schoolboys, they had had long theoretical discussions of how to kill people without using an Unforgiveable, and had agreed what method they they thought was best, and maybe even practiced it on animals. (JKR appears not to share my reluctance to commit vivisectoid experiments on cats, and I consider a magical quick death for a sheep or deer to be no morally worse than a slaughterhouse or shotgun.) So maybe in their nostalgic reunion, they automatically intended to use the method of killing on which they maybe had agreed so long ago. Lupinlore wrote in : << Let us take Umbridge as one example. DD is watching Harry "more closely than [he] can have imagined." And yet DD managed to miss the little bit about Umbridge's detentions? Unbelievable. Which means that the moral avatar of the series tacitly approves of Umbridge's abuse of Harry, which means abuse is, in the moral universe of the series, approved of. >> In the matter of Umbridge, I don't believe Dumbledore had any power to change or punish her behavior; I believe that's why McGonagall told Harry to keep his head down and his temper under control rather than telling him she will pass this matter (detention as punishment for saying that LV had returned) on to Headmaster Dumbledore. (I like the theory, posted on this list, that the Ginger Newt bikkies she gave him contained a calming potion.) -------------------- I personally agree that the Dursleys abused Harry, and Snape abused Harry and Neville and Hermione (and Harry and Neville and Hermione were children, which makes it child abuse), and that Dumbledore's role in that matter is problematic. (I have read long posts of arguments that the Dursleys' and Snape's behavior is not abusive because there are other people (in real life) who abuse worse, a lot worse, and of arguments that Snape is not abusive at all but merely a demanding good teacher. I agree that there are lots of people, in real life, who abuse worse, but I've never believed that minus-one is a positive number because minus-one-million is so much more negative.) As for Dumbledore, you say, if he failed to stop child abuse, that means he condoned it. I would rather believe he didn't have the power to stop it. I have read many posts arguing whether he had the power to stop it and I don't want to take part in that argument. You say, if Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is not punished for child abuse, the writing is bad. I say, you must mean that the writing is MORALLY bad. I say, writing that is morally bad is not always bad entertainment and not always bad stringing of words together to create a word-weave of beauty or humor. I say, even if Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is never punished for child abuse and even if this series is morally bad, its writing is still good entertainment and humor and possibly a word-weave of beauty. Oh, and by the way, even if Snape unexpectedly turns out to be a simple villain who murdered a pleading Dumbledore out of loyalty to the Dark Lord or some other evil motive, he's STILL a sexpot. (Other evil motives: Some have suggested a desire to replace both Voldemort and Dumbledore as mightiest wizard in Britin by helping LV to kill DD and then helping Harry to kill LV (or killing LV himself, which would be nice because it contradicts the Prophecy) and then killing Harry. I don't see any sign in Severus's personality of *wanting* to be to be the mightiest wizard.) Pippin wrote in : << A horned toad is neither a toad nor a frog. I'ts a lizard. >> I've always considered that, like the claim that kappas are more common in Mongolia, to show dear Sevvie's lack of knowledge rather than lack of nastiness. Also in GoF, Harry and Ron spent a detention "forced to pickle rats' brains in Snape's dungeon". I've always thought that one was aimed at Ron as a rat-owner. As the pain aimed at Neville may have missed because horny toads aren't toads, the pain aimed at Ron missed because he had ceased to like rats at the end of PoA. That suggests that Severus had no idea that Scabbers was Pettigrew and therefore was still sincere in his belief of Sirius's guilt. It also suggests that dead owls are not common potion ingredients, or Sevvie would have aimed at Harry's fondness for his pet. (It does suddenly give me to wonder whether the Marauders killed and/or tortured Sevvie's pet in one of their practical jokes on him.) Carol wrote in : << he rightly believed that Hermione's "help" wasn't helping him at all. (It's she, not Neville, who lost points for Gryffindor.) >> I don't believe that Hermione's help wasn't helping Neville at all. I believe he learned more Potions from Hermione than from Snape, or at least he wouldn't have learned much from Snape without Hermione. I don't think Neville's learning disability is as straight-forward as dyslexia, but I think blaming him for being helped by Hermione is like blaming a blind or severely dyslexic student for having someone read the textbook aloud to him. Furthermore, I don't believe that Snape thinks that Hermione's help isn't helping Neville at all. At any rate, that's not why he took points from her. Because in PS/Ss, he took points from Harry for NOT helping Neville: "You -- Potter -- why didn't you tell him not to add the quills? Thought he'd make you look good if he got it wrong, did you? That's another point you've lost for Gryffindor." Alla wrote in : << Alla, who always ready to sacrifice Snape, but for whom Living Snape but suffering forever Snape would be more satisfying conclusion :) >> Cruel! Let the poor guy die and be out of his misery. Beatrice summarized Chapter 27 in : << 12. The vanishing cabinets have been around for awhile, at least since CoS. Is it possible that someone else is aware of their connection? Why does DD conclude so quickly that there must be a pair?>> KJ answered in : << I think that he just knows how they work. Why he would have a Vanishing cabinet in the school, knowing that they are paired, is beyond me. >> And Carol answered in : << I don't think that anyone else is aware of the connection, which must have been set up long ago. Caractacus Burke is dead and Borgin seems to have known about it only because of Draco's, erm, project. Neither Snape nor DD knew about it, and they're the sharpest people at Hogwarts. Nor did Voldemort, even though he used to work at Borgin and Burke's, or he'd have invaded Hogwarts long before, DD or no DD. DD concluded that there must be a pair because the one in the RoR could not have been used to bring them if there weren't another somewhere else that provided a passageway >> I agree with Carol, except I suspect that Vanishing Cabinet is not their real name. I suspect that 'Vanishing Cabinet' is one unpaired cabinet and things that are put into it just vanish -- useful as a garbage disposal. And Hogwarts and B&B each thought they had a Vanishing Cabinet on the premises. When really they each had half of a pair of Passageway Cabinets, or whatever the right name for wormhole portals really is. From rklarreich at aol.com Sun Dec 24 06:16:01 2006 From: rklarreich at aol.com (rklarreich) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:16:01 -0000 Subject: Ministry of Magic - St. Mungos Seasonal Message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163134 Mike wrote: > The Ministry of Magic would like to extend Season's Greetings to all > Witches and Wizards. As a public service St. Mungos publishes this > pamphlet every year at this time to update and provide a refresher to > the magical community. [SNIP] > 2. Specific Counter-curses or Counter-charms. Some curses, hexes or > charms require a specific counter...whatever, to remove them. Like, > you know how "Nox" counters "Lumos" well some curses require the > same. For instance, you use "Libracorpus", nvbrl, to > counter "Levicorpus". Prof. Flitwick intervenes: Always remember to pronounce all the syllables, even in nonverbal spells! Never forget Wizard Harrumphio, who thought "Libracorpus" instead of "Liberacorpus" and found himself flat on his back with a dead body clutching a model of the zodiac on his chest! Roberta From quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca Sun Dec 24 06:45:27 2006 From: quick_silver71 at yahoo.ca (quick_silver71) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 06:45:27 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title - Objects of Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: >Steve: > Further, they could be objects of 'evil', that will come > into play in the story. They could perhaps be the combined > non-horcrux power of the objects Voldemort has already > gather, but perhaps he does not understand their true > power. Quick_Silver: Actually that's a really interesting idea because it kills two birds with one stone. It explains where Voldemort was in book 6 (off gathering the "Deathly Hallows") and it ties in with Trelawny's prophecy in book 3 about Voldemort being even more powerful the second time around. Quick_Silver From chitprabhashenoy at yahoo.com.au Sun Dec 24 12:49:38 2006 From: chitprabhashenoy at yahoo.com.au (chitprabhashenoy) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 12:49:38 -0000 Subject: Re Book 7 Title Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163136 1. The Encyclopedia of the Celts defines 'hallows' as 'holy objects'. Thus the 'Hallows of Ireland' are a stone where kings were crowned, a spear, sword, & cauldron. The modern British hallows are likewise royal: sceptre, swords, ampulla (of oil) & the Crown, all kept in the Tower. 2. 'All Hallows' is a place name & a church name. There are many, many Churches of All Hallows all through England, while Kent has two towns called 'Allhallows' & 'Allhallows-by-the-Sea'. 3. So I think 'Deathly Hallows' refers _both_ to things _&_ a place or places: Some place(s) where death-dealing but holy objects are kept/used (spear & swords are 'hallows', see above.) A spot where a sacred object brings about death. (We already know that there's at least one major death in Book 7.) Comments? Chitprabha Shenoy [miss] From kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com Sun Dec 24 01:18:40 2006 From: kayla_pittillo at hotmail.com (Kayla Pittillo) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:18:40 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163137 Lysi: > I think the significant OED entry is the following: > > 2. In pl. ["Hallows," as used in the title] applied to the shrines or > relics of saints; the gods of the heathen or their shrines. > In the phrase to seek hallows, to visit the shrines or relics of > saints; orig. as in sense 1, the saints themselves being thought of as > present at their shrines. Cf. quot. c1440 in 1. > > Now this is really interesting...a "relic" which contains a person's > "presence"...sounds like another way of saying a horcrux to me. Also, > there's a pilgrimage overtone to the word, perhaps referring to > Harry's search for each of the horcrux/relics in turn? > For some reason I don't think the title refers to horcruxes. Deathly means 'death like' not deadly or dangerous. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the final confrontation will be in a wizard cemetary or wherever the Mirror of Erised is. My thinking on this is like so: Harry's greatest wish was to be connected to his family and loved ones. They are all dead; save Petunia and Dudley. His dead family members naturally would be in either a cemetary of sorts or accessable through mirrors. I think something like what was stated in the movie Amistad will play a key factor. his dead family will give Harry their greatest power, for he is the reason they lived. Somehow, Harry will channel their love to overcome Voldemort, and it will be in a sacred place. Perhaps the place will be made sacred by their love. these are just the unsubstantiated musings of a lovelorn single in the days before Christmas. I could be wrong. Hestia *wishing all a happy and loving holiday season regardless of what you celebrate, whether it be Festivus or Kwanzaa, Hanukkah or Christmas* From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 24 14:09:02 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:09:02 -0000 Subject: Hallow an alternate spelling for 'hallo' In-Reply-To: <700201d40612220750t3b5a8290qf57dcff24667e6cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163138 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > Dictionary.com lists 'hallo' pronounced huh-loh to mean > noun > 3. a shout of exultation > verb used without object > 4. to call with a loud voice; shout; cry, as after hunting dogs > verb used with object > 5. to incite or chase (something) with shouts and cries of 'hallo!' > 7. to shout (something) > > Does someone have an OED? I suppose I could go to the Idaho Falls > Library... but I doubt they'd have one... > Geoff: The only normal alternate spelling for "hallo" in UK English is "hello". From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 14:56:30 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 08:56:30 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hallow an alternate spelling for 'hallo' In-Reply-To: References: <700201d40612220750t3b5a8290qf57dcff24667e6cc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40612240656y2f5bc2ewe4ffa5523d49be0c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163139 On 12/24/06, Geoff Bannister wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Kemper wrote: > > > > Dictionary.com lists 'hallo' pronounced huh-loh to mean > > noun > > 3. a shout of exultation > > verb used without object > > 4. to call with a loud voice; shout; cry, as after hunting dogs > > verb used with object > > 5. to incite or chase (something) with shouts and cries of 'hallo!' > > 7. to shout (something) > > > > Does someone have an OED? I suppose I could go to the Idaho Falls > > Library... but I doubt they'd have one... > > > > Geoff: > The only normal alternate spelling for "hallo" in UK English > is "hello". montims: I think they are referring to the hunting halloo or view-halloo. Plus, just to be sure we're all reading from the same songbook, can we just clear up the pronunciation? Hallo (greeting) rhymes with "pal JOE". Hallows (whatever definition of holy it is) is pronounced HALL-ohs, to rhyme with "gallows". IMO. Did anyone have any other variation of this? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun Dec 24 15:56:49 2006 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 15:56:49 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163140 According to this July 2004 post, the title "Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows" was patented in July 2003, along with a number of other "Harry Potter and ---" titles. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/103976 - CMC From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 24 16:13:02 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:13:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163141 I really don't see what the big problem is. We now know why, like it or not, Harry MUST live with the Dursleys. As for the Dursleys crimes against Harry, they were primarily ones of omission not commission. The Dursleys just did not love Harry, and there wasn't much Dumbledore could do about that. Eggplant From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Dec 24 16:48:39 2006 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (Debbie) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 16:48:39 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Spoiler Space/Happy Holidays Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163142 The Elves want to thank every one of you that provided spoiler space so that your fellow members could enjoy a game of Hangman. However, since the title of book 7 is now front page news, and booksellers round the world have informed their subscribers, it is unlikely that any one who reads this list is still ignorant of the title. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to use spoiler space. Happy holidays, and happy posting! The List Elves From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 24 17:58:45 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 24 Dec 2006 17:58:45 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/24/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1166983125.11.69558.m22@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163143 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 24, 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. http://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: From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 24 18:19:55 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 18:19:55 -0000 Subject: Not killing Peter / Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Vanishing Cabinets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163144 Catlady: > (The attempt to understand or explain Lupin's problematic behavior in > this scene is probably the reason why the ESE!Lupin and MAGIC > DISHWASHER theories were created. Pippin: I can't speak for the proponents of MAGIC DISHWASHER (once known as the MDDT) but ESE!Lupin started out with the idea that it would be a good joke to find canon showing that Lupin would be the traitor. However once I started looking I found so many clues that I started to consider it seriously. I started my search in the early encounters between Harry and Lupin, because that is where a mystery author is supposed to plant a clue as to how the crime was committed. I had no idea what specific crime I was going to accuse Lupin of, mind you, I was just trying to construct a mystery plot out of the canon available. It was actually Snape's odd remark in PoA about having made a whole cauldronful of wolfsbane potion that launched the theory. The presence of extra potion led inevitably to the idea that the potion could be stolen. Who would want to steal wolfsbane except Lupin? But why would Lupin need to steal it when Snape was making a more than adequate amount for his needs? Only, I realized, if Lupin had actually taken his potion when he supposedly didn't take it, the night of the shrieking shack. But that would mean that Peter's escape was intentional. And then I remembered Sirius's remark that the servants of Voldemort would be hunting Peter also, and his suspicion that Lupin was the spy, and it all became terribly clear. What if Sirius was right, Lupin was the spy, and all of Lupin's actions that night were meant to find out how much Sirius knew, how much Peter knew, and to keep them from comparing notes? Once ESE!Lupin had found out all he needed to know, he was ready to eliminate Peter, but when Harry wouldn't allow it, he arranged Peter's escape instead. In those days, it wasn't so clear how the wizarding world looked at private vengeance, though Sirius's "I want to commit the murder I was imprisoned for" (possible paraphrase, I don't have my books with me) should have given us a clue. But a lot of people argued that Harry was being naive and most 'good' wizards would have approved of what Sirius and Lupin were doing. As for the sleeves... There is a scene in PS/SS I think where Hermione rolls up her sleeves prior to doing some bit of magic. I think it's partly a joke about the stage magician's "nothing up my sleeve" and partly a way to show that the caster doesn't want to be hampered by his trailing sleeves -- but now that I think of it, it could just be that Lupin was showing Peter his dark mark. Wouldn't the others have seen it? I'm not sure. There is a hint in the way Fudge reacts to Snape's attempt to reveal it that maybe only certain people can see them, and we don't know when Harry got the ability. Maybe it was only after Voldemort used his blood in the resurrection spell -- could that be the reason for the gleam in Dumbledore's eyes? Catlady: > I've always considered that, like the claim that kappas are more > common in Mongolia, to show dear Sevvie's lack of knowledge rather > than lack of nastiness. Also in GoF, Harry and Ron spent a detention > "forced to pickle rats' brains in Snape's dungeon". I've always > thought that one was aimed at Ron as a rat-owner. As the pain aimed at > Neville may have missed because horny toads aren't toads, the pain > aimed at Ron missed because he had ceased to like rats at the end of > PoA. That suggests that Severus had no idea that Scabbers was > Pettigrew and therefore was still sincere in his belief of Sirius's > guilt. Pippin: Or it suggests that Snape had come to believe that Pettigrew was indeed a traitor and wanted to see Ron and Harry take some vicarious revenge. Snape seems to have accepted Dumbledore's belief that Sirius was innocent by the end of GoF. He never gives up his loathing for Sirius but he never accuses him of being untrustworthy again. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 24 19:06:56 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:06:56 -0000 Subject: Not killing Peter / Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Vanishing Cabinets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163145 Pippin: > As for the sleeves... > > There is a scene in PS/SS I think where Hermione rolls up > her sleeves prior to doing some bit of magic. I think it's > partly a joke about the stage magician's "nothing > up my sleeve" and partly a way to show that the caster > doesn't want to be hampered by his trailing sleeves -- > but now that I think of it, it could just be that Lupin was > showing Peter his dark mark. > > Wouldn't the others have seen it? I'm not sure. Pippin corrects herself: Of course no one would have seen it because Voldemort hadn't returned yet. Oops. But he could have been showing Peter where the dark mark had been, knowing only he and Peter would recognize the significance of the gesture. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 19:17:13 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:17:13 -0000 Subject: / Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Dumbledore/ JKR's writing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163146 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > (I have read long posts of arguments that the Dursleys' and Snape's > Behavior is not abusive because there are other people (in real life) > who abuse worse, a lot worse, and of arguments that Snape is not > abusive at all but merely a demanding good teacher. I agree that there > are lots of people, in real life, who abuse worse, but I've never > believed that minus-one is a positive number because minus-one- million > is so much more negative.) Alla: Oh, well said indeed. Catlady: > As for Dumbledore, you say, if he failed to stop child abuse, that > means he condoned it. I would rather believe he didn't have the power > to stop it. I have read many posts arguing whether he had the power to > stop it and I don't want to take part in that argument. Alla: Certainly, I would much prefer to have such Dumbledore as well and with a little persuasion I can even see the possibility of such Dumbledore in Umbridge situation and Dursleys situation. Umbridge - well, the argument certainly can be made that Harry indeed concealed the consequences of his detentions so well, that even constantly watching him Dumbledore did not notice. Dursleys, well, considering unhappy DD at the beginning of HBP I can buy that he hoped Dursleys would treat him well, unfortunately I am unconvinced that his non- interference policy was somehow justified, but at least with Dursleys with some mental gymnastics I can convince myself that when Dumbledore **initially** placed Harry with them, he did not have an evil intent. But no matter how hard I would try to hypnotize myself, nothing can convince me that Headmaster was powerless to stop Snape, unfortunately. So, yeah, in this instance in my book he looks unquestionably guilty of condoning abuse. I mean, if one does not consider what Snape does to be abuse, then of course Dumbledore can be excused, but we seem to agree on that, so I just do not see how Dumbledore could not have stopped Snape if he wanted to. But here is where my agreement with LL stops and we are going into different directions, sort of. Whether I consider Dumbledore putting a stamp of approval on Snape's actions or not, I most certainly do not equal that with JKR approving child abuse. Yes, I am guilty of **liking** JKR's public persona. So much of her views that she expresses in interviews and books are very close to what I think on many issues. Yes, maybe she is awful and horrible person in her private life, I certainly do not know her, but unless I do, I am afraid I am going to continue to feel sympathy to her and I just have very hard time imagining her approving child abuse. And even though it is certainly possible to like the art and dislike the creator of that art ( for example, I cannot stand Walt Disney RL persona based on what I read about him and I love the cartoons), I did not reach that stage with JKR yet. She gave me some truly amazing characters to like, to root for, to cheer them in their triumphs, wanting to smack them when they make mistakes. I like that, I am certainly not disappointed in how the kids developed, even if I grew more and more disappointed in the adults, and I am still grateful for that. Catlady: > You say, if Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is not punished > for child abuse, the writing is bad. I say, you must mean that the > writing is MORALLY bad. I say, writing that is morally bad is not > always bad entertainment and not always bad stringing of words > together to create a word-weave of beauty or humor. I say, even if > Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is never punished for child > abuse and even if this series is morally bad, its writing is still > good entertainment and humor and possibly a word-weave of beauty. Alla: I do not know if I would even go as far as saying that the writing is morally bad, frankly. I mean, the much discussed **epitome of goodness** phrase, didn't she say it few years ago? ( I tried to search for it, but my computer was giving me trouble). She never came back to this phrase, ever again? I mean, if I were to learn that she still thinks of Dumbledore as epitome of goodness, I would certainly be disappointed, but isn't what she says in her recent interviews and books is that Dumbledore makes mistakes and his mistakes are bigger than many's? I certainly do not see any inconsistencies, if her intent is to portray Dumbledore as deeply flawed man ( flawed in the real sense, not just so called human mistakes, which are not really mistakes) with the best intentions nevertheless. I certainly have many slap Dumbledore moments, but even I think that he means well. Most of times, I guess. I do think though that Dumbledore's suffers because of the need of the plot multiple times in the series. Too many hats, I cannot escape from that conclusion and even though in general I am much happier with JKR writing than LL is, I cannot escape from conclusion that DD speech at the end of OOP did not express clearly what she wanted to convey, but even that conclusion I do not base on the speech itself, but on DD of beginning of HBP, which I do not find to be very consistent with OOP speech. There are also several characters that in my book suffer from plot needs. Do I buy that loudmouthed Molly, who has no problem letting anybody have a piece of her mind, asked for or not, would let Harry stay with Dursleys? No, I don't. I loved CAPSLOCK Harry of OOP, I certainly did not find the abrupt dissappearance of it to be very believable. Teens certainly go through stages, but Harry showing NO sign of his temper once through HBP? Just once? I found it strange, except for the plot based reasons. But as I said in general, except Dumbledore, I am quite happy with characters I like so far. No matter how frustrating I find Lupin keeping his distance from Harry, I find the characterisation to be certainly consistent. I found Harry's grief for Sirius to be very well done, etc. Catlady: > Oh, and by the way, even if Snape unexpectedly turns out to be a > simple villain who murdered a pleading Dumbledore out of loyalty to > the Dark Lord or some other evil motive, he's STILL a sexpot. Alla: If you say so :) > Catlady: > > I've always considered that, like the claim that kappas are more > > common in Mongolia, to show dear Sevvie's lack of knowledge rather > > than lack of nastiness. Also in GoF, Harry and Ron spent a detention > > "forced to pickle rats' brains in Snape's dungeon". I've always > > thought that one was aimed at Ron as a rat-owner. As the pain aimed at > > Neville may have missed because horny toads aren't toads, the pain > > aimed at Ron missed because he had ceased to like rats at the end of > > PoA. That suggests that Severus had no idea that Scabbers was > > Pettigrew and therefore was still sincere in his belief of Sirius's > > guilt. Alla: I think Neri showed pretty unequivocally that in JKR's world those creatures **are** toads, so I am not sure that pain aimed at Neville was missed, good point about Ron though. > Pippin: > Or it suggests that Snape had come to believe that Pettigrew was > indeed a traitor and wanted to see Ron and Harry take some vicarious > revenge. Snape seems to have accepted Dumbledore's belief that > Sirius was innocent by the end of GoF. He never gives up his > loathing for Sirius but he never accuses him of being untrustworthy > again. Alla: You mean, Snape was being nice to Ron and Harry and gave them opportunity for vicarious revenge or that Snape was giving himself the opportunity to watch Ron and Harry doing that and thus having some vicarious revenge? I don't know. I think nice play on that was when Sirius was eating rats in GoF. HAPPY HOLIDAYS, GUYS . From kennclark at btinternet.com Sun Dec 24 19:38:16 2006 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 19:38:16 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163147 CMC wrote: > > According to this July 2004 post, the title "Harry Potter > and the Hogwarts Hallows" was patented in July 2003, along > with a number of other "Harry Potter and ---" titles. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/103976 Ken says: Very, very interesting - but that's not all. If you check out those which were filed on 24th July 2003 you come up with the following group HP and the Parseltongue Trophy HP and the Mudblood Revolt HP and the Hogwarts Hallows HP and the Hogsmeade Tomb HP and the Hallows of Hogwarts HP and the Half Blood Prince HP and the Green Flame Torch HP and the Great Revelation HP and the Final Revelation HP and the Battle for Hogswarts All bar Half Blood Prince were subsequently withdrawn. A couple look like alternative titles for that book - Green Flame Torch (AK) or Battle for Hogwarts and one looks like an alternative title for Phoenix - Mudblood Revolt. But the rest, and maybe some of these last three, may well contain clues about that's in the seventh book. What could the Parseltongue Trophy be, I wonder? In any case it would appear that the Hallows refer to something or somewhere in Hogwarts, that there may be another battle there, and that somewhere along the way there will be a great/final revelation. For my money it's Phoenix/Dumbledore burning out of his tomb at the crucial moment but who knows? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Dec 24 21:41:42 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 21:41:42 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163148 "lupinlore" wrote: > if Dumbledore is God, sign me up for > the First Church of Satan. Sorry, > but his failure to protect Harry > from abuse really is, I think, >that contemptible. I know trying to make villains out of heroes (Harry and Dumbledore) and heroes out of villains (Snape) is a cottage industry in literary criticism circles, but this does seem over the top. Yes Umbridge did abuse Harry, but despite what you say Dumbledore was not God and during most of book 5 had very little control over what happened in his school. As for the Dursleys, you seem to think in the fight between them and Dumbledore the power was all on his side, but the Dursleys had a very powerful card to play. All they'd have to do is say "Harry can't stay with us anymore" and Harry would die, Voldemort would win, and that would be the end of the story. Besides if they did everything Harry wanted out of fear not love I don't think Harry would be a lot happier nor do I think it would be better for his character development. And if Dumbledore started using strong armed tactics I have no doubt many on this list would criticize him for that even more than they do now. The man can't win. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 23:09:22 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:09:22 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163149 Beatrice wrote: > > S > > > P > > > O > > > I > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > A > > > L > > > E > > > R > > > T > I'm really disturbed by having "deathly" in the title. . . might not > bode well... > Carol responds: Which raises the question, why "deathly" and not "deadly"? "Deathly" can mean "fatal," but it can also mean "of, relating to, or suggestive of death," as in "a deathly pallor." I'm sure it's the second, not the first, meaning that JKR intends. In fact, since the last thing she'd want to do is announce so blatantly "Harry is going to die in this book," I'm almost reassured that he won't. And, of course, the death(s) in question may already have occurred, which again makes me think of a cemetery (hallowed ground where the dead are buried). Carol, wishing her topic were a bit more Christmassy From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 23:29:13 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:29:13 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores - Harry's Choice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163150 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "lupinlore" wrote: > > > if Dumbledore is God, sign me up for > > the First Church of Satan. Sorry, > > but his failure to protect Harry > > from abuse really is, I think, > >that contemptible. > > I know trying to make villains out of heroes (Harry > and Dumbledore)and heroes out of villains (Snape) is > a cottage industry in literary criticism circles,... > Yes Umbridge did abuse Harry, but despite what you say > Dumbledore was not God and ... had very little control > over what happened in his school. > bboyminn: I have to agree with EggPlant, how can we blame Dumbledore more that the victim himself does? How can we blame Dumbledore for Umbridge's actions when Harry doesn't. He places the blame squarely where it belongs; on Umbridge. I don't see Harry mad at Dumbledore, so I don't see why I should be. Further, Harry had a chance to turn Umbridge in. His friends encourage him to tell McGonnagall or Dumbledore, but to Harry this was a test of will between himself and Umbridge. He refused to let her see him weak. He refused to let her see him flinch. Anyone who has gone to Catholic School knows that this is a typical attitude and a typical war waged between the schoolboys and the Nuns. > As for the Dursleys, you seem to think in the fight > between them and Dumbledore the power was all on his > side, but the Dursleys had a very powerful card to play. > ..."Harry can't stay with us anymore" and Harry would > die, ... > > The man can't win. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: Again, in as much as she said, I agree with EggPlant. But I also see another aspect which I have spoken of recently. It is very easy to make judgements from a distance. From his outpost at Hogwarts, when Dumbledore gets wind that things are unpleasant at the Dursleys, he can just keep reminding himself that Harry is safe and protected there. Once Harry starts Hogwarts, his contact with the Dursleys is limited to two month of the year, and further his contact with Dumbledore and other members of the Order is increased. Now, to all concerned, Harry becomes less of a distant concept, and more of a real live boy that they have personal contact with and care about. The limited time Harry spends at the Dursleys acts as a buffer. But when Harry suffers trama beyond the endurance of anyone, the Order steps in an warn the Dursley to 'cool it'. Harry's early life is in the abstract and in the past. Even Harry seems to take a 'what's done is done' approach. He is ready to move on. He has no fondness for the Dursley, but he doesn't seem to really truly hate them either. To some extent, I think he pities them, being so hopelessly and superficallay trapped in their middle class existence of image over substance. He has SOOOO outgrown the Dursley, and when Ron and Herione come to stay in the next book, I think we are going to see this very clearly. So again, how can we blame and call for punishment of the Dursleys to a greater degree than Harry does? Whether techincally right or wrong, I'm content, if Harry's content. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 24 23:41:30 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2006 23:41:30 -0000 Subject: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163151 Allie wrote: > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > S > P > A > C > E > > > > > > > > > > > > Was anyone else a little surprised at the format of the book 7 > title? It doesn't seem to fit with the titles of the rest of the > series. Most of the titles are, "Harry Potter and the Something of > Something." I wonder why she didn't call book 7, "Harry Potter and > the Hallows of Death" or Hallows of whatever else. I think it would > have been just as effective and just as creepy. > > Just wondering. > > Allie (who leaves the dissection of the meaning of the title to > others) > Carol responds: As I said in (in slightly diffeent words) another post, two other titles have had the format "Harry Potter and the Modifier Noun." (I'm using "modifier" rather than "adjective" since, strictly speaking, "philosopher's" (or "sorceror's") is a possessive noun functioning as an adjective.) One of those titles, PS/SS, referred to an object; the other, HBP, referred to a person. To me it seems likely that, by process of elimination, this title refers to a place (or places). Unfortunately, the overall sequence of the titles doesn't help us much. At any rate, I can't see a pattern: SS/PS: object CoS: place PoA: person GoF: object OoP: people/organization HBP: person HD: ??? It does seem as if it's time for another place, but I'm not betting on it. Yet. Carol, who finally has a quiet moment to herself for catching up on posting! From kat7555 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 02:27:01 2006 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:27:01 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163152 Eggplant wrote: > I really don't see what the big problem is. We now know why, > like it or not, Harry MUST live with the Dursleys. As for the > Dursleys crimes against Harry, they were primarily ones of > omission not commission. The Dursleys just did not love Harry, > and there wasn't much Dumbledore could do about that. kat7555: The Dursleys did more than refuse to love Harry. They allowed Dudley to bully him and they raised Harry to be isolated from society. Dumbledore does have a responsibility to ensure that Harry is treated well. Noone loved Tom Riddle and he became a sociopath. Dumbledore can't have history repeat itself. Once Harry was out of the Dursley household he could have become a bully like Dudley but he chose a different path. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 02:46:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 02:46:37 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163153 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > As for the Dursleys, you seem to think in the fight between them and > Dumbledore the power was all on his side, but the Dursleys had a very > powerful card to play. All they'd have to do is say "Harry can't stay > with us anymore" and Harry would die, Voldemort would win, and that > would be the end of the story. Alla: Yes, but all that it took to prevent Dursleys from throwing Harry out was .... indeed threat from Dumbledore "Remember my last". So after seeing that gentle reminder working perfectly, I am having a hard time figuring out why Dumbledore could not send something similar, I don't know - at least ten years earlier than that. Eggplant: And > if Dumbledore started using strong armed tactics I have no doubt many > on this list would criticize him for that even more than they do now. > The man can't win. Alla: Believe me,I would not have criticised him, at all. Steve: > So again, how can we blame and call for punishment of the > Dursleys to a greater degree than Harry does? Whether > techincally right or wrong, I'm content, if Harry's > content. Alla: Harry tends to underestimate the amount of harm done to him, in my opinion, therefore I indeed blame Dursleys more than he does, but you know - if your argument goes along the lines let's trust Harry's judgment, I am happy to follow. I am just thinking that this argument can bring you to Harry being right about Snape as well. ;) Steve: He has SOOOO outgrown the > Dursley, and when Ron and Herione come to stay in the > next book, I think we are going to see this very clearly. > Alla: He may have outgrown the Dursleys indeed, I just hope that it does not mean that they will get off scott-free. I personally am hoping that Ron and Hermione will let them have at least piece of their mind. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 04:25:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 04:25:59 -0000 Subject: Title of Book 7 (Spoiler... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163154 Carol notes: I have a feeling that we don't really need the spoiler space now but just in case: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * houyhnhnm wrote: > Hallow=saint or spirit? As in All Hallows' E'en or Halloween, the > night of Voldemort's attack on the Potters? Carol responds: I thought that "hallow" meaning "saint" was a misconception and that "Hallowmas" originally meant something along the lines of "All Holy Things Mass," which was later interpreted to mean All Saints Mass" or All Saints Day. However, since I couldn't confirm the etymology, it occurred to me to check out a Middle English glossary or dictionary and, surprise! It turns out that "hallow" is All Hallows Day (and consequently, Halloween) does mean "saint." Actually, the Middle English words "halewis" and "halwes" mean "saints," plural. A holy thing or relic is "halidom." http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/concise/concise.html Of course, it's always dangerous to assume that JKR has researched her etymology. But if the connection is All Hallows Eve/Day (the Potters probably were killed on November 1 rather than exactly at midnight on October 31), the Hallows could be the two days or the saints in the names of the days rather than holy relics ("hallows" of the Arthurian kind). Where spirits fit it I don't know. Dead "saints" a la Saint Mungo (or Saint Brutus, for whom the possibly imaginary Muggle reform school St. Brutus's is named)? Or the Founders as saints? That seems to be pushing the limits of definition. "Saints" can also refer to all "believers" (in Christianity), but I don't think that JKR would use it in that sense since the HP books are not overtly Christian like, say, the Narnia series. For the record, All Souls' Day, which used to relate to spirits but is now a day for remembering the beloved dead, is not Halloween but November 2. Somehow, the celebrations for the two became mixed together. (And, no, I'm not talking about Celtic Samhain but medieval Christian traditions.) Here's a website with an interesting theory: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/47/story_4771_1.html And, no, I haven't come any closer to figuring out the significance of the title. I'm just flinging ideas around between preparations for a very different holiday tomorrow. Carol, wishing a Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it! From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 05:26:19 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 05:26:19 -0000 Subject: Ministry of Magic - St. Mungos Seasonal Message In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163155 FROM the DESK of HEALER MOUTH *%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%^#*%#*%# The Ministry has received an Owl and forwarded it to St. Mungos. > Prof. Flitwick intervenes: > > Always remember to pronounce all the syllables, even in nonverbal > spells! Never forget Wizard Harrumphio, who thought "Libracorpus" > instead of "Liberacorpus" and found himself flat on his back with > a dead body clutching a model of the zodiac on his chest! Thank you Prof. Flitwick for that bit of enlightenment. St. Mungos will appreciate it if those of you wishing to pull pranks on your fellow wizards will do it correctly. Healer Sine, St. Mungos receptionist does not receive kindly those that get hit with their own hexes. I know Rita, she'll make you wait forever. Thank you for your concern Healer Mouth *%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%#*%^#*%#*%# Owldendum: The Ministry wishes to remind all witches and wizards to direct their Owls to St. Mungos. We forwarded this one, but the Ministry is not equipped to handle all of the Owls Healer Mouth's .... ahhh, explanations are expected to engender. Yours in Solicitude, MoM _________________________________________________________________ Mike: Good catch Roberta, and thanks for keeping in the spirit :-) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Dec 25 05:47:57 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 05:47:57 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163156 "dumbledore11214" wrote: > all that it took to prevent Dursleys from > throwing Harry out was .... indeed threat > from Dumbledore "Remember my last". It had an effect on half of the Dursleys, Vernon didn't seen to give a damn, and it did not improve Harry's living conditions. > So after seeing that gentle reminder working > perfectly, I am having a hard time figuring > out why Dumbledore could not send something > similar, I don't know - at least ten years > earlier than that. Let's suppose Dumbledore had done that, what would have changed? Would the Dursleys love Harry then? I don't think so, and that's what Harry would need for his home life to improve. If Dumbledore had frightened them they'd probably hate Harry even more. >> if Dumbledore started using strong armed >> tactics I have no doubt many on this >> list would criticize him for that even >> more than they do now. Alla: > Believe me,I would not have criticised him, at all. Maybe you wouldn't protest, but plenty more would if Dumbledore took off the kid gloves with the Dursleys. There is absolutely no doubt of that because revisionism has run wild, not just here but in literary criticism in general. In book 5 after being tortured and saving the world Harry is treated like dirt for his efforts and so quite naturally he becomes a little bit grumpy. Potter fans acted like he was a Nazi war criminal. Snape murders Dumbledore so of course Snape is a hero. Hermione finds a treacherous traitor in their resistance organization but it is Hermione not the turncoat who did wrong. Harry defends himself against Draco's unprovoked attack so Harry is evil. I can just hear the howls of protest if the Dursleys woke up to find a horse's head in their bed. Eggplant From lorelei3dg at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 23:07:21 2006 From: lorelei3dg at yahoo.com (lorelei3dg) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:07:21 -0000 Subject: Alternate Book Titles? Possible Spoilers... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163157 At one point JKR said that she had up to three titles in mind for the seventh book, and now we know the one she chose - but might the ones she did not choose offer interesting clues? Following is an excerpt of an article at wizardnews.com that may offer some interesting information: Speculation on other book titles below... Do not read if you are avoiding possible spoilers! x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Excerpt: Meanwhile, El Cronista de Salem from HarryLatino.com has done some research into the patents archives at patent.gov.uk and has discovered some interesting facts. On December 5, 2006, "The Deathly Hallows" was registered by Field Fisher Waterhouse, interestingly, without the "Harry Potter and", possibly so as not to draw attention. However, on the same day, the same party also registered these titles: "The Deadly Veil" (not Deathly) and "The Heart of Ravenclaw." Is it possible these are the other two titles that JK said she was considering last month? If so, it's possible they shed some light into what happens in the course of Book 7. However, it's also possible that they were not under real consideration as titles and they mean nothing at all. x x x x x x x x x x x x (Potential spoilery stuff above) At any rate, hmmmm - so, assuming there is merit to the article, the veil may indeed play a role in the last book. And Ravenclaw's Heart - tantalizing! So what does everyone else think? Lorel From lorelei3dg at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 23:18:08 2006 From: lorelei3dg at yahoo.com (lorelei3dg) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:18:08 -0000 Subject: Alternate Book Titles? Possible Spoilers... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163158 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lorelei3dg" wrote: > > At one point JKR said that she had up to three titles in mind for the > seventh book, and now we know the one she chose - but might the ones > she did not choose offer interesting clues? Following is an excerpt > of an article at wizardnews.com that may offer some interesting > information: [Rest snipped] > > > Lorel > Nothing like answering oneself! Mugglenet says the other titles are red herrings: Two other titles registered with Deathly Hallows HarryLatino has uncovered some interesting details concerning recent trademarks filed by a company named Field Fisher Waterhouse. Along with registering Deathly Hallows on December 5th, they also registered two more titles: Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil. UPDATE: A representative for Jo said the titles were "never contenders" for Book 7. "We often registered a few spares to keep people guessing! Whether Jo reveals what her two other favorites were, I don't know." Eh, oh well. Still tantalizing choices! Lorel (again) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 23:37:22 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:37:22 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163159 > "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > all that it took to prevent Dursleys from > > throwing Harry out was .... indeed threat > > from Dumbledore "Remember my last". Eggplant: > It had an effect on half of the Dursleys, Vernon didn't seen to give a > damn, and it did not improve Harry's living conditions. Alla: It had an effect on half of the Dursleys that apparently wears pants in the family, no? Vernon obeyed Petunia and did not throw Harry out. Isn't that what DD needed in this situation? The purpose in that situation was not to improve living conditions, just to let Harry stay, no? Alla > > So after seeing that gentle reminder working > > perfectly, I am having a hard time figuring > > out why Dumbledore could not send something > > similar, I don't know - at least ten years > > earlier than that. Eggplant: > Let's suppose Dumbledore had done that, what would have changed? Would > the Dursleys love Harry then? I don't think so, and that's what Harry > would need for his home life to improve. If Dumbledore had frightened > them they'd probably hate Harry even more. Alla: I disagree that if Dumbledore threatened them, nothing would have changed. Yes, ideally love is necessary for Harry feel better and that DD cannot accomplish, but I would go for the basics for starters, since I think DD should have done it much much earlier. I think that it is quite possible that after threat Harry would have been moved to the bedroom much earlier, maybe threats would make Vernon stop mandhandling Harry, maybe stop him from putting bars on Harry's window and starving him. Staff like that, you know. And yes, I do hold DD responsible for not doing that. Sorry! Does not mean that I think of him as villain though. > Alla: > > > Believe me,I would not have criticised him, at all. Eggplant: > Maybe you wouldn't protest, but plenty more would if Dumbledore took > off the kid gloves with the Dursleys. There is absolutely no doubt of > that because revisionism has run wild, not just here but in literary > criticism in general. > > In book 5 after being tortured and saving the world Harry is treated > like dirt for his efforts and so quite naturally he becomes a little > bit grumpy. Potter fans acted like he was a Nazi war criminal. Snape > murders Dumbledore so of course Snape is a hero. Hermione finds a > treacherous traitor in their resistance organization but it is > Hermione not the turncoat who did wrong. Harry defends himself against > Draco's unprovoked attack so Harry is evil. I can just hear the howls > of protest if the Dursleys woke up to find a horse's head in their bed. Alla: Revisionism of what though? JKR's intent? But we cannot always be sure what she intends, no? And it is possible sometimes that what she wrote comes out as not what she intended IMO. But in any event what does it have to do with my argument? I mean, yes, I read all the arguments you just described and disagreed with them at some point, so how is it relevant? As I said in another post I **loved** CAPSLOCK Harry of OOP, I thought that his rage was long overdue and my only dissappointment was that he dissappeared in HBP completely and all was fine and dandy with Dumbledore again. As my friend said - it is as if Harry regressed from rebelious independent teenager to obedient child. :( I certainly do not call Snape a hero, as I am sure you know :) I call him a stinking murderer, no matter what his motivations are and hoping that he is a stinking traitor as well. I do not, do not begrudge Hermione from protecting DA from the traitor, at all. Marietta's actions remind me too much of Peter Pettigrew for my comfort. I mean, I do not think Hermione executed it perfectly, but she gets in my book A for effort, that's for sure and probably B for execution. As to Harry being evil for defending himself - well, I do not remember reading that, except in one post, so I suppose if we take the posts as more or less sampling of large audience, I guess some people do think that, but again I do not remember reading it here. I remember criticising Harry a plenty for using Sectusemptra, yes, but isn't it far from calling him evil? But again, I do not even do that, I wish he never thought of this curse, but when he is defending himself, to me it is the most obvious choice to use the curse marked **for enemies**, since the person who uses unforgivable in my book is your enemy at that moment. I do disagree that JKR will show much glorification of the killing, that is why I believe she made Harry think of it, but I definitely do not think that she meant for Harry to feel remorse and guilt for defending himself, just a little of it for being stupid IMO. So, yeah, I rambled on, I am just confused what all of this has to do with me :) Back to Dumbledore and Dursleys - certainly do not suggest he kill them or something, just threatened to do some magic. Alla, who thinks that being sick on Christmas day is annoying From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Dec 25 23:55:47 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 23:55:47 -0000 Subject: Not killing Peter / Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Vanishing Cabinets In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > I had a lot of practice, as soon as GoF told us about Avada Kedavra, > the Killing Curse, answering the question 'Back in PoA, how did > Harry intend to kill Sirius when he didn't know Avada Kedavra yet?" zanooda: With Harry it was purely theoretical, because he clearly didn't plan anything at all. He didn't think of any spell he could use and he didn't know that many spells at the time. He didn't know "accio" yet, and not that much of transfiguration. He could, I guess, levitate this piano you write about, although I doubt he had this in mind. It's different with Black and Lupin though. They are both grownups and very capable wizards, and they can easily do all the gruesome stuff you wrote about. What's the big deal about AK then? You AK someone and go to Azkaban for life, but you rip someone's heart out and no one even knows, because you used some innocent "accio" spell. Is it fair? I don't think so. > Catlady wrote: > If they weren't thinking of something bloody or messy, why did they > roll up their sleeves? zanooda: I always considered it a symbolic gesture, meaning "OK, enough talk, let's get down to business". From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Dec 26 01:48:08 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 01:48:08 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163161 > Alla: > > Yes, but all that it took to prevent Dursleys from throwing Harry > out was .... indeed threat from Dumbledore "Remember my last". So > after seeing that gentle reminder working perfectly, I am having a > hard time figuring out why Dumbledore could not send something > similar, I don't know - at least ten years earlier than that. > Pippin: I suspect it's because Petunia knew that letting Harry stay at her home meant extra protection for Petunia and her family from Voldemort and his servants. Dumbledore was reminding her, I think, that kicking Harry out would put her family in more danger, not less. Voldemort was the threat, not Dumbledore. Of course that was much easier for her to grasp with Dudley just having been attacked by dementors than it was before Voldemort returned. But when Sirius, the most feared DE after Voldemort himself, was supposedly after Harry's blood, the Dursleys refused to take Harry back, and agreed that he could remain a member of the household only if he stayed away until the next summer, at the very least. I think canon makes it very clear that threats do not get predictable results even with the weakest and most cowardly individuals -- look at Draco. And aren't we expecting that even Wormtail will stand up to Voldemort eventually? I would expect Voldemort to be a lot better at using threats than Dumbledore is, but even Voldie doesn't always get what he wants that way. Alla: But no matter how hard I would try to hypnotize myself, nothing can convince me that Headmaster was powerless to stop Snape, unfortunately. So, yeah, in this instance in my book he looks unquestionably guilty of condoning abuse. Pippin: Honestly, you make it sound like Snape is programmed to be kind and respectful to others, and all Dumbledore has to do is push the right buttons and the program will run. What part of "some wounds are too deep for the healing" is hard to understand? Anyway, Rowling has already said that Dumbledore thinks that teachers like Snape are a lesson in life. Evidently he believes it would be worse to let the children pretend that people like Snape don't exist or can always be avoided than to let them be exposed to sneers and taunts. It would be the lie of the golden fountain, really, that wizards are benign and noble beings who have nothing but concern for lesser creatures. Are we supposed to think Snape puts the kids in an emotional danger zone? I don't think so. Rowling excels at depicting that kind of emotional distress, and I just don't see it in regard to Snape. Neville will never love Snape's classes, but years and years of them never put him in the state he was in after just one session with Fake!Moody. As for Hermione, if she thought she was being abused, she'd not only say so, she'd take revenge. The worst thing she's ever done to Snape is pilfer some potion ingredients -- and she wasn't all that afraid of what would happen to her if she got caught, that's why she volunteered to do it. Of course Harry thinks the worst of Snape -- just as Snape always thinks the worst of him. That's how prejudice works. But IMO, the situation can be resolved in one of two ways. Either Harry will be vindicated in his current belief that he was right to think the worst of Snape from the beginning, or DH will see him realize that his prejudiced mind has not only refused to give Snape the benefit of the doubt, it has on many occasions refused even to acknowledge that room for doubt existed. Pippin From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Dec 26 04:23:33 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 04:23:33 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry (Was: DD and Delores) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163162 Alla wrote: > Big Snip > > As I said in another post I **loved** CAPSLOCK Harry of OOP, I > thought that his rage was long overdue and my only dissappointment > was that he dissappeared in HBP completely and all was fine and > dandy with Dumbledore again. > > As my friend said - it is as if Harry regressed from rebelious > independent teenager to obedient child. :( Lilygale here: I disagree that Harry regressed between OotP and HBP. In OotP Harry was definitely a rebellious and independent teenager, and acted both bravely and somewhat foolishly, as teenagers tend to do. I recognize that while other times Harry was a rage-driven teenager. His rage resulted from IMO, post-traumatic stress disorder combined with a year of stress that most adults would have difficulty in handling. Harry's rage was *directed* at Dumbledore much of the time, but it did not always emanate from Dumbledore. Yes, being ignored by his mentor fueled some of Harry's anger, but I read Harry's reactions to being ignored by Dumbledore more as hurt than rage. CAPSLOCK Harry seemed to derive from other sources, e.g. LV's emotions bleeding over into Harry's, the events at the end of GoF that left Harry suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder most of the year, ongoing abuse by Umbrage, all on top of Harry's 15 year old hormones. However, I see no regression in HBP. Harry continues to act independently, but in a more mature and conbtrolled manner. He acts logically and with purpose. He becomes somewhat obsessed with Malfoy, but looks for evidence to back his hypotheses up by studying the Map and asking the elves to keep an eye on Draco. This despite no encouragement from anyone else, teacher or peer. Harry complies with Dumbledore's request to obtain Slughorn's memory only after repeated prodding and mild shaming because he is more focused on events that are more relevant/important to him (Draco, Ron, Quidditch); a childishly obedient person would put Dumbledore's concerns before his own. Furthermore Harry does not agree with Dumbledore's assessment of Snape, and brings up his disagreement. However, 16 year old Harry is no match for overriding his Headmaster, not only because of the different in age and experience, but also because, despite disagreeing with Dumbledore, Harry deep down respects his wisdom and position as headmaster. Harry certainly acts independently in testing the Half-Blood Prince's suggestions, and, although the Prince's methods are unorthodox by other adult's (Slughorn's) standards, Harry pursues them to see what happens and gets good results. This certainly smacks of independence (as a willingness to try something unsanctioned by the current curriculum. (The question of whether this independence borders on cheating is appropriately addressed in other threads). Lilygale, who thanks Alla for dependably interesting and well-argued posts. You always get me thinking :-) From bertena1 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 06:43:44 2006 From: bertena1 at yahoo.com (bertena varney) Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 22:43:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: Hallowed Halls?? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40612230843w766f4652re484cd3c394f2efe@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <648199.55567.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163163 Has anyone thought of Hallows as it is used in "the hallowed halls"? When I heard the title I thought of the secret rooms and veil in the Ministry of Magic. I don't know that is an ominous place that I think of. Possibly where the last battle will be fought? Or where Harry may find help? These are just ideas. Bertena Who has only posted once because the "rules' are very confusing on how to post From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 14:31:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 14:31:38 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163164 > Alla: > But no matter how hard I would try to hypnotize myself, nothing can > convince me that Headmaster was powerless to stop Snape, > unfortunately. So, yeah, in this instance in my book he looks > unquestionably guilty of condoning abuse. > > Pippin: > Honestly, you make it sound like Snape is programmed to > be kind and respectful to others, and all Dumbledore has to > do is push the right buttons and the program will run. Alla: No, all that Dumbledore has to do IMO is to tell Snape - think what you wish about James Potter and his son, but don't you dare treat him other than decently, otherwise you will, I don't know be fired ASAP. I have strong suspicion that Snape will understand perfectly that. I do not believe that he wants to leave Hogwarts, I think even if he DD!M, he really valued DD and Hogwarts walls protection and yeah, I do believe he is capable of making an effort and close his mouth, where Harry is concerned. Pippin: > What part of "some wounds are too deep for the healing" > is hard to understand? Alla: The part where it is somehow relevant to Dumbledore being able to force Snape to treat Harry more or less decently. If you believe that Snape wounds somehow give him a pass to do what he does, well, I do not. If Dumbledore also believes so, well, I am trying to pick a word, which LL has not used yet :) Let's just say then I believe Dumledore's priorities are screwed in a big way. Pippin: > Anyway, Rowling has already said that Dumbledore thinks that > teachers like Snape are a lesson in life. Evidently he believes > it would be worse to let the children pretend that people like > Snape don't exist or can always be avoided than to let them > be exposed to sneers and taunts. Alla: Yeah, you see I believe that there is plenty of time for children to be exposed to such people outside of school. Dumbledore and me probably differ here. I do think though that the lesson for Harry to not be like Snape ever may somehow play out. Pippin: > Neville will never love Snape's classes, but years > and years of them never put him in the state he was in after > just one session with Fake!Moody. Alla: So, Fake!Moody abuses worse, much worse and that does not make Snape an abuser why? What Catlady said - minus one does not become positive number, even though minus one millions is so much more negative. Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. And that was repeated many times, but having the teacher as your boggart seems rather strong personification of the child's distress. And since we do not have any indication that Neville's boggart changed, I am assuming that JKR wants me to think that it is still Snape. Pippin: > Of course Harry thinks the worst of Snape -- just as Snape > always thinks the worst of him. That's how prejudice works. Alla: Thinking the worst of the child before you got to know him - **that** is prejudice indeed IMO, thinking the worst of your abuser **after** you interacted with him is the only possible, realistic way of thinking IMO. What Harry thinks of Snape is triggered by what Snape did to Harry, so I do not see how it can be called prejudice. Pippin: > But IMO, the situation can be resolved in one of two ways. > Either Harry will be vindicated in his current belief that > he was right to think the worst of Snape from the beginning, > or DH will see him realize that his prejudiced mind has not > only refused to give Snape the benefit of the doubt, it has > on many occasions refused even to acknowledge that room > for doubt existed. > Alla: We shall see of course. I am going with Harry was right to think the worst of Snape from the beginning, but will forgive him regardless. And one day I maybe understand why exactly Harry was supposed to give Snape the benefit of the doubt after all that Snape did to him. I mean, even after Snape saves his life in PS/SS dear Albus steps in and pretty much tells the kid that it was only because Snape felt indebted to James and wanted to hate James' memory in piece. > Lilygale here: > > I disagree that Harry regressed between OotP and HBP. In OotP Harry > was definitely a rebellious and independent teenager, and acted both > bravely and somewhat foolishly, as teenagers tend to do. I > recognize that while other times Harry was a rage-driven teenager. > His rage resulted from IMO, post-traumatic stress disorder combined > with a year of stress that most adults would have difficulty in > handling. > > Harry's rage was *directed* at Dumbledore much of the time, but it > did not always emanate from Dumbledore. Yes, being ignored by his > mentor fueled some of Harry's anger, but I read Harry's reactions to > being ignored by Dumbledore more as hurt than rage. CAPSLOCK Harry > seemed to derive from other sources, e.g. LV's emotions bleeding > over into Harry's, the events at the end of GoF that left Harry > suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder most of the year, > ongoing abuse by Umbrage, all on top of Harry's 15 year old hormones. > However, I see no regression in HBP. Harry continues to act > independently, but in a more mature and conbtrolled manner. He acts > logically and with purpose. Alla: Heee, I was typing that post yesterday while being a little feverish, seriously, so I may not expressed myself clearly. I am not sure if I believe myself that Harry regressed, as you said in the part I snipped Harry certainly exhibits independent thinking. That was my friend's wording. But I do find it to not be very believable that Harry's rage or hurt or temper dissappeared completely in HBP, no matter what triggered it, you know? I mean, if his hurt was from Dumbledore's reactions, does it mean that after him smashing DD possessions in OOP, he has no problems with DD whatsoever anymore? It is like OOP never happened, sort of. I suppose if we were to accept that CAPSLOCK Harry resulted from Voldemort in his head **only** and it is not Harry's natural state of mind, like naturally he is of sweet disposition, then I can find it believable, I guess. But I thought that hormones also played a part in it and post traumatic stress disorder, as you said, so I just thought that it would be nice if once during HBP Harry would scream at somebody. I mean, I found the scene where Harry tries to make himself calm down in DD's office at the end of HBP to be very well done - as in Harry's character development, but it would have been nice to see something in between. > Lilygale, who thanks Alla for dependably interesting and well- argued > posts. You always get me thinking :-) > Alla: Blushes, same here. Very nice post. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Dec 26 15:19:31 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:19:31 -0000 Subject: DD and Delores (Was: Bad Writing?). In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163165 "pippin_999" wrote: > Dumbledore was reminding her, I think, > that kicking Harry out would put her > family in more danger, not less. Actually I think Dumbledore was appealing to Petunia's better nature. Whatever her faults she was not willing to have her nephew murdered in front of her. That's just going too far. Eggplant From kellymolinari at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 17:08:01 2006 From: kellymolinari at yahoo.com (Kelly Molinari) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:08:01 -0000 Subject: Hallowed Halls?? In-Reply-To: <648199.55567.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, bertena varney wrote: > > Has anyone thought of Hallows as it is used in "the hallowed halls"? > When I heard the title I thought of the secret rooms and veil in the Ministry of Magic. SNIP > These are just ideas. > Kelly responds: I too thought of "Hallowed Halls", but that led me to Hogwarts --- as in "Hallowed Halls of Knowledge" I think more than one of the Horcruxes was hidden in Hogwarts, which is why Voldemort wanted to come back there to teach, either to keep an eye on them or to be able to remove them. We already know that the diary was there. It is my opinion that the Award for Special Services that Tom Riddle got is also a horcrux. I believe three horcruxes were made at the same time, right after the murders of his father and grandparents. I believe these are the ring, the diary and another memento of Tom Riddles power, possibly his Prefect Badge. He could have easily gotten the ring and the badge out when he left school, but the trophy is basically school property. I'm not entirely sure he made Hufflepuff's cup into a horcrux. I think the idea that TR wanted someting from each of the founders is a red herring -- Dumbledore's mistake that Harry was warned about. That leaves one more Horcrux to be discovered. I guess it could be Harry's scar, but I hope not. I'm leaning more toward Voldemort only having five Horcruxes. I think he was going to make the sixth with Harry's murder but was unable to do so. It would be a great surprise for Harry to find this out. Perhaps the final battle coming too soon, but not really. Kelly, who's 6 children MADE her a Mrs. Weasley Clock for Christmas. > Bertena: > Who has only posted once because the "rules' are very confusing on how to post Kelly responds: Don't let the rules keep you from posting. They are not really that confusing and it gets easier with each post. Remember ... everyone's opinion is valid and adds to the discussion. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 17:58:13 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:58:13 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry (Was: DD and Delores) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163167 Lilygale wrote: > > I disagree that Harry regressed between OotP and HBP. In OotP Harry > was definitely a rebellious and independent teenager, and acted both > bravely and somewhat foolishly, as teenagers tend to do. I > recognize that while other times Harry was a rage-driven teenager. > His rage resulted from IMO, post-traumatic stress disorder combined > with a year of stress that most adults would have difficulty in > handling. > > Harry's rage was *directed* at Dumbledore much of the time, but it > did not always emanate from Dumbledore. Yes, being ignored by his > mentor fueled some of Harry's anger, but I read Harry's reactions to > being ignored by Dumbledore more as hurt than rage. CAPSLOCK Harry > seemed to derive from other sources, e.g. LV's emotions bleeding > over into Harry's, the events at the end of GoF that left Harry > suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder most of the year, > ongoing abuse by Umbrage, all on top of Harry's 15 year old hormones. > > However, I see no regression in HBP. Harry continues to act > independently, but in a more mature and conbtrolled manner. He acts > logically and with purpose. He becomes somewhat obsessed with > Malfoy, but looks for evidence to back his hypotheses up by studying > the Map and asking the elves to keep an eye on Draco. This despite > no encouragement from anyone else, teacher or peer. > Carol responds: I agree, more or less, up to this point. He's obsessed with Draco, not exactly a mature attitude, and he's taking credit for potions improvement that aren't his, neither mature nor honest. But at least he's not screaming at everyone and bossing them around as he does in OoP. He's a great deal less self-obsessed (not that the pain in his scar or what happened in the graveyard is his fault, but it is his fault that he refuses to practice Occlumency and wants to have that dream). So, altogether, HBP!Harry, though still a teenager with understandable faults, is an improvement, IMO, over OoP!Harry. Lilygale: > Harry complies with Dumbledore's request to obtain Slughorn's memory > only after repeated prodding and mild shaming because he is more > focused on events that are more relevant/important to him (Draco, > Ron, Quidditch); a childishly obedient person would put Dumbledore's > concerns before his own. Carol responds: Here's where I disagree almost completely. Obedience is not childish--far from it, if the person giving the directions is older and wiser than the person receiving them. It's childish to *disobey* your mother or your teacher and mature to respectfully comply with their requests--unless the request itself is unreasonable. It was understandable, but not mature, to procrastinate in obtaining the memory from Slughorn, especially when Dumbledore had emphasized its importance. He could have resorted to bribing Harry ("When you get this memory, I'll teach you more about Horcruxes") or threatening him with dire consequences ("If you don't get this memory, it will be too late and we'll both be killed!") but DD doesn't operate that way. He wanted Harry to understand that obtaining that memory was the responsible and mature thing to do. Lilygale: > Furthermore Harry does not agree with Dumbledore's assessment of > Snape, and brings up his disagreement. However, 16 year old Harry > is no match for overriding his Headmaster, not only because of the > different in age and experience, but also because, despite > disagreeing with Dumbledore, Harry deep down respects his wisdom and > position as headmaster. Carol responds: Harry, as you say, is sixteen. DD is 150-plus. He's had much more experience with life and people than Snape, and in the past, he has usually been right. Harry ought, by now, to respect Dumbledore's judgment. I don't think Harry *sufficiently* respects DD's wisdom, nor does he realize that DD really does know more than he does about what Draco is up to (and, IMO, that Snape, far from helping Draco in his task, is trying to protect him and prevent him from doing it). I do understand, however, that there are some lessons that Harry has to learn for himself. I'll be extremely surprised if those lessons don't include DD's being right to protect Draco and trust Snape. > Lilygale: > Harry certainly acts independently in testing the Half-Blood > Prince's suggestions, and, although the Prince's methods are > unorthodox by other adult's (Slughorn's) standards, Harry pursues > them to see what happens and gets good results. This certainly > smacks of independence (as a willingness to try something > unsanctioned by the current curriculum. (The question of whether > this independence borders on cheating is appropriately addressed in > other threads). Carol responds: This line of thinking I don't understand at all. It was Teen!Severus who was thinking independently, conducting experiments on his own to improve the directions in the Potions book and get improved results (just as he was thinking independently in inventing new spells). Harry is taking credit for the Prince's creativity and inventiveness, getting Potions credit he doesn't deserve (to Hermione's annoyance because she knows it's not *his* skill and intelligence that's earning the high marks) and he's using the spells unthinkingly on people who can't fight back, notably Squib!Filch. I see no independence involved, and I don'g think the question of cheating belongs in other threads. Taking credit for others' work is and always has been cheating, the opposite of working and thinking independently. (By the same token, I don't think that Hermione's "helping" the boys with their homework or doing Neville's Potions work for him ever helped them. The only way to learn is to do your own work and make your own mistakes without *depending* on someone else's mind or efforts. That's what *in*dependence means. And Harry is not pursuing the experiments to see what happens. He knows, after the first two or three attempts, that the Prince's directions will work better than those in the text. If he had any intellectual honesty at all, he'd tell Slughorn about the book and let him and the others benefit from the improved directions. *That* would be independent action and highly commendable. Instead, he chooses to pretend that the work is his own. Carol, who sees Harry making slow progress in maturity throughout the books but thinks he still has a lot to learn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 18:29:59 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:29:59 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163168 -Alla: > > But no matter how hard I would try to hypnotize myself, nothing can convince me that Headmaster was powerless to stop Snape, unfortunately. So, yeah, in this instance in my book he looks unquestionably guilty of condoning abuse. Carol responds: He is only guilty of condoning abuse if he considers it abuse. Evidently, he doesn't. Alla: > > No, all that Dumbledore has to do IMO is to tell Snape - think what > you wish about James Potter and his son, but don't you dare treat > him other than decently, otherwise you will, I don't know be fired > ASAP. I have strong suspicion that Snape will understand perfectly > that. I do not believe that he wants to leave Hogwarts, I think even > if he DD!M, he really valued DD and Hogwarts walls protection and > yeah, I do believe he is capable of making an effort and close his > mouth, where Harry is concerned. > Carol responds: DD never works that way. He doesn't threaten, which would put him on the level of Vernon Dursley. He allows people to make their own choices--and mistakes. He also knows that Harry is not being harmed by Snape. He can see perfectly that he's a healthy, curious, brave, and talented boy who is passing all this classes and needs only, say, some lessons on Patronuses from Lupin or some lessons in Occlumency from Snape, as well as whatever he learns from practicing spells with Hermione, to get through the unusual burdens placed on him--that and his luck and his instincts, which are all that saved him from Voldemort in the graveyard. But the only emotional damage we see relating to Snape is Harry's hatred of Snape and his desire for revenge, both of which will, IMO, be eliminated in DH. Meanwhile, DD lets Snape teach as he wishes to teach. The Hogwarts teachers, even Umbridge, choose when and to whom to give detentions, and Snape's detentions certainly are less dangerous than sending first-years into the Forbidden Forest to look for injured unicorns. And the Hogwarts kids are *not* going to learn to deal with unpleasant people except through encounters with teachers and fellow students. They spend too little time in the outside world to do that. It's especially important for students who live with Muggles to be exposed to dangerous or seemingly dangerous Wizards at Hogwarts as they certainly won't gain any such exposure at home. It's the same philosophy that allows them to play hazardous games like Quidditch and take dangerous classes like COMC or DADA (when it's taught by a competent teacher). They have to learn these lessons to live in their world. And facing an "enemy" like Snape will make Harry more resilient and resourceful in facing the real enemy, Voldemort--if he can get past his hatred and apply the lessons that Snape has been trying to teach him. (Thank goodness for that first memorable lesson on Bezoars!) > Pippin: > > Neville will never love Snape's classes, but years > > and years of them never put him in the state he was in after > > just one session with Fake!Moody. > > Alla: > > So, Fake!Moody abuses worse, much worse and that does not make Snape > an abuser why? What Catlady said - minus one does not become > positive number, even though minus one millions is so much more > negative. Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back > with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. > > And that was repeated many times, but having the teacher as your > boggart seems rather strong personification of the child's distress. > > And since we do not have any indication that Neville's boggart > changed, I am assuming that JKR wants me to think that it is still > Snape. Carol: If Neville hasn't learned that Bellatrix Lestrange is far more sadistic and far more dangerous than Snape and learned to fear her rather than him, he's learned nothing at all in the last six years. I'm pretty sure that facing Bellatrix and being tortured by her in OoP taught Neville that a lesson in the difference between imaginary and real danger. If his Boggart is still Snape after he's been Crucio'd by a fanatical, sadistic Voldie supporter like Bella, then he's got mental and emotional problems that Snape didn't cause. It was, after all, Bellatrix and her followers who robbed him of his parents in the first place, as she took care to remind him--and I'm pretty sure that he's faced up to that by now. Neither Snape nor Gran is the real enemy. If Neville doesn't know that by DH, he's dead meat. And I really hope that's not the case. Carol, knowing that she hasn't convinced Alla and just expressing her own view of the matter From Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com Tue Dec 26 16:47:51 2006 From: Lana.Dorman at Adelphigroup.com (kibakianakaya) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:47:51 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: MAJOR SNIPPAGE > > > Alla: > > > > Heee, I was typing that post yesterday while being a little > feverish, seriously, so I may not expressed myself clearly. I am not > sure if I believe myself that Harry regressed, as you said in the > part I snipped Harry certainly exhibits independent thinking. That > was my friend's wording. > > But I do find it to not be very believable that Harry's rage or hurt > or temper dissappeared completely in HBP, no matter what triggered > it, you know? > > I mean, if his hurt was from Dumbledore's reactions, does it mean > that after him smashing DD possessions in OOP, he has no problems > with DD whatsoever anymore? > > It is like OOP never happened, sort of. > Lilygale: I think in HBP Harry still has huge amounts of anger, guilt and grief based on fifth year and many years before. But what makes him more mature is that he is *channelling* his anger appropriately, or at least towards well-thought out goals. In OotP, the emotions seen in Dumbledore's office were not channalled appropriately, IMHO. Harry's outburst in my mind signified grief over Sirius and rage at Bellatrix as well as guilt rather than rage at Dumbledore. Dumbledore was the conscious object of that rage at the moment, but again I make a distinction between the source of the rage, and the convenient object upon which the rage is vented. In HBP, Harry is outwardly calmer, but we see a great deal of focused energy that represents his emotional state. His obsession with Malfoy and reactions to learning that Snape was the eavesdropper seem to be more controlled manifestations of his anger. His obsession with Ginny was a perfectly normal response to teenage hormones, but also served to deflect some of the negative energy that we saw in fifth year. And all the energy directed at worrying about Ron/Hermione's falling out seemed to me directly related to Harry's fears of losing loved ones. After losing Sirius, his fears that things would never be the same with his two best frieds, that he might have to chose (at least at specific times) between Ron and Hermione - this seems like a continuation of the emotional theme of loss, but with Harry handling his feelings more appropriately. > I suppose if we were to accept that CAPSLOCK Harry resulted from > Voldemort in his head **only** and it is not Harry's natural state > of mind, like naturally he is of sweet disposition, then I can find > it believable, I guess. > > But I thought that hormones also played a part in it and post > traumatic stress disorder, as you said, so I just thought that it > would be nice if once during HBP Harry would scream at somebody. > > I mean, I found the scene where Harry tries to make himself calm > down in DD's office at the end of HBP to be very well done - as in > Harry's character development, but it would have been nice to see > something in between. I agree that sometimes Harry seemed too calm, but after thinking about all the emotion I talk about above, my conclusion is that Harry is struggling with feelings, but somehow they are not conveyed to us realistically. Maybe there is too much reliance on the "chest monster." I recall Jo also said that Harry would have to "get himself together to be useful" (paraphrasing, I can't recall where the quote comes from) in Book 6. So perhaps we see another instance of character development being sacrificed to plot. Which may be why there is so much great character-driven fanfic out there :-) Lilygale, who offers Alla a nice bowl of chicken soup and hopes she feels better. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 21:38:02 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:38:02 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry and DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163170 > Carol responds: > Harry, as you say, is sixteen. DD is 150-plus. He's had much more > experience with life and people than Snape, and in the past, he has > usually been right. Harry ought, by now, to respect Dumbledore's > judgment. Alla: He was usually right in the past? On the top of my head, I can bring up several instances of Dumbledore being wrong. Some of those are admitted by Dumbledore, thank goodness - like whole OOP mess, some of those like not figuring out who real Moody is and accordingly failing to protect Harry from Graveyard are in my opinion quite clear as well. So, what exactly Dumbledore did, which was so right and Harry therefore **has to** respect his judgment? Going against Harry's parents wishes and placing him with Dursleys? Failing to communicate with Harry in OOP to let him know why exactly DD is avoiding him? Dismissing Harry's anger at the man who is complicit in his parents deaths? Don't get me wrong, Dumbledore IMO had been right in some instances, but at most I can put those at fifty fifty and accordingly see no reason for Harry just **has to** respect his judgment. Respect is earned, not automatically given and I certainly see no reason why Harry is obligated to give Dumbledore's respect. He certainly seems to respect him ( hence Dumbledore's man), but I sincerely hope that it does not mean that Harry respects each and every one of Dumbledore's decisions, but only those that are worthy of respect. JMO, Alla Carol: I don't think Harry *sufficiently* respects DD's wisdom, nor > does he realize that DD really does know more than he does about what > Draco is up to (and, IMO, that Snape, far from helping Draco in his > task, is trying to protect him and prevent him from doing it). I do > understand, however, that there are some lessons that Harry has to > learn for himself. I'll be extremely surprised if those lessons don't > include DD's being right to protect Draco and trust Snape. Alla: If Dumbledore indeed knew much more what Draco is up to, he in my opinion did not act accordingly. As to what lessons Harry will learn, I will put my money on Dumbledore's decision to protect Draco being correct ) but notwithstanding that it does not mean that Harry should think that the means Dumbledore did it were correct as well, as to Snape, well, we shall see. I am also putting my money on Snape committing one redemptive act at the end, so I suppose in that sense Dumbledore will turn out to be right, but hopefully he was wrong in trusting Snape along the way. JMO, Alla From belviso at attglobal.net Tue Dec 26 22:21:31 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 17:21:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Regressed Harry and DD References: Message-ID: <005c01c7293c$3296d1f0$5fba400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163171 >> Carol responds: >> Harry, as you say, is sixteen. DD is 150-plus. He's had much more >> experience with life and people than Snape, and in the past, he has >> usually been right. Harry ought, by now, to respect Dumbledore's >> judgment. > > > Alla: > > He was usually right in the past? On the top of my head, I can bring > up several instances of Dumbledore being wrong. Some of those are > admitted by Dumbledore, thank goodness - like whole OOP mess, some > of those like not figuring out who real Moody is and accordingly > failing to protect Harry from Graveyard are in my opinion quite > clear as well. So, what exactly Dumbledore did, which was so right > and Harry therefore **has to** respect his judgment? > > Going against Harry's parents wishes and placing him with Dursleys? > Failing to communicate with Harry in OOP to let him know why exactly > DD is avoiding him? Dismissing Harry's anger at the man who is > complicit in his parents deaths? > > Don't get me wrong, Dumbledore IMO had been right in some instances, > but at most I can put those at fifty fifty and accordingly see no > reason for Harry just **has to** respect his judgment. Respect is > earned, not automatically given and I certainly see no reason why > Harry is obligated to give Dumbledore's respect. He certainly seems > to respect him ( hence Dumbledore's man), but I sincerely hope that > it does not mean that Harry respects each and every one of > Dumbledore's decisions, but only those that are worthy of respect. Magpie: I suspect one of the good things about HBP (and DH in the future) is that Harry won't be learnng to trust DD but to think like DD in ways that are an improvement to his own thinking.With Draco, for instance, Harry didn't learn that DD was right to trust him, exactly. What he saw was probably just more what DD saw in Draco--so now that will affect the way Harry deals with Draco. That will I suspect be an advantage, one that Harry would not have had DD had handled Draco the way Harry (understandably) wanted him to. But of course, DD also learned that Harry was right about Draco in ways DD was mistaken. So it's more a case of both of them seeing that they don't know everything, and learning from experience rather than just learning to always listen to Harry or Snape. The same is actually often true for Harry too--when the kids should listen to Harry it's usually because of his experience giving him wisdom--it's not just that he's Harry Potter. It's different from, for instance, the reasons they ought to listen to Hermione when they should. Carol: If Neville hasn't learned that Bellatrix Lestrange is far more sadistic and far more dangerous than Snape and learned to fear her rather than him, he's learned nothing at all in the last six years. I'm pretty sure that facing Bellatrix and being tortured by her in OoP taught Neville that a lesson in the difference between imaginary and real danger. If his Boggart is still Snape after he's been Crucio'd by a fanatical, sadistic Voldie supporter like Bella, then he's got mental and emotional problems that Snape didn't cause. It was, after all, Bellatrix and her followers who robbed him of his parents in the first place, as she took care to remind him--and I'm pretty sure that he's faced up to that by now. Neither Snape nor Gran is the real enemy. If Neville doesn't know that by DH, he's dead meat. And I really hope that's not the case. Magpie: I've got to go with Carol on this one. I think that whether or not it's right or wrong for Snape to deal with Neville the way he does is a different question than how badly Neville reacts to it (though it is an interesting question --would we as readers object to it as much if Neville were tougher--or if Neville were less likable?). But I think Carol's got a good point in making the distinction between real and imagned dangers. Snape, I think, is definitely an imagined danger for Neville, and as a timid person that's exactly where Neville probably has to fight a lot of his worst battles--in his imagination. Obviously it's no mystery why Snape is the figure of fear for Neville--he yells, he calls him a failure. He seems to hit some of the same buttons as Gran does. But I honestly think that if Snape revealed himself to be ESE and threatened Neville, Neville would probably stand up to him a lot better and easier than he does in class. Which leads back to the idea that Dumbledore, like the author, seems to think teachers like Snape are something kids need to learn to deal with. I don't know how far I'd agree with that--if it were me or my kid I don't know how much patience I'd have for this kind of thing--he's there to learn Potions, not see how well he can stand up to this kind of thing. But I get the feeling Neville's third year Boggart is more funny than a sign of real damage on Neville's part, and that rather than putting Snape on the level of Harry's Dementor!Boggart it's showing the difference between the imagined fears of a more normal kid like Neville and Harry since he's come to Hogwarts. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Dec 26 23:00:42 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 23:00:42 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry and DD In-Reply-To: <005c01c7293c$3296d1f0$5fba400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163172 > Magpie: > I suspect one of the good things about HBP (and DH in the future) is that > Harry won't be learnng to trust DD but to think like DD in ways that are an > improvement to his own thinking.With Draco, for instance, Harry didn't learn > that DD was right to trust him, exactly. What he saw was probably just more > what DD saw in Draco--so now that will affect the way Harry deals with > Draco. That will I suspect be an advantage, one that Harry would not have > had DD had handled Draco the way Harry (understandably) wanted him to. > > But of course, DD also learned that Harry was right about Draco in ways DD > was mistaken. So it's more a case of both of them seeing that they don't > know everything, and learning from experience rather than just learning to > always listen to Harry or Snape. Alla: Oh, sure, sure I can go with that. Harry seeing Draco first hand etc, and sure there are things that Harry can learn from DD, etc. I can totally see that. I am taking an issue with the extreme degree of this argument as I perceive it - Harry just **has to** respect Dumbledore, I guess no matter how many times Dumbledore screwed und wronged Harry, willingly or not. There are **things** Harry can respect about Dumbledore and just as you said vice versa is true to. > Magpie: > I've got to go with Carol on this one. I think that whether or not it's > right or wrong for Snape to deal with Neville the way he does is a different > question than how badly Neville reacts to it (though it is an interesting > question --would we as readers object to it as much if Neville were > tougher--or if Neville were less likable?). But I get > the feeling Neville's third year Boggart is more funny than a sign of real > damage on Neville's part, and that rather than putting Snape on the level of > Harry's Dementor!Boggart it's showing the difference between the imagined > fears of a more normal kid like Neville and Harry since he's come to > Hogwarts. > Alla: Yes, we ( meaning me) as reader would totally object to it, no matter how likable Neville would have been :) . And, sigh, it is so pains me to say in response to you that we are in irreconciable differences territory, but I am afraid I have to. I see the boggart as personification of the real and very bad damage done to Neville. Which is not to say that Bella is horrible ( although in line of HBP and possible ESE!Snape, that remains to be seen as well), but again if Bella is many times worse, it absolutely does not mean to me that danger of Snape is imaginary one. Maybe Neville indeed overcame that danger, albeit as I said till I see Neville new boggart, I will reserve the judgment, but I would never call Snape deeds imaginary danger. IMO of course Alla From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 27 01:55:04 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 20:55:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter and the Hogwarts Hallows (OT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4591D278.3060002@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163173 Going off-topic: Caius Marcius wrote: > According to this July 2004 post, the title "Harry Potter and the > Hogwarts Hallows" was patented in July 2003, along with a number of > other "Harry Potter and ---" titles. > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/103976 Bart: You can't patent or copyright a title; it's even hard to trademark one. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 27 02:14:07 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:14:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Title of Book 7 (Spoiler... CAREFUL, NOW!) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4591D6EF.4020105@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163174 justcarol67 wrote: > Of course, it's always dangerous to assume that JKR has researched her > etymology. Bart: At one time that might have been true, and certainly for some minor point. But for the title of her last book? I believe that she researched the hell out of it. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 02:51:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 02:51:37 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry and DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163175 Carol earlier: > > Harry, as you say, is sixteen. DD is 150-plus. He's had much more > > experience with life and people than Snape, and in the past, he has > > usually been right. Harry ought, by now, to respect Dumbledore's > > judgment. > > > Alla: > > He was usually right in the past? On the top of my head, I can bring > up several instances of Dumbledore being wrong. Some of those are > admitted by Dumbledore, thank goodness - like whole OOP mess, some > of those like not figuring out who real Moody is and accordingly > failing to protect Harry from Graveyard are in my opinion quite > clear as well. So, what exactly Dumbledore did, which was so right > and Harry therefore **has to** respect his judgment? >Carol responds: Carol responds: I didn't say "has to." That's your phrase. I said "ought." IOW, Harry *should* respect DD, not Harry *absolutely must* respect him. There's an important difference, and "should" or "ought to" is, of course, my opinion. I sincerely hope that one of the lessons Harry will learn in HD will be that DD's judgment *was* worthy of respect. And DD himself, as a person, mistakes and all, deserved his respect as well because he always did what he thought was right, no matter how difficult his choices. If Harry is going to mature into a man worthy of respect himself, he needs (IMO) to understand that the principles DD stood for--fairness, choices, second chances, and all the rest--are *at least* as worthy of respect as reckless courage and a saving-people complex. Dumbledore genuinely cares about people, even those who have gone beyond his ability to help, like Voldemort. He subtly guides people yet allows them to make their own choices, including mistakes. And Harry, thanks to Dumbledore, now has the makings of a hero. I wonder if the same could have been said of him if he'd had some other mentor, say Sirius Black. I rather seriously doubt it. Carol, realizing that the distinction between "ought" and "has to" is subtle but noting that it's real, nonetheless From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 03:08:11 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 03:08:11 -0000 Subject: Regressed Harry and DD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163176 > Carol responds: > I didn't say "has to." That's your phrase. I said "ought." IOW, Harry > *should* respect DD, not Harry *absolutely must* respect him. There's > an important difference, and "should" or "ought to" is, of course, my > opinion. Alla: Yes, sorry for misquoting you. The objection that I stated to **has to** I apply to **should** as well though. Carol: If Harry is going to mature into a man worthy of respect > himself, he needs (IMO) to understand that the principles DD stood > for--fairness, choices, second chances, and all the rest--are *at > least* as worthy of respect as reckless courage and a saving-people > complex. Alla: I agree - Dumbledore's principles are worthy of respect, but I also hope that Harry realises that Dumbledore's execution of those principles is not always worthy of respect and sometimes of contempt. Second chances are great, unless they are given selectively, second chances are great unless they lead to near death experience for his students IMO of course. So, yeah, I'd say Harry should respect Dumbledore's philosophy often enough, how he practices that philosophy is a different story for me though. Carol: Dumbledore genuinely cares about people, even those who have > gone beyond his ability to help, like Voldemort. He subtly guides > people yet allows them to make their own choices, including mistakes. > And Harry, thanks to Dumbledore, now has the makings of a hero. Alla: Thanks to Dumbledore? Didn't other people contributed too? > Carol, realizing that the distinction between "ought" and "has to" is > subtle but noting that it's real, nonetheless > Alla: As I said, sorry for misquoting you, but since it makes absolutely no difference for my argument, I am confused. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 05:28:01 2006 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 05:28:01 -0000 Subject: Playground Rules - Countering Bully Tactics - the Train Incident Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163177 Mike chimes in: I realize I'm coming late to the discussion, but as this topic interests me both personally and thematically in HP, I wanted to add my 2 knuts. Let me start by saying that I thought Steve's most excellent post #162507 is the definitive word on this subject. Most especially his part about "Playground Rules": ********************************************************************** So, why don't the kids who are being bullied go to an adult? Because the school is not ruled by teachers, administrators, or rules. It is ruled by the Code of the Playground. The very fact the bullying thrives in a heavily supervised area like a school tells kids that the adults are not on their side. That going to a teacher is more likely to get you in trouble than the bully, and is certainly going to bring on a huge heap of inaction or at the most token action. So, the choices are 'grin and bear it' or 'kick bully butt'. This is not an intimidation and threat that can be addressed by the normal rules of society because the other side, whether Draco, Voldemort, or a schoolyard bully, are themselves not playing by the rules. This is the perfect place for 'schoolyard justice' because no other source justice is able to hold sway. ********************************************************************** Mike: I have a first name that sounds a little like a girl's name (no, it isn't Michael) and I had red hair (there's a reason the phrase isn't "Blond-headed Stepchild"). Kids decided I was an easy mark. In the second grade I had my most significant run-in with an older bully that I remember to this day. Fortunately for me, and unfortunately for the bullies, I was smart and grew to be one of the bigger kids. I could take care of myself and prevent others from being bullied, which I did because I hated bullies. But there was also other kind of bullying to be countered. Not all intimidation is physical. Psychological bullying can and does cause just as much if not more anguish. Here's Steve again, this from post #162533: ********************************************************************** That's part of the point I was trying to make. Draco isn't the standard generic schoolyard bully. This is more of a grudge match rather than the big kid picking on the skinny kid. So, I acknowledge the uniqueness of Harry and Draco's relationship, but unique as it is, it is still resolved by the rules of the playground, or if you prefer Kid's Rules. ********************************************************************** Mike: When I was 13-14 years old, I started Junior High (not Middle School, yes I'm that old). One kid a grade above me decided that I was going to be his special project for the year. He would make comments about my Mudblood Mother ....er, he called me names and knocked books out of my hands. He tried to hex me behind my back ...ah, he'd bump into me in the halls, push me against the wall, stuff like that. Nothing that hurt physically, it was psy-ops. He always had a couple of cronies with him, sounding familiar yet? Oh, I should mention that I had played baseball against this kid for the previous two summers. I wasn't physically afraid of this kid, in the vernacular of the day, I could take him. ("Harry was not afraid of Malfoy,..." HBP, p132, US) But a conversation with my father convinced me that fighting is not the way to settle things. His words were along the lines of, "Where would we be in this world if everybody settled their differences with fisticuffs?" And it was my dad who taught me to box!! Besides, Snape would take his side ...um, teachers didn't care who started it, in my day you would both be expelled for fighting in school. Then there is what Ginger brought up in post #162601: ********************************************************************** Actually, that's kind of the point. Draco (in the first 4 books) is always the one in control. He seeks out the trio. He has his words picked out. He has his muscles (in the form of C&G) flexed and ready for the trio's response. As long as it is just words, he can go on forever. He can keep spouting "mudblood" and "LV rules" and that sort of thing until the cows come home. If the trio tells him to leave, tough. He just keeps at it. Eventually, they make him stop. They do it in the only way the bully understands. They physically make him shut his mouth. ********************************************************************** Mike: So I avoided my tormentor as best as possible. I checked the hallways before I walked down them. If I saw him coming my direction, I'd reverse course and take the long way around. I'd hide in a crowd if I thought he was nearby. It Sucked!! It was a miserable existance for 2/3 of a school year, trying to do *The Right Thing*. And I could take him! But eventually, things will reach the fish-or-cut-bait stage. Ginger continues: ********************************************************************** The trio can't walk away on the train. They are in the compartment and Draco and Co. are blocking the door. They can't shut him up. They can't go for help or call a prefect (not that a prefect would do much good against Draco). He knows exactly which buttons to push. Declare victory. Abuse Cedric's memory. Threaten one of their group. How long would it have gone on had the trio not struck? ********************************************************************** Mike: On the way home on the Hogwarts Express ...eh, while waiting for the school bus home, someone warned me that my tormentor was coming after me right then. I enlisted Fred and George ...agh, I asked a couple of 9th grade boys from my neighborhood if they would keep Crabbe and Goyle ... umm, my tormentor's cronies at bay, keep them off me. OK, I think you see the similiarities, dontcha? When this kid came up to me talking smack and trying to push me around again, he got a rude awakening. Five minutes later, I was still shaking like a leaf from the adreneline, but I wasn't the one with the bloody lip, doubled over from a stomach blow and trying unsuccessfully to hide tears. There *are* times when "Playground Rules" are the only way to solve things. I could have gone on with my miserable life as it was, but just as many of us have speculated about Harry, that's no life, that's just existance. And just like Steve (don't laugh at me either;- )) I was one of the cool kids, although more so after this incident. ****vvvvvvvvv****vvvvvvvv**** There are two key points that should affect any analysis of the Train Incident, one that is pointed out frequently and one that I haven't seen mentioned much. The first point is of course that Harry had just been tortured and barely escaped Voldemort. Ron and Hermione both feel the tension of the imminent VoldWar II. They are all on edge and in no mood to be harassed, especially by Draco Malfoy. The second point - Harry, with help from Ron and Hermione, had just spent the year learning to battle magically against foes/obstacles that have no compunction about attacking first. IOW, Harry has been conditioned to strike against the threat before it strikes you. Although Ron and Hermione didn't have to do battle, I can see how their empathetic feelings for Harry would put them into the same mindset. This is the kind of mindset that could help them in the future, against DEs, but can also be triggered be a sudden, emotional shock. Draco throwing Cedric in their faces is just that kind of a shock that would trigger this response. In message #162604, Shaun adds another thought regarding the incident: ********************************************************************** Draco does get away with reasonably minor bullying, because that doesn't reach the tolerance trigger. But there's a limit and that's what we see in the train. This approach - of the students expressing their refusal to tolerate bullying - can be quite successful in schools. But it often has a downside. And that is that children do lack judgement. And they can go too far. And that is what we see after the bullies have been dealt with in that scene. Somebody with mature judgement might - and I stress might - feel that stopping the incident was enough. But kids are fairly unlikely to stop at that point. And they may work to hurt the people they have dealt with. Is that acceptable? It is a hard call for me, actually. Personally I believe bullies should be severely punished and part of me can view additional injury inflicted on these people over and above the need to disable them as punishment and that I could justify. But in general, no, because I just don't see that as what is happening - it's a possible explanation... but a likely one? ********************************************************************** Mike: Yes, you are right Shaun. The stepping on Draco and Goyle was done, as Steve said, out of disrespect. But I also agree, they deserved it as punishment. Do we have to determine the mindset of the punishers as a measure of whether the action was justifiable? Or, to reverse the question, if the punishment was just, what does it matter the mindset of the punishers? I can tell you as a 13-year-old, I didn't quit meating out justice at the point of foiling the attack. I wanted to be sure that my tormentor was left with no doubt that he was defeated so I wouldn't be treated with a repeat performance. Besides, after six months of torment I had a little pent up emotion. Right here I have to agree with something Betsy said, while being confounded by Draco's persistence: ********************************************************************** Betsy Hp in message #162629: It's hard to put this clearly, so I *know* it'll be misinterperted, but something I've always admired about the character of Draco is that he *doesn't* give up. That even though Harry is definitely the bigger man on campus, Draco does his best to make sure Harry doesn't get a smooth ride, even while I like Harry. Also, the Trio don't ignore Draco. At least, not until OotP really, where they finally have their hands full. ********************************************************************** Mike: Actually, I understand exactly what you're saying Betsy. And this brings up another point regarding the Train Incident. The Trio had endured four years of Draco, and other than Hermione's slap and the mini duel before Potions class, the Trio had not retaliated against Draco and Co. up until this point. I think they showed remarkable restraint in not transforming them into giant slugs. But Betsy, in message #162472, doesn't see it that way: ********************************************************************** I don't like that not one of them felt the slightest twinge of regret. I don't like that not one of them thought mistreating the downed boys' bodies was less than admirable. This is not how a hero should feel. He shouldn't revel in his enemy's loss. It's too bad that none of these children have a role model to take them aside and explain why such behavior just isn't done. (Gosh, there are so many times I wish someone would take a member of the Trio aside and say "do you really think that was fair/nice/honest, etc.?") ********************************************************************** Mike: Here we part company, Betsy. I don't want Harry to be the perfect hero, the knight in shining armor. Nor do I think JKR has set Harry up to be one. I like that Harry and Co. are flawed, imperfect and at the same time typical teenagers in an atypical world. I don't want them to feel any regret for the way they treated Malfoy and Co., nor do I think they should. They responded exactly the way I would expect them to react and furthermeore, the way I would hope they would respond. I find the Trio's and Twin's response entirely justifiable and if you take out the magic, entirely believable as the type of RW action you could expect from RW teenagers put in a similar situation. I completely empathize with their position and their response; been there, done that, don't regret it a bit. ****vvvvvvvvv****vvvvvvvv**** I wish I had been able to take part in this discussion two weeks ago when it was a front burner discussion. Unfornately, I was engrossed in finding a new job. Fortunately, I got the job I was working towards :-) Mike These are the posts from which the above portions were drawn. As usual, they were all excellent posts. The entire discussion was filled with excellent posts. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162507 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162533 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162601 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162604 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162629 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/162472 From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Dec 27 06:57:27 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 06:57:27 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163178 > Alla: > > No, all that Dumbledore has to do IMO is to tell Snape - think what > you wish about James Potter and his son, but don't you dare treat > him other than decently, otherwise you will, I don't know be fired > ASAP. I have strong suspicion that Snape will understand perfectly > that. Pippin: Right. Snape was supposed to do that and at the same time pretend that he didn't take Harry seriously so that he would have an excuse to offer Voldemort for not killing Harry. Dumbledore had therefore to discount any incidents that happened in front of other people, and that leaves the occlumency lessons, where Snape did treat Harry decently, (though the lessons themselves require Harry to relive humiliating experiences) at least until Harry abused Snape's trust. > Pippin: > > What part of "some wounds are too deep for the healing" > > is hard to understand? > > Alla: > > The part where it is somehow relevant to Dumbledore being able to > force Snape to treat Harry more or less decently. If you believe > that Snape wounds somehow give him a pass to do what he does, well, > I do not. Pippin: It was relevant to the reason that Snape lost his temper and threw Harry out of his office. I can't hypnotize myself into thinking any threat could have forced Snape to keep his temper under those circumstances. If Dumbledore had had to follow through on your threat and sack Snape, then there would have been no one at Hogwarts to warn the Order and save Harry and his friends from the DE's. There'd have been no one to save Katie or Dumbledore from the ring curse, and maybe no one to make all those potions Hermione was taking at the end of OOP. I'd say there was something seriously wrong with Dumbledore's priorities if that had happened. > Alla: > > So, Fake!Moody abuses worse, much worse and that does not make Snape an abuser why? What Catlady said - minus one does not become positive number, even though minus one millions is so much more negative. Pippin: But the value of the zero point is arbitrary. Negative degrees Celsius can be positive degrees Fahrenheit. The kids have to be exposed to real jinxes in DADA class because they need practical experience if they expect to survive once they leave Hogwarts. They can't have their first practical experience when their lives or their futures are at stake, or their first practical experience is liable to be their last. They have to be exposed to real jerks for the same reason. Wizards aren't honest with themselves about the way they treat their inferiors. They like to think they're noble and beneficent beings, they fill their textbooks and their newspapers with lies, so how are Muggleborns, who are already thinking they've landed in some kind of fairytale wonderworld, going to grasp the truth if Dumbledore doesn't rub their noses in it? Umbridge thought sweet little children shouldn't be exposed to such dangerous magic. You think sweet little Harry and Neville shouldn't be exposed to Snape. Your privilege, but I'm glad for their sake you're not headmistress at Hogwarts. :) Alla: Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back > with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. Pippin: This is the same narrator who told us Harry's parents died in a car crash. I have no doubt Harry thought it was toad guts, which JKR may have changed frog guts to make it crystal clear that it was Harry's point of view. If Snape can be wrong about kappas, surely Harry can be wrong about lizards. As we know, JKR receives zillions of letters questioning her about every aspect of the books. We can bet this matter was brought to her or her editor's attention. In any case, JKR obviously passed up a chance to change 'horned toad' to something less ambiguous, and the logical conclusion would be that it says exactly what she wants it to say. Alla: > And that was repeated many times, but having the teacher as your > boggart seems rather strong personification of the child's distress. Pippin: I ask again, why is this significant when Hermione's boggart is also a teacher? Alla: > > Thinking the worst of the child before you got to know him - > **that** is prejudice indeed IMO, thinking the worst of your abuser > **after** you interacted with him is the only possible, realistic > way of thinking IMO. What Harry thinks of Snape is triggered by what > Snape did to Harry, so I do not see how it can be called prejudice. Pippin: Harry went into Snape's first class already thinking that Slytherins looked a hard lot, and that Snape always favored his own students. He also believed that Snape looking at him had made his scar hurt and that all dark wizards came from Slytherin. He'd have been surprised if Snape had treated him decently, just like Slughorn was surprised that a Muggleborn could be an outstanding witch. Sluggie didn't think he was prejudiced, of course. But he was. Harry doesn't think he's prejudiced. But he never asked himself if there could be any other reason for Snape's behavior except that Snape chose to hate him, even now when he's been told there are others. > Pippin: > > But IMO, the situation can be resolved in one of two ways. > > Either Harry will be vindicated in his current belief that > > he was right to think the worst of Snape from the beginning, > > or DH will see him realize that his prejudiced mind has not > > only refused to give Snape the benefit of the doubt, it has > > on many occasions refused even to acknowledge that room > > for doubt existed. > > > > Alla: > > We shall see of course. I am going with Harry was right to think the > worst of Snape from the beginning, but will forgive him regardless. Pippin: Why should he forgive the murder of Dumbledore? I am going with Snape is innocent and one day Harry will realize it. Alla: > And one day I maybe understand why exactly Harry was supposed to > give Snape the benefit of the doubt after all that Snape did to him. Pippin: Because he is supposed to recognize when his personal feelings and his previous experiences could be distorting his judgement. Alla: > I mean, even after Snape saves his life in PS/SS dear Albus steps in > and pretty much tells the kid that it was only because Snape felt > indebted to James and wanted to hate James' memory in piece. Pippin: Where does Dumbledore say "only because" ? >> Alla:. > > But I do find it to not be very believable that Harry's rage or hurt > or temper dissappeared completely in HBP, no matter what triggered > it, you know? > > I mean, if his hurt was from Dumbledore's reactions, does it mean > that after him smashing DD possessions in OOP, he has no problems > with DD whatsoever anymore? Pippin: Of course he still has problems with DD! He questions Dumbledore's judgement as he never did before. Even before the end of HBP he's convinced himself that Dumbledore is an idiot to trust Snape (though he also firmly holds the incompatible belief that Albus Dumbledore is the wisest person who ever lived.) And he still has problems with his temper, mugging Mundungus and all that. But he is able to keep his temper under control most of the time and channel his energy towards preparing to fight Voldemort. He keeps wanting to argue with Dumbledore and not doing so because he's afraid if he does Dumbledore won't continue his training. Remember, in OOP Harry wanted to fight and he wasn't being allowed to. But CAPSLOCK! Harry was the aberration. The strength of Harry's feelings temporarily outgrew his ability to calm them. Harry didn't get over his anger or his grief, he just matured enough to deal with them again. Pippin From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Dec 27 13:09:00 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 13:09:00 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163179 In 163015 Carol summed up with: > Carol, who still thinks that it was Harry who carelessly placed it, > causing both Snape and Draco a moment of unexpected and vindictive > pleasure Potioncat: I retract my suggestion that Draco broke the flask. There have been several good posts, and I couldn't decided whether to attach my reply to this one, or to Wynnleaf's...and then I couldn't decided what to snip. As several busy days, and several new HP events have passed since we were actually spinning this thread, I had some rare moments to consider. Another list member expressed surprise that this was being debated, because in her mind it was clear when she first read the book that Snape had broken the flask. That made me think---and I cannot verify that my memory is accurate--that when I read this passage I thought the flask had fallen. I don't think any other explanation even came to my mind until someone here said that Snape had broken the flask. This is one of those "moments" that is debated so intently that it's hard to remember which part is canon and which is HPfGU- contamination. To clear my mind, I went to chapter 29 of OoP. "He had just turned away when he heard a smashing noise; Malfoy gave a gleeful yell of laughter. Harry whipped around again. His potion sample lay in pieces on the floor, and Snape was surveying him with a look of gloating pleasure. 'Whoops,' he said softly. 'Another zero, then Potter...' Harry was too incensed to speak. He strode back to his cauldron, intending to fill another flask and force Snape to mark it, but saw to his horror tht te rest of the contents had vanished." Canon never tells us that Harry thinks Snape broke it. Hermione never says anything about how horrible it was that Snape broke it. (To be fair, she also doesn't comment on how unfair it is that Snape doesn't give him credit.) The real debate ought to be, why do we read this passage so differently? The actual truth is, JKR gives no hint at all that anyone broke the flask. She has the flask break out of sight. She shows Draco and Snape gleeful about the broken sample and Hermione apologetic about the evanescoed potion. So, for some reason, she chose not to show the reality. Does she have a reason for the ambiguity? Did she even expect anyone would question what happened? And, really, isn't blaming Snape for breaking the flask a little bit like Snape blaming Harry for stealing ingredients from his private potions locker? (GoF) Potion"TheWall"Cat (WWF--Wizarding World Fanatic???)who was also surprised that it's 'whoops', not 'oops' and who was recently reading a section that inclued Remus, forgetting that ESE!Lupin isn't canon.... From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 10:38:41 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:38:41 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163180 Hello all, this is the working title of HP book7 in dutch. The dodelijk heiligen as what the others had suggested in the past few days is not correct, that was just the literal translation of the deathly hallows. This one came from the Harry Potter Nl itself, as of now this is just the working title and would still change in the future once they would know more about the story in book7. Heiligdom means a holy place, like a holy sanctuary or shrine but it definitely means a holy place at which the whole translation means "the deathly Sanctuary" or "deathly shrine" or just plain "the deathly holy place." Now what could be the holy place that we know of in the 6 books? The veil perhaps or the locked room? Maybe you avid HP fans know more of a holy place or shrine in the HP books that I do not know. Any thoughts? I would love to hear all your theories on this. Happy New Year to all!!! Cheers. maria8162001 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 14:15:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 14:15:20 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163181 > Pippin: > It was relevant to the reason that Snape lost his temper and threw > Harry out of his office. I can't hypnotize myself into thinking > any threat could have forced Snape to keep his temper under those > circumstances. > > If Dumbledore had had to follow through on your threat and sack > Snape, then there would have been no one at Hogwarts to warn the > Order and save Harry and his friends from the DE's. There'd have > been no one to save Katie or Dumbledore from the ring curse, and > maybe no one to make all those potions Hermione was taking at the > end of OOP. I'd say there was something seriously wrong with > Dumbledore's priorities if that had happened. Alla: Um, I thought you said that Dumbledore cannot threaten Snape, because his wounds run too deep. That what I was questioning. I thought that should make Dumbledore in your view treat Snape more gently, regardless of what suffering he causes to the kids. That was not what you were arguing? Could you clarify, please? Oh, and somebody else could have been there, really. I mean, another potion master or Dark Arts teacher? I don't think I need to bring up every time that I understand story based reasons for Snape being there, but if DD hired somebody else, why not? > Pippin: > But the value of the zero point is arbitrary. Negative degrees Celsius can > be positive degrees Fahrenheit. > They have to be exposed to real jerks for the same reason. Wizards > aren't honest with themselves about the way they treat their > inferiors. They like to think they're noble and beneficent beings, > they fill their textbooks and their newspapers with lies, so how > are Muggleborns, who are already thinking they've landed in > some kind of fairytale wonderworld, going to grasp the truth if > Dumbledore doesn't rub their noses in it? Alla: Huh? Huh? So, when eleven year old comes to class and thinks he comes to learn potions what he really comes to learn is how to deal with bastard? > Alla: > Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back > > with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. > > Pippin: > This is the same narrator who told us Harry's parents died in a car > crash. I have no doubt Harry thought it was toad guts, which > JKR may have changed frog guts to make it crystal clear that it was > Harry's point of view. If Snape can be wrong about kappas, > surely Harry can be wrong about lizards. > > As we know, JKR receives zillions of letters questioning her > about every aspect of the books. We can bet this matter was > brought to her or her editor's attention. > > In any case, JKR obviously passed up a chance to change 'horned > toad' to something less ambiguous, and the logical conclusion > would be that it says exactly what she wants it to say. Alla: LOLOLOL. Okay, that is your privilege to think that. Why would her editor even bring that to her attention? Even if he did, in her worlds werewolves are not quite what they are in folklore, no? Somebody told me that these Horned creatures do not even exist in the UK( cannot guarantee the accuracy, but this guy is pretty much Hermione type, should convince you ;)), so why should it be obvious? Personally, I saved Neri's post in my all time favorite posts and am just going to refer people to it it every time this question comes up. To me it is absolutely clear that JKR decided to make them toads and for crystal clear reason as well. I don't think it is ambigious for her. I mean "toads" and "toads". That was the first thing that came to the mind of almost all of my colleagues. Thanks for the morning laugh, Pippin. > Alla: > > And that was repeated many times, but having the teacher as your > > boggart seems rather strong personification of the child's distress. > > Pippin: > I ask again, why is this significant when Hermione's boggart is > also a teacher? Alla: Huh? Because Hermione was afraid of failing? > Alla: > > > > Thinking the worst of the child before you got to know him - > > **that** is prejudice indeed IMO, thinking the worst of your abuser > > **after** you interacted with him is the only possible, realistic > > way of thinking IMO. What Harry thinks of Snape is triggered by what > > Snape did to Harry, so I do not see how it can be called prejudice. > > Pippin: > Harry went into Snape's first class already thinking that Slytherins > looked a hard lot, and that Snape always favored his own students. > He also believed that Snape looking at him had made his scar hurt > and that all dark wizards came from Slytherin. > > He'd have been surprised if Snape had treated him decently, just > like Slughorn was surprised that a Muggleborn could be an > outstanding witch. Alla: And narrator through Harry also tells us that Snape had a gift for keeping class quiet, does not sound to me that he had any reason to dislike Snape. When I was in school if I thought about teacher that way, that everybody listened to him, I usually thought that teacher was cool and subject was interesting, unless of course teacher would have done something horrible to me later on. ( Did not happen :)) Pippin: > Sluggie didn't think he was prejudiced, of course. But he was. > > Harry doesn't think he's prejudiced. But he never asked himself > if there could be any other reason for Snape's behavior except > that Snape chose to hate him, even now when he's been told > there are others. Alla: One of those reasons ( I am not convinced that there are others) is that Snape indeed hates him ( unless you are into Actor!Snape) of course, so what again is prejudicial about Harry thinking that Snape hates him? > Alla: > > I mean, even after Snape saves his life in PS/SS dear Albus steps in > > and pretty much tells the kid that it was only because Snape felt > > indebted to James and wanted to hate James' memory in piece. > > Pippin: > Where does Dumbledore say "only because" ? Alla: He gives other reasons? From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 27 15:48:36 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 15:48:36 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163182 > > Alla: > > Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back > > > with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. wynnleaf So what??? What does it matter what kind of frog or horned frog (lizard) it was? In middle school and high school classes all over the US, kids often are required to dissect cats, regardless of the fact that a large percentage of these kids will have or have had cats as pets. It's not some cruelty, you know. It's just one of those things many kids learn to do. As a child, I enjoyed pet bunnies, but still skinned a rabbit for dinner. Guess what? No trauma whatsoever. And nobody thought my grandmother was being cruel teaching me to skin the rabbit. Who cares whether the frog was truly a horned frog or one that was the kind of frog as Trevor? Either way, it doesn't make Snape "cruel" to have Neville gut the frogs, horned or otherwise. Just how weak-minded is Trevor supposed to be anyway? I like Neville fairly well, but why he brings his frog to class is a mystery to me. Nobody else brings their pets, and Trevor known for escaping. You'd think Neville would take better care. I would expect Snape to dislike Neville bringing him along. Still, it really doesn't matter. Gutting the frogs isn't cruel. It's just a thing you do in potions -- like dissecting cats in biology. wynnleaf From fairwynn at hotmail.com Wed Dec 27 16:23:41 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:23:41 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163184 > > Potion"TheWall"Cat > The real debate ought to be, why do we read this passage so > differently? The actual truth is, JKR gives no hint at all that > anyone broke the flask. She has the flask break out of sight. She > shows Draco and Snape gleeful about the broken sample and Hermione > apologetic about the evanescoed potion. So, for some reason, she > chose not to show the reality. Does she have a reason for the > ambiguity? Did she even expect anyone would question what happened? wynnleaf JKR's intent is, to me, the most interesting part. Your comment "did she even expect anyone would question what happened?" is even there a question -- because your question implies that she would expect most people to *assume* that they "got" what happened. Was she intentionally ambiguous? If so, for what reasons? Some people would read it as the vial falling accidently, others that Snape dropped it. Did she desire her readers to have different views of what really happened? Or did she simply leave out the clarifying parts by mistake? I had completely missed the fact that no one speaks of the vial breaking as though Snape did it. Surely if JKR had intended her characters to think Snape did it, she'd have had some sort of responses from them about how mean Snape was to drop it. But if she wrote this ambiguity on purpose, while Snape actually never dropped it and the characters don't think he dropped it, then she must have been attempting to mislead readers into thinking Snape is even more mean than her characters think. I'm now inclined to think she simply left out the clarifying parts by mistake. > > And, really, isn't blaming Snape for breaking the flask a little bit > like Snape blaming Harry for stealing ingredients from his private > potions locker? (GoF) I get your point here and in general agree, although not with your specific example. Snape, after all, *knew* that Harry had stolen potions ingredients in the past, and he also saw Harry use the gilly weed in the second task. So his conclusion that Harry stole ingredients is quite rational. When I first read about the vial breaking, I assumed Snape dropped it. But really, I didn't have nearly as much "evidence" to go on as Snape did in thinking Harry stole ingredients. I had not previously read about Snape destroying a student's correctly done work out of spite, and then allowing the zero marks to reflect on their grade. I think it was primarily in the writing of the sequence of events. The reader assumes if the vial fell by accident, the narration would say so. Snape's "whoops" seems to connect him to the event and without any other connection to a cause for the falling vial, the reader can't help but think Snape was the cause. wynnleaf From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 16:27:37 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:27:37 -0000 Subject: Toads and Snape WAS : DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163185 > > > Neville seemed pretty distressed to me when he came back > > > > with frog gut or as we now know *toad gut* under his fingernails. > > > wynnleaf > So what??? What does it matter what kind of frog or horned frog > (lizard) it was? In middle school and high school classes all over > the US, kids often are required to dissect cats, regardless of the > fact that a large percentage of these kids will have or have had cats > as pets. It's not some cruelty, you know. It's just one of those > things many kids learn to do. Who cares whether the frog was truly a horned frog or one that was the > kind of frog as Trevor? Either way, it doesn't make Snape "cruel" to > have Neville gut the frogs, horned or otherwise. Gutting the frogs isn't cruel. It's > just a thing you do in potions -- like dissecting cats in biology. Alla: Yeah, if it was class assignment , which all kids would have required to master, I may have seen where you are coming from. The fact that Snape **chose** this particular detention for Neville, the toad owner, whose toad he already threatened to poison in the past, makes me think otherwise. It was Snape's one on one activity with Neville, activity of Snape's choice. We do not see any of the kids gutting frogs as far as I remember, no? Who knows maybe indeed in later years they are required to learn how to do it ** in class**, but Neville doing it in GoF, just because it is a learning activity? I really don't see it. It makes me think that this **one** mention of Neville's detention with Snape in GoF was mentioned specifically for that purpose - to show Snape's sadistic nature. This is of course, JMO Alla From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 27 16:27:16 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:27:16 -0000 Subject: Harry the General (was: Regressed Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163186 lla wrote: > it is as if Harry regressed from rebelious > independent teenager to obedient child. I would say Harry advanced from a rebellious independent teenager into a leader. By the end of book 6 Harry is giving orders and people are obeying them, even McGonagall. She listens closely to Harry's ideas about Dumbledore's funeral and agrees do it his way. When she asks where he and Dumbledore had been and what they were doing Harry politely but firmly refuses to tell her, and she does not press the matter; a few years ago she most certainly would have but she knows Harry has turned into a natural born leader and complies with his wishes. In the next book I don't think we'll see Harry the child or Harry the teenager or even Harry the rebel, we will see Harry the General. Eggplant From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 18:33:38 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:33:38 -0000 Subject: Harry the 'gradual' General -Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163187 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > lla wrote: > > > it is as if Harry regressed from rebelious > > independent teenager to obedient child. > eggplant: > > I would say Harry advanced from a rebellious independent > teenager into a leader. By the end of book 6 Harry is > giving orders and people are obeying them, even McGonagall. > ... In the next book I don't think we'll see Harry the > child or Harry the teenager or even Harry the rebel, we > will see Harry the General. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: Actually, I agree, but I have to once again inject a point I have made several times before. I see Harry gradually falling into the role of de-facto general. I don't see him stepping forward and actively and intentionally taking on the role. I don't see him standing on a hilltop, hands on his hips, ordering soldiers on the battle field. While that could actually happen in the course of the story, or more likely, the final battle; I don't see Harry in that image, nor do I think Harry does. Right now, with Dumbledore gone, I see the Order as directionless and rudderless. They obviously have a long term goal, but no one to guide the day-to-day operation. Even if members continue their existing assignments, who do the give the information they gather to, and what does that person do with it? Dumbledore had the day-to-day plan as well as the grand scheme, but without him to evaluate and apply whatever knowledge is gathered, what meaning does that knowledge have? So, the central point is that I see the Order continuing to /try/ to stay organized, continuing to /try/ to carry out Dumbledore's plan to the best that they can interpret it, but I also see them foundering. I see them without a real leader and without a real purpose. Conveniently, Harry needs help and certain members of the Order are in a unique position with unique skills to help Harry. I see them gradually one by one invited in to serve Harry's needs, and in the process, without even realizing it, Harry will gradually give new purpose and direction to the Order. Soon without even realizing it, people will be taking orders from Harry, and going on assignments for him. Soon without ever really being the leader, Harry will become the leader. I suspect at the beginning Mad-Eye will have been made the official leader because of his past experience. I also suspect that Mad-Eye will be one of the first people pulled in to help Harry with his defensive and offensive spell work. Then Bill will be called in to help Harry with curse breaking and recognising magic. Certainly Lupin will be pulled into the group very early on. Then Harry will need some information or leg-work, and one or more members of the Order will be assigned. Soon, Harry's needs will take over the Order, and though Moody will be the offical leader, it's Harry's orders and needs that will be served. I say this will all have happened or be substantially under way by the middle of the book. By the end of the book, without ever having been declared the official leader, the Order will be following Harry's orders they way they followed Dumbledore's; without question or hesitation. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 18:35:20 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 18:35:20 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163188 Maria Vaerewyck wrote: > > Hello all, this is the working title of HP book7 in dutch. The dodelijk heiligen as what the others had suggested in the past few days is not correct, that was just the literal translation of the deathly hallows. This one came from the Harry Potter Nl itself, as of now this is just the working title and would still change in the future once they would know more about the story in book7. > > Heiligdom means a holy place, like a holy sanctuary or shrine but it definitely means a holy place at which the whole translation means "the deathly Sanctuary" or "deathly shrine" or just plain "the deathly holy place." Now what could be the holy place that we know of in the 6 books? The veil perhaps or the locked room? Maybe you avid HP fans know more of a holy place or shrine in the HP books that I do not know. > Any thoughts? I would love to hear all your theories on this. Happy New Year to all!!! Cheers. Carol responds: Hi, Maria. Thanks for that information, which I think is more helpful than rough translations found in newspaper articles. It must be sanctioned by JKR herself to appear on her site (though I hope that speakers of other languages will confirm it for us). I'll assume for the moment that you're right--it's a place (which was my original impression, in any case). Of course, the Veil or the locked room could be correct, though strictly speaking, I don't think they would be "hallowed" or "holy." So, since another title registered with the patent office was "HP and the Hogwarts Hallows," I'm going with the burial place of the Founders somewhere on the Hogwarts grounds, maybe a catacomblike place beneath the dungeons, similar to the Chamber of Secrets but not requiring Parseltongue to enter.(?) And BTW, if those registered titles are any clue, both Nagini and Parseltongue will play important roles, whether she's a Horcrux or not. Carol, wishing everyone who cares about such things a Happy Third Day of Christmas From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 19:32:41 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:32:41 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163189 Alla wrote: > > Oh, and somebody else could have been there, really. I mean, > another potion master or Dark Arts teacher? I don't think I need to > bring up every time that I understand story based reasons for Snape > being there, but if DD hired somebody else, why not? Carol responds: I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting your words. It's possible that another Potions master, Slughorn, at least, could have whipped up Veritaserum, Mandrake Restorative Potion, and even the tricky Wolfsbane Potion on demand, but what other DADA teacher could have stopped the Dark curse that destroyed DD's hand or prevented the curse on the opal necklace from killing Katie or saved Draco from Sectumsempra? Even Ron owes his life indirectly to Snape because of that first lesson on Bezoars (which the HBP's Potions book brought back to Harry's mind). And, of course, DD needs Snape around for other reasons, ranging from watching over Harry when he wanders the corridors at night to spying on the Death Eaters. No one else can do what Snape does. No one else has his background or his particular talents. You don't fire someone who is such an asset, even if talented DADA teachers (and perhaps Potions masters) weren't such a rare commodity. Try taking Snape out of the story and see where Harry and his friends would be. Well, Hermione wouldn't be, but Harry, Ron, Katie, and possibly Dumbledore would. (Draco wouldn't have needed to be saved because Harry wouldn't have been there to use Sectumsempra, and DD wouldn't have known that Draco was planning to kill him because Snape wouldn't have been there to tell him.) > Alla: > > Huh? Huh? So, when eleven year old comes to class and thinks he > comes to learn potions what he really comes to learn is how to deal > with bastard? > >Carol responds: Harry and the others are also learning Potions, as their OWL scores testify. And thank goodness Snape taught Harry about Bezoars! > Alla: > > LOLOLOL. Okay, that is your privilege to think that. Why would her > editor even bring that to her attention? Even if he did, in her > worlds werewolves are not quite what they are in folklore, no? > Somebody told me that these Horned creatures do not even exist in > the UK( cannot guarantee the accuracy, but this guy is pretty much > Hermione type, should convince you ;)), so why should it be obvious? > > Personally, I saved Neri's post in my all time favorite posts and am > just going to refer people to it it every time this question comes > up. To me it is absolutely clear that JKR decided to make them toads > and for crystal clear reason as well. > > I don't think it is ambigious for her. I mean "toads" and "toads". > That was the first thing that came to the mind of almost all of my > colleagues. Thanks for the morning laugh, Pippin. > Carol: I live in a state where horned toads are native and common, so I simply read the "horned toads" thing as an error on JKR's part, especially after reading "frog guts." Not only does she not know that a horned toad is a lizard, she doesn't know a toad from a frog! I thought perhaps there was some folklore explanation, some creature in, say, Greek mythology that was called a horned toad, just as the mythical salamanders in JKR's books are fire-loving reptiles instead of water-loving amphibians. I couldn't find any such beast; the only horned-toad-related myths are those of Southwestern American Indian tribes such as the Navajo or Hopi, and I doubt that JKR is familiar with their mythology (though I could be wrong). At any rate, toads (and presumably frogs) are common potion ingredients, and Snape's detentions usually involve unpleasant potions-related work that he would have to do himself if he didn't get a student to do it. Oddly enough, even in HBP, he has Potions-related detentions, having Harry sort rotten Flobberworms from good ones. (Maybe he's still brewing potions for DD even as DADA teacher?) Everybody has to do unpleasant things in life (Carol grits her teeth thinking about balancing her checkbook after all the Christmas expenses and doing income tax in a month or two). It's a basic life lesson. And detentions are *supposed* to be unpleasant for their deterrent effect. We don't see any trauma on Neville's part after that particular detention. The trauma in his life comes from long before, courtesy of the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. (the latter of whom traumatizes him again by Crucioing the spider in front of him). > > Alla: > > > And that was repeated many times, but having the teacher as your > > > boggart seems rather strong personification of the child's > distress. > > > > Pippin: > > I ask again, why is this significant when Hermione's boggart is > > also a teacher? > > Alla: > > Huh? Because Hermione was afraid of failing? > Carol: Nevertheless, McGonagall is the personification of Hermione's Boggart. But consider how ridiculous Hermione's Boggart is. How likely is she to fail all her classes, or even a single class? The other Boggarts of the third-years in PoA, mummies and eyeballs and the like, are basic childhood fears, "bogeys" in the sense of specters or phantoms--the monster in the closet or under the bed. Fear of a teacher, any teacher, is also a childhood fear. Neville gets past his fear of Snape by making him look ridiculous. He now needs to deal with real dangers like Bellatrix Lestrange, not imaginary ones like sarcastic, point-deducting teachers. (Even Harry's fear of Dementors, which really are dangerous, is temporary. He now knows how to deal with them. I don't know what his Boggart is now, but if it's still a Dementor, it's only because he's still afraid of fear itself. It certainly isn't Snape. Perhaps it really is Voldemort, as Lupin supposed back in PoA. I would be very surprised if most people's Boggarts didn't change as they matured. Imagine seventeen-year-old Dean still afraid of an eyeball.) > Alla: > > And narrator through Harry also tells us that Snape had a gift for > keeping class quiet, does not sound to me that he had any reason to > dislike Snape. When I was in school if I thought about teacher that > way, that everybody listened to him, I usually thought that teacher > was cool and subject was interesting, unless of course teacher would > have done something horrible to me later on. ( Did not happen :)) Carol: It's not a matter of the narrator liking or disliking Snape. He or she is reflecting Harry's perspective. And the first thing Harry notices is Snape's gift for keeping the class quiet--before Harry has reason to dislike Snape beyond Percy's remark that Snape favors the Slytherins (about whom he's already formed unfavorable impressions relating to Draco and certain remarks by Hagrid) and his own mistaken impression that Snape made his scar hurt. Perhaps we would benefit from looking at such straightforward statements about Snape, the ones that seem least biased by Harry's pov. (The narrator, unlike, say, the narrator of a Jane Austen book, has no opinions of his or her own. Any opinions or interpretations in the narrative portions of the HP books are those of the pov character or characters, as in the early portions of "The Riddle House" in Gof, where the narrator is reporting from the pov of the Little Hangletonians.) So we're seeing Snape as a new teacher from Harry's (slightly prejudiced) pov, just as we first see McGonagall and others. (Bear in mind that Harry thinks McG is going to beat him and that Wood is some sort of stick used for that purpose.) It's difficult, with Snape set up as the pseudo-villain of SS/PS, to let go of impressions of him established by that book, especially if the reader has had a mean or sarcastic teacher whose personality is projected onto Snape. But I do think we can look past Harry's pov to things that he notices but doesn't interpret--or things he doesn't see but thinks happened (like Snape supposedly deliberately opening his mind to Voldemort or Snape being responsible For Sirius's going to the MoM and therefore for his death). Of course, Snape really is unpleasant, at least to Harry (he's pleasant enough to McGonagall when she returns from St. Mungo's), but we need to look beyond that, to things like his showing his Dark Mark to Fudge or gripping the chairback in CoS when he hears about Ginny being taken into the chamber or sending the Order to the MoM to save Harry and friends. We simply cannot trust Harry's pov, and therefore the narrator's statements unless they're recording a straightforward, uninterpreted action, regarding Snape. (There are other instances of the unreliable narrator as well, of course. Consider the initial descriptions of Thestrals as "horrible horses.") Carol, who thinks that Snape's value to Dumbledore far outweighs any momentary hurt feelings or injured pride that students may experience in Snape's classes (and they need to get over such sensitivity, anyway, if they're going to survive in the grown-up world, whether WW or Muggle) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 19:52:47 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:52:47 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163190 wynnleaf srote: > I had completely missed the fact that no one speaks of the vial breaking as though Snape did it. Surely if JKR had intended her > characters to think Snape did it, she'd have had some sort of > responses from them about how mean Snape was to drop it. > > But if she wrote this ambiguity on purpose, while Snape actually never dropped it and the characters don't think he dropped it, then she must have been attempting to mislead readers into thinking Snape is even more mean than her characters think. > > I'm now inclined to think she simply left out the clarifying parts by mistake. > When I first read about the vial breaking, I assumed Snape dropped it. > But really, I didn't have nearly as much "evidence" to go on as Snape did in thinking Harry stole ingredients. I had not previously read about Snape destroying a student's correctly done work out of spite, and then allowing the zero marks to reflect on their grade. > > I think it was primarily in the writing of the sequence of events. > The reader assumes if the vial fell by accident, the narration would > say so. Snape's "whoops" seems to connect him to the event and > without any other connection to a cause for the falling vial, the > reader can't help but think Snape was the cause. Carol responds: But not all readers have that response. I *did* notice that the characters, even Harry, are angry with Snape for the unfair point deduction, not for supposedly dropping the vial. So I *didn't* suppose that he dropped the vial, only that Harry accidentally dropped it and Snape gloated as Draco laughed. And, of course, there's the additional circumstance of Hermione's Evanescoing the potion, which Harry *is* angry about. (Darn busybody! Would she please quit "helping" everyone!) I think this incident is yet another piece of misdirection on JKR's part, of the type we first see with Snape seeming to cause the pain in Harry's scar. If Harry doesn't actually see something, we can't assume that it happened. And even when Harry or some other character really sees something, whether it's the Muggles "seeing" Sirius Black murder Peter Pettigrew or the Hufflepuffs "seeing" Harry sic the snake on Justin Finch-Fletchley or Harry "knowing" that Snape is going to Crucio him into insanity when it's not even Snape Crucioing him, what appears to be true isn't necessarily true. And if the senses aren't a reliable guide, what can we say about things that occur behind Harry's back? Did snape really throw a jar of cockroaches or did it explode as the accidental result of Snape's anger? Who cast the Petrificus Totalus that froze Fenrir Greyback? Whether these events are explained or not, they illustrate JKR's knack for making us think that things have happened that may not actually have occurred in the story. Carol, still sure that Harry's hand slipping when he put the vial on Snape's desk is at least as likely, or more so, than Snape's dropping it From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 20:00:34 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:00:34 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163191 > Alla wrote: > > > > > Oh, and somebody else could have been there, really. I mean, > > another potion master or Dark Arts teacher? I don't think I need to > > bring up every time that I understand story based reasons for Snape > > being there, but if DD hired somebody else, why not? > > Carol responds: > I'm not quite sure what you mean here, so forgive me if I'm > misinterpreting your words. It's possible that another Potions master, > Slughorn, at least, could have whipped up Veritaserum, Mandrake > Restorative Potion, and even the tricky Wolfsbane Potion on demand, > but what other DADA teacher could have stopped the Dark curse that > destroyed DD's hand or prevented the curse on the opal necklace from > killing Katie or saved Draco from Sectumsempra? Alla: I am not going into debate of Snape DADA skills, but I do want to clarify that I was simply pointing out that there is no indication that any of Snape skills are somehow unique IMO. Rare, maybe, not hundred percent sure, unique not from my POV. For all I know any competent DADA teacher could have done precisely what Snape did. > Carol: >Perhaps we would benefit > from looking at such straightforward statements about Snape, the ones > that seem least biased by Harry's pov. (The narrator, unlike, say, the > narrator of a Jane Austen book, has no opinions of his or her own. Any > opinions or interpretations in the narrative portions of the HP books > are those of the pov character or characters, as in the early portions > of "The Riddle House" in Gof, where the narrator is reporting from the > pov of the Little Hangletonians.) Alla: We will never convince each other about first lesson, because I really do not see how the **events* that narrator reports can be reported differently,whether or not they will have different colouring, they will still be the same events IMO. The most striking of course is Snape punishing Harry for not helping Neville. That is unreliable in your view? Do you think Snape really did not take points off Harry for Neville mistake? I know, that was all for Harry's good and Neville as well. It is especially consistent with Snape punishing Hermione in PoA for helping Neville ..... NOT in my opinion > Carol, who thinks that Snape's value to Dumbledore far outweighs any > momentary hurt feelings or injured pride that students may experience > in Snape's classes (and they need to get over such sensitivity, > anyway, if they're going to survive in the grown-up world, whether WW > or Muggle) > Alla: Die Snape, please die or suffer horrible fate of being in Harry's debt forever, please JKR. :) For that I am even willing to be upset over Harry being dead, if that means Snape gritting his teeth of being indebted to another Potter. From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 27 19:14:06 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:14:06 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163192 Okay this is a wild theory but please bear me out. Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he needed to die so that Harry could learn to support himself why didn't JK Rowling have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? Could it be a hint that their is something important beyond the veil, from what I understand the two way mirror is going to be important again, perhaps Sirius will find a way to make a new connection to the mirror left behind and tell Harry about some key to defeating Voldermort beyond the veil. So this seems a bit rambling but I am just randomly throwing ideas out. lone_white_werewolf From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 20:14:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:14:04 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom -Catacomb In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163193 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Maria Vaerewyck wrote: > > > > Hello all, this is the working title of HP book7 in > > dutch. ... This one came from the Harry Potter Nl > > itself, as of now this is just the working title ... > > > > Heiligdom means a holy place, like a holy sanctuary > > or shrine ... the whole translation means "the > > deathly Sanctuary" or "deathly shrine" or just plain > > "the deathly holy place." ... > > Carol responds: > ... > > ... So, ... I'm going with the burial place of the > Founders somewhere on the Hogwarts grounds, maybe a > catacomblike place beneath the dungeons, similar to > the Chamber of Secrets but not requiring Parseltongue > to enter.(?) ... > > Carol, ... bboyminn: Carol, I like this idea. This could tie together the concept of 'uniting the houses'. I suspect that Salazar Slytherin is probably not buried at Hogwarts, so perhaps, bringing Salazar back to Hogwarts might help somehow. This could tie into my 'Objects of Power' idea, only the /objects of power/ are not objects owned by the Founders, but the Founders themselves. OK, I know that's a bit of a stretch, but the four 'catacombs' of the four founders could come into play. At this early stage pretty much anything goes. Of course, knowing JKR, she will probably come up with something beyond anything we could have imagined. For what it's worth (which I know isn't very much). Steve/bboyminn From Mkboland at aol.com Wed Dec 27 19:40:29 2006 From: Mkboland at aol.com (mkboland66) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:40:29 -0000 Subject: Book Seven Tolkien Connection? In-Reply-To: <015401c7261b$fba0f270$6501a8c0@MAIN> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163194 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Brian W" wrote: > > Pippin Said > > >> 'The Hallows' is the name of the section of Minas Tirith where > the dead are laid to rest. It is reached via Fen Hollen ('the > closed door') and no one is supposed to enter there except at > times of funeral or to maintain the tombs. > > Could the Deathly Hallows be behind the locked door at the > Ministry of Magic? << > > Brian W: > I definitely think the locked room full of "????" is the > key to the end of LV and due to Harry's unique nature hopefully > his survival, but I don't think it's anything to with the title of > the book, that's probably in the search for one of the Horcruxes > prob the last one, maybe. > > Brian W > Just an aside to this interesting posit: Is is just coincidence that JKR has been using the image of a locked door to 'hide' the important revelations about her writings, etc. on her website? Perhaps finding the key to the locked door on her website is a bit of foreshadowing...? Enjoying all the "what ifs" and "perhaps" generated by that last open door... MK From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 27 20:55:15 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 20:55:15 -0000 Subject: Book Seven Tolkien Connection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163195 > > Pippin Said > > >> 'The Hallows' is the name of the section of Minas Tirith where > > the dead are laid to rest. It is reached via Fen Hollen ('the > > closed door') and no one is supposed to enter there except at > > times of funeral or to maintain the tombs. > > > > Could the Deathly Hallows be behind the locked door at the > > Ministry of Magic? << MK: > Just an aside to this interesting posit: Is is just coincidence > that JKR has been using the image of a locked door to 'hide' the > important revelations about her writings, etc. on her website? > Perhaps finding the key to the locked door on her website is a bit > of foreshadowing...? Jen: Nice point! I like the idea of a narrative line from Godric's Hollow (Hallow's Eve) and Lily's sacrifice to the Locked Room and Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Since the information we learned about Lily in book 5 & the 'significant' piece of information waiting in book 7 are both 'very important in what Harry ends up having to do' according to JKR, the connection between mother and son sounds like the pivotal connection in the series. The title would tie up this concept nicely if it refers to both the beginning and the end. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Dec 27 21:11:25 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:11:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. Message-ID: <32051207.1167253885188.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163196 -----Original Message----- From: lone_white_werewolf >Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he needed to >die so that Harry could learn to support himself why didn't JK Rowling >have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? Could it be a hint that their >is something important beyond the veil, from what I understand the two >way mirror is going to be important again, perhaps Sirius will find a >way to make a new connection to the mirror left behind and tell Harry >about some key to defeating Voldermort beyond the veil. I hope that the fact that Sirius, unlike other dead people, took his body with him beyond the Veil is significant. In addition, there IS that communication mirror. When the title first came up, I joked about Sirius yelling, "Hallowwwwww! Hallowwwwwww!", but now I'm not quite as certain it is as ridiculous as I first thought. I find it hard to believe that the mirror is a pure red herring (not impossible to believe, but hard). Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Dec 27 21:30:59 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:30:59 -0000 Subject: Harry the 'gradual' General -Redux In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163197 "Steve" wrote: > I see Harry gradually falling into > the role of de-facto general. I don't > see him stepping forward and actively > and intentionally taking on the role. Yes I agree, and that's one reason he will be a good leader, the only ones who can be trusted with great power are those who don't want it. The other reason is that Harry seems to make his best decisions when the stakes are highest and he has the least time to think about it, precisely the qualities a good General needs. In book 4 right after the Dark Mark appears at the Quidditch World Cup Harry hears a slight noise from the woods and immediately hits the deck pulling Hermione and Ron with him just an instant before spells start flying inches over their heads. In a fraction of a second Harry figured out that the Dark Mark must have been cast from right around here, and that will attract the attention of the security forces, and they must be the ones who made the noise, and they are a millisecond from flooding the area with every spell they can think of, it's time to duck. Also in book 4 when the deranged Barty Crouch Senior appears, Victor Crumb, although an international Quidditch star and several years older than Harry, is in a panic and turns to Harry to tell him what to do. Although he probably wouldn't admit it to anyone, not even himself, I'll bet Crumb was thinking "We're in a emergency situation now, Harry is very good at keeping his cool at times like this, so I'll let him handle it." > I don't see him standing on a hilltop, > hands on his hips, ordering soldiers > on the battle field. Agreed. I think Harry will do what no General since Alexander the Great has done, lead from the front. And by the way Steve, I thought your post was first rate. Eggplant From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Dec 27 22:16:09 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:16:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's motivations & Occumency Mechanics (Was: Order Members'..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163198 > Carol responds: > Yes, Snape takes pride in his dangerous work, but he wants > recognition for it, specifically from Harry because Harry needs to > understand that Snape really is risking his life for the Order and > for Dumbledore or they'll never get anywhere. Only Snape > can't say that directly without blowing his cover and/or revealing > too much to Voldemort when he unavoidably exposes some of Harry's > memories through the Occlumency lessons. If encounters with Snape > are revealed, best that they be unpleasant. Jen: Much of my reading of Snape depends on how Occlumency works. I just don't think it can operate to hide a complex layer of goodness, a True Self, under a veneer that Voldemort would find acceptable. Superb Occlumens or no, the greatest Legilimens in the world would be able to crack through in a few tries because the fissures would start almost immediately. As soon as Voldemort sensed something different from the way he himself thinks or feels, or the types of things he picks up on from other DE's, Snape's mission would be finished and he would have compromised not only himself but the Order and Dumbledore's Plan. Snape talked about Occlumency being the art of subtlety, meaning one wrong move, one wrong thought or feeling, and you reveal something about yourself much like a potion changing color when stirred counter instead of clockwise. It just makes sense to me you wouldn't want a double-agent praticing Occlumency who has to shield multiple things about himself other than his allegiance--the less he shields the lower the risk. > Carol: > I don't see that fury for personal vengeance against Voldemort, even > though I do believe that he sincerely wants to help bring Voldemort > down. All of the fury we've seen from Snape relates in some way to > James Potter, who had the colossal nerve to die without allowing > Snape to fulfill his life debt, and/or Sirius Black, who wanted (in > Snape's view) to murder him and who (Snape thought till proven > wrong) had betrayed the Potters to their deaths, making Snape's > efforts to undo his revelation of the Prophecy futile. Jen: I picked vengeance because Snape is someone with a history of holding long grudges and feeling vengeance toward people he believes have wronged him. I could see the remorse he felt when Voldemort targeted the Potters morphing into hatred and revenge when Voldemort actually killed Lily. Snape's remorse logically should have been another instance of the 'weakness' he devalues, wearing his heart on his sleeve. I'm speculating he decided to learn Occlumency after Lily's death both as a way to suppress his feelings and to hold power over Voldemort when he returned. Again my reading is based in part on how Occlumency works. It would be much easier to hide his allegiance if Snape's motives for defeating Voldemort are dark. Hatred and vengeance are feelings Voldemort understands, unlike love or idealistic notions about saving the WW. Carol: > So, yes, he wants Voldemort destroyed and he wants an important part > in that destruction, but he doesn't seem to feel the same sort of > passionate hatred toward Voldemort, whom he regards more as a deadly > menace than a personal enemy, IMO. But the enmity isn't as > personal as his hatred of James or his loyalty to Dumbledore. It's > more intellectual, a knowledge that this Dark Wizard must be > deatroyed... Jen: So far we've only heard personal *emotional* reasons for everything Snape has chosen to do, from his hatred of James and the Marauders, to his remorse when Voldemort targeted the Potters, to the reason Dumbledore trusts him, to the reason Snape hates Harry and etc. Nothing global, nothing intellectual, nothing other than personal. > Carol: > So Snape's personal vendetta against Voldemort, if he has one, > would be for killing the Potters despite his efforts to thwart him. >(?) Jen: Right, I agree there. And possibly his mother is involved somewhere in the backstory as you mentioned, another personal motivation. Carol: > Also, once he had tried to prevent the murders and spied on > Voldemort for Dumbledore, he became Voldemort's secret enemy and > there was no going back. If Voldemort found out, he was dead, so he > might as well continue to fight, secretly, on Dumbledore's side, as > only he could, and at the same time earn the trust and respect he > craved. Jen: This reads like a personal motivation as well and dilutes the 'risk' he took to return to Voldemort because it was really the only choice he had in order to stay alive. I mean, you get no argument from me but I'm surprised you would characterize Snape in this way. Jen, who lost this post once when she accidentally hit the 'back' button on her mouse and only had a portion saved. :-( From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 27 21:55:37 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 21:55:37 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: <32051207.1167253885188.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163199 Bart Wrote > > I hope that the fact that Sirius, unlike other dead people, took his body with him beyond the Veil is significant. In addition, there IS that communication mirror. When the title first came up, I joked about Sirius yelling, "Hallowwwwww! Hallowwwwwww!", but now I'm not quite as certain it is as ridiculous as I first thought. I find it hard to believe that the mirror is a pure red herring (not impossible to believe, but hard). > > Bart > :D at the idea of Sirius shouting Hallowww. Doesn't J.K Rowling indicate the mirror is significant in the FAQ section of her website. [quote] The mirror might not have helped as much as you think but on the other hand will help more then you think [/quote] lone_white_werewolf From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 27 22:56:52 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:56:52 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163200 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Maria Vaerewyck wrote: > > > > Hello all, this is the working title of HP book7 in dutch. The > dodelijk heiligen as what the others had suggested in the past few > days is not correct, that was just the literal translation of the > deathly hallows. This one came from the Harry Potter Nl itself, as of > now this is just the working title and would still change in the > future once they would know more about the story in book7. > > > > Heiligdom means a holy place, like a holy sanctuary or shrine but it > definitely means a holy place at which the whole translation means > "the deathly Sanctuary" or "deathly shrine" or just plain "the deathly > holy place." Now what could be the holy place that we know of in the 6 > books? The veil perhaps or the locked room? Maybe you avid HP fans > know more of a holy place or shrine in the HP books that I do not know. > > Any thoughts? I would love to hear all your theories on this. Happy > New Year to all!!! Cheers. > > Carol responds: > Hi, Maria. Thanks for that information, which I think is more helpful > than rough translations found in newspaper articles. It must be > sanctioned by JKR herself to appear on her site (though I hope that > speakers of other languages will confirm it for us). I'll assume for > the moment that you're right--it's a place (which was my original > impression, in any case). > > Of course, the Veil or the locked room could be correct, though > strictly speaking, I don't think they would be "hallowed" or "holy." > So, since another title registered with the patent office was "HP and > the Hogwarts Hallows," I'm going with the burial place of the Founders > somewhere on the Hogwarts grounds, maybe a catacomblike place beneath > the dungeons, similar to the Chamber of Secrets but not requiring > Parseltongue to enter.(?) And BTW, if those registered titles are any > clue, both Nagini and Parseltongue will play important roles, whether > she's a Horcrux or not. > > Carol, wishing everyone who cares about such things a Happy Third Day > of Christmas Geoff: It may depend on how you view the word "holy". It doesn't necessarily have to be related to worship and faith - though that is how I usually see it as a Christian. One of my dictionaries gives a second meaning as "morally and spiritually excellent and to be revered." This could certainly fit possibilities within the Wizarding world. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Dec 27 23:01:36 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:01:36 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163201 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lone_white_werewolf" wrote: > > Okay this is a wild theory but please bear me out. > > Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he needed to > die so that Harry could learn to support himself why didn't JK Rowling > have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? Could it be a hint that their > is something important beyond the veil, from what I understand the two > way mirror is going to be important again, perhaps Sirius will find a > way to make a new connection to the mirror left behind and tell Harry > about some key to defeating Voldermort beyond the veil. > > So this seems a bit rambling but I am just randomly throwing ideas out. > > lone_white_werewolf Geoff: We do not actually know that Bellatrix did not use Adava Kedavra on him; all we know about the second curse is that it hit Sirius. we do not know its colour or the words which were spoken. From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 23:13:26 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:13:26 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163202 > Potioncat: > > This is one of those "moments" that is debated so intently that it's > hard to remember which part is canon and which is HPfGU- > contamination. To clear my mind, I went to chapter 29 of OoP. > Neri: I think your canon misses the context and the situation. If you start a paragraph earlier you find this: *********************************************************** Snape, meanwhile, seemed to have decided to act as though Harry were invisible. Harry was, of course, well-used to this tactic, as it was one of Uncle Vernon's favourites, and on the whole was grateful he had to suffer nothing worse. In fact, compared to what he usually had to endure from Snape in the way of taunts and snide remarks, he found the new approach something of an improvement, and was pleased to find that when left well alone, he was able to concoct an Invigoration Draught quite easily. *********************************************************** The whole context of this story is Snape's initial surprising lack of vindictiveness after the Worst Memory incident, especially in a Potions class. Draco isn't of interest here at all, except as a device to increase Harry's humiliation (this happens shortly after the Draco jeering at Harry about taking "remedial potions"). Now to the situation: *********************************************************** At the end of the lesson he scooped some of the potion into a flask, corked it and took it up to Snape's desk for marking, feeling that he might at last have scraped an 'E'. *********************************************************** The flask is on Snape's desk. That's teacher territory. I doubt even Draco would dare do anything in Snape's territory unless he's sure Snape expects him to. > Potioncat: > "He had just turned away when he heard a smashing noise; Malfoy gave > a gleeful yell of laughter. Harry whipped around again. His potion > sample lay in pieces on the floor, and Snape was surveying him with a > look of gloating pleasure. > > 'Whoops,' he said softly. 'Another zero, then Potter...' > Neri: Draco appears surprised. He laughs, but he didn't see it coming and so didn't have time to come up with the usual smart-ass remark. Snape OTOH isn't surprised at all, his remark sounds well planned and he had time to see the implication on Harry's mark. Moreover, the words "another zero" are calculated to immediately remind the reader of the *previous* zero: *********************************************************** OotP 12: 'No,' said Harry, more loudly. 'I forgot the hellebore.' 'I know you did, Potter, which means that this mess is utterly worthless. Evanesce.' The contents of Harry's potion vanished; he was left standing foolishly beside an empty cauldron. 'Those of you who have managed to read the instructions, fill one flagon with a sample of your potion, label it clearly with your name and bring it up to my desk for testing,' said Snape. 'Homework: twelve inches of parchment on the properties of moonstone and its uses in potion-making, to be handed in on Thursday.' While everyone around him filled their flagons, Harry cleared away his things, seething. His potion had been no worse than Ron's, which was now giving off a foul odour of bad eggs; or Neville's, which had achieved the consistency of just-mixed cement and which Neville was now having to gouge out of his cauldron; yet it was he, Harry, who would be receiving zero marks for the day's work. He stuffed his wand back into his bag and slumped down on to his seat, watching everyone else march up to Snape's desk with filled and corked flagons. *********************************************************** The story of the second zero is so obviously a variation on the theme of the first that no further expansion of Snape's part in it is even needed. It would just be repeating and boring. Or so would JKR assume. I doubt she'd ever imagined the creativeness of Snape fans . > Potioncat: > The real debate ought to be, why do we read this passage so > differently? The actual truth is, JKR gives no hint at all that > anyone broke the flask. Neri: Accidents in stories aren't accidental. They are intended plot points (making something happening, like Mclaggen accidentally knocking Harry was needed for Gryffindor to lose the match) or characterization (like Neville's accidents characterize him as clumsy and insecure). At most they can be red herrings, made to look like they were intended by the character but aren't really. However, unless Draco or Snape confide in Book 7 that it was accidental, which I very much doubt, the dropped flask wouldn't make any red herring or any other plot point that I can see. In any case Snape is quick to take unfair advantage of it for his private revenge, so accidental dropping would hardly even make him look better. It would merely make the story weaker. > Potioncat: > Potion"TheWall"Cat (WWF--Wizarding World Fanatic???)who was also > surprised that it's 'whoops', not 'oops' Neri: To my (admittedly limited) knowledge of informal English, "oops" indicates authentic startle, while "whoops" is ironic or otherwise insincere. Examples of "oops": GoF 7: Mr. Weasley was having no success at all in lighting the fire, but it wasn't for lack of trying. Splintered matches littered the ground around him, but he looked as though he was having the time of his life. "Oops!" he said as he managed to light a match and promptly dropped it in surprise. GoF 12: "I expect my gran'd want me to try, though. She's always going on about how I should be upholding the family honor. I'll just have to - oops " Neville's foot had sunk right through a step halfway up the staircase. Examples of "whoops": CoS 11: "Now, Harry," said Lockhart. "When Draco points his wand at you, you do this." He raised his own wand, attempted a complicated sort of wiggling action, and dropped it. Snape smirked as Lockhart quickly picked it up, saying, "Whoops ? my wand is a little overexcited ?" HBP 16: "But meanwhile," said George, sitting down at the kitchen table and putting his feet up on it, "we can enjoy watching you demonstrate the correct use of a ? whoops-a-daisy!" "You made me do that!" said Ron angrily, sucking his cut thumb. Neri, who had never imagined there could even be a debate about Snape dropping the flask on purpose. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 28 00:05:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:05:07 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Re: Regressed Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163203 > Alla: > > Um, I thought you said that Dumbledore cannot threaten Snape, > because his wounds run too deep. That what I was questioning. I > thought that should make Dumbledore in your view treat Snape more > gently, regardless of what suffering he causes to the kids. That was > not what you were arguing? Could you clarify, please? > Pippin: I wasn't arguing that Dumbledore had to be gentle with Snape because Snape is so fragile, if that's what you mean. I meant that Snape just doesn't have it in him to be kind and respectful any more than Harry had it in him to be kind and respectful with Ron and Hermione when they were (he thought) flaunting their freedom in front of him in OOP. They didn't really deserve to have their fingers pecked, and Harry knew very well that they were on his side and always would be, but Harry wasn't sorry about it. If somebody had chewed him out for it, Harry would only have been more furious, don't you think? He might have even argued himself into honestly thinking that Ron and Hermione were disloyal. You were saying yourself that it was exceptional that Harry recovered enough to manage his anger so why should it be unrealistic that Snape has not recovered yet? I think it's likely that Snape, unlike Harry or Sirius, did some of the damage to himself by choosing Voldemort's path, but that does not make the damage any less real or easier to recover from. Alla: > Oh, and somebody else could have been there, really. I mean, > another potion master or Dark Arts teacher? I don't think I need to > bring up every time that I understand story based reasons for Snape > being there, but if DD hired somebody else, why not? > Pippin: I thought it was very well established that Snape had exceptional abilities at potion-making and DADA besides being brave and trusted absolutely. I admit those abilities aren't entirely unique - Lily Potter seems to have had them. I suppose Dumbledore could have hired her, except she's dead. Voldemort has been killing off the best and the brightest for some time now. Dumbledore, like everyone else in the WW, has to make do. > > Alla: > > Huh? Huh? So, when eleven year old comes to class and thinks he > comes to learn potions what he really comes to learn is how to deal > with bastard? Pippin: "Hoggy Warty Hogwarts, teach us something, please." I don't remember Harry asking only to be taught only the Ministry-approved curriculum, in fact he very much objected to that when Umbridge tried it. > Alla: > > Huh? Because Hermione was afraid of failing? Pippin: Hermione certainly doesn't think that McGonagall instilled this fear in her, so why conclude that Snape is responsible for Neville's fear just because he personifies it? We don't know what it symbolizes, but we know that Neville has always feared that he won't be the wizard his gran wants him to be. That fear surfaces in potions and in transfiguration because those are Neville's most difficult subjects. But he doesn't seem to have any problems with Snape in DADA, even in third year. > Alla: > > One of those reasons ( I am not convinced that there are others) is > that Snape indeed hates him ( unless you are into Actor!Snape) of > course, so what again is prejudicial about Harry thinking that Snape > hates him? > Pippin: Harry can't seem to grasp that you can behave in ugly and disparaging ways towards someone and yet not wish to destroy them. Lily didn't want to destroy James, she just wanted him to act more like her idea of a wizard. Sirius didn't wish Kreacher ill, he just hated to be reminded of his family. It might have been better if he *had* hated Kreacher, he might've paid more attention to him and realized what he was up to. I don't see that Snape has ever wanted to destroy Harry -- he just hates to be reminded of James, and he would like Harry to behave less like his father (whom Snape did hate, IMO) and more like someone who is capable of beating Voldemort (as James was not.) > > Pippin: > > Where does Dumbledore say "only because" ? > > Alla: > > He gives other reasons? Pippin: When has Dumbledore *ever* not had other reasons? We know at least one of them, that he believes Snape felt remorse over helping Voldemort. We also know the one Snape himself gives in HBP, that it is what a wizard worthy of Dumbledore's trust would do. Pippin From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 28 00:25:58 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 19:25:58 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) References: Message-ID: <00d201c72a16$c00b4680$bf80400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163204 Neri: To my (admittedly limited) knowledge of informal English, "oops" indicates authentic startle, while "whoops" is ironic or otherwise insincere. Examples of "oops": GoF 7: Mr. Weasley was having no success at all in lighting the fire, but it wasn't for lack of trying. Splintered matches littered the ground around him, but he looked as though he was having the time of his life. "Oops!" he said as he managed to light a match and promptly dropped it in surprise. GoF 12: "I expect my gran'd want me to try, though. She's always going on about how I should be upholding the family honor. I'll just have to - oops." Neville's foot had sunk right through a step halfway up the staircase. Examples of "whoops": CoS 11: "Now, Harry," said Lockhart. "When Draco points his wand at you, you do this." He raised his own wand, attempted a complicated sort of wiggling action, and dropped it. Snape smirked as Lockhart quickly picked it up, saying, "Whoops - my wand is a little overexcited -" HBP 16: "But meanwhile," said George, sitting down at the kitchen table and putting his feet up on it, "we can enjoy watching you demonstrate the correct use of a - whoops-a-daisy!" "You made me do that!" said Ron angrily, sucking his cut thumb. Neri, who had never imagined there could even be a debate about Snape dropping the flask on purpose. Magpie: Actually, I never thought there could be a debate either, but now that people have been quoting the passage I can completely see how people thought it might have been an accident that Snape just enjoyed rather than caused. As a native speaker, I don't associate any difference in sincerity between whoops and oops. The two words are very close, but the difference in my experience is that usually "oops" just means a mistake after the fact while "whoops" is more often used to punctuate a physical fumble or slip-up, like when you slip on the ice you say "whoops!" and when you do something wrong you say "oops." So if Snape had said "oops" I'd assume he had to be talking about the mistake he (Snape) just made in dropping the Potion--and I'd figure he would of course be insincere. When I first read the passage I thought he was using "whoops" the same way about his non-accidental dropping or spilling of the Potion. However, reading it now I see he could be just as easily using "whoops" referring to Harry's mistake. You say "whoops" to a baby or a toddler when they fall down etc. So while "oops" would in my mind have to refer to Snape's own mistake, "whoops" could either be Snape talking about his own spill or Harry's. And I can actually now see the scene working just as well either way. If Snape did it on purpose Draco is surprised by Snape's amazing behavior (destroying Harry's Potion crosses the normal line for even him). I see the point in saying the other way makes the scene weaker, but I can actually see it being fine if it a) underscores Harry's own bad luck and cockiness tripping him up and b) shows more of what was just described, that Snape is refraining from doing anything to Harry after the incident. So rather than making a scene either way (either by destroying the Potion or by making a big deal about Harry's clumsiness) Snape underreacts to Harry's mistake: Whoops. Another zero for you. In this instance Snape wouldn't have to be prepared specifically for this kind of thing to have that line ready. He's already got his attitude in place throughout the class and just continues it here. I don't think this scene will be revisited, but I think these two interpretations are close enough that they are consistent with what we see in canon, especially since as others have pointed out the characters don't focus on Snape breaking the Potion, and Harry's real problems come from Snape not making an allowance for Hermione zapping away the rest of Harry's Potion. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 28 00:31:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:31:41 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163205 > > Neri: > Accidents in stories aren't accidental. They are intended plot points > (making something happening, like Mclaggen accidentally knocking Harry > was needed for Gryffindor to lose the match) or characterization (like > Neville's accidents characterize him as clumsy and insecure). At most > they can be red herrings, made to look like they were intended by the > character but aren't really. However, unless Draco or Snape confide in > Book 7 that it was accidental, which I very much doubt, the dropped > flask wouldn't make any red herring or any other plot point that I can > see. Pippin: Everything Snape has done vis-a-vis Harry is overshadowed now by what happened on the Tower. Either Harry was right about that and right to always expect the worst from Snape, or he will discover he was wrong, in which case he may reflect that many times where Snape was concerned, he took his assumptions for fact. Those occasions can be left for the reader to discover, just as, for example, many instances when Fake!Moody must have been lying are never brought to the reader's attention. That's what makes the books fun to read over and over again. Pippin Who agrees that little in Rowling's stories is accidental, especially when she's had the opportunity to fix mistakes. 'If the blood did spit, you must acquit' From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 00:35:08 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:35:08 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Broken potionvial In-Reply-To: <00d201c72a16$c00b4680$bf80400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163206 > > Alla: > > > > Um, I thought you said that Dumbledore cannot threaten Snape, > > because his wounds run too deep. That what I was questioning. I > > thought that should make Dumbledore in your view treat Snape more > > gently, regardless of what suffering he causes to the kids. That was > > not what you were arguing? Could you clarify, please? > > > > Pippin: > I wasn't arguing that Dumbledore had to be gentle with Snape > because Snape is so fragile, if that's what you mean. I meant > that Snape just doesn't have it in him to be kind and respectful > any more than Harry had it in him to be kind and respectful > with Ron and Hermione when they were (he thought) > flaunting their freedom in front of him in OOP. Alla: Okay, thanks - well in that case I do place higher confidence ( in the negative sense here of course) than you do in Snape's ability to know what is good for him. Of course threat would not have changed Snape's thoughts about Harry, but I absolutely think that Dumbledore may have known what is it that Dumbledore may withdrew from Snape unless he changes his ways of actions. I believe ( again, story line arguments aside) that Dumbledore owed it to Harry and Neville to try. Somehow I sincerely doubt that Snape would not have closed his mouth knowing that in other case that would be good bye safe walls of Hogwarts and who knows, maybe even hello Azkaban ( but it can be anything, really) > Pippin: > When has Dumbledore *ever* not had other reasons? We know > at least one of them, that he believes Snape felt remorse over > helping Voldemort. We also know the one Snape himself > gives in HBP, that it is what a wizard worthy of Dumbledore's > trust would do. Alla: No, specifically in relation to that accident, I honestly do not remember the quote where Dumbledore even hints that Snape may have had any other reason to save Harry but the life debt. > Neri, > who had never imagined there could even be a debate about Snape > dropping the flask on purpose. > Alla: Oh, Neri may I continue worshipping your posts and of course voice my complete agreement with this one? Thank you so much :) Alla, who was surprised after it was argued at first that Snape did not break the potion, but who really is not anymore after explanations of the Tower. From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Wed Dec 27 23:31:59 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:31:59 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163207 > Geoff: > We do not actually know that Bellatrix did not use Adava Kedavra on him; > all we know about the second curse is that it hit Sirius. we do not know > its colour or the words which were spoken. > Didn't Sirius's expression change once he was hit by the light. Surely if he was instantly (normal effect of Avedra Kederva (sic) his face wouldn't have changed. [quote] The laughter hadn't quite died from his face, but his eyes widened in shock[/quote] This was also followed by [quote]Harry saw the look of mingled fear and surprise on his gofathe's wasted, once handsome face as he fell through the ancient doorway. Also if it was Avedera Kederva (sic) why did Harry think that Sirius had only fallen through the veil and would soon appear. [quote] but he knew it ment nothing, Sirius had only just gallen through the archway, he would reappear from the other side any second.[/quote] Harry had seen Avedera Kederva before. quotes taken from page 710 and 711, Beyond the Veil. Uk Hardback edition. Lone_white_werewolf From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Dec 28 02:58:37 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 02:58:37 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Broken potionvial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163208 > Alla: > > Okay, thanks - well in that case I do place higher confidence ( in > the negative sense here of course) than you do in Snape's ability to > know what is good for him. Pippin: In that case we should never see Snape's rages working against him, but we do. In PoA for example, he lost control of himself and the situation in the Shrieking Shack and again when he was trying to convince Fudge to listen to him about Harry helping Sirius to escape. It certainly can't have helped him to throw Harry out of the occlumency lessons whether he was doing them to help Dumbledore or Voldemort. (I think it's significant that both Lupin and Sirius object.) In GoF he starts out dealing very cooly with Fake!Moody, but soon a vein starts jumping in his forehead. How can I make this clear -- It's not that he doesn't know what's good for him. He's not stupid, he's just not capable of controlling his feelings to that extent. He can't, even with occlumency, bury his rage against James or his anger when students take foolish chances with the future which Snape is risking everything to make sure they have. It's too close to the surface. Alla: I believe ( again, story line > arguments aside) that Dumbledore owed it to Harry and Neville to try. > Pippin: He did try. With the occlumency lessons. He says he thought Snape would be able to overcome his feelings about Harry's father (not Harry himself, you'll note) but he was wrong. I suppose he thought that if Snape saw that Harry wasn't the pampered prince he imagined, then Snape would find it easier to separate his reactions to Harry from his feelings about James. But it didn't work. Snape lost control of himself and his student, but if Dumbledore had kicked him out, where are these other people who would have stepped in to do what Snape could not? Obviously Slughorn comes no where near to filling Snape's shoes, and yet Dumbledore practically has to beg him to take the job. Sometimes the best man for the job is a bastard. It's Voldemort who thinks he can dispose of everyone who isn't worthy to share the world with him. OTOH, Dumbledore tries to see the worth in everyone. What's the worth in Snape if he can't control his hate? Well, even Voldemort's hatred gets in the way of his efficiency as a killer. Killing in the Potterverse isn't about hate, IMO. It's about power. The real bad guys aren't the haters, per se, they're the ones who think power is worth killing for. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 03:14:28 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:14:28 -0000 Subject: DD and Snape /Broken potionvial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163209 > > Alla: > > > > Okay, thanks - well in that case I do place higher confidence ( in > > the negative sense here of course) than you do in Snape's ability to > > know what is good for him. > > Pippin: > In that case we should never see Snape's rages working against him, > but we do. > > In PoA for example, he lost control of himself and the situation > in the Shrieking Shack and again when he was trying to convince > Fudge to listen to him about Harry helping Sirius to escape. > It certainly can't have helped him to throw Harry out of the occlumency > lessons whether he was doing them to help Dumbledore or > Voldemort. (I think it's significant that both Lupin and Sirius > object.) > > In GoF he starts out dealing very cooly with Fake!Moody, but > soon a vein starts jumping in his forehead. How can I make this > clear -- It's not that he doesn't know what's good for him. > He's not stupid, he's just not capable of controlling his feelings > to that extent. He can't, even with occlumency, bury his rage > against James or his anger when students take foolish chances > with the future which Snape is risking everything to make > sure they have. It's too close to the surface. > Alla: LOL, Pippin. How can you make it clear? I understand your opinion of Snape clear enough, I think, thanks :) Who says that Snape cannot lose it? Of course he can lose it big time, but I am still to remember when Snape's rage worked against him in a way that truly matters IMO, in a way that made him lose something truly significant, like if he is OGH! for example, lose what really would matter - like job in Hogwarts. Sure, thank goodness his rage in PoA did not work for him, but even though I would be the last person to say that feeding Sirius to dementors would not be a great fun for Snape, how does it matter in the big scheme of things, how would it play out on Snape's life? Uh, now I am obviously cannot express myself - blame it on being sick, I would be happy to clarify tomorrow, when my head feels better. I believe that Snape rage and him making it pretty good for himself coexust quite peacefully. Like rage against Sirius in PoA did not work, well eventually if we believe Snape in Spinner End, he got what he wanted , no? Sirius being dead? So, who cares if rage did not work. So, yeah, I am pretty convinced that no matter how enraged Snape would have been, I believe that the desire to stay in Hogwarts would have worked pretty well as putting ducktape on his mouth when he interacts with Harry. And yeah, he is enraged with Fake!Moody ( another reason why I love that character, no matter how disgusting he is, anybody who can make Snape loose control deserves a hug in my book - and yes, I am perfectly aware how bad Fake!Moody is of the "human being" of the "character", but for that scene he gets major kudos from me. But does it really matter for Snape mission in a major sort of way, whatever that mission is? Oh and Occlumency lessons if he was opening Harry's mind for Voldemort for example? I'd say it would work perfectly for Snape, if he got all info he needed for Voldemort, why should he continue teaching the Potter brat? Perfectly neat, if you ask me :) Alla, who is willing to settle on **somebody** make Snape loose it in book 7. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 03:32:15 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:32:15 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163210 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > The real debate ought to be, why do we read this passage so > differently? zanooda: This is a very interesting question, but it's not easy to answer. I thought Snape broke the flask on purpose the first time I read this chapter, and I still think he did it even now that I saw arguments against it. However, it's difficult to explain why I feel this way. I thought about it for a while, and here is the only explanation I can offer. Snape's reaction to Harry's Pensieve visit was so violent that it left no doubt: he doesn't intend to forgive Harry any time soon. It is the first time that Snape gets physical, shaking Harry, shouting, throwing jars etc. It's also the first time that Harry gets actually scared of Snape. This atypical for Snape behavior shows to what extent he is enraged. Knowing Snape's vindictive nature, I was expecting him to do something extra-mean to Harry at the first opportunity. When during the first "after-Pensieve" lesson Snape chose to just ignore the boy, Harry felt relieved, but I thought it was too good to be true. I was waiting for Snape to make his move, and when the flask fell, I assumed that was *it*, even if there was no indication in the text that it was Snape who dropped the sample. I don't know if this is a satisfying enough answer to your question, but it's the best I managed to come up with :-). From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 03:46:04 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:46:04 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163211 Neri: > I think your canon misses the context and the situation. If you start a paragraph earlier you find this: *********************************************************** *(snip)* *********************************************************** Ceridwen: Actually, I did read from that far back, and a bit farther. I've found out in life that what happens at the moment is not always what has happened in context. And, re-reading the portion I (hopefully!) snipped, I saw cause where Harry may have been just a bit cocky. He was under no pressure from Snape to cut correctly or to dice properly or to add only the required amount. He was completely on his own in this potion, he felt he had done a good job without any outside input, not even from Hermione. He thought he "might at least have scraped an E", and bottled his sample and took it to Snape. He put it down, turned away, and heard a crash. Malfoy laughed, Snape said his line, Harry determinedly went back to bottle more, only to find that Hermione had done him a favor by cleaning out his cauldron. Yup, I read the entire scene, and after doing so, I realized that I had not read that Snape had dropped it, the scene leaves it open for Harry to have messed up big-time as people sometimes do when they are cocky. Potioncat: > > 'Whoops,' he said softly. 'Another zero, then Potter...' Neri: > Draco appears surprised. He laughs, but he didn't see it coming and so didn't have time to come up with the usual smart-ass remark. Snape OTOH isn't surprised at all, his remark sounds well planned and he had time to see the implication on Harry's mark. Moreover, the words "another zero" are calculated to immediately remind the reader of the *previous* zero: *********************************************************** *(snip)* *********************************************************** Ceridwen: Yes, the use of the word "another" certainly does imply that this is not the first one. I am not sure if it is only the second over the course of the series. It has nothing to do with Harry receiving an zero for dropping his potion this time, and nothing to do with Hermione cleaning Harry's cauldron for him this time, either. I don't know what JKR would assume. She wrote this scene, and there is no absolute certainty that either Snape or Harry dropped the flask. Neri: > Accidents in stories aren't accidental. They are intended plot points (making something happening, like Mclaggen accidentally knocking Harry was needed for Gryffindor to lose the match) or characterization (like Neville's accidents characterize him as clumsy and insecure). Ceridwen: This accident, if it is indeed one, could underscore that "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18)" Neri: > At most they can be red herrings, made to look like they were intended by the character but aren't really. However, unless Draco or Snape confide in Book 7 that it was accidental, which I very much doubt, the dropped flask wouldn't make any red herring or any other plot point that I can see. In any case Snape is quick to take unfair advantage of it for his private revenge, so accidental dropping would hardly even make him look better. It would merely make the story weaker. Ceridwen: There is still the ticklish question of why Hermione didn't mention it immediately afterwards, when she apologized for evanescoing Harry's cauldron, or Ron, Dean or Neville didn't say something later on. Even Harry doesn't consciously think, so the narrator can report, that Snape did it. He merely determines to provide a second sample and force Snape to mark it. This incident could be used to underscore that Harry needs to stop being prideful, or that he needs to learn that he needs other people. He has been thrown off on his own at the Dursleys' and so is not trusting of others, and (this is actually a good thing), he is a normal teenager with the normal arrogance of innocent youth. Unfortunately, he needs to get over those things, both of them, before confronting LV. So, instead of making the story weaker, it refers back to the main point of the story, the need for Harry to prepare to face Voldemort. In my opinion, of course. Neri: > To my (admittedly limited) knowledge of informal English, "oops" indicates authentic startle, while "whoops" is ironic or otherwise insincere. Ceridwen: As a native speaker, I use "hoops". No, I did not accidentally leave out the "w". "Hoops" is easier for me to pronounce. I can pronounce "whoops" and "oops", but I am just more comfortable with "hoops". As to the use of "whoops" and "oops", they seem to be interchangeable, depending on which is more comfortable to the speaker. The Weasley twins' "Whoops-a-daisy" can also be said "Oops- a-daisy", or even "Whoopsy/oopsy daisy". The whole "daisy" thing is something one says to a small child or an infant, as in Magpie's example of "Whoops-a-daisy" when an infant learning to walk falls down. The infant didn't mean to fall, the infant probably didn't want to fall, and the infant might just start crying, except Mom just said something funny, so the infant is set on its feet again so it can continue trying. And, certainly, while Mom probably did expect the infant to fall, she most likely did not push the infant. Both "Whoops" and "Oops" can be uttered when one steps in a mess, or smears something on one's clothes, or sits on a bench whose "wet paint" sign has blown away. In your examples, there is no instance of a single character using "whoops" in one case while using "oops" in another. The difference could just be characterization, not incident. And, for the scene between the Weasley brothers, Ron's contention may or may not be the truth. He might have cut his own thumb all by his lonesome. The twins were distracting him, which can make anyone cut themselves when using a knife. Using the formula "whoops-a-daisy" merely means the twins were implying he is still a child or an infant - he is too young to use magic outside of school. There should be a lifetime of baggage in that scene, brothers interacting since Ron's birth. Lockhart was merely covering up his own ineptitude. > Neri, who had never imagined there could even be a debate about Snape dropping the flask on purpose. Ceridwen: Before I looked it up, I wouldn't have thought so, either. But, having gone back and read the Potions class scene, I am not so certain, and am leaning toward Harry's "haughty spirit" in this case going before a fall. Ceridwen. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 03:59:33 2006 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (zgirnius) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 03:59:33 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163212 > zanooda: > Knowing Snape's vindictive nature, I was expecting him to do > something extra-mean to Harry at the first opportunity. When during > the first "after-Pensieve" lesson Snape chose to just ignore the boy, > Harry felt relieved, but I thought it was too good to be true. I was > waiting for Snape to make his move, and when the flask fell, I > assumed that was *it*, even if there was no indication in the text > that it was Snape who dropped the sample. zgirnius: It is that first, uneventful post-Pensieve-dive Potions class that convinced me that the bottle dropping was an accident. Why wait for the second class to engineer an incident, if that was Snape's wish, after all? But if the potion happens to fall...it's a fine opportunity for Snape, which he takes. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 04:43:25 2006 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 04:43:25 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163213 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zgirnius" wrote: > > zanooda: > > Knowing Snape's vindictive nature, I was expecting him to do > > something extra-mean to Harry at the first opportunity. When > > during the first "after-Pensieve" lesson Snape chose to just > > ignore the boy, Harry felt relieved, but I thought it was too > > good to be true. I was waiting for Snape to make his move, and > > when the flask fell, I assumed that was *it*, even if there was > > no indication in the text that it was Snape who dropped the > > sample. > zgirnius: > It is that first, uneventful post-Pensieve-dive Potions class that > convinced me that the bottle dropping was an accident. Why wait for > the second class to engineer an incident, if that was Snape's wish, > after all? But if the potion happens to fall...it's a fine > opportunity for Snape, which he takes. zanooda again: Sorry if I didn' express myself clearly enough, but I was writing about the first after-Pensieve lesson, not the second. If the sample- dropping incident happened during the second (third, fourth...) lesson, I would sure agree with you, but it happened at the end of the very first post-Pensieve Potions class("Career advice"), when kids were turning in their potion samples. Sorry again if I didn't make clear what I was writing about :-). From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 28 05:56:48 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 05:56:48 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163214 Ceridwen: > He thought he "might at least have scraped an E", and bottled his > sample and took it to Snape. He put it down, turned away, and > heard a crash. Malfoy laughed, Snape said his line, Harry > determinedly went back to bottle more, only to find that Hermione > had done him a favor by cleaning out his cauldron. Yup, I read the > entire scene, and after doing so, I realized that I had not read > that Snape had dropped it, the scene leaves it open for Harry to > have messed up big-time as people sometimes do when they are cocky. Magpie: > I see the point in saying the other way makes the scene weaker, but > I can actually see it being fine if it a) underscores Harry's own > bad luck and cockiness tripping him up and b) shows more of what > was just described, that Snape is refraining from doing anything to > Harry after the incident. So rather than making a scene either way > (either by destroying the Potion or by making a big deal about > Harry's clumsiness) Snape underreacts to Harry's mistake: Whoops. > Another zero for you. Jen: I don't read Harry feeling cocky in this passage. He talks about being able to perform better in potions without Snape's 'taunts and snide remarks', something he thinks about again during OWLS and which appears to have at least a grain of truth given his 'E' in OWLS. Then he mentions feeling satisfied about 'scraping an E'--not a statement of overconfidence. Harry doesn't say something like, "any other teacher might give him an 'O' but Harry just hoped to scrape an 'E' with Snape." A phrase like that would place the blame for his grades soley on Snape instead of Harry recognizing he plays a role as well. Instead Harry feels satisfaction that he can actually do well in potions when Snape is ignoring him and hopes that fact will translate into a better-than-normal grade (which is idealistic given how angry Snape is, but I don't read it as a cocky attitude). > Neri: > At most they [accidents] can be red herrings, made to look like > they were intended by the character but aren't really. However, > unless Draco or Snape confide in Book 7 that it was accidental, > which I very much doubt, the dropped flask wouldn't make any red > herring or any other plot point that I can see. In any case Snape > is quick to take unfair advantage of it for his private revenge, so > accidental dropping would hardly even make him look better. It > would merely make the story weaker. > Ceridwen: > This incident could be used to underscore that Harry needs to stop > being prideful, or that he needs to learn that he needs other > people. He has been thrown off on his own at the Dursleys' and so > is not trusting of others, and (this is actually a good thing), he > is a normal teenager with the normal arrogance of innocent youth. > Unfortunately, he needs to get over those things, both of them, > before confronting LV. So, instead of making the story weaker, it > refers back to the main point of the story, the need for Harry to > prepare to face Voldemort. In my opinion, of course. Jen: Whether Snape non-verbally pushed the vial off, physically did so or Harry simply didn't set the vial securely on the desk, Snape's remark and grade were the moment Harry had been waiting for, a payback he knew was coming for the Pensieve incident. It's hard to believe Snape would have accepted a second bottle from Harry and reversed his decision if Hermione hadn't cleaned up the rest of the potion. We'll never know but Snape doesn't have this kind of track record with Harry in Potions as Neri pointed out when looking at the incident of the first zero Harry received. Linking Vernon and Snape in Harry's mind was meaningful for the moment imo because both can be cruel and act vindictively even as they rationalize to themselves they are 'helping' Harry. It just occurred to me Vernon trying to stamp out the magic and Snape trying to stamp out Harry's pride might be an intentional parallel. Neither are helping Harry but both believe they are. Snape fanning the flame of Harry's rage does him no favors by separating him from his power and it will be up to Harry to realize this and learn to resist that particular temptation. > Neri: > > To my (admittedly limited) knowledge of informal English, "oops" > indicates authentic startle, while "whoops" is ironic or otherwise > insincere. Jen: Magpie and Ceridwen answered this point thoroughly and I agree with Magpie that technically 'whoops' is directed toward someone else's accident and 'oops' is said after one's own accident. In my own experience people tend to favor one word or the other for all instances though. For example I use 'oops' for my own mistakes as well as other's accidents and that may be because I hear that phrase where I live much more often than 'whoops'. Both 'whoops' and 'oops' can be used sarcastically and sarcasm is conveyed by tone rather than the use of one word over the other. From theredknot at yahoo.com Wed Dec 27 23:54:00 2006 From: theredknot at yahoo.com (theredknot) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:54:00 -0000 Subject: Book Seven Tolkien Connection? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163215 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > > Pippin Said > > > Could the Deathly Hallows be behind the locked door at the > > > Ministry of Magic? << > > MK: > > Just an aside to this interesting posit: Is is just coincidence > > that JKR has been using the image of a locked door to 'hide' the > > important revelations about her writings, etc. on her website? > > Perhaps finding the key to the locked door on her website is a bit > > of foreshadowing...? > > Jen: Nice point! I like the idea of a narrative line from Godric's > Hollow (Hallow's Eve) and Lily's sacrifice to the Locked Room and > Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Since the information we learned about > Lily in book 5 & the 'significant' piece of information waiting in > book 7 are both 'very important in what Harry ends up having to do' > according to JKR, the connection between mother and son sounds like > the pivotal connection in the series. The title would tie up this > concept nicely if it refers to both the beginning and the end. > Perhaps the "key" to the Locked Room is sacrificial love? Or perhaps that's what's stored inside? (It would have been great if Luna had been able finish her comments when standing outside the door; she sensed whose were the voices on the other side of the veil.) Interesting that love could be contained in a room and that the voices of the departed be behind a veil. All of Heaven and Purgatory seem to be holed up at the Ministry. Lily, DD, now Harry having to make the ultimate sacrifice? theredknot From gold_starrs1 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 01:09:04 2006 From: gold_starrs1 at yahoo.com (gold_starrs1) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 01:09:04 -0000 Subject: Just got the book Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163216 Hey, Every one just got the book for Xmas. WOW there is SO much stuff in the books that are not in the movies. I was reading the book and I tried to put it down but I can't. I am reading the first book now I am now on Chapter 10 Halloween, page 174. I did not know the book goes in such detail. So now I understand the movie better now. Also why does Snape hate Potter so much in the book? gold_starrs1 From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Thu Dec 28 06:03:50 2006 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 06:03:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: HBP 27, The Lightning-Struck Tower In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163217 > 1. If Harry is able to apparate to Hogsmead from the nearest > boulder, why couldn't they have apparated closer to the cave and > saved themselves the climb and the tiring swim? I don't have the book right now or I'd quote that passage to you, but I had to reread it very carefully to rewrite it for my fic, and it looks to me as if Dumbledore Apparated them to the rock, they swam about three feet to reach the tunnel, then they swam however far along the tunnel until they found the place to climb out of the water (I bet Harry and Dumbledore were there at high tide and Tom and his tagalongs at low tide), then on the way out of the cave, Harry climbed onto the nearest rock to Apparate them out. It happened to be the same rock they'd Apparated in onto. I'm not sure what you're talking about with the climb (I want to double-check the passage), but the swim was unavoidable, unless they'd Apparated right into the cave, which was probably impossible due to anti-Apparition wards, and probably a dumb idea in any case, given that it's certainly possible for Apparition to take you somewhere other than where you meant to go (example Charlie's first Apparition test). I sincerely doubt that anyone who Apparates into solid rock has the slightest chance of getting out again. MercuryBlue From bamf505 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 06:08:37 2006 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 22:08:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20061228060837.34171.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163218 --- justcarol67 wrote: > Carol responds: > Hi, Maria. Thanks for that information, which I > think is more helpful > than rough translations found in newspaper articles. > It must be > sanctioned by JKR herself to appear on her site > (though I hope that > speakers of other languages will confirm it for us). > I'll assume for > the moment that you're right--it's a place (which > was my original > impression, in any case). > > Of course, the Veil or the locked room could be > correct, though > strictly speaking, I don't think they would be > "hallowed" or "holy." > So, since another title registered with the patent > office was "HP and > the Hogwarts Hallows," I'm going with the burial > place of the Founders > somewhere on the Hogwarts grounds, maybe a > catacomblike place beneath > the dungeons, similar to the Chamber of Secrets but > not requiring > Parseltongue to enter.(?) And BTW, if those > registered titles are any > clue, both Nagini and Parseltongue will play > important roles, whether > she's a Horcrux or not. > > Carol, wishing everyone who cares about such things > a Happy Third Day > of Christmas > bamf here: Well, hallowed could be anything sacred - not necessarily in the sense of made holy by a priest. Schools are sometimes referred to as "hallowed halls", and Gettysburg was referred to by Lincoln as "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground." With that in mind, I'm not sure that we can limit it to anything. It could be the graveyard at Hogwarts, it could be the school itself. Heck, it could be anywhere that Harry thinks of as sanctuary (like... The Burrow) or it could refer to Godric's Hollow which, like Gettysburg, could have been made hallowed by those that died there. Maybe even the site of another massacre by the Death Eaters. bamf There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Dec 28 04:20:14 2006 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:20:14 -0500 Subject: Dumbledore's nonintervention at the Dursleys. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163219 Kat: "Once Harry was out of the Dursley household he could have become a bully like Dudley but he chose a different path. " Yes, he CHOSE. That is the point. What was it that the late, lamented Headmaster said about choices? Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 08:08:37 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 08:08:37 -0000 Subject: Just got the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163220 "gold_starrs1" wrote: > Hey, Every one just got the book for Xmas. > WOW there is SO much stuff > in the books that are not in the movies. Hi gold starr, welcome to the Potter universe! I envoy you, I wish I could read book 1 again for the first time. And you're right,as good as the movies are the books are better, much much better. But a word of advice, be very careful in reading this list until you've finished the book, in fact until you've finished all 6 books. Most of the people around here know the series backwards and forward and there is a grave danger they will inadvertently spoil some of the surprises in store for you in the coming books. And none of us, myself included, has anything to say as interesting as JKR has to say says in her books. Eggplant From Coqui1219 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 07:27:31 2006 From: Coqui1219 at hotmail.com (Janette Gomez) Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 23:27:31 -0800 Subject: Just got the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163221 gold_starrs1: > Hey, Every one just got the book for Xmas. WOW there is SO much stuff > in the books that are not in the movies. I was reading the book > and I tried to put it down but I can't. I am reading the first book now I am > now on Chapter 10 Halloween, page 174. I did not know the book > goes in such detail. So now I understand the movie better now. > > Also why does Snape hate Potter so much in the book? Janette: Enjoy. I think you'll love the books. Do you really want to know why Snape hates Harry? You'll find out soon enough keep reading. Did you get all the 6 books? From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 10:39:38 2006 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:39:38 -0000 Subject: Amazon # 1 Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163222 I find it sort of interesting that just 8 hours after JKR released the title and even before she finished writing the book "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" jumped to the top spot on Amazon. It doesn't look like Potter had lost his momentum. Eggplant From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 28 13:39:02 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:39:02 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163223 > wynnleaf > JKR's intent is, to me, the most interesting part. Your comment "did > she even expect anyone would question what happened?" is even there a > question -- because your question implies that she would expect most > people to *assume* that they "got" what happened. Was she > intentionally ambiguous? If so, for what reasons? Some people would > read it as the vial falling accidently, others that Snape dropped it. > Did she desire her readers to have different views of what really > happened? Or did she simply leave out the clarifying parts by mistake? Potioncat: Well, JKR doesn't always foresee her readers' reactions to the text. She jokes about readers not getting the anvil-sized hints about Ron/Hermione; and she seems puzzled that anyone would ask if Snape is a vampire. So I'm not sure whether or not she intended this passage to be ambiguious. I wonder, if she were asked in an interview, if she'd even remember the incident well enough to recall the "unseen" events of it. It's so clear to some of us that the flask fell and just as clear to others that Snape broke it. To a certain extent, both sides think the other side is stretching things to make their view fit. I think both sides have very good supporting arguments. So while I have my opinion, I really think we simply don't know what happened. > Wynnleaf: > I'm now inclined to think she simply left out the clarifying parts by > mistake. Potioncat: Do you mean, that it was clear to her, so she didn't see the possibility of a misunderstanding? I wonder if she wrote it several ways, and found this version to have the most omph for Harry. If he had seen the flask drop by accident, or if he had seen Snape push it off, would the scene feel different? The posts about whoops vrs oops have been very interesting! The nuances of meaning different members give the two words have really varried. To me, whoops sounds less genteel than oops and that's why its use by Snape surprises me. I can appreciate how very silly that sounds. I agree with someone that I think folk tend to use one or the other. But it is interesting that whoops and oops have both been used in the HP series. Could that be the difference in copy editors, or does JKR also see a subtle difference? JKR could write 7 more equally thick books just answering our questions! From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 28 13:56:11 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:56:11 -0000 Subject: Crouch!Moody (was Re: DD and Snape /Broken potionvial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163224 Alla: > > And yeah, he is enraged with Fake!Moody ( another reason why I love > that character, no matter how disgusting he is, anybody who can make > Snape loose control deserves a hug in my book - and yes, I am > perfectly aware how bad Fake!Moody is of the "human being" of > the "character", but for that scene he gets major kudos from me. > But does it really matter for Snape mission in a major sort of way, > whatever that mission is? Potioncat: Do you only like C!M because he got to Snape or is there something else? When I've re-read GoF, I've been amazed at how well JKR kept the C!M moments workable pre-and-post first reading. That is, the wording still works after you know who he really is. It seems to me that both Snape and Crouch, Jr have so much more potential than Tom Riddle. But, I don't like the character of C!M at all. Everything he does is for one outcome---to deliver Harry to LV. His acts of "kindness" are particularly evil. Alla: > Oh and Occlumency lessons if he was opening Harry's mind for > Voldemort for example? I'd say it would work perfectly for Snape, if > he got all info he needed for Voldemort, why should he continue > teaching the Potter brat? Potioncat: Yep, JKR did a good job of leaving the motivation for all Snape's actions questionable. He and C!M are mirror images. At least, by the last page of DH they will be. > Alla, who is willing to settle on **somebody** make Snape loose it > in book 7. Potioncat, who is still disappointed Snape's hissy-fit was deleted from PoA:TMTMNBN. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 15:29:34 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:29:34 -0000 Subject: Crouch!Moody (was Re: DD and Snape /Broken potionvial In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163226 > Potioncat: > Do you only like C!M because he got to Snape or is there something > else? When I've re-read GoF, I've been amazed at how well JKR kept > the C!M moments workable pre-and-post first reading. That is, the > wording still works after you know who he really is. It seems to me > that both Snape and Crouch, Jr have so much more potential than Tom > Riddle. > > But, I don't like the character of C!M at all. Everything he does is > for one outcome---to deliver Harry to LV. His acts of "kindness" are > particularly evil. Alla: Hmmm, I think you meant ( and I do not mean to correct you, I am just asking for clarification) that you do not like the **person** behind the character, right? You do like the **character** as Evil one? You think he is well written, etc, you just do not like who this character **is**? Like what I feel about Snape? :) I hate who I think he **is**, but I certainly love the character. As to why I like C!M. I actually completely agree with you ? he is so much more better done villain with more potential than Tom Riddle, even some hints at his earlier humanity ( no, I don't think he is redeemable and I do not sympathize with him, but it makes him so more fleshed out for me). So, I do not root for the character, I just enjoy him as evil and yes, I am particularly grateful for ferret scene and for making Snape um . uncomfortable. As I said anybody, anybody who makes Snape loose control of the situation is good enough for me at least to deserve few cheers. Part of my deep disgust of Snape character as I am sure you know is that he is so loud with those weaker than him, those that cannot answer, those who do not have power to get back at him in one way or another ? so, anybody who puts Snape in the weaker position, love it, love it and hope to see more in book 7. > > Alla, who is willing to settle on **somebody** make Snape loose it > > in book 7. > > Potioncat, who is still disappointed Snape's hissy-fit was deleted > from PoA:TMTMNBN. > Alla: Trust me, me too as well and Dumbledore's answers too. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 15:16:57 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:16:57 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163227 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > Carol responds: > Hi, Maria. Thanks for that information, which I think is more helpful > than rough translations found in newspaper articles. It must be > sanctioned by JKR herself to appear on her site (though I hope that > speakers of other languages will confirm it for us). I'll assume for > the moment that you're right--it's a place (which was my original > impression, in any case). maria8162001 Hi Carol, thanks also for your theory, it's very good and it goes with one of my guesses that the founders will have something to do in book 7 only in my theory It's more with their spirit or ghosts but before I go further here's the HP dutch site in case anybody wants to read it. Yes, I think too that JKR had approved it or they would not put it on their site or they could have just follow the literal translation also. > Of course, the Veil or the locked room could be correct, though > strictly speaking, I don't think they would be "hallowed" or "holy." > So, since another title registered with the patent office was "HP and > the Hogwarts Hallows," I'm going with the burial place of the Founders > somewhere on the Hogwarts grounds, maybe a catacomblike place beneath > the dungeons, similar to the Chamber of Secrets but not requiring > Parseltongue to enter.(?) maria8162001: Your theory of a catacomb of the founders fits well with the other translation of the heiligdom which means "shrine", as shrine can also be defined as a building or sturcture that house the relic or bones of a revered or holy person. The way I read the HP books aren't the 4 founders revered by the WW especially those who goes to Hogwarts, either studying or teaching or working? That's very good as I never read yet on any posts that anybody here, aside from you suggested the catacombs of the founders, as most of us are going for the very obvious places. Cheers. From spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 15:34:59 2006 From: spotthedungbeetle at hotmail.com (dungrollin) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:34:59 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163228 potioncat: The posts about whoops vrs oops have been very interesting! The > nuances of meaning different members give the two words have really varried. To me, whoops sounds less genteel than oops and that's why its use by Snape surprises me. I can appreciate how very silly that sounds. I agree with someone that I think folk tend to use one or the > other. > Dungrollin: That's interesting, because I think that whoops sounds more genteel than oops. Slightly more upper-class, old-fashioned, etc. In fact, I can't imagine Snape saying oops. Nor Dumbledore. Nor any of the staff except Hagrid. (Or maybe Trelawney after a few doses of cooking sherry.) But I'm probably wrong and there are already instances of them using it in the books. I've no idea whether that's because I'm British, or whether it's a reflection of my age and where I was brought up. What do other Brits think? > But it is interesting that whoops and oops have both been used in the HP series. Could that be the difference in copy editors, or does JKR also see a subtle difference? > Dungrollin: I see a subtle difference. Oops (to my ear) is more colloquial. Let me put it this way: people who pronounce the 'h' in which, where, when etc, would also pronounce the 'h' in whoops, I think, and wouldn't say oops. But there are also many who use both in different situations, I don't *think* I'd say oops in formal company. But I'm not sure. Dung. From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 15:30:38 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:30:38 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: <20061228060837.34171.qmail@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163229 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Metylda wrote: > > > > bamf here: > With that in mind, I'm not sure that we can limit it > to anything. It could be the graveyard at Hogwarts, > it could be the school itself. Heck, it could be > anywhere that Harry thinks of as sanctuary (like... > The Burrow) or it could refer to Godric's Hollow > which, like Gettysburg, could have been made hallowed > by those that died there. Maybe even the site of > another massacre by the Death Eaters. > > bamf maria8162001: As a sanctuary it could also be the 12 Grimmauldplace(I hope I spelled it correctly) where Harry would be staying and were the Dursley might be staying too for their own protection and it's still the HQ of the Order isn't it? The place is protected by spell and cannot be entered by just anybody and in the old days the soldiers or police any government official cannot enter the sanctuary to arrest the person or people that are in a sanctuary. Well the 12 Grim place is almost like a death like place in the 5th book and maybe it still look or feels like that. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 15:43:24 2006 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:43:24 -0000 Subject: Hogwart's Cemetery In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163230 Mitchell: > > I believe that the text said there's never been a HEADMASTER/MISTRESS > burried at Hogwarts before. Along with the fact that DD's request was > to be buried there might mean there's an existing grave site. DD being > the first headmasted buried there maught have just been givin a Tomb > all his own from the grave. At this point in time its anyones guess. Finwitch: Well, Headmaster/Headmistress indeed. So who ELSE is being buried at Hogwarts? I'd say that Codric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw must be. Not Salazar Slytherin, who left the place, though. And if house-elves *are* buried within Hogwarts, the graves are invisible, as house-elf honor dictates them to be as well... Finwitch From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 16:20:28 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:20:28 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163231 Jen: > I don't read Harry feeling cocky in this passage. He talks about being able to perform better in potions without Snape's 'taunts and snide remarks', something he thinks about again during OWLS and which appears to have at least a grain of truth given his 'E' in OWLS. Then he mentions feeling satisfied about 'scraping an E'--not a statement of overconfidence. Harry doesn't say something like, "any other teacher might give him an 'O' but Harry just hoped to scrape an 'E' with Snape." A phrase like that would place the blame for his grades soley on Snape instead of Harry recognizing he plays a role as well. Instead Harry feels satisfaction that he can actually do well in potions when Snape is ignoring him and hopes that fact will translate into a better-than-normal grade (which is idealistic given how angry Snape is, but I don't read it as a cocky attitude). Ceridwen: I still read it as cocky. Not that cocky is a bad thing, it's a normal teenage thing. And Harry had a very good chance of turning out to be too timid and unsure of himself because of his treatment by the Dursleys to think his being a normal teenager is bad. If I gave the impression that I thought he was cocky about his potential mark, I should apologize. That isn't what I meant at all, though I think this is where the cocky came from. I expect that he did do well, and that he would have at least scraped an E. This cocky was well-earned! It has been said in the books that Snape's classes do well in their O.W.L.s, that they perform above grade level, so it would be in line with the rest of canon that Harry did well. He has taken Potions for four full years, and now nearly five years, so he should know a decent potion from one that will earn bad marks. But, as I mentioned in another thread, there are times when we do well, when we think we've outdone ourselves, we've told off that annoying person, we've exceeded our teacher's expectations, we feel flushed with success... ...then we turn around and walk face first into a door. All of our pride goes out the window: we feel foolish; we look foolish; the annoying person who has just had the best piece of our mind that we could give them, is now laughing at us. This aftermath is from overconfidence, or cockiness. We can do no wrong? Ja, sure, you betcha. The Gods strike us down. We walk face-first into a door. Or misspell on a message board. Or drool (okay, kidding about the drool, unless we've just come from the dentist). Some sort of pinprick to deflate us, happens. Harry is still young enough that he hasn't had many experiences like this. Adults begin to feel cautious, to "wait for the other shoe to drop", to expect something to ruin the perfection of what just happened. For Harry, it is possible that, flushed with his victory, he incautiously set the flask too close to the edge of the desk - maybe other flasks were in the way of putting it front and center, maybe he just put it down wrong. But, this was the other shoe dropping, the Divine reminder that pride goeth etc., etc. All of his good work, splattered on the dungeon floor. Jen: > Whether Snape non-verbally pushed the vial off, physically did so or Harry simply didn't set the vial securely on the desk, Snape's remark and grade were the moment Harry had been waiting for, a payback he knew was coming for the Pensieve incident. It's hard to believe Snape would have accepted a second bottle from Harry and reversed his decision if Hermione hadn't cleaned up the rest of the potion. We'll never know but Snape doesn't have this kind of track record with Harry in Potions as Neri pointed out when looking at the incident of the first zero Harry received. Ceridwen: I have to agree that Snape may not have taken another sample from Harry. But, we'll never know for sure. He was certainly delighted at the outcome, he could have gone either way, accepted another sample because he was in a good mood, or not accepted it because Harry had his chance and blew it. And yes, Harry was waiting for a pay-back from the Pensieve incident, but is it what he got? He certainly thinks so, the air is cleared, at least of that expectation, so maybe Harry does have a form of the Other Shoe in his mind, only he attaches it to other people, not to Divine Intervention or cockiness on his own part. I personally don't think Snape would have purposely had any interaction with Harry at all, because of the Pensieve incident. He ignored Harry all through the class. He was not hanging on him more than usual, he was avoiding Harry, which makes me think he did not want anything to do with someone who saw that memory. He was embarrassed and exposed. Why purposely do something to force himself to interact with Harry at all? He could mark the potion in private and return the mark without personal interaction. Now, Snape is ambiguous. Sometimes, he does things that I would absolutely do myself in similar situations, sometimes he acts differently. Therefore, I can only speculate based on what I would do. I refer to Potioncat: Potioncat: > It's so clear to some of us that the flask fell and just as clear to others that Snape broke it. To a certain extent, both sides think the other side is stretching things to make their view fit. I think both sides have very good supporting arguments. So while I have my opinion, I really think we simply don't know what happened. Ceridwen, who hopes she hasn't made things muddier, and who has a hard time waiting for DH! From maria8162001 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 15:48:40 2006 From: maria8162001 at yahoo.com (Maria Vaerewyck) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:48:40 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163232 maria8162001 wrote: > Hi Carol, thanks also for your theory, it's very good and it goes > with one of my guesses that the founders will have something to do > in book 7 only in my theory It's more with their spirit or ghosts > but before I go further here's the HP dutch site in case anybody > wants to read it. maria8162001: Now I'm replying to my own post, sorry I forgot to give the site address. Here is it: http://www.harrypotter.nl From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 17:34:52 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:34:52 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: <32051207.1167253885188.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163233 Bart wrote: > I hope that the fact that Sirius, unlike other dead people, took his body with him beyond the Veil is significant. In addition, there IS that communication mirror. When the title first came up, I joked about Sirius yelling, "Hallowwwwww! Hallowwwwwww!", but now I'm not quite as certain it is as ridiculous as I first thought. I find it hard to believe that the mirror is a pure red herring (not impossible to believe, but hard). Carol responds: Harry has already tried and failed to use the mirror to contact Sirius Black. I think it will be used for a more mundane purpose, for example, to talk with ginny, who (I'm guessing) will be HRH's main contact at Hogwarts. As for Black, I think that Harry will go beyond the Veil while he's possessing Voldemort, transfer his spirit to Sirius Black's body (with permission) to bring Black's body back for burial (foreshadowed by Cedric's "bring my body back"), and then return to his own body. Surely, the power of possession is one of the powers Harry acquired from Voldemort at GH, and how else would he use it except to force Voldie to pass beyond the Veil? Carol, who doesn't think that the mirror is a red herring but doesn't think it will be used to communicate with the dead, which wasn't its purpose originally From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 17:57:53 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:57:53 -0000 Subject: Snape's motivations & Occumency Mechanics (Was: Order Members'..) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163234 Carol earlier: > > Also, once he had tried to prevent the murders and spied on Voldemort for Dumbledore, he became Voldemort's secret enemy and there was no going back. If Voldemort found out, he was dead, so he might as well continue to fight, secretly, on Dumbledore's side, as only he could, and at the same time earn the trust and respect he craved. > > Jen: > This reads like a personal motivation as well and dilutes > the 'risk' he took to return to Voldemort because it was really the > only choice he had in order to stay alive. I mean, you get no > argument from me but I'm surprised you would characterize Snape in > this way. Carol responds: I must have phrased it badly, then. How does choosing to side with DD (and really earn his trust and respect) by appearing to return to Voldemort, risking torture if not death, "dilute" the "'risk'" snape took? It's a very real risk, at its greatest before Voldemort's fall and after his return, but always real. DDM!Snape is always at risk of discovery by someone--the DEs or Harry or Draco or LV himself. All I'm saying is that at the point when he chose to go over to Dumbledore, there was, for him, no going back to the Dark Lord he had rejected, so rather than run or hide or sit it out, he might as well join forces with DD and secretly do everything he could to undermine Voldemort, using his Slytherin/DE connections and his Occlumency and whatever else he could that only he could do. BTW, I don't think that Legilimency works the way you think it does. It can't dixcover underlying motives and loyalties. LV can't explore someone's mind at will. It only works to reveal the thought that's uppermost in someone's mind at the moment, which is why it's chiefly used to detect lies. See snape's use of Legilimency to see the Potions book as the clearest example of how Legilimency works and Snape's explanation of how a skilled Occlumens can conceal the thought or memory that contradicts the lie and therefore lie to Voldemort undetected. I doubt that LV even knows that snape is using Occlumency against him because he's simply suppressing particular memories and substituting others in their place. It's not like Draco all too obviously (and slowly) throwing up an easily detectable barrier. If Snape tried that with LV, he'd be dead. Carol, who never said anything about a layer of goodness in Snape but does think that he's thoroughly and permanently opposed to Voldemort despite his Slytherin instincts and personally loyal to Dumbledore, even and perhaps especially with DD dead by his hand From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Dec 28 18:05:38 2006 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:05:38 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just got the book Message-ID: <12196034.1167329138133.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163235 gold_starrs1: >> Also why does Snape hate Potter so much in the book? > >Janette: >Enjoy. I think you'll love the books. Do you really want to know why >Snape hates Harry? You'll find out soon enough keep reading. Did you get all the 6 books? Bart: I'm impressed. I've read all 6 books, and, still, all I can do is guess. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 18:40:34 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:40:34 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163236 > Neri wrote: > To my (admittedly limited) knowledge of informal English, "oops" indicates authentic startle, while "whoops" is ironic or otherwise insincere. > Neri, > who had never imagined there could even be a debate about Snape > dropping the flask on purpose. > Carol reponds: Ingenious, Neri, but unfortunately incorrect. "oops" and "whoops" are identical in meaning. Here's the Merriam-Webster Online definition of "oops": Main Entry: oops Variant(s): or whoops also woops /'(w)u(&)ps/ Function: interjection -- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay "Whoops" doesn't have its own entry as its only a variant of "oops." As has been pointed out, not even Harry says, thinks, or implies that Snape broke the flask. It's only the point deduction (which in no way affcect Harry's passing or failing Potions in OWL year) that he resents. No one is suggesting that it's *nice* of Snape to gloat or deduct points unfairly, only that he didn't actually break the flask, as some readers but not all readers infer from the passage. Carol, not at all surprised that an incident that occurs when Harry's back is turned is subject to interpretation From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 28 18:45:04 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:45:04 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) References: Message-ID: <004c01c72ab0$4a9dba50$7c78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163237 > Jen: I don't read Harry feeling cocky in this passage. He talks > about being able to perform better in potions without Snape's 'taunts > and snide remarks', something he thinks about again during OWLS and > which appears to have at least a grain of truth given his 'E' in > OWLS. Then he mentions feeling satisfied about 'scraping an E'--not > a statement of overconfidence. Harry doesn't say something > like, "any other teacher might give him an 'O' but Harry just hoped > to scrape an 'E' with Snape." A phrase like that would place the > blame for his grades soley on Snape instead of Harry recognizing he > plays a role as well. Instead Harry feels satisfaction that he can > actually do well in potions when Snape is ignoring him and hopes that > fact will translate into a better-than-normal grade (which is > idealistic given how angry Snape is, but I don't read it as a cocky > attitude). Magpie: Cocky was too strong a word--I didn't mean that Harry was being insufferable. As Ceridwen said, Harry knows a good Potion from a bad and if he thinks he's done well he probably has. I just meant that he gets through the whole class thinking it's okay and then Snape gets to take points from him because of this--and if Snape didn't knock the Potion over it's not direct enough for Harry to just go into "Snape's attacking me" mode, if that makes sense. It can just be a regular moment in class that's got tension underneath it instead of being a full-blown Snape/Harry confrontation. When I think of it that way I also start leaning more towards thinking that Malfoy's laughter makes more sense if Harry dropped the flask. (Maybe Snape's "whoops" would have come before the shatter as well.) Wow. I started off sure Snape dropped the Potion on purpose and now I seem to be arguing the other side. Potioncat: But it is interesting that whoops and oops have both been used in the HP series. Could that be the difference in copy editors, or does JKR also see a subtle difference? Magpie: I would think it's just the way she "hears" it in her head, so it could relate even to some people using one word rather than another--though in this cases the different people are fictional characters. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Dec 28 18:46:51 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 18:46:51 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163238 Ceridwen: > But, as I mentioned in another thread, there are times when we do > well, when we think we've outdone ourselves, we've told off that > annoying person, we've exceeded our teacher's expectations, we feel > flushed with success... > > ...then we turn around and walk face first into a door. All of our > pride goes out the window: we feel foolish; we look foolish; the > annoying person who has just had the best piece of our mind that we > could give them, is now laughing at us. This aftermath is from > overconfidence, or cockiness. Jen: Hee, whatever do you mean, that's *never* happened to me. ;) I understand what you're saying and think the word 'cocky' has a negative connotation to me, meaning something along the lines of an overconfident jerk. I looked up the word in my handy-dandy on-line dictionary bookmarked just for deciphering and writing posts on this list and Merriam says: "boldly or brashly self-confident." Harry after he drank Felix would be an example of Harry acting cocky in my book. The twins tend toward cocky and Draco comes across that way, imo. But I won't argue word perception anymore: This list always reminds me that word perception and overall story perception vary so much based on everything from personal experience to cultural and geographical references that it's almost as fascinating to read *how* a person reaches a conclusion as reading the conclusion itself. > Ceridwen: > I have to agree that Snape may not have taken another sample from > Harry. But, we'll never know for sure. He was certainly delighted > at the outcome, he could have gone either way, accepted another > sample because he was in a good mood, or not accepted it because > Harry had his chance and blew it. And yes, Harry was waiting for a > pay-back from the Pensieve incident, but is it what he got? He > certainly thinks so, the air is cleared, at least of that > expectation, so maybe Harry does have a form of the Other Shoe in > his mind, only he attaches it to other people, not to Divine > Intervention or cockiness on his own part. Jen: Hmmm, I might be agreeing with you more than I thought initially. Harry does tend to expect retribution from Snape and with good reason from my perspective. But this might be an instance where Snape was *not* planning to exact revenge in part because he expects Harry will be like James and spread his embarassment all over Hogwarts so Snape isn't drawing undue attention to himself. If true, Harry saw payback whether it really happened or not in this particular instance because that's what he's grown to expect. Ceridwen: > I personally don't think Snape would have purposely had any > interaction with Harry at all, because of the Pensieve incident. > He ignored Harry all through the class. He was not hanging on him > more than usual, he was avoiding Harry, which makes me think he did > not want anything to do with someone who saw that memory. He was > embarrassed and exposed. Why purposely do something to force > himself to interact with Harry at all? He could mark the potion in > private and return the mark without personal interaction. Jen: Counter to what I said above, *if* Snape was ignoring Harry because he's embarassed or unsure what Harry would do and the broken vial was Harry's fault, why can't he keep his big mouth shut for once and not act so snide? Why does the guy have to talk so much? I'm with Alla on this one. Seriously, is it because we can't hear his thoughts that we have to hear so much dialogue from him and much of it repetitive? Ceridwen: > Now, Snape is ambiguous. Sometimes, he does things that I would > absolutely do myself in similar situations, sometimes he acts > differently. Therefore, I can only speculate based on what I would > do. Jen: Amen to that, sister! I guess it's the problem of hidden motivation and backstory but the guy mystifies me. Even when I make every effort to consider him from the angle of 'what did he do in the past and how does that relate to what he appears to be doing now?' I *still* find his characterization somewhat inconsistent from Book 1- Book 6. That's why it's difficult for me to believe any motivation or backstory will answer every question--I'm still expecting outlier situations that won't fit no matter how hard they are squeezed. > Potioncat: > It's so clear to some of us that the flask fell and just as clear > to others that Snape broke it. To a certain extent, both sides > think the other side is stretching things to make their view fit. I > think both sides have very good supporting arguments. So while I > have my opinion, I really think we simply don't know what happened. Jen: The vial was pushed! Other than that I agree with everything Potioncat says. Hehe. Jen, finding this thread enormously fun to read. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 19:05:16 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:05:16 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163239 > Jen: Harry after he drank Felix would be an example of Harry acting cocky > in my book. Alla: Me too :) > Jen: Counter to what I said above, *if* Snape was ignoring Harry > because he's embarassed or unsure what Harry would do and the broken > vial was Harry's fault, why can't he keep his big mouth shut for once > and not act so snide? Why does the guy have to talk so much? I'm > with Alla on this one. Seriously, is it because we can't hear his > thoughts that we have to hear so much dialogue from him and much of > it repetitive? Alla: Hehe. As Ceridwen already knows from me, hehe, I am really really not sure that Snape ignoring Harry because he was embarassed, exposed ( sinister me still keeps in mind the possibility that he left pensieve on purpose and was biting his time, but this is for another thread), means that he would have avoided the personal interaction. I think that Snape avoiding Harry could have also meant Snape biting his time and planning his petty revenge - destroying Harry's potion on purpose can also mean that Snape planned it and executed it to the perfection IMO. From rnbwtgr at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 18:33:26 2006 From: rnbwtgr at yahoo.com (cindy kauffman) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 10:33:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Just got the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <375258.84911.qm@web57907.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163240 gold_starrs1 wrote: Hey, Every one just got the book for Xmas. WOW there is SO much stuff in the books that are not in the movies. I was reading the book and I tried to put it down but I can't. I am reading the first book now I am now on Chapter 10 Halloween, page 174. I did not know the book goes in such detail. So now I understand the movie better now. Also why does Snape hate Potter so much in the book? Cindy: Keep reading all the books. You'll find out things like "why Snape hates Harry" and other stuff you didn't know. Plus more details as time goes go on. When I got the first 4, I couldn't put them down either. That was after I saw the 1st movie. **Elfly Reminder for anyone reading this thread**: Please remember our main list is for discussion of specific points from the books or JKR interviews. If anyone wants to talk about reading the HP books for the first time (ah, good memories) please post to OTChatter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/messages From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 19:47:02 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 11:47:02 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612281147u6c02eefs5657ba4ba851bfb8@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163241 > > _._,___ > Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he needed to die so that Harry could learn to support himself why didn't JK Rowling have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? Could it be a hint that their is something important beyond the veil, from what I understand the two way mirror is going to be important again, perhaps Sirius will find a way to make a new connection to the mirror left behind and tell Harry about some key to defeating Voldermort beyond the veil. So this seems a bit rambling but I am just randomly throwing ideas out. lone_white_werewolf ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jeremiah: I think it has more to dowith the character of Ballatrix than anything else. Is she the type of "Bad Guy" who would kill her own cousin knowing the is the last male in the line? Or, is she really a killer? She is a torturer, as we know, but killing someone is much greater in the HP world. She killed a fox (out of protection and, IMO, fear) but she didn't AK Harry at the ministry or Sirius at the veil. But to get back to your origional question: I think having Sirius die from an accident is much more tragic. it's one of those: "And... Opps! he's dead" moments that come at you. If we had a "flash of green light" or read the curse as bellatrix said it then it would have been way too simplistic. Plus, that veil leaves us some gaping holes as far as what the nature of the Department of Mysteries really is all about. (Sorry to those who aren't into how a text functions. I was a Theatre major and took a lot of directing classes. I'm all about text analysis from a character's perspective). :) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 20:12:32 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:12:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hogwart's Cemetery In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612281212u53998393r16a2a20a35b12e40@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163242 Mitchell: > > I believe that the text said there's never been a HEADMASTER/MISTRESS > burried at Hogwarts before. Along with the fact that DD's request was > to be buried there might mean there's an existing grave site. DD being > the first headmasted buried there maught have just been givin a Tomb > all his own from the grave. At this point in time its anyones guess. Finwitch: Well, Headmaster/Headmistress indeed. So who ELSE is being buried at Hogwarts? I'd say that Codric Gryffindor, Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw must be. Not Salazar Slytherin, who left the place, though. And if house-elves *are* buried within Hogwarts, the graves are invisible, as house-elf honor dictates them to be as well... ================================ Jeremiah: I think the founders are burried there. And, yes, Slytherin is probably not buried there. And, the statement that no Headmaster/Headmistress has ever been buried there implies that people who weren't Headmaster/Headmistress might have been buried on the grounds. Maybe gamekeepers? I woudl think Hagrid would be buried at Hogwarts since he has no other home. I would also think that someone like Tom Riddle would have been buried there if he had died wile attending school. (Being an orphan with ho other home... he would be buried there since he was a wizard... and to squelch any questions from the Muggle world about how they died). Who would be buried there? Maybe a famous Wizard or Witch? Villagers from Hogsmede? And where would one bury a witch or wizard? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 20:24:07 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:24:07 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612281147u6c02eefs5657ba4ba851bfb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163243 > Jeremiah: > I think it has more to dowith the character of Bellatrix than anything else. > Is she the type of "Bad Guy" who would kill her own cousin knowing the is > the last male in the line? Or, is she really a killer? She is a torturer, as > we know, but killing someone is much greater in the HP world. She killed a > fox (out of protection and, IMO, fear) but she didn't AK Harry at the > ministry or Sirius at the veil. Alla: So, you are arguing that Bella is not a killer from her character perspective? Blinks. I see the exact opposite from her killing the fox so easily - I see her as soo trigger happy that she would kill in a second, without any hesitation. And remember her being ready to sacrifice her potential sons for the cause? I don't know, I have a problem with this line of argument. I need much more evidence to be convinced that Bella is **just** a torturer ( and you know, horrible torture is often a way to um... kill the person). Bella IMO is a sadist, yes, who won't stop from inflicting pain, but does it prevent her from being a killer as well, why? Jeremiah: > But to get back to your origional question: I think having Sirius die from > an accident is much more tragic. it's one of those: "And... Opps! he's dead" > moments that come at you. If we had a "flash of green light" or read the > curse as bellatrix said it then it would have been way too simplistic. Plus, > that veil leaves us some gaping holes as far as what the nature of the > Department of Mysteries really is all about. Alla: Yes, that is one of the possibilities, sure. Another one - that it leaves us with some potential holes about Sirius fate. Jeremiah: > (Sorry to those who aren't into how a text functions. I was a Theatre major > and took a lot of directing classes. I'm all about text analysis from a > character's perspective). :) > Alla: Yeah, that's what most of us often do here among other things. But unless you have a private line with JKR :), your text analysis from character perspective is just one of the possible intepretations, me thinks :) Bella - good example, what seems so clear to you from character perspective, I do not see with magnifying glass even. Oh, and check into Snape threads,where we all think that we are analysing text from character perspective. Funnily, we cannot agree on a lot of things :) From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Thu Dec 28 20:21:43 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:21:43 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: format of the book 7 title In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612281221q7a7c49b0me1eff27813054162@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163244 Jeremiah: > > What we know is Deathly means: os or pertaining to death. > > Hallow has an interresting meaning: a sacred object created > > through ritual. What do we know that is "Of Death" and is > > also an "Object (folloing the whole "proper name" thing) > > created through ritual?" It's a Horcrux. > > Ceridwen: > I think the title means "Hallows Unto Death". Not an > offering to death, but a place where you could very easily > die. Or, conversely, people or things that could very easily > kill you. Mitchell: It seems to me that the deathly hallows are the places in which Harry and the scoobies will have to travel in order to find the final fragments of Voldemort's soul. The most simple answer is usually the right one!! ========================================== Jeremiah: Ceridwen, that is exactly where I was going with the Horcrux thing. It is all about Harry's quest frot he remaining Horcruxes and possibly the Hallow(s) where his parents died, Voldemort dies and possibly where Harry dies (I'm in the Haryy Dies a Tragic Death camp so agree/disagree as you will... [sniff] I can take it... [tears]). My first reaction was "What the Frigg?" (Frigg is the polite term for what I really said) But as I've thought about it the name grows on me. I think it's an all-encompassing title for the many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many.... (deep breath) many, many plotlines (and subplots, and sub-subplots... etc) established in the series. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 20:45:49 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:45:49 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163245 > Ceridwen: > Before I looked it up, I wouldn't have thought so, either. But, > having gone back and read the Potions class scene, I am not so > certain, and am leaning toward Harry's "haughty spirit" in this case > going before a fall. Neri: I think there's a good reason why most readers assumed Snape dropped the flask on purpose in their first reading, but are not so sure when going back. I think the first impression is more precise in this case, because when you read throughout the book, you read everything in context of the previous chapters, the way the Author meant you to. You read the case of the "another zero" incident in the context of the first zero incident, which happened several chapters before. The interesting distinction here, I think, is not between "oops" and "whoops" (although that's very interesting too). It's between parts of the story that are supposed to be read just like they appear on first impression, with all the missing parts filled in by the reader in the most straightforward manner, and the parts that are meant to mislead the reader, and allow for a different interpretation after some revelation, like in red herrings. I agree the JKR isn't very good at making this distinction obvious, and in large part it's her fault that many HP readers have adopted a policy of "trust nobody" and "believe nothing". But my impression is that JKR is frequently genuinely baffled as to why won't her readers just take some things at face value. I think it's very likely that she "neglected" to describe here even Harry's own interpretation of the incident because she believed it was self-evident. In any case, I don't see why she'd use intended ambiguity here, unless you believe that The Case Of The Broken Flask will be reopened in Book 7. And even then it still doesn't explain why she didn't even us Harry's opinion at least. > Magpie: > As a native speaker, I don't associate any difference in sincerity between > whoops and oops. The two words are very close, but the difference in my > experience is that usually "oops" just means a mistake after the fact while > "whoops" is more often used to punctuate a physical fumble or slip- up, like > when you slip on the ice you say "whoops!" and when you do something wrong > you say "oops." Neri: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you describe. In any case I have to clarify here that I didn't mean so much informal *spoken* English (in which I certainly don't presume to know much) but more *conventions of writing* informal spoken English. The question here isn't so much what would be the exact transcription of the exact sound that each of us would utter when dropping something accidentally (I'm not sure about myself either...). The question is, why does a writer sometimes *writes* "oops" and sometimes "whoops". I'm not sure why I got the impression that the distinction relates to how authentic the surprise is, but I had it for many years of reading books in English, and when I checked the examples from the HP series unthread they indeed fit. > Magpie: > You say "whoops" to a baby or a toddler when > they fall down etc. So while "oops" would in my mind have to refer to > Snape's own mistake, "whoops" could either be Snape talking about his own > spill or Harry's. Neri: Yes, I certainly agree about the toddler example, but that fits my distinction too. That is, when you say "whoops" to a toddler it's not authentic surprise on your side, but something slightly artificial. More like "yes dear, I knew you were about to fall soon, but nothing happened so don't start crying on me." > Jen: > Magpie and Ceridwen answered this point thoroughly and I agree > with Magpie that technically 'whoops' is directed toward someone > else's accident and 'oops' is said after one's own accident. Neri: I'm not sure this is what Magpie wrote, but anyway it doesn't work with Lockhart saying "whoops" about his own accident, and yet I've never felt that he should have said "oops" when reading this passage. Why? First because Lockhart doesn't say it when he actually drops the wand, he says it a bit *later*, when he picks up the wand. And moreover, Lockhart wants Harry to think that he just fumbled, but we know that he probably can't do whatever jinx he was pretending to demonstrate. IOW his "whoops" isn't written as an authentic, reflexive surprise sound. There's something decidedly artificial about it. > Carol reponds: > Ingenious, Neri, but unfortunately incorrect. "oops" and "whoops" are > identical in meaning. Here's the Merriam-Webster Online definition of > "oops": > > Main Entry: oops > Variant(s): or whoops also woops /'(w)u(&)ps/ > Function: interjection > -- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay > > "Whoops" doesn't have its own entry as its only a variant of "oops." Neri: Unfortunately, as any non-native English speaker can tell you, dictionaries (even Webster) are mostly useless when it comes to distinguishing subtle nuances of informal language. Neri From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Thu Dec 28 20:48:03 2006 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:48:03 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163246 Jeremiah: > > I think it has more to dowith the character of Bellatrix than anything else. Is she the type of "Bad Guy" who would kill her own cousin knowing the is the last male in the line? Or, is she really a killer? She is a torturer, as we know, but killing someone is much greater in the HP world. She killed a fox (out of protection and, IMO, fear) but she didn't AK Harry at the ministry or Sirius at the veil. Alla: > So, you are arguing that Bella is not a killer from her character perspective? Blinks. I see the exact opposite from her killing the fox so easily - I see her as soo trigger happy that she would kill in a second, without any hesitation. Ceridwen: And that she did not AK Harry at the Ministry might have been on LV's orders. We know that Snape said they were when he was leaving Hogwarts at the end of HBP, we know that Malfoy (it was Lucius, wasn't it?) said something similar when they were chasing Harry to get the prophecy orb just a short time before Bellatrix and Harry met at the MoM. She would not go against LV's wishes, she is his fanatical cheerleader. And, LV was there. Alla: > And remember her being ready to sacrifice her potential sons for the cause? Ceridwen: Yes. Yes! She has a very low regard for life, even if this is abstract. She is referring to Narcissa's distress over possibly losing Draco, and this is the only comfort she can give? Her priorities are so messed up, that yes, I see her clearly as a killer. And, she and Snape just went through all his excuses, in which he even starts to take credit for Sirius's death but then has to give her the credit. She does not balk, she takes the credit. She seems to think, not proudly, not ashamed, that credit for Sirius's death is her just due. She may regret the moment of ending a torture with death, but I doubt very much that she regrets the death. She only regrets the ending of the torture, in my opinion. Jeremiah: > > (Sorry to those who aren't into how a text functions. I was a Theatre major and took a lot of directing classes. I'm all about text analysis from a character's perspective). :) Alla: > Yeah, that's what most of us often do here among other things. But unless you have a private line with JKR :), your text analysis from character perspective is just one of the possible intepretations, me thinks :) Bella - good example, what seems so clear to you from character perspective, I do not see with magnifying glass even. Oh, and check into Snape threads,where we all think that we are analysing text from character perspective. Funnily, we cannot agree on a lot of things :) Ceridwen: Yes, one thing we do here is try to see things from the POV of other characters besides Harry. There have been literally hundreds, maybe even thousands, of posts on that! Even Alan Rickman, who is a very experienced and talented actor, had to get some off-page pointers from JKR to play Snape in the movies. Rowling writes very believable characters that cannot be pinned down by one perspective, as this list clearly shows! I would like to read a character analysis of Bellatrix. I think I know her objective and superobjectives, but would welcome a different opinion. Ceridwen. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 20:53:40 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 20:53:40 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163247 --- "justcarol67" wrote: > > Bart wrote: > > I hope that the fact that Sirius, unlike other dead > > people, took his body with him beyond the Veil is > > significant. In addition, there IS that communication > > mirror. ... > > Carol responds: > > Harry has already tried and failed to use the mirror to > contact Sirius Black. I think it will be used for a more > mundane purpose, ... > bboyminn: I agree, I don't think the mirror will be used to communicate with the dead or with Sirius beyond the Veil. I suspect if Harry wants to communicate with Sirius, he'll just go to the Veil, pull the curtain back and shout 'Sirius, you in there?'. As Carol says, I suspect it will be used for more mundane purposes. Perhaps for Harry to communicate with Ginny but more likely for Order members, or perhaps just Harry's friends to communicate in with each other. I suspect at some point the need to communicate discretely will occur and Harry will think of the Mirror. Perhaps he will even find the matching mirror at The Black House, and get the idea to make more. I suspect it will have to be Hermoine who researches the matter and makes new mirrors. Though, it seems like it might be a distraction more than anything, I can see the DE's trying to capture the school. I've said before that it is an extreme strategic target. If you control the school then you control the students, and if you control the sons and daughters, you surely control the parents. Voldemort could try to hold the school as a way of blackmailing the wizard world into surrender. If Ginny is at school and has a com-mirror, she could assist Harry in his inevitable rescue attempt. > As for Black, I think that Harry will go beyond the Veil > while he's possessing Voldemort, ... > > Carol, ... bboyminn: Of course this is one of may favorite theories. I agree that regardless of how it plays out, Sirius going beyond the Veil with his body intact is going to be important. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Sirius very unique passing was intentional on JKR's part. At first, I thought it was merely a metaphor for how fleeting and fragile life is, but now I'm convinced that somehow Sirius's death (or passing) was unique and that it is important to the greater story. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From belviso at attglobal.net Thu Dec 28 21:42:47 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 16:42:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Broken potionvial/Is Bella a killer? References: Message-ID: <009401c72ac9$1e720350$7c78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163248 > Jen: Counter to what I said above, *if* Snape was ignoring Harry > because > he's embarassed or unsure what Harry would do and the broken > vial was > Harry's fault, why can't he keep his big mouth shut for once > and not act > so snide? Why does the guy have to talk so much? I'm > with Alla on this > one. Seriously, is it because we can't hear his > thoughts that we have to hear so much dialogue from him and much of > it > repetitive? Magpie: What's interesting to me in this moment is that Snape kind of is keeping his mouth shut here. I mean, he acknolwedges that the Potion dropped, but he doesn't make an example to the class or anything--you know how this guy can get. And then the reason that Harry doesn't get to hand in another Potion is that Hermione has destroyed it, not because Snape makes it into a bigger incident. He quietly says it's another zero--which it would be. So either way rather than making a huge deal of it Snape is making it a slightly more private message between him and Harry, channeling his anger into legitimate classroom interaction instead of dragging Harry in front of everyone and making a show of picking on him. However, I can also easily see it the way I did at first as well, that Snape just did this one thing to Harry quietly in breaking his Potion. Neri: The interesting distinction here, I think, is not between "oops" and "whoops" (although that's very interesting too). It's between parts of the story that are supposed to be read just like they appear on first impression, with all the missing parts filled in by the reader in the most straightforward manner, and the parts that are meant to mislead the reader, and allow for a different interpretation after some revelation, like in red herrings. I agree the JKR isn't very good at making this distinction obvious, and in large part it's her fault that many HP readers have adopted a policy of "trust nobody" and "believe nothing". But my impression is that JKR is frequently genuinely baffled as to why won't her readers just take some things at face value. I think it's very likely that she "neglected" to describe here even Harry's own interpretation of the incident because she believed it was self-evident. In any case, I don't see why she'd use intended ambiguity here, unless you believe that The Case Of The Broken Flask will be reopened in Book 7. And even then it still doesn't explain why she didn't even us Harry's opinion at least. Magpie: In general I agree that we tend to second guess things that are presented in a straightforward way. To me the thing about this scene is that it either way in this scene it's almost the same--Snape is picking at Harry through the broken vial. If someone read it the first time and instinctively assumed that the vial dropping was an accident of Harry's I think they'd still kind of get the same thing, so I don't think it's necessarily a wrong reading. Harry himself doesn't dwell on that aspect of it as much, but still thinks Snape's being a jerk. > Magpie: > As a native speaker, I don't associate any difference in sincerity between > > whoops and oops. The two words are very close, but the difference in my > experience is that usually "oops" just means a mistake after the fact while > "whoops" is more often used to punctuate a physical fumble or slip-up, like > when you slip on the ice you say "whoops!" and when you do something wrong > > you say "oops." Neri: I'm not sure I understand the distinction you describe. In any case I have to clarify here that I didn't mean so much informal *spoken* English (in which I certainly don't presume to know much) but more *conventions of writing* informal spoken English. The question here isn't so much what would be the exact transcription of the exact sound that each of us would utter when dropping something accidentally (I'm not sure about myself either...). The question is, why does a writer sometimes *writes* "oops" and sometimes "whoops". I'm not sure why I got the impression that the distinction relates to how authentic the surprise is, but I had it for many years of reading books in English, and when I checked the examples from the HP series unthread they indeed fit. Magpie: It's hard to describe a distinction because there really isn't much of one. But I think in writing English the author just goes by what she "hears" in her head in a scene, and sometimes you're going to hear one more than the other. I don't think you can ever take the choice of whoops vs. oops as a sign of whether the person is being sincere or not. Like I said, I tend to think of "whoops" being more about physical fumbles, which fits all these scenes as well. > Magpie: > You say "whoops" to a baby or a toddler when > they fall down etc. So while "oops" would in my mind have to refer to > Snape's own mistake, "whoops" could either be Snape talking about his own > spill or Harry's. Neri: Yes, I certainly agree about the toddler example, but that fits my distinction too. That is, when you say "whoops" to a toddler it's not authentic surprise on your side, but something slightly artificial. More like "yes dear, I knew you were about to fall soon, but nothing happened so don't start crying on me." Magpie: Right, and I think that fits with what Snape is doing whether he destroyed the vial himself or not. Either way he's needling Harry with it. The use of whoops doesn't make it impossible that the Potion truly fell by accident. The use of it to me was more about being condescendng to Harry (whether or not Snape broke the vial himself or not). Btw, to add another example, there's an older woman in my office who always says, "Whoops!" and steps dramatically back whenever she sees another person unexpectedly. You can be halfway down the hallway from her and as soon as she sees you she says, "Whoops!" and steps back as if you almost ran into her. So I now find the word annoying no matter who's using it.:-) Though I think in her case she's not really being insincere. She's just weird. Alla: So, you are arguing that Bella is not a killer from her character perspective? Blinks. I see the exact opposite from her killing the fox so easily - I see her as soo trigger happy that she would kill in a second, without any hesitation. And remember her being ready to sacrifice her potential sons for the cause? I don't know, I have a problem with this line of argument. I need much more evidence to be convinced that Bella is **just** a torturer ( and you know, horrible torture is often a way to um... kill the person). Bella IMO is a sadist, yes, who won't stop from inflicting pain, but does it prevent her from being a killer as well, why? Magpie: I agree she's definitely a killer as well as a torturer. Remember she killed the fox because she thought it was an Auror, which indicates very little hesitation to kill to me. But in HP even confirmed killers don't always throw AKs. (And I think Harry's off-limits to DEs.) -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Dec 28 22:14:32 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:14:32 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163249 > > Neri: > I think there's a good reason why most readers assumed Snape dropped > the flask on purpose in their first reading, but are not so sure when > going back. I think the first impression is more precise in this > case, because when you read throughout the book, you read everything > in context of the previous chapters, the way the Author meant you to. > You read the case of the "another zero" incident in the context of > the first zero incident, which happened several chapters before. > > Potioncat: OK, I agree 100% My first impression was correct! Now, how do we get past the fact that my first impression and your first impression are different? Our impressions are formed by our own biases and points of view. We still don't know what really happened, nor are we likely to. From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Thu Dec 28 22:04:11 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:04:11 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612281147u6c02eefs5657ba4ba851bfb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163250 > Jeremiah Wrote > I think it has more to dowith the character of Ballatrix than anything else. Or, is she really a killer? She is a torturer, as > we know, but killing someone is much greater in the HP world. > But to get back to your origional question: I think having Sirius die from > an accident is much more tragic. it's one of those: "And... Opps! he's dead" > moments that come at you. If we had a "flash of green light" or read the > curse as bellatrix said it then it would have been way too simplistic. Plus, > that veil leaves us some gaping holes as far as what the nature of the > Department of Mysteries really is all about. Wouldn't driving someone to insanity be worse then killing them, in a sense? They would be in a prolonged state of suffering. If she is willing to do that then surely it is only a matter of time before she takes the next step to killing. I don't think Sirius going through the veil is just a pure accident. If it was there are hundreds of ways J.K could have had him die without him going through the veil. lone_white_werewolf From air2477 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 19:07:19 2006 From: air2477 at yahoo.com (Erika) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:07:19 -0000 Subject: Harry Potter en Het Fatale Heiligdom In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163251 maria8162001: Your theory of a catacomb of the founders fits well with the other translation of the heiligdom which means "shrine", as shrine can also be defined as a building or sturcture that house the relic or bones of a revered or holy person. The way I read the HP books aren't the 4 founders revered by the WW especially those who goes to Hogwarts, either studying or teaching or working? That's very good as I never read yet on any posts that anybody here, aside from you suggested the catacombs of the founders, as most of us are going for the very obvious places. Cheers. Air2477: Hello! Newbie, glad to be here. One of my theories on the title of book 7, HP and the Deathly Hallows is this. It refers to Godric's Hollow, the site of Lily and James home where they were betrayed and killed on Halloween. Perhaps Harry's quest for the final Horcruxes will lead him to this place and he will be killed there himself while killing Lord Voldemort. Will Harry journey there alone? Will he be followed by hidden friends? To reply regarding the meanings of the words of the title: from free online translator german to english (http://www2.worldlingo.com/en/products_services/worldlingo_translato r.html) the definition of Heiligdom is holy cathedral from www.dictionary.com the meaning of hallows tr.v. hal?lowed, hal?low?ing, hal?lows To make or set apart as holy. To respect or honor greatly; revere. definition of catacombs 1. Usually, catacombs. an underground cemetery, esp. one consisting of tunnels and rooms with recesses dug out for coffins and tombs. 2. the Catacombs, the subterranean burial chambers of the early Christians in and near Rome, Italy. 3. an underground passageway, esp. one full of twists and turns. definition of cathedral ca?the?dral ?noun 1. the principal church of a diocese, containing the bishop's throne. 2. (in nonepiscopal denominations) any of various important churches. ?adjective 3. pertaining to or containing a bishop's throne. 4. pertaining to or emanating from a chair of office or authority. Perhaps Harry will wind up in an underground reverent place, maybe he will be led there through deception (Snape??) and sacrificed? Any other ideas?? Just my thoughts. Air2477 From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 22:55:52 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 22:55:52 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial/Is Bella a killer? In-Reply-To: <009401c72ac9$1e720350$7c78400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163252 > Magpie: > In general I agree that we tend to second guess things that are presented in > a straightforward way. To me the thing about this scene is that it either > way in this scene it's almost the same--Snape is picking at Harry through > the broken vial. If someone read it the first time and instinctively assumed > that the vial dropping was an accident of Harry's I think they'd still kind > of get the same thing, so I don't think it's necessarily a wrong reading. > Harry himself doesn't dwell on that aspect of it as much, but still thinks > Snape's being a jerk. > Alla: How can it be the same or as you said almost the same though? I mean I trust you of course when you say that it looks almost the same to you, but I just do not see it. I mean, I suppose Snape's underlying jerkiness is the same in principle, but the degree of malice is so much more higher IMO if he destroys the vial itself. Here we have the teacher who in attempt to get back at student whom he already tormented for five years (IMO) does not hesitate to destroy his well done work. In other situation I totally see how Snape looks much better - since all that he does is laugh at something that was Harry's fault ... again. As I said, I would dislike that one as well, but I just do not see it comparable in the degree of maliciousness at all. So, yeah, I think that Snape looks much cleaner if he did not do it and I actually think that another reason why he did do it is the progression of his maliciousness towards Harry, not regression IMO. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 23:25:26 2006 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 23:25:26 -0000 Subject: Clue to Release of Book 7? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163253 Having not been proximate to a place to post for some time, but having read through some of the recent list, I am somewhat surpirsed that the suggestion I am about to put forward has not yet been made. There has been some analysis of the title of book 7 "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" going on. I propose that the title also gives us a clue as to when the book may come out. All Hallow's Eve or Hallowe'en or even Samhein. That's 31st October folks. Goddlefrood hoping he may be right as the wait is killing him (althought not as much as the three year summer yet). From belviso at attglobal.net Fri Dec 29 00:45:09 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:45:09 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Broken potionvial/Is Bella a killer? References: Message-ID: <00c701c72ae2$9a5c3c60$7c78400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163254 > Alla: > > How can it be the same or as you said almost the same though? I mean > I trust you of course when you say that it looks almost the same to > you, but I just do not see it. > > I mean, I suppose Snape's underlying jerkiness is the same in > principle, but the degree of malice is so much more higher IMO if he > destroys the vial itself. Here we have the teacher who in attempt to > get back at student whom he already tormented for five years (IMO) > does not hesitate to destroy his well done work. In other situation > I totally see how Snape looks much better - since all that he does > is laugh at something that was Harry's fault ... again. As I said, I > would dislike that one as well, but I just do not see it comparable > in the degree of maliciousness at all. Magpie: Oh, I agree that there's a difference in the maliciousness. But since Harry didn't actually see it happen, if someone read the scene and thought that Snape was just being a jerk in laughing at Harry's mistake instead of being a jerk in destroying something Harry handed in, I can't really say that one or the other is correct. The first reading has Snape being more of a jerk, but it's still Snape being a jerk and neither seems completely OOC for Snape. His motivation is the same. Given how much of a jerk Snape is in other places I don't think it's the thing that's going to be the key to Snape's character. For instance, something else that seems kind of similar was a discussion a while back about Barty Crouch having gone bad in Azkaban (having only been an almost-DE when he went in). In that case I think that's a big difference in character and that reading Barty as not a full DE is incorrect. (Of course there's dozens of moments we can dispute back and forth on and have, really!) But here I think the essence of Snape is going to be found elsewhere, so which way one instinctively read this scene isn't as much of an issue. Unless, of course, we could point to canon that proved it one way or another and since Harry didn't actually see it I figure I just have to accept both readings of this scene as valid. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 01:36:17 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 01:36:17 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163255 Carol earlier: > > Ingenious, Neri, but unfortunately incorrect. "oops" and "whoops" are identical in meaning. Here's the Merriam-Webster Online definition of "oops": > > > > Main Entry: oops > > Variant(s): or whoops also woops /'(w)u(&)ps/ > > Function: interjection > > -- used typically to express mild apology, surprise, or dismay > > > > "Whoops" doesn't have its own entry as its only a variant of "oops." > > Neri: > Unfortunately, as any non-native English speaker can tell you, dictionaries (even Webster) are mostly useless when it comes to distinguishing subtle nuances of informal language. Carol again: But if a reading depends upon subtle distinctions between "oops" and "whoops" unrecognized by native speakers and impossible to pinpoint using a dictionary, what's the use of it? I don't read it that way, and English is my native language. A straightforward reading does *not* include any reference to Snape's dropping the potion flask. Not even Harry thinks such a thing. That assumption is supplied by those readers who thinks it's in character for Snape to drop the flask. Unfortunately for those readers, his doing so isn't anywhere in the text. Of course, even we native speakers and lit majors are aware of subtle nuances in informal language, but this is a series of children's books, and I doubt that many children will say, "Oh, he said 'whoops,' not 'oops,' so it must not have been an accident." Not buying your argument. Sorry. Carol, wondering what other subtle nuances we might "discover" if we analyzed every interjection in the book in terms of the sincerity of the speaker From graverobber23 at yahoo.com Thu Dec 28 21:48:13 2006 From: graverobber23 at yahoo.com (graverobber23) Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 21:48:13 -0000 Subject: Amazon # 1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163256 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > I find it sort of interesting that just 8 hours after JKR released the > title and even before she finished writing the book "Harry Potter and > the Deathly Hallows" jumped to the top spot on Amazon. It doesn't look > like Potter had lost his momentum. > > Eggplant I will totally agree with you on that. The Potter mania still exist. It just died down a little bit because there wasn't anything comming out for a good bit. But once it was anounced that the fate of Harry will be comming about, of course the Potter mania will be stired up again. graverobber23 sitting here waiting for the final book to come out. > From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 04:01:57 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:01:57 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163257 > Potioncat: > OK, I agree 100% My first impression was correct! > > > Now, how do we get past the fact that my first impression and your > first impression are different? Our impressions are formed by our own > biases and points of view. We still don't know what really happened, > nor are we likely to. > Neri: As you say, different impressions by different readers is the natural state of things. But I still think the Author originally intended to create *one* certain impression when she wrote this, not a multitude of impressions. Even if she was deliberately planting a red herring (which isn't very likely here) it means she intended a certain impression, albeit a misleading one. And I still don't see anything to suggest and accident here. The flask was on Snape's desk, and Harry had already turned away, so he didn't push it by mistake. I'm not saying an accident is *impossible*, but normally when an accident happens on page there's some explanation regarding its cause. Or at least it is noted that it happened to someone clumsy (Neville, say) or reckless (Mclaggen), or that it was the result of incompetence (say, Harry and Ron causing accidents in Charms because they haven't mastered the spell yet, or aren't paying attention), or the situation was risky by nature (all kinds of Quidditch accidents), or *something*. But Harry isn't a clumsy person, and placing a flask on a desk doesn't require any competence. Snape too is hardly a clumsy person. It would be very OOC for him to accidentally drop flasks off his desk, not to mention the amazing coincidence of the flask being Harry's and not any of the others. The flask could have been dropped by another student bringing his own flask, but no such student is mentioned. To summarize, no possible cause for an accident is even *hinted* in canon. OTOH Harry canonically expects Snape to be vindictive even before the incident, and Snape indeed has a "look of gloating pleasure" when he gives Harry an unfair zero mark. I'd say the overall straightforward impression here clearly points towards intentional dropping, not an accident. No, I can't deny that some readers had the first impression it was an accident, but I just don't see how they got it from what JKR wrote. I also can't deny that some readers had had the impression JKR was going for H/H even after OotP, but I still share JKR's bafflement as to how they could have possibly got that impression from her canon. > Carol again: > But if a reading depends upon subtle distinctions between "oops" and > "whoops" unrecognized by native speakers and impossible to pinpoint > using a dictionary, what's the use of it? Neri: I never wrote that the reading here depends on the difference between "oops" and "whoops". It depends on the much more obvious canon that I've listed above an upthread. I was merely trying to answer Potioncat who wondered why Snape said "whoops" and not "oops". > Carol: > A straightforward reading does > *not* include any reference to Snape's dropping the potion flask. Not > even Harry thinks such a thing. Neri: A straightforward reading also does not include any reference to an accident. So going by this logic it's not likely to be an accident and Harry doesn't think it was an accident. Regarding the subtle distinction between "oops" and "whoops", I googled them and what I found generally fit with my impression that the first tends to indicate genuine surprise, while the second is more predictable and ironic (or deceiving). Here's the opinion of Chaos Firebug, who seems to be writing from long experience: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=59477827 "The difference between oops and whoops. Whoops is an affirmation that everything went just as badly as you expected it would. It is usually shouted enthusiastically at the conclusion of an experiment, especially if there has been a loud explosion, and the release of much smoke. Oops is the understated and self-deprecating admission of a mistake, but with the implied understanding of both its cause and solution. Since the secret to happiness is learning to correctly ascribe blame, oops has no real educational or scientific value." I also found a few enlightening distinctions in: http://www.perfectduluthday.com/2006/04/oops_or_whoops.html for example: "WHoops is more WHimsical". I won't quote the rest of them here, as they involve politics. Neri From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 29 05:08:32 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:08:32 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163258 > Neri:> > And I still don't see anything to suggest and accident here. The flask > was on Snape's desk, and Harry had already turned away, so he didn't > push it by mistake. I'm not saying an accident is *impossible*, but > normally when an accident happens on page there's some explanation > regarding its cause. Potioncat, with the magic teapot in hand: Well, so far we are using the same technique to promote our own point of view. I mean, to you the fact that an accident is not mentioned means it did not happen, to me, the fact that Snape's breaking the flask is not mentioned means it did not happen. So I will suggest we agree to disagree. Potioncat, pouring from the tea kettle and being very careful not to set the cups or glasses too close to the edge of the table.... From lunalovegood at shaw.ca Fri Dec 29 05:45:20 2006 From: lunalovegood at shaw.ca (tbernhard2000) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:45:20 -0000 Subject: Spilled Potion (WAS Broken potionvial etc. etc.etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163259 Neri: > > And I still don't see anything to suggest an accident here. The flask was on Snape's desk, and Harry had already turned away, so he didn't push it by mistake. Potioncat: > I mean, to you the fact that an accident is not mentioned means it did not happen, to me, the fact that Snape's breaking the flask is not mentioned means it did not happen. Dan: Now, all this arguing over spilled potion is quite the point Rowling was making - the point is neither that Snape sabotaged the potion, nor Harry flicked it accidentally, how can it be? We aren't told, and there's no key given to "solve" what happened (the so-called truth) - but people will take pointed sides based on the what IS known - THAT Snape gloated, THAT Harry fumed. This is, of course, the point - but to try to extrapolate some ideal "what happened" from emotional reactions is not only silly, it's damn dangerous. For this reason alone I can't wait for the end of the series. THEN we can start talking about what's actually in the books. dan From vieta_rusanova at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 04:51:21 2006 From: vieta_rusanova at yahoo.com (vieta_rusanova) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 04:51:21 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612281147u6c02eefs5657ba4ba851bfb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163260 I keep thinking that Sirius is not always a "person". He has another "persona" he regularly becomes. That was how he escaped from prison, something no one else was able to do. Can he do it again? Vieta From akash2006k at yahoo.co.in Fri Dec 29 08:28:51 2006 From: akash2006k at yahoo.co.in (Akash aki) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 08:28:51 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <639940.69984.qm@web8403.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163261 Bart wrote: > When the title first came up, I joked about Sirius > yelling, "Hallowwwwww! Hallowwwwwww!", but now I'm not quite as > certain it is as ridiculous as I first thought. I find it hard to > believe that the mirror is a pure red herring.... lone_white_werewolf wrote: > :D at the idea of Sirius shouting Hallowww. > > Doesn't J.K Rowling indicate the mirror is significant in the FAQ > section of her website. > > [quote] The mirror might not have helped as much as you think but on > the other hand will help more then you think [/quote] Hi. Why can't it be Halloween? Does anyone have a strong reason? I think it should be Halloween time and related somehow with the horror festival. Akash From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Dec 29 14:30:10 2006 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 14:30:10 -0000 Subject: Spilled Potion (WAS Broken potionvial etc. etc.etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163262 . > > Dan: > > Now, all this arguing over spilled potion is quite the point Rowling > was making - the point is neither that Snape sabotaged the potion, > nor Harry flicked it accidentally, how can it be? We aren't told, and > there's no key given to "solve" what happened (the so-called truth) - > but people will take pointed sides based on the what IS known - THAT > Snape gloated, THAT Harry fumed. This is, of course, the point - but > to try to extrapolate some ideal "what happened" from emotional > reactions is not only silly, it's damn dangerous. > Potioncat, tea kettle in hand: I love it! By the power vested in me at HPfGU (which is actually not much at all) I declare that from this time forward, we will call any situation where two sides are arguing over an unsolvable issue "crying over spilled potion." Potioncat....OK, it's no power what-so-ever. Tea, anyone? > From nkafkafi at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 17:09:30 2006 From: nkafkafi at yahoo.com (Neri) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:09:30 -0000 Subject: Spilled Potion (WAS Broken potionvial etc. etc.etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163264 > > Dan: > > Now, all this arguing over spilled potion is quite the point Rowling > was making - the point is neither that Snape sabotaged the potion, > nor Harry flicked it accidentally, how can it be? We aren't told, and > there's no key given to "solve" what happened (the so-called truth) - > but people will take pointed sides based on the what IS known - THAT > Snape gloated, THAT Harry fumed. This is, of course, the point - but > to try to extrapolate some ideal "what happened" from emotional > reactions is not only silly, it's damn dangerous. > Neri: Unfortunately, this approach misses completely the question both Potioncat (if I understood correctly) and myself were interested with: why does a mystery writer excelling in red herrings seems to sincerely believe that some things in her books are self-evident, even when they are only hinted at in the books. So if JKR left certain important aspects of Snape (for example), such as his motivations and loyalties, as official mysteries, then by the above slippery slope argument we can know *nothing else* about him, unless it was canonically specified as fact, and even then it's subject to Snape acting, Harry's filter, future potential revelations and so on. Moreover, there can't even be a discussion regarding the impression that the author intended to create (as opposed to what actually happened) because whenever some canon isn't absolutely unequivocal (which they almost never are) it means the author must have intended to make the point that no point can't be made. When a fan says to JKR "Apart from Harry, Snape is my favourite character because he is so complex and I just love him", according to your argument JKR should take this as a great complement because this is exactly the effect she intended, making Snape complex and ambiguous. And yet JKR answers "Why do you love him? Why do people love Snape? I do not understand this." She seems to be genuinely baffled, but according to your argument she must be lying through her teeth when she says things like that. Neri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 17:32:40 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:32:40 -0000 Subject: Spilled Potion (WAS Broken potionvial etc. etc.etc.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163266 Dan: > > > > Now, all this arguing over spilled potion is quite the point Rowling was making - the point is neither that Snape sabotaged the potion, nor Harry flicked it accidentally, how can it be? We aren't told, and there's no key given to "solve" what happened (the so-called truth) - but people will take pointed sides based on the what IS known - THAT Snape gloated, THAT Harry fumed. This is, of course, the point - but to try to extrapolate some ideal "what happened" from emotional reactions is not only silly, it's damn dangerous. > > > > Potioncat, tea kettle in hand: > > I love it! By the power vested in me at HPfGU (which is actually not > much at all) I declare that from this time forward, we will call any > situation where two sides are arguing over an unsolvable issue "crying over spilled potion." Carol responds: Okay, cute and appropriate expression. But if we can't extrapolate on what really happened (or, by extension, the characters' motivations and intentions) until we have Book 7, at which point we may or may not have all the answers (I certainly hope JKR doesn't try to explain *everything*), what are we supposed to do on this list? sorry, Dan, but I prefer analysis and extrapolation, silly and "dangerous" though it may be, to speculation about what will happen in Book 7. That's how I think. Ergo, I continue to believe that Harry is probably as responsible as Snape (and Hermione) for what happened to his potion, or he would have openly blamed Snape for spilling it rather than for deducting points. Perhaps turning a little too quickly in a robe with long, flowing sleeves, which could easily knock over a precariously placed flask? (I'd suggest a cloak, but I don't think they wear them indoors.) Or, again, just placing it too near the edge of Snape's desk in his hurry. And, BTW, Neri, some 26-year-old Floridian's personal distinction between "oops" and "whoops" is hardly definitive regarding a British author's use of those exclamations. Nice try, though. "Dangerous" Carol McGonagall From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 29 17:32:28 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:32:28 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens(Re: Snape's motivations & Occumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163267 Carol: > BTW, I don't think that Legilimency works the way you think it does. > It can't dixcover underlying motives and loyalties. LV can't > explore someone's mind at will. It only works to reveal the thought > that's uppermost in someone's mind at the moment, which is why it's > chiefly used to detect lies. Jen: Snape's own description in the Occlumency chapter of OOTP makes Legilimency sound fairly invasive when practiced by an expert. Masters can 'delve into the minds of their victims and [to] intepret their findings correctly'. We see that Snape can call forth a stream of memories from Harry, including ones from long ago that aren't in his concious mind at the moment, so Voldemort is not seeing only what is uppermost in a person's mind. Plus when Harry sees the memories, there's emotion involved such as 'his heart bursting with jealousy'. Then Snape mentions intepretation involved which means to me some of what a Legilimens sees is not obvious from the start but requires a level of skill to put the pieces together. Carol: > I doubt that LV even knows that Snape is using Occlumency against > him because he's simply suppressing particular memories and > substituting others in their place. It's not like Draco all too > obviously (and slowly) throwing up an easily detectable barrier. If > Snape tried that with LV, he'd be dead. Jen: Maybe Voldemort doesn't know about Snape's Occlumency, or maybe he does and needs Snape around a little longer. Anyway, my point before was that Snape would need to block too many memories *if* he is aligned with Dumbledore's morality and/or holds political convictions about the good of the WW such as 'pureblood elitism is wrong' for instance. Having a strong moral filter on means a person also has memories of seeing injustice and having feelings about those injustices, all things which must be supressed for Voldemort. Not to mention if Snape is intentionally grooming Harry to defeat Voldemort, he has concious memories of helping the Chosen One. I find it easier to believe that Snape is supressing only those memories which have to do with his turn to Dumbledore up through the death of the Potters and not tons of memories from the time he switched loyalty until Voldemort returned. > Carol, who never said anything about a layer of goodness in Snape > but does think that he's thoroughly and permanently opposed to > Voldemort despite his Slytherin instincts and personally loyal to > Dumbledore, even and perhaps especially with DD dead by his hand. Jen: Ack. I keep getting feedback that my attempts to characterize a Snape different from my own reading are missing the mark. In my own mind I call him "Good Snape" but that seems to connotate "Nice Snape" for some (not necessarily you, Carol). Someone have a few words to sum up a Snape who isn't just loyal but has other attributes of goodness? Some of the attributes I've seen are things like Snape being heroic or morally and philosophically aligned with Dumbledore or solely motivated by deep remorse. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 29 17:41:47 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:41:47 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163268 > Neri: > And I still don't see anything to suggest and accident here. The flask > was on Snape's desk, and Harry had already turned away, so he didn't > push it by mistake. I'm not saying an accident is *impossible*, but > normally when an accident happens on page there's some explanation > regarding its cause. Pippin: You mean like Aunt Marge's exploding glass and subsequent exploding self? Or Fudge's spattering inkwell? Accidents can happen even to old and experienced wizards, especially when they're upset. I don't have my canon with me, but I believe Dumbledore said something to this effect at Harry's trial. I have to agree with Dan, if we attempt to judge who did what by their emotional reactions, we will mislead ourselves. I think Ceridwen was on the right track; what's important about this scene is what it tells us about Harry, though I don't agree that it was pride that made him hope that he had scraped an 'E'. IMO, though he would drop dead rather than admit it, Harry craves approval, especially from adult males. It just maddens him to have it withheld from him unfairly. That's the string Snape always used to jerk Harry around. But Harry didn't have to let him do it. Instead of letting himself fume over how unfair it all is, he could have realized that he didn't need Snape's approval anyway or want to be the sort of person who seems to get it. Ah, but very often the things we want most are the worst for us. This incident of longing for approval foreshadows Harry's behavior in HBP, where he made dodgy use of the Prince's book for the sake of the approval it got him from Slughorn. It could be Harry's weak spot in Book Seven. Harry wasn't tempted by Scrimgeour, mostly because he knew Dumbledore didn't approve of him. But it might work against him if Harry is offered approval by someone whom he believes deserved Dumbledore's trust. Hmmmm..... Pippin From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 17:46:49 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:46:49 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] My thoughts on the title In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40612221501p2133fee7q2b7208e41ae28ac1@mail.gmail.com> References: <948bbb470612221050ma540773rf578bf899fe5c2f0@mail.gmail.com> <8ee758b40612221501p2133fee7q2b7208e41ae28ac1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470612290946s78169a02xcaaee9f8d8e56126@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163269 Jeremiah: > (P.S. I don't think there is any correlation to her use Hallow and it's > relevence to All Hallow's Eve in the Pagan traditions. I come to that > conclusion because she has never once refered to the holiday using the > Pagan > name. It's a red herring, in my opinion... and you can gloat and point > your > finger at me while sniggering if I'm wrong). (Or send me to an Amish > village > wearing colored buttons. Oh, the shame). montims: sorry - being picky - All Hallow's Eve is the Christian name for the festival. The pagan name, strictly, would be Samhain or Hallowe'en, if you like - a corruption of the Christian term. "Hallow" means versions of "holy", in the Christian sense. =========================================== Jeremiah: Yes, Jeanette. :) I am Pagan and I do realize that Halloween is called Samhain. But in some traditions it is refered to as All Hallow's and, yes, Christian tradidion has "usurped" (no word fits better... my sincerest apologies if I've offended anyone... or am about to offend anyone... 'aint religion touchy?) the idea and trwisted it to its own means. But there has been chatter about "All Hallows" meaning the Final Battle will take place on Halloween and that Pagan tradition says that All Haollows (Samhain) is the night whn there "veil" between the worlds of the living and dead are the thinnest: meaning the battle will be at the Ministry for Magic at the veil where Sirius was killed. So, going along with all fo that: the scenario is conveluded and the clues are irrelevant. Why? Well, to use the Christian word for a Pagan concept is a bit... um... crazy. Rowling has never done that to us and it does not seem to fit her style/pattern of writing. However, she would use some archaic, old-English term and play with that. But, IMO, she has stated if we've read the books and have thought about them then all the clues are there and we should be able to figure out the ending. Halloween has always been Halloween in the stories and Samhain wouldn't make any sense at this point. (But I could be completely wrong). [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 29 18:01:14 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:01:14 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163270 > Pippin: > You mean like Aunt Marge's exploding glass and subsequent exploding > self? Or Fudge's spattering inkwell? Accidents can happen even to > old and experienced wizards, especially when they're upset. I don't > have my canon with me, but I believe Dumbledore said something to > this effect at Harry's trial. Jen: So you mean Snape accidentally pushed the vial off the desk because he was fuming at Harry? Harry wasn't angry at that particular moment so it wouldn't have been his accident. Or are you just saying 'accidents happen even in a series with red herrings'? Pippin: > I have to agree with Dan, if we attempt to judge who did what by > their emotional reactions, we will mislead ourselves. I think > Ceridwen was on the right track; what's important about this scene > is what it tells us about Harry, though I don't agree that it was > pride that made him hope that he had scraped an 'E'. > > IMO, though he would drop dead rather than admit it, Harry craves > approval, especially from adult males. It just maddens him to > have it withheld from him unfairly. Jen: This may be very true but JKR isn't making a point of it in the series. No Hermione lectures about not needing adult male approval. No Dumbledore wisdom about dealing with Snape's disapproval. Maybe Slughorn was an example but I don't see the story moving in that direction any further. Harry moved past some of the small things he's worried about by the end of HBP and is focused only on the Horcruxes and his anger toward Snape, those are the signposts for Book 7 and any weakness Voldemort uses for leverage will come from one of those two areas. Pippin: > That's the string Snape always used to jerk Harry around. But > Harry didn't have to let him do it. Instead of letting himself > fume over how unfair it all is, he could have realized that > he didn't need Snape's approval anyway or want to be the sort > of person who seems to get it. Jen: Right, I agree and think Harry will realize this by the end but think his anger and rage toward Snape are the things he must master, not needing approval. That's been part of the plot and Harry's characterization already. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 18:04:55 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:04:55 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163271 > > Neri: > > And I still don't see anything to suggest and accident here. The flask > > was on Snape's desk, and Harry had already turned away, so he didn't > > push it by mistake. I'm not saying an accident is *impossible*, but > > normally when an accident happens on page there's some explanation > > regarding its cause. > > Pippin: > You mean like Aunt Marge's exploding glass and subsequent exploding > self? Or Fudge's spattering inkwell? Accidents can happen even to old > and experienced wizards, especially when they're upset. I don't have my > canon with me, but I believe Dumbledore said something to this effect > at Harry's trial. Alla: So, you are suggesting that this was an accidental magic drop down? Aren't those happen when wizards are upset? So, wouldn't it be Snape who is more likely to cause it? Pippin: > IMO, though he would drop dead rather than admit it, Harry craves > approval, especially from adult males. It just maddens him to > have it withheld from him unfairly. > > That's the string Snape always used to jerk Harry around. But > Harry didn't have to let him do it. Instead of letting himself > fume over how unfair it all is, he could have realized that > he didn't need Snape's approval anyway or want to be the sort > of person who seems to get it. > Alla: Huh? So Harry should have realised that he does not need a good grade for well done work? Where in canon it is shown that Harry craves Snape approval as a person rather than that he expects as **any** student to get a good grade for good work? Isn't it a fairly reasonable expectation for any student to have? How dare he indeed. :( Alla. From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 18:28:58 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:28:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470612281147u6c02eefs5657ba4ba851bfb8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470612291028x1b8e45b1lb3f165a66f68e665@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163273 Alla: Bella - good example, what seems so clear to you from character perspective, I do not see with magnifying glass even. Oh, and check into Snape threads,where we all think that we are analysing text from character perspective. Funnily, we cannot agree on a lot of things :) ========================== Jeremiah I knew someone would think twice about that fox... lol. Well, she seems scared to me. (and, no, I don't have a direct link to JKR. Thanks for reopening that wound for me. LOL). Um, I don't mean to say she is incapable of killing. I was running with the reasoning as to why she didn't just kill her "blood-traitor" cousin. I honestly don't think she's the killing type, meaning killing for sport. I think she tortures for sport. I also come to this conclusion because the Longbottoms are still alive. (Although we have no idea about other people she may or maynot have killed...) And, yes, torture can result in death, but not always and sometimes only accidentally. (No. I'm not speaking from experience!) Alla: And remember her being ready to sacrifice her potential sons for the cause? Well, not to come across as mysogynist... But Bellatrix is a bit mouthy. At DD's recolection of her trial she was very vocal but only at the last minute, she is all chatter at the ministry but hesitates waiting for Malfoy's signal. I took her proclamations at Snape's house to be no more that one Deatheater trying to look more dedicated that the other and trying to set an example for her sister... This all goes into my theories about how Snape is an accomplished Occlumens and since Bellatrix trained Draco how to shut huis mind I can only surmise that bellatrix is hiding a lot from Voldemort and blerts out thins like "I'd love it if my child died for Lord Voldemort" (no, not a direct quote but you get the idea) so she could look better in front of Snape... and Wormtail was there... he's a sneaky one. (I think it was ok for them to kill Harry at the minstry only if it wouldn't harm the prophesy... I'll have to look that up...) but she could have killed Sirius and I can't figure out why except that she's not a killer... meaning someone who kills for fun or just because they can. The fox.. that was a reaction to fear. Almost like self defense. So, I see has as all talk... or, more precisely: Lots of talk and does back up her felloow DE's but not a murderer just a sadist who likes to hear sreams from torture... She's still a sicko... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 29 18:41:41 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:41:41 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612291028x1b8e45b1lb3f165a66f68e665@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163274 Jeremiah: > > (I think it was ok for them to kill Harry at the minstry only if it wouldn't > harm the prophesy... I'll have to look that up...) but she could have killed > Sirius and I can't figure out why except that she's not a killer... meaning > someone who kills for fun or just because they can. > > The fox.. that was a reaction to fear. Almost like self defense. > > So, I see has as all talk... or, more precisely: Lots of talk and does back > up her felloow DE's but not a murderer just a sadist who likes to hear > sreams from torture... She's still a sicko... Pippin: May I interest you in the theory that she didn't kill Sirius at all? Lupin was between Harry and the platform. If Sirius was looking surprised as he died, it could be because the attack came from someone he didn't expect. Canon does not tell us where the second jet of light came from. Harry assumes it was Bella's but she never claims credit for killing Black. Sirius said something very interesting before he died. He told Harry to take the prophecy and run. But Dumbledore said that if he had told Harry everything, Harry would have known there was no need to go to the ministry. What did Sirius know, and why did he think the prophecy needed to be defended? And did someone kill him to keep him from revealing the source of his knowledge? Pippin From bdusick1 at aol.com Fri Dec 29 18:42:56 2006 From: bdusick1 at aol.com (brandon_dusick) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:42:56 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Destruction Problem Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163275 Maybe this has been already touched upon, but I see a problem for Harry in destroying all of the Horcruxes seeing how there is nothing stopping Voldemort from making more of them. Knowing how obsessed Voldemort was with cheating death I would assume that the first thing he would have done upon his return was to ensure the safety of his horcruxes. Even if he didn't check up on each of them individually I'm sure he found out about the Diary from Luscious Malfoy. And probably somewhere along the way he will discover what Dumbledore had been up to (and now Harry), so what is to stop him from creating more horcruxes to replace those he lost? And if that is the case, how can Harry truly destroy him. brandon_dusick From lonewolf2567 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 18:39:02 2006 From: lonewolf2567 at yahoo.com (Lisa Johnson) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:39:02 -0000 Subject: Snape's Role Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163276 Hello All: Before Dumbledore was killed, he was still vehement about Snape being a person to be trusted. The thing is Dumbledore knew that Snape was playing both sides and that he'd have to do things that not everyone would understand. Snape would have given himself away had he not killed Dumbledore, because he made the death pact at the beginning of the book to protect Draco. I believe Snape is going to be a key player in the final demise of Voldemort. Just my feelings here. Lisa From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 29 18:55:09 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:55:09 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163277 > Alla: > > Huh? So Harry should have realised that he does not need a good > grade for well done work? Pippin: He knows the potion was made correctly. He knows that his future progress depends on passing his OWLS, not on his classwork grade. What does he need the grade for, except to show off or as a stamp of approval? Alla: > Where in canon it is shown that Harry craves Snape approval as a > person rather than that he expects as **any** student to get a good > grade for good work? > > Isn't it a fairly reasonable expectation for any student to have? Pippin: He doesn't crave Snape's approval, he craves everyone's approval. It's not a realistic expectation, but neither was thinking that everything about the Wizarding World was going to be better than the Dursleys. Is it a reasonable expectation that a Slytherin teacher would treat anyone fairly? I wouldn't hold my breath. Life is unfair. People are unfair, especially those who don't idealize fairness. Dumbledore can't fix that, and he doesn't pretend to try. And if you hate him for it, then I imagine you understand ESE!Lupin at last. :) Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 19:17:20 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:17:20 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163278 > > Alla: > > > > Huh? So Harry should have realised that he does not need a good > > grade for well done work? > > Pippin: > He knows the potion was made correctly. He knows that his future > progress depends on passing his OWLS, not on his classwork grade. > What does he need the grade for, except to show off or as a stamp of > approval? Alla: I do not remember the suggestion that everyday grades should be eliminated for Hogwarts fifth years. What does he need the grade for? Same as every other student needs their grade for, to know that they are doing well in preparation for their tests. > > Alla: > > Where in canon it is shown that Harry craves Snape approval as a > > person rather than that he expects as **any** student to get a good > > grade for good work? > > > > Isn't it a fairly reasonable expectation for any student to have? > > Pippin: > He doesn't crave Snape's approval, he craves everyone's approval. It's > not a realistic expectation, but neither was thinking that everything > about the Wizarding World was going to be better than the Dursleys. > Alla: I understood your argument that Harry craves Snape approval among other males. So does he or does he not craves Snape approval, Pippin or does he just want to be treated fairly by every teacher? Pippin: > Is it a reasonable expectation that a Slytherin teacher would treat > anyone fairly? I wouldn't hold my breath. Life is unfair. People are unfair, > especially those who don't idealize fairness. Alla: Wow, so are you saying that every non Slytherin student should come to Hogwarts expecting that he or she would never get a fair grade from Slytherin teacher? Pippin: Dumbledore can't fix > that, and he doesn't pretend to try. And if you hate him for it, then > I imagine you understand ESE!Lupin at last. :) Alla: We will talk after book 7, Pippin and then I will say everything I want to say on the subject of ESE!Lupin. :) Alla, who is shudderring to think what grade Snape would have given Harry if by some unlucky stars he was allowed to grade their OWLS. From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 19:22:42 2006 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:22:42 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Discussion of Publication Date for 'Deathly Hallows' Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163279 Greetings from Hexquarters! We are naturally excited to read proposed publication dates for 'Deathly Hallows' now that we finally have the long-awaited title! We expect this will be a favorite topic of discussion until Rowling releases the date on her website. However, since the publication date is Off-Topic for this list, all discussion should be directed to OTChatter, our sister list for everything not related to canon book discussion. Existing posts have been moved there, and all future posts to those threads must go there as well (any additional messages to this list will be removed). If you'd like to see the thread at OTChatter, you can find it here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/message/31258 Thanks, Ari Elf, for the Admin Team From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 19:08:37 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:08:37 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Horcrux Destruction Problem In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <948bbb470612291108q546abd4bm74e486ff645feeb@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163280 Maybe this has been already touched upon, but I see a problem for Harry in destroying all of the Horcruxes seeing how there is nothing stopping Voldemort from making more of them. Knowing how obsessed Voldemort was with cheating death I would assume that the first thing he would have done upon his return was to ensure the safety of his horcruxes. . brandon_dusick ========================================================== Jeremiah: Hmm... my thinking was this: Voldemort asked Slughorn if 7 (being a number of power... how ironic that there are 7 books...) would be sufficient. DD said he thought that Voldemort would not realize the Horcurx he and Harry were attempting to destroy would even be detected by LV. So, I don't think LV would create more. I'm not sure he can make any more, anyway. He's gone further than anyone ever has before, he's been physically altered at least 2 times (the time DD say Riddle for the DADA position and his transformation at the gravesite... are there any others we know about)? i would assume he's only got a tiny bit of soul left in him and to splinter it further would wreak some funky kind of havoc... However, I do see where you are going with this: He must have known that RAB (most likely Regulus Black) had destroyed one Horcrux, I'm sure LV found out that Malfoy screwed up and made it possible for Haryy to destroy one, too (the Diary)... which leaves us with 5, then there is the ring that shriveled DD's hand... we do not know if LV knows about that one yet... So, making more seems logical but as I said before: is it possible for him to do so? We'll find out, I'm sure, but my vote is "No." Plus, that would make the story so long that I'm not sure she could put Book 7 out in a single volume. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 19:47:37 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:47:37 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens(Re: Snape's motivations & Occumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163281 Carol earlier: > > BTW, I don't think that Legilimency works the way you think it does. It can't discover underlying motives and loyalties. LV can't explore someone's mind at will. It only works to reveal the thought that's uppermost in someone's mind at the moment, which is why it's chiefly used to detect lies. > Jen responded: Snape's own description in the Occlumency chapter of OOTP makes > Legilimency sound fairly invasive when practiced by an expert. > Masters can 'delve into the minds of their victims and [to] intepret > their findings correctly'. We see that Snape can call forth a stream of memories from Harry, including ones from long ago that aren't in his concious mind at the moment, so Voldemort is not seeing only what is uppermost in a person's mind. Carol again: Ah, but you're conflating standard eye-to-eye Legilimency with the Legilimens spell, which Snape is using as a teaching tool to give Harry something to defend himself against. I doubt that Voldemort uses the spell; he just looks people in the eye to determine whether they're lying, which is why Snape, the superb Occlumens, can defend against this intrusion so skilfully. Jen: > > I find it easier to believe that Snape is supressing only those > memories which have to do with his turn to Dumbledore up through the > death of the Potters and not tons of memories from the time he > switched loyalty until Voldemort returned. Carol: And I find it easier to believe that no such trickery is necessary. Snape merely suppresses the emotions as well as the specific memories that would reveal a particular lie. And he habitually suppresses most of his emotional baggage, say, whatever relates to James Potter, but on a few occasions when he's pushed to extremes (never around Voldemort) his anger escapes him. That's what he means< IMO, by wearing your heart on your sleeve being a weakness. He may also be referring to his loyalty to Dumbledore, which is careful not to display openly most of the time. As I said, I don't think LV would resort to the Legilimens spell. He prefers to believe that, as the world's most skilled Legilimens, he can see everything he needs to know using eye contact. And, of course, he assumes that he interprets what he sees correctly, for example, Wormtail's "loyalty" being self-preservation. Snape can fool him; most others can't. If Draco were to try simply blocking him without substituting other thoughts and memories (or partial or falsified thoughts and memories), he'd be in big trouble. Snape, much more sophisticated in his Occlumency, can lie to the Dark Lord without detection. And his deep-seated loyalty to DD and his desire to bring LV down would also be habitually hidden. > > > Carol, who never said anything about a layer of goodness in Snape > > but does think that he's thoroughly and permanently opposed to > > Voldemort despite his Slytherin instincts and personally loyal to > > Dumbledore, even and perhaps especially with DD dead by his hand. > > Jen: Ack. I keep getting feedback that my attempts to characterize a Snape different from my own reading are missing the mark. In my own mind I call him "Good Snape" but that seems to connotate "Nice Snape" > for some (not necessarily you, Carol). Someone have a few words to > sum up a Snape who isn't just loyal but has other attributes of > goodness? Some of the attributes I've seen are things like Snape > being heroic or morally and philosophically aligned with Dumbledore > or solely motivated by deep remorse. > Carol again: Help. I don't know if this will help, but the traits I attribute to Snape (setting aside a propensity for sarcasm and a contempt for weakness and ineptitude) are loyalty to DD, determination to bring down LV, desire for respect and recognition, skill in creating an ambiguous persona (spying, lying, acting, Occlumency), genuine affection for the Malfoys and concern for Draco's welfare (which motivated him to take the UV, genuine remorse for his role in revealing the Prophecy, courage that enables him to place himself repeatedly in peril for the cause of defeating LV, and (possibly) enjoyment of the risks involved in walking the double-agent tightrope and pride in his ability to do so successfully. As a teacher, he really wants his students to do well on their OWLs and NEWTs (though he hates foolishness and carelessness and wants only those who can follow directions and actually care about potions in his NEWT Potions class. DADA is another matter; he'll take anyone who passed the OWL, and even those who failed, like Crabbe and Goyle, get remedial training.) My Snape is brilliant and creative, as shown by his coming to school knowing all those hexes, the HBP's notes, and all his accomplishments in the six books, from being one of the few people who can perfectly brew Wolfbane Potion to the Healing he does in HBP. He excels in both Potions and DADA, but he also has a knowledge of the Dark Arts which makes him a unique and invaluable asset to the side of good. No one else can take his place as either spy or teacher. Dumbledore alone knew his true worth. As for principles and morals, it's very hard to say. He grew up Slytherin, but except for the one use of "Mudblood" under duress and the possibly defensive nickname "Half-Blood Prince" (which I think is a reaction to mistreatment by the pure-blood Princes), I see no indication that he subscribes to the pure-blood superiority ethic, and I believe that his remorse for revealing the Prophecy and for failing to save the Potters is real. Also, he seems to have "slithered out of action" on numerous occasions, which seems to show that he wants nothing to do with the Death Eaters' typical activities. We have no indication that he ever used an Unforgiveable Curse before the tower, when his choice was to die futilely or commit murder but save the boys, and he saved Harry, whom he clearly hates, from an Unforgiveable Curse. He invented a Dark curse when he was about sixteen but also invented or discovered a complex countercurse for it unlike any other we've seen. And even though there seems to be no magical compulsion binding him to his life debt to the dead James, he seems to consider himself bound by a debt of honor to protect James's much-disliked son. I don't know how much of this Snape you also see, or whether this is the Snape you're calling "Good Snape" (and utterly reject. This Snape is not kind or golden-hearted or secretly fond of Harry, but he does appear to be bound by principles unique to himself, and he is unquestionably loyal to Dumbledore and opposed to Voldemort. He protects Harry partly out of remorse, partly out of a sense of indebtedness to James that he would much rather not feel, partly out of loyalty to DD, but chiefly because, willynilly, Harry is the Chosen One and he *must* be able to defeat Voldemort in the end because no one else can do it. A name for this Snape? Funny. I call him DDM!Snape. But since others see DDM!Snape rather differently, I suppose we could call him GoodButNotNice!Snape or ComplexButSincerelyOpposedToVoldemort!Snape. Somehow, I prefer plain old DDM!Snape. So much simpler. Carol, who admires Snape's courage and resourcefulness but not his propensity to revenge and sees an urgent need for Harry to recognize his similarity to Snape and steer away from that last, dangerous trait From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Dec 29 21:16:51 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:16:51 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens(Re: Snape's motivations & Occumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163282 > Carol again: > Ah, but you're conflating standard eye-to-eye Legilimency with the > Legilimens spell, which Snape is using as a teaching tool to give > Harry something to defend himself against. I doubt that Voldemort > uses the spell; he just looks people in the eye to determine whether > they're lying, which is why Snape, the superb Occlumens, can defend > against this intrusion so skilfully. Jen: No, I don't think I'm confusing anything. Obviously Voldemort is not standing before Snape shouting "Legilimens!" but he is doing *something* magical when he practices Legilimency or all he is doing is staring into Snape's eyes. Harry felt no difference between Snape's lessons and the moment in the bathroom in HBP: "He knew what Snape was going to do and he had never been able to prevent it..." Jen: > I find it easier to believe that Snape is supressing only those > memories which have to do with his turn to Dumbledore up through the > death of the Potters and not tons of memories from the time he > switched loyalty until Voldemort returned. > Carol: > And I find it easier to believe that no such trickery is necessary. Jen: What trickery? We are talking about Snape doing the same thing as far as I can tell. I'm simply proposing he has *fewer* memories and feelings to suppress than you are. Carol: > And, of course, he assumes that he interprets what he sees > correctly, for example, Wormtail's "loyalty" being self- > preservation. Snape can fool him; most others can't. Jen: I agree with that, I'm opposed to the idea Voldemort is simply seeing a surface memory, that there is more he is able to determine when using Legilimency. Subtle distinctions. Carol: > And his deep-seated loyalty to DD and his desire to bring LV down > would also be habitually hidden. Jen: Right, I said this above in different words in my opinion and that's what you termed trickery. We may have different reasons for why we believe Snape wants Voldemort defeated but the outcome is the same and it is something Snape must conceal. Carol: > I don't know how much of this Snape you also see, or whether this is > the Snape you're calling "Good Snape" (and utterly reject). This > Snape is not kind or golden-hearted or secretly fond of Harry, but > he does appear to be bound by principles unique to himself, and he > is unquestionably loyal to Dumbledore and opposed to Voldemort. He > protects Harry partly out of remorse, partly out of a sense of > indebtedness to James that he would much rather not feel, partly out > of loyalty to DD, but chiefly because, willynilly, Harry is the > Chosen One and he *must* be able to defeat Voldemort in the end > because no one else can do it. Jen: I read the same actions you do, the difference is the value I place on them *given the moral world Rowling has created*. That's the disctinction in my mind, it's not about what I wish for Snape, or whether I *personally* see value in some of his actions. My belief is Rowling has created an adult character who is more shrouded in mystery and ambiguity than the other adult characters (or for a longer period of time at least) but in the end Snape will act as a tool for getting Harry where he needs to be just like the rest of them. As such, I have very serious doubts JKR is going for a complicated redemption where Harry looks back and sees he misread Snape's **character**. I expect Harry will learn to overcome, to forgive, to 'see with new eyes' the **actions** he holds Snape most accountable for: handing over the prophecy, the UV once he learns the full contents (I don't see Rowling keeping that out of Harry's POV) and AK'ing Dumbledore (or learning he didn't AK). So to me Hermione pretty much summed up Snape when she said: "Evil is a strong word." Harry will learn Snape is not the evil person he believes him to be at the end of HBP, i.e., loyal to Voldemort. He will learn things about Snape's past necessary to get him the point of seeing Snape redeemed himself. Past that, I'm not hoping for much. Carol: > A name for this Snape? Funny. I call him DDM!Snape. But since others > see DDM!Snape rather differently, I suppose we could call him > GoodButNotNice!Snape or ComplexButSincerelyOpposedToVoldemort!Snape. > Somehow, I prefer plain old DDM!Snape. So much simpler. Jen: Then we've come full circle. I understood that DDM referred only to Snape's loyalty and that's why I pulled Grey!Snape off the table. I'll just drop it now. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 22:26:55 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:26:55 -0000 Subject: Halloween in tradition and the HP books (Was: My thoughts on the title) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612290946s78169a02xcaaee9f8d8e56126@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163283 > montims: > sorry - being picky - All Hallow's Eve is the Christian name for the > festival. The pagan name, strictly, would be Samhain or Hallowe'en, if you like - a corruption of the Christian term. "Hallow" means versions of "holy", in the Christian sense. > =========================================== > > Jeremiah: > > Yes, Jeanette. :) > I am Pagan and I do realize that Halloween is called Samhain. But in some traditions it is refered to as All Hallow's and, yes, Christian tradidion has "usurped" (no word fits better... my sincerest apologies if I've offended anyone... or am about to offend anyone... 'aint religion touchy?) the idea and trwisted it to its own means. But there has been chatter about "All Hallows" meaning the Final Battle will take place on Halloween and that Pagan tradition says that All Haollows (Samhain) is the night whn there "veil" between the worlds of the living and dead are the thinnest: meaning the battle will be at the Ministry for Magic at the veil where Sirius was killed. > > So, going along with all fo that: the scenario is conveluded and the clues are irrelevant. Why? Well, to use the Christian word for a Pagan concept is a bit... um... crazy. Rowling has never done that to us and it does not seem to fit her style/pattern of writing. However, she would use some archaic, old-English term and play with that. But, IMO, she has stated if we've read the books and have thought about them then all the clues are there and we should be able to figure out the ending. Halloween has always been Halloween in the stories and Samhain wouldn't make any sense at this point. (But I could be completely wrong). Carol responds: I think you have All Hallows Eve (Halloween) mixed up with All Hallows Day (All Saints Day). It's like the difference between Christmas Day (december 25) and Christmas Eve (December 24) except that All Hallows Eve and All Hallows Day have distinctly different traditions attached to them. As I said in another post, "halewis" or "halwes" is the Middle English word for "saints." To elaborate a bit further on the etymology, the Middle English holy day "Alhalwemesse," from Old English "ealra hlgena m?sse" (All Saints' Mass), came to be called All Hallows Day or All Saints' Day, not to be confused with All Saints' *Eve* or All Hallows *Eve* (Hallow*een*). But I absolutely agree that Halloween is Halloween in the stories and has nothing to do with Samhain if only because JKR is Christian. It's difficult, based on what we now know, to say whether the Potters were killed on All Hallows Eve (Halloween) or the early hours of All Hallows Day (All Saints' Day), but it seems clear that the attack began around midnight on Halloween, the *eve* of All Hallows or All Saints' Day. As for pagan tradition and Christian tradition, Christians originally celebrated All Hallows Day in March to coincide with what was then the New Year. It was moved to November 1 in the eighth century, which caused All Hallows Eve to fall on October 31, the same date as the Celtic New Year's Eve festival but at a time when the Celtic traditions had long ceased to be a threat to the firmly established Roman Catholic Church. Also, the traditions of All Souls Day (November 2) somehow got mixed up with those of Halloween (All Hallows Eve), no doubt because of pagan influence. But the concept of All Hallows Day itself, celebrating the Christian Saints (whether saints in the Roman Catholic tradition or simply "saved" souls) owes nothing to paganism. Again, the Day and the Eve are two different things. Here's a site for an Episcopal church appropriately entitled "All Saints" which explains the confusion better than I can: " . . . You may read in some sources that Halloween's origins lie in a pagan festival of the dead; that's being a bit loose with history. It's true that the pre-Christian Celts in the British Isles celebrated their new year on November 1, and that the new year was a time for remembering the year's departed. It's also true that the Catholic Church had a documented policy of supplanting local festivals with holy days. However, to insist that customs in the northern reaches of Christendom led an Italian pope to chose November 1 for dedicating his All Saints chapel may be making more assumptions than is warranted. The modern trappings of Halloween -- costumes, trick-or-treat, etc. -- are certainly not pre-Christian; they came to the United States with Irish (Catholic) immigrants in the 18th century, and share common origins with the tradition of Christmas caroling. . . ." http://www.allsaintsnorthfield.org/history.htm It's interesting to note that the native Britons (Celts) had been Christianized by 550 AD (many of them earlier). The Anglo-Saxons were not permanently converted until the end of the seventh century AD. Exactly how all this ties in with the HP books, and with JKR, a Christian writer, I can't be sure. I have a feeling that the Veil ties in with ancient Druidic traditions, for example, and that Witches and Wizards were originally Celtic, with Muggleborns appearing among the Angles and Saxons several centuries before Salazar Slytherin became concerned about them, at a time when both groups were already Christianized but had developed separate traditions. Just how any of this will play into the legend of the Founders, which I think will be developed in Book 7, is anybody's guess. JKR's fascination with Halloween, the night on which everything from Voldemort's visit to Godric's Hollow ("Hallow/"Hollow" is coincidence, IMO) to the execution of Nearly Headless Nick seems to happen is harder to explain. However, from SS/PS onward, significant events occur on that day (the Troll in the dungeons being the first), yet Harry never seems to connect the day with his parents' death or have any objection to celebrating it with the traditional bats and pumpkins. Probably, she does so because of the association in her readers' minds between witches and Halloween, much like the association between witches and broomsticks that caused her to invent Quidditch or witches and cauldrons that led to Potions class. (Witches have been disassociated from child-eating hags and wizards are their male equivalent, hence Harry, Dumbledore, Snape, et al. Or "wizards" is a generic term relating to both witches and warlocks, as in "three thirteen-year-old wizards," but I won't get into that.) I have a feeling (though this won't come out in the books) that JKR considers October 31 to be her own, and therefore Harry's, conception date (she shares his birthday, July 31, and October 31 comes exactly nine months before July 31 of the following year. For this reason, I believe that the Prophecy occurred on October 31, 1979, activated, so to speak, by Harry's conception, and precipitating all the events that occurred afterwards, from Voldemort's visit to Godric's Hollow (though it's by no means certain that the Potters died on October 31--they could have died on All Hallows Day, November 1) to some climactic incident in Book 7. (The final battle won't occur on that date, of course. The books always end in June, and JKR will need the whole year, or most of it, to get Harry to that point.) All this is a longish aside because I don't think that "Hallows" refers to Halloween or All Hallows Day at all. I think "the Deathly Hallows" is a place, maybe the burial place of the "hallowed" Founders (even, possibly, Slytherin, who after all still has a House named after him). So, I predict that something significant will occur on Halloween, but I don't think that Samhain per se has anything to do with it, only the connection between Halloween and JKR's witches and wizards (the Potters, Harry included, in particular). Maybe Harry will visit Godric's Hollow on Halloween and learn the truth about what happened there, but IMO, that won't be the climax of the book, nor will it be the location of the Deathly Hallows. Carol, with apologies for this incoherent and very long post From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Dec 29 22:33:19 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:33:19 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens(Re: Snape's motivations & Occumency) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163284 > Jen: Maybe Voldemort doesn't know about Snape's Occlumency, or maybe > he does and needs Snape around a little longer. > > Anyway, my point before was that Snape would need to block too many > memories *if* he is aligned with Dumbledore's morality and/or holds > political convictions about the good of the WW such as 'pureblood > elitism is wrong' for instance. Having a strong moral filter on > means a person also has memories of seeing injustice and having > feelings about those injustices, all things which must be supressed > for Voldemort. Not to mention if Snape is intentionally grooming > Harry to defeat Voldemort, he has concious memories of helping the > Chosen One. Pippin: Oh, of course Voldemort knows that Snape is an occlumens. It would be folly to send anyone to spy on Dumbledore who wasn't. But Voldemort doesn't think that any occlumens is good enough to fool *him*. Of course everyone tries to hide things from Voldemort anyway, so Snape would have to hide some memories imperfectly and let Voldemort discover them, while the memories and feelings he really wants to hide remain safely under wraps. But I don't think Snape has to hide all that much. I don't think Voldemort has any problem at all with people raging against injustice, as long as it's directed at his enemies. It's one of his best recruiting tools. Snape's anger over the way James treated him would serve him well. As long as Snape can disguise any feeling that he despises injustice on principle instead of because it is against his interest, Voldemort will have nothing to worry about. I don't think Snape believes much in fairness. He'd like to, maybe, but where was fairness when James and co were making his Hogwarts days miserable? I think he regarded Dumbledore's quest for fairness in the same light as Harry regarded DD's quest for the good in everyone...noble but hopelessly quixotic and very likely dangerous. Snape would only have to hide the 'noble' part of this feeling from Voldemort. Snape despised James for attacking him four on one because it was cowardly. He did not say it was unfair. But his remorse over the prophecy was genuine, IMO, because it would be cowardly to take revenge through Voldemort. Snape would despise himself if he realized that's what he was doing. But self-hatred wouldn't be a feeling he needed to hide, only the cause of it. My Snape doesn't have many warm fuzzy feelings that he needs to suppress. If he did most of his reporting to Dumbledore via pensieve, he wouldn't have any memories of telling Dumbledore things he shouldn't have. Snape will have to present Voldemort with a false memory of murdering Dumbledore (assuming he didn't actually do it), and false rage and hate to go along with it, but we saw that Voldemort was able to create a false and very vivid mental tableau of torturing Sirius in the MoM. Presumably DDM!Snape is similarly capable, and has presented Voldemort with other false memories in the past, such as the 'murder' of Emmeline Vance. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 23:54:24 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:54:24 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163285 --- "Jen Reese" wrote: > > Carol: > > BTW, I don't think that Legilimency works the way > > you think it does. > > ... > > Jen: > Snape's own description in the Occlumency chapter of > OOTP makes Legilimency sound fairly invasive when > practiced by an expert. Masters can - > > '...delve into the minds of their victims and [to] > intepret their findings correctly'. > > We see that Snape can call forth a stream > of memories from Harry, ... > > Then Snape mentions intepretation involved which means > to me some of what a Legilimens sees is not obvious > from the start but requires a level of skill to put > the pieces together. > bboyminn: On this issue I have to agree with Carol. There is a very real difference between the art of Legilimency and the spell of Legilimency. The art or skill is very subtle, and I suspect from the examples in the books, the subject barely knows that it is happening. However, when Snape casts the Legilimency Spell, it is not subtle at all. Harry is completely lost in his memories. Snape and Snape's office completely disappear. We don't see the completely loss of immediate awareness when the subtle skill of Legilimency is practiced. You note yourself that /interpretation/ of what knowledge is gained from the skill of Legilimency is important. The random thought and images are nothing without context, so Voldemort is interpreting the context more than the images themselves. > > Jen: > > ... > > Anyway, my point before was that Snape would need to > block too many memories *if* he is aligned with > Dumbledore's morality and/or holds political > convictions about the good of the WW ... bboyminn: Sorry, I cut quite a bit, I'm just using this as an entry point to add another piece of information to the discussion. Keep in mind that Snape is a Spy FOR Voldemort, or at least Voldemort beleives he is. So, thought indicating conflicting loyalties are normal in Snape's mind. Snape has to act VERY convincingly that he is on Dumbledore's side in order to maintain Dumbledore's confidence and trust in him. To some extent, that means while he is in Dumbledore's company, he must believe it himself. So, again, finding conflicting loyaties in Snape's mind would be normal and expected for Voldemort. Consequently, I don't think Snape has to block each and every positive thought he has. I think he mearly has to block the details of his true allegiance, plus a few details of specific information that Dumbledore doesn't want Voldemort to have just yet. I also think Snape can block large areas of his mind with a single thought. He doesn't have to manage each and every individual detail, he can functionally block whole classes of information. Can't prove that of course, but thinking of the mental processes involved, it seems reasonable to me. Not sure what it's worth but there it is. Steve/bboyminn From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Fri Dec 29 23:56:04 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 15:56:04 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Halloween in tradition and the HP books (Was: My thoughts on the title) In-Reply-To: References: <948bbb470612290946s78169a02xcaaee9f8d8e56126@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470612291556p4f978019n2f2530024de08e92@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163286 Carol responds: I think you have All Hallows Eve (Halloween) mixed up with All Hallows Day (All Saints Day). It's like the difference between Christmas Day (december 25) and Christmas Eve (December 24) except that All Hallows Eve and All Hallows Day have distinctly different traditions attached to them. As I said in another post, "halewis" or "halwes" is the Middle English word for "saints." To elaborate a bit further on the etymology, the Middle English holy day "Alhalwemesse," from Old English "ealra hlgena m?sse" (All Saints' Mass), came to be called All Hallows Day or All Saints' Day, not to be confused with All Saints' *Eve* or All Hallows *Eve* (Hallow*een*). But I absolutely agree that Halloween is Halloween in the stories and has nothing to do with Samhain if only because JKR is Christian. It's difficult, based on what we now know, to say whether the Potters were killed on All Hallows Eve (Halloween) or the early hours of All Hallows Day (All Saints' Day), but it seems clear that the attack began around midnight on Halloween, the *eve* of All Hallows or All Saints' Day. =================== Jeremiah: Exactly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Dec 29 23:54:04 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:54:04 -0000 Subject: Which Halloween? (was Re: My thoughts on the title) In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612290946s78169a02xcaaee9f8d8e56126@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163287 --- "Jeremiah LaFleur" wrote: > > Jeremiah: > > .... there has been chatter about "All Hallows" meaning > the Final Battle will take place on Halloween and that > Pagan tradition says that All Haollows (Samhain) is the > night whn there "veil" between the worlds of the living > and dead are the thinnest: meaning the battle will be > at the Ministry for Magic at the veil where Sirius was > killed. ... > bboyminn: Sorry, I'm off on a tangent here. The problem I have with Halloween being the time of the Final Battle between Harry and Voldemort is that Halloween come to early in the story. It is either going to be a very short book, or the only possible alternative is that it is TWO Halloweens from now. It is the Halloween one full year after Harry's seventh year at Hogwarts. Still doesn't sound that clear when I try to explain it. So, it is either going to be Halloweed two months from the beginning of the current school year, or it is going to be 14 months after the beginning of the current school year. Will the books break the mold and span a time of more than one year? See what I'm getting at here? Steve/bboyminn From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 29 23:46:48 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:46:48 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: <639940.69984.qm@web8403.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163288 Akash > Hi. > > Why can't it be Halloween? Does anyone have a strong reason? I think it should be Halloween time and related somehow with the horror festival. > > If it was Halloween wouldn't JK have called it something like Harry Potter and All Hallows Eve. I don't see how Deathly could be related to Halloween. lone_white_werewolf From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 30 00:38:09 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:38:09 -0000 Subject: Which Halloween? (was Re: My thoughts on the title) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > Still doesn't sound that clear when I try to explain it. > So, it is either going to be Halloweed two months from > the beginning of the current school year, or it is going > to be 14 months after the beginning of the current > school year. Will the books break the mold and span a > time of more than one year? > Well, the first book covered far more than one year so there is no real mold to break. Having the last one span more than a year would just be symmetry. In fact if the last book does include that epilogue we've been promised it *will* span more than a year. I think that having the deathly hallows refer to the two Halloween confrontations between LV and Harry, the first and the final, would be a nice symmetry. I have to consider it one strong, perhaps the leading, possibility. It certainly is not the only attractive possibility though. So I don't see any reason why the story line of DH could not span two Halloweens. For that matter I think a very powerful book 7 could be written with the final confrontation coming on the Halloween just a few months after the close of HBP. LOTR goes on for some length after the fall of Sauron and that section of the work is by far the most moving for me. The rest of the book is needed to explain why the reader should be so moved by it. The HP story could be nicely concluded with such an early end for LV but that does not seem to be Rowling's style so I don't expect it. I'd almost say that this series could really use the time for retrospection that an early demise of the DE could give it. It is likely to be short changed if the action continues like an action/adventure movie up to the second to last chapter but that is what I expect. Ken From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 01:20:39 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:20:39 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: References: <639940.69984.qm@web8403.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40612291720r2b8209a8x62300d7d42805929@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163290 lone_white_werewolf: > > If it was Halloween wouldn't JK have called it something like Harry > Potter and All Hallows Eve. I don't see how Deathly could be related > to Halloween. montims: well, that was when the Potters were AK'd, LV was vapourised, and Harry was left with a scar and a lot of nightmares... Seems pretty deathly to me... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hpfreakazoid at gmail.com Sat Dec 30 01:28:11 2006 From: hpfreakazoid at gmail.com (Jeremiah LaFleur) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:28:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40612291720r2b8209a8x62300d7d42805929@mail.gmail.com> References: <639940.69984.qm@web8403.mail.in.yahoo.com> <8ee758b40612291720r2b8209a8x62300d7d42805929@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <948bbb470612291728h1e24436w59bbf4429314df0a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163291 lone_white_werewolf: > > If it was Halloween wouldn't JK have called it something like Harry > Potter and All Hallows Eve. I don't see how Deathly could be related > to Halloween. montims: well, that was when the Potters were AK'd, LV was vapourised, and Harry was left with a scar and a lot of nightmares... Seems pretty deathly to me... ========================================== Jeremiah: Was is Halloween? I don't think it was... Where did you get Hallween from? All I know is that the Wizarding World went out into the Muggle world dressed in theor cloaks, sending owls and sending up fireworks. I would have thought that Vernon Dursley would have been very mild mannered and calm upon seeing them in the streets and not think they were collecting for something. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From museofthemountain at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 01:58:58 2006 From: museofthemountain at yahoo.com (museofthemountain) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 01:58:58 -0000 Subject: Different Definition of Hallows Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163292 In researching the word, "hallows", I have found a completely different meaning which seems to fit in with the HP series. In a website on Arthurian legend, hallows represent, "objects sought by someone such as a 'Grail Quester' in both ancient and modern stories." Maybe the deathly hallows are the horcruxes from the last book. Or reading further into the material on hallows, they can be a new element or task in the book 7. To synopsize, there are basically four types of hallows, the first being a representation of the magical elements:1. The Sword; 2. The Spear; 3. The Cup; 4. The Pentacle; or it could be more like the four hallows of the Tuatha de Danaan which were developed in later traditions to be: 1. The Pole of Combat; 2. The Sword of Light; 3. The Cauldron of Cure; 4. The Stone of Destiny. ("The Tuatha de Danaan are 'The People of Danu'. Believed to be a legendary people who came from the Otherworld from Greece to invade Ireland, ruling Ireland after 'Nemed'. It has been suggested that they were familiar with the practices of the arcane being experienced in the use of magic.") I believe that this is an interesting angle which has not yet been explored, and I welcome discussion on the contents. museofthemountain From slbilan at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 02:42:48 2006 From: slbilan at yahoo.com (slbilan) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:42:48 -0000 Subject: An Introduction and some thoughts about HPADH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163293 Hello, I am new to the group but not new to HP. I was once an ardent fan of the series, but would now describe myself as a disgruntled fan, and yet a fan nonetheless. I can't seem to stop myself from caring about the fate of Harry and the Weasleys despite the fact that I have some serious problems with the plotlines. So onto the basics: I despise Dumbledore officially as of OOTP and was not at all sorry to see him disposed of at the end of HBP. My take on Snape is that he is evil, the question in my mind remains: How evil is he? Snape is redeemable, I believe, but only at great cost to himself. He can save Harry, but first I think Harry has to save him. I love Weasleys and all things Weasley, particularly Fred and George. At the end of HBP---to say that it was my least favorite of the series would be something of an understatement---I joked that the title of the next book was bound to be Harry Potter and the Hunt for the Horrible Horcruxes. Apparently I wasn't too far off. In Arthurian legend there are references to hallows which were sacred magical objects used by fairy kings and guarded with the lives of great warriors. In Harry's world I would guess those magical hallows belonged instead to the four founders and now contain horcruxes, or death---to Voldemort not Harry. I absolutely do not believe that there is even the very slimmest possiblity that the final book ends with the demise of Harry, Ron or Hermione, although undoubtedly we will be taunted with that grim spectre of possibilty throughout the novel, much like OOTP (frankly that whole *gotcha* that's not the one who's gonna die got a bit tired). At any rate I am looking forward to the release of OOTP in the summer and of course to reading the end of Harry's story. I very much enjoyed the series books 1-4 and have faith in Rowling's ability to redeem herself in book 7. Shannon From slbilan at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 02:49:40 2006 From: slbilan at yahoo.com (slbilan) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:49:40 -0000 Subject: Different Definition of Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163294 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "museofthemountain" wrote: > > In researching the word, "hallows", I have found a completely different meaning which > seems to fit in with the HP series. In a website on Arthurian legend, hallows represent, > "objects sought by someone such as a 'Grail Quester' in both ancient and modern stories." > I've found the same website as you have and am inclined to agree with you that Harry will be on a quest for those four hallows once belonging to the four founders and now containing death for Voldemort once they are destroyed. There are several reasons to suppose this will be the case: 1. We know that Harry will be hunting for Horcruxes and that the Horcrux is encased in some sort of object. 2. We know that the four founders will play significantly in the next book. 3. There are already many strong connections between Harry's story and Arthurian legend and every reason to suppose that the tie-in's will continue. Shannon From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Fri Dec 29 23:43:11 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 23:43:11 -0000 Subject: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163295 Pippin Wrote > Sirius said something very interesting before he died. He told Harry > to take the prophecy and run. But Dumbledore said that if he had told > Harry everything, Harry would have known there was no need to go > to the ministry. What did Sirius know, and why did he think the > prophecy needed to be defended? And did someone kill him to keep him > from revealing the source of his knowledge? Wouldn't Sirius's loyalty have been enough to prevent him revealing a secret? lone_white_werewolf From cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 30 01:42:52 2006 From: cat_mcnulty at sbcglobal.net (Cat McNulty) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:42:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) Message-ID: <443224.18616.qm@web82802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163296 Greetings All! The evidence for a Halloween release date is increasing. Yes there is the obvious: witches, wizards and all things super natural are associated with All Hallow's Eve. Aside: I really would like for it to be 7/7/07 just because we all have been waiting such a long time and that date would really be numerically appropriate. However, because "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" movie release date is 7/13/07 I am sure that the various publicity people would not want to compete with each other. And in the past, movie premeires and book releases were always several months apart. Timing is of vital importance in the publicity business! Now, regardless of all the technical time evidence of: first draft...editing...translating ... printing, etc. it would be very felicitous for the date to be October 31st ... the day the adventure began and the day Harry became "The Boy Who Lived." Harry even talks about going back to Godric's Hollow at the end of HBP and starting his search for the other horcruxes in the place where it all began. The title "HP and the Deathly Hallows" does evoke images of the season: All Hallows Eve, Samhain, Halloween, All Saints Day, All Soul's Day and Day of the Dead. It is believed that the veil betweens worlds is thinner at this time of the year and it is easier, during this time for spirits to cross over to or communicate with the mundane plane of existence. Perhaps Harry will get some advice from the Otherside during #7? Precedent has already been established for this. Example: Priori Incantatem in the graveyard with Cedric, Frank, Bertha, James and Lily each giving Harry advice. Dumbledore always was a formidible force on this plane, what makes us think that he wouldn't be just as formidable in the Otherworld and possibly come back to offer advice in time of need .... via his portrait, dream, materialization of some sort, etc. Anyway, Samhain is the Celtic New Year. A time of death and rebirth. The death of the old and the birth of the new. The beginning of the Celtic day is/was sundown. All life begins in darkness (The womb, The earth, The egg, etc...) The year has come full circle and so has the adventure of Harry Potter. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is, afterall, The Beginning of the End. Cat >^-.-^< [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foreverbrave07 at bellsouth.net Sat Dec 30 02:53:21 2006 From: foreverbrave07 at bellsouth.net (Kevin Contini) Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 21:53:21 -0500 Subject: An Introduction and some thoughts about HPADH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <005c01c72bbd$aab8f590$6101a8c0@Family> No: HPFGUIDX 163297 I am also new to the group, but not new to HP. My name is Kevin and I look forward to some wonderful HP debates/discussions. Shannon: "My take on Snape is that he is evil, the question in my mind remains: How evil is he? Snape is redeemable, I believe, but only at great cost to himself. He can save Harry, but first I think Harry has to save him." You said that you believe that Snape is redeemable for what he did in HBP. After reading the Ultimate Unofficial Guide to the Mysteries of Harry Potter(Analysis of Books 1-4), I believe that Snape did what he did as part of the task given to him by Dumbledore near the end of GOF. The Guide stated that Dumbledore told this to Snape rather cryptically so I am further analyzing what JK said through Albus and what the authors of the Guide have implied. Anything is possible. Kevin From amylpark at comcast.net Sat Dec 30 02:57:31 2006 From: amylpark at comcast.net (rncamy1956) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 02:57:31 -0000 Subject: Horcrux Destruction Problem In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612291108q546abd4bm74e486ff645feeb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163298 Jeremiah: > However, I do see where you are going with this: He must have known > that RAB (most likely Regulus Black) had destroyed one Horcrux, I'm > sure LV found out I do not think that the locket has yet been destroyed. While Sirius and the Weasleys were cleaning Grimald place in The Order of the Phoenix, there is an old locket mentioned. I think that Kreacher has it in his den. Amy From abisha4_san at yahoo.co.in Sat Dec 30 04:32:58 2006 From: abisha4_san at yahoo.co.in (abisha4_san) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 04:32:58 -0000 Subject: Just got the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163299 Hey you must be having a great time reading the HPbooks. It's amazing, isn't it? While I was reading the books I almost got lost in the world of HP. I bet you can't take your eyes from the book. I too felt the same while I was reading. I was so crazy about the books. I hated sleeping cause I could have more time to read the books. I know this sounds crazy but I couldn't help it. Snape hates HP because he & HP's dad were just like Malfoy & HP now. Snape was humiliated by James Potter & his friends, esp. Sirius, so many times. HP finds all this in the Pensieve while taking Occulumency classes from Snape in his 5th yr. (Even he himself hates his father for being so rude to Snape.) I think that's the reason for Snape to grow a strong hatred towards HP. abisha ADMIN note: Please post comments about reading the HP books for the first time to OTChatter if your post doesn't include information found within the HP books (canon book discussion). Thanks! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/messages From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Dec 30 07:50:56 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 07:50:56 -0000 Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) In-Reply-To: <443224.18616.qm@web82802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Cat McNulty wrote: > > Greetings All! > > The evidence for a Halloween release date is increasing. Yes there is the obvious: witches, wizards and all things super natural are associated with All Hallow's Eve. > > Aside: I really would like for it to be 7/7/07 just because we all have been waiting such a long time and that date would really be numerically appropriate. However, because "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix" movie release date is 7/13/07 I am sure that the various publicity people would not want to compete with each other. And in the past, movie premeires and book releases were always several months apart. Timing is of vital importance in the publicity business! > > Now, regardless of all the technical time evidence of: first draft...editing...translating ... printing, etc. it would be very felicitous for the date to be October 31st ... the day the adventure began and the day Harry became "The Boy Who Lived." > Harry even talks about going back to Godric's Hollow at the end of HBP and starting his search for the other horcruxes in the place where it all began. > The title "HP and the Deathly Hallows" does evoke images of the season: All Hallows Eve, Samhain, Halloween, All Saints Day, All Soul's Day and Day of the Dead. It is believed that the veil betweens worlds is thinner at this time of the year and it is easier, during this time for spirits to cross over to or communicate with the mundane plane of existence. > Anyway, Samhain is the Celtic New Year. A time of death and rebirth. The death of the old and the birth of the new. The beginning of the Celtic day is/was sundown. All life begins in darkness (The womb, The earth, The egg, etc...) The year has come full circle and so has the adventure of Harry Potter. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" is, afterall, The Beginning of the End. Geoff: I'm not sure I read it the same way as you. If the date of publication is either 07/07/07 or 31/10/07, this suggests that Jo Rowling has been working to this timetable since before 1997 when the first book came out. I do not believe that she intended to take ten years and more over the series because she has commented along the way that there were times when the progression of Harry's books was interrupted by circumstances which were not in her game plan - divorce, re-marriage, childbirth, writer's block to mention just a few. I have said in the past that some of us seem to leap on every reference to seven with whoops of glee and now, to other group members, "Hallows" seems to be taken as a reference to "Hallowe'en" merely to make the facts fit the theory - which is perhaps putting the cart before the horse. I agree that to have Hallowe'en 1997 as seeing the end of the war would be neatly symmetrical but good stories do not always have such a symmetry because this can appear to be contrived. Again, I believe that the Celtic New Year will not be relevant becasue JKR is a Christian and would not necessarily be influenced by that date. From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Sat Dec 30 16:26:29 2006 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:26:29 -0000 Subject: Halloween Too Contrived? (Was: Halloween Release Speculation) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163301 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > I agree that to have Hallowe'en 1997 as seeing the end of the war would > be neatly symmetrical but good stories do not always have such a > symmetry because this can appear to be contrived. Again, I believe that > the Celtic New Year will not be relevant becasue JKR is a Christian and > would not necessarily be influenced by that date. > Ken: Some would certainly complain that a final confrontation on Halloween was contrived. Yet such things happen in the real world. Wilmer Mclean had the peace of his farm in northern Virginia shattered by the opening skirmish in the first major battle of the US Civil War. A cannon ball ruined his dining room and a Confederate general's breakfast! So he moved 120 miles southwest to the sleepy village of Appomatox Court House to get his family away from the war and to be closer to his buisiness. Generals Grant and Lee signed the surrender papers for Lee's army in his new parlor. He liked to joke that the war started in his dining room and ended in his parlor. LV is motivated by things he considers symbolic. I don't know if we are given a reason why he chose Halloween for the first confrontation with the Potters but having once so chosen it would fit his character to seek a final confrontation on another Halloween. It is true that he has not been shy about seeking to kill Harry any old time of the year in the previous books. Now that he is re-established and needs to cement old loyalties and inspire a new generation to fear him it would be like him to plan a Halloween surprise for Harry. He might calculate that such a date for Harry's defeat would have the most effect on those he is trying to impress and intimidate. Ken From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 17:39:40 2006 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 17:39:40 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612291028x1b8e45b1lb3f165a66f68e665@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163302 > Jeremiah wrote: > Well, not to come across as mysogynist... But Bellatrix is a bit mouthy. At DD's recollection of her trial she was very vocal but only at the last minute, she is all chatter at the ministry but hesitates waiting for Malfoy's signal. I took her proclamations at Snape's house to be no more than one Death Eater trying to look more dedicated that the other and trying to set an example for her sister... This all goes into my theories about how Snape is an accomplished Occlumens and since Bellatrix trained Draco how to shut his mind I can only surmise that bellatrix is hiding a lot from Voldemort and blerts out thins like "I'd love it if my child died for Lord Voldemort" (no, not a direct quote but you get the idea) so she could look better in front of Snape... and Wormtail was there... he's a sneaky one.(I think it was ok for them to kill Harry at the minstry only if it wouldn't harm the prophesy... I'll have to look that up...) but she could have killed Sirius and I can't figure out why except that she's not a killer... meaning someone who kills for fun or just because they can. So, I see her as all talk... or, more precisely: Lots of talk and does backup her fellow DE's but is not a murderer just a sadist who likes to hear screams from torture... She's still a sicko... Jeremiah Jenni from Alabama responds: I couldn't disagree with you more. I think that Bellatrix has the potential to become another Voldemort. I think she enjoys causing pain and watching others suffer. I think she would kill without a second thought - but only after watching them writhe in agony from torturing them for a while. She likes to play with her prey before she does them in. A real, true sicko! I think Harry and the Order better keep an eye on her, she's one nasty piece of work! Jenni From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 19:29:26 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 19:29:26 -0000 Subject: Is Bella a killer? WAS:,Re: Could Deathly Hallows In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163303 Jeremiah wrote: > > Well, not to come across as mysogynist... But Bellatrix is a bit mouthy. At DD's recollection of her trial she was very vocal but only at the last minute, she is all chatter at the ministry but hesitates waiting for Malfoy's signal. I took her proclamations at Snape's house to be no more than one Death Eater trying to look more dedicated that the other and trying to set an example for her sister... This all goes into my theories about how Snape is an accomplished Occlumens and since Bellatrix trained Draco how to shut his mind I can only surmise that bellatrix is hiding a lot from Voldemort and blerts out thins like "I'd love it if my child died for Lord Voldemort" (no, not a direct quote but you get the idea) so she could look better in front of Snape... and Wormtail was there... he's a sneaky one.(I think it was ok for them to kill Harry at the minstry only if it wouldn't harm the prophesy... I'll have to look that up...) but she could have killed Sirius and I can't figure out why except that she's not a killer... meaning someone who kills for fun or just because they can. > > So, I see her as all talk... or, more precisely: Lots of talk and does backup her fellow DE's but is not a murderer just a sadist who likes to hear screams from torture... She's still a sicko... Jenni from Alabama responded: > I couldn't disagree with you more. I think that Bellatrix has the potential to become another Voldemort. I think she enjoys causing pain and watching others suffer. I think she would kill without a second thought - but only after watching them writhe in agony from torturing them for a while. She likes to play with her prey before she does them in. A real, true sicko! I think Harry and the Order better keep an eye on her, she's one nasty piece of work! Carol adds: While I agree with Jenni that Bellatrix is a "sicko" who likes watching others suffer (not to mention inflicting torture herself), I don't think she has the potential to become another Voldemort, either in terms of power or ambition. She's a fanatically loyal *follower* of Voldemort rather than a would-be Dark Lady (female Dark Lord). I also disagree with Jeremiah that she's trying to impress Snape. On the contrary, she doubts Snape's loyalty to her beloved master (not that she necessarily thinks he's DDM! but she certainly suspects that he's OFH!--"slithering out of action" and all that). Snape goes to great pains to convince her of his loyalty to LV before he begins to deal with Narcissa. Regarding Occlumency, I'm quite surprised that Bellatrix knows it at all. Who would she use it on? She wears her emotions and her fanatical loyalty on her sleeve! ("We alone were loyal! We alone tried to find him!") She's certainly not trying to conceal anything from Snape, except in one instance--her fear that his Occlumency can fool "the greatest Legilimens in the world" (quoted from memory). She's afraid to speak that thought out loud, but there's no question in my mind that Snape, an accomplished Legilimens who, in any case, can read Bella like a book, knows what she's thinking and plays on her fears and apprehensions. As for Wormtail listening in, he hears only the very begining of the conversation before Snape sends him from the room and seals the door behind him. (I take that blasting spell to be an Impervius with perhaps something else thrown in to create a bang and a flash as a warning to Wormtail not to spy on him again.) Snape, the inventor of Muffliato, is not going to allow the rat to continue listening at doors. The most that Wormtail can report is that Bellatrix and Narcissa came to visit Snape and that Narcissa had a favor to ask him. What happened after that, Wormtail can only guess. (Voldemort, however, may have had a little talk with Bellatrix and/or Narcissa based on the little that Wormtail knew, if he dared to report it.) Also, far from waiting for her brother-in-law Lucius Malfoy's signal in the MoM, Bellatrix wants to Accio the Prophecy immediately and get on with the torturing and killing. Lucius has to restrain her and remind her that they can't allow anything to happen to the Prophecy. And while I agree with both of you that she's a sadist who likes to hear her victims scream in agony (or even Crucio them into insanity, a feat she seems to be proud of), I don't think we can conclude from that canon fact that she isn't a killer. She certainly killed the fox she suspected of being an Auror quickly enough. She just doesn't get the enyoyment out of Avada Kedavra that she gets out of the Cruciatus Curse. I imagine that she can also cast an effective Imperius Curse (it may have been a disguised Bellatrix who Imperioed Madam Rosmerta), but she's not a specialist in that curse like Mulciber because, again, it doesn't give her the sadistic enjoyment that Cruciatus does. Why then didn't she kill her dear cousin Sirius straight out? I think she probably wanted to bring him to his knees, knock his wand from his hand, and torture him--but you can't do that with a battle raging. Other Order members were likely to hit her in the back with a curse while she did that. So she did the second best thing, enjoying the duel with him as he enjoyed it with her. (Sirius was rather recklessly showing off; Bella was probably doing the same, not to mention that duelling "the Animagus Black" did not allow her time to concentrate on casting a spell like AK that requres power and will--and preferably an unarmed or unsuspecting victim. There's no countercurse, but an AK *can* be deflected.) Her spell knocking him through the Veil was, I think, as much a surprise to her as it was to him, but she certainly realized at once that she had killed him and expected to be rewarded by Voldemort for her deed. Unfortunately, the loss of the Prophecy (and Dumbledore's arrival) spoiled her victory. You don't need to be a misogynist to hate Bellatrix. She's an evil, sadistic devotee of a Dark Lord whose favorite sport is torturing helpless victims, including children. But I do think "mouthy" is far from the mark. Between Bellatrix and Barty Jr., both of whom boasted that they were LV's most faithful servant, it would be hard to say who is correct. Certainly, now that Barty has been robbed of his soul, Bellatrix can claim the title without contenders. Carol, who was surprised and pleased to see a human side of Bellatrix, affection for her sister, in HBP, but does not consider her any less psychotically fanatical for all that From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 30 20:36:25 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:36:25 -0000 Subject: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163304 lone_white_werewolf: > > Wouldn't Sirius's loyalty have been enough to prevent him revealing a > secret? > Pippin: >From what Dumbledore says in OOP, Voldemort thinks the balance of the prophecy contains information on how to destroy Harry. Sirius behaves as if he believes that too, telling Harry to take the prophecy and run, as if protecting the prophecy was worth every bit as much as Harry's life. So in his loyal effort to protect Harry, IMO Sirius inadvertently revealed that he had been misled by disinformation that could only have reached him through one of Voldemort's agents. If Dumbledore realized that, he would trace the disinformation to its source, and Voldemort's spy in the Order would be revealed. Sirius had to be silenced before he could explain why he thought the prophecy had to be protected. So the prophecy establishes a motive for the murder of Sirius by Voldemort's spy, Lupin's position between Harry and the platform provides an opportunity, and a non-verbal spell provides the method. It is of course difficult to believe that Lupin would turn against the Order because he's such a powerful symbol of resistance -- but alas, more symbol than reality if you examine his actions rather than his words. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Dec 30 20:54:18 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:54:18 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial WAS: Re: Bad Writing? (was: JKR and the boys) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163305 > Alla: > > I do not remember the suggestion that everyday grades should be > eliminated for Hogwarts fifth years. Pippin: Harry didn't grade his DA class and didn't worry at all about the failing grades he was getting from Umbridge. > Alla: > > I understood your argument that Harry craves Snape approval among > other males. So does he or does he not craves Snape approval, Pippin > or does he just want to be treated fairly by every teacher? > Pippin: When has he wanted to be treated fairly by anybody but Snape? IIRC, he never thinks it's unfair that Lockhart chooses him for every demonstration, he doesn't think it's unfair that Trelawney keeps using him as an object, he only wishes that McGonagall favored her own the way Snape does. (Of course the joke is on Harry, there. McGonagall does favor her own students, but as her favoritism takes the form of higher expectations, it doesn't make Harry's life any easier.) Wow, if you think Harry is hung up on fairness rather than approval, it's no wonder you don't understand his reconciliation with Dumbledore. Once he finds he never lost Dumbledore's approval, that it was all a colossal misunderstanding, he's okay with Dumbledore again. Dumbledore's unfairness or toleration of unfairness in others was never the issue. > Pippin: > > Is it a reasonable expectation that a Slytherin teacher would treat > > anyone fairly? I wouldn't hold my breath. Life is unfair. People > are unfair, > > especially those who don't idealize fairness. > > > Alla: > > Wow, so are you saying that every non Slytherin student should come > to Hogwarts expecting that he or she would never get a fair grade > from Slytherin teacher? Pippin: Why be so general? Slytherins aren't noted for fairness, that's all. Harry knows that from what the Hat says in its first song. Ron warns him that Snape is said to favor his own students. Harry doesn't know that he's going to be the special target of Snape's unfairness, but he does know that the wizarding world tolerates unfairness and Snape's in particular. Pippin From lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk Sat Dec 30 20:48:26 2006 From: lone_white_werewolf at yahoo.co.uk (lone_white_werewolf) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 20:48:26 -0000 Subject: Lupin as spy? (was Re: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163307 Pippin Wrote: > It is of course difficult to believe that Lupin would turn > against the Order because he's such a powerful symbol of > resistance -- but alas, more symbol than reality if you > examine his actions rather than his words. lone_white_werewolf: Interesting theory, what actions of Lupin's lead you to believe he could be a spy? From derenmcc at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 21:13:11 2006 From: derenmcc at yahoo.com (derenmcc) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:13:11 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163308 wrote: > > Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he > needed to die so that Harry could learn to support himself > why didn't JK Rowling have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? > Could it be a hint that there is something important beyond > the veil,... I think you may have the right idea. I do not think that if Sirius were Avada Kadavra'd previous to falling through the veil, that he would have had time to react. All previous mentions of victims simply have them collapsing. Do we know that the veil is a portal to the afterlife? I do not think it is. I think it may be a doorway to the future, and that we may be seeing Sirius again. When Trelawney speaks of looking beyond the veil, she follows it with into the future. I do not however think that that is what the title refers to. My impression is the All Hallows Eve when his parents died, or perhaps a graveyard. Derenmcc From derenmcc at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 21:34:53 2006 From: derenmcc at yahoo.com (derenmcc) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:34:53 -0000 Subject: Locket location In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163309 "rncamy1956"wrote: > I do not think that the locket has yet been destroyed. While Sirius > and the Weasleys were cleaning Grimald place in The Order of the > Phoenix, there is an old locket mentioned. I think that Kreacher has > it in his den. Yes! Or, Mundungus could have taken it. It could have been with him when Harry caught him in Hogsmeade with the other things he had pilfered from Grimauld Place. I do not think the Horcrux part of it was destroyed either because no one could open it. Derenmcc From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Dec 30 21:59:38 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 21:59:38 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163310 > Pippin: > When has he wanted to be treated fairly by anybody but > Snape? IIRC, he never thinks it's unfair that Lockhart chooses him for > every demonstration, he doesn't think it's unfair that Trelawney > keeps using him as an object, he only wishes that McGonagall > favored her own the way Snape does. (Of course the joke is on > Harry, there. McGonagall does favor her own students, but as > her favoritism takes the form of higher expectations, it doesn't > make Harry's life any easier.) > Alla: When did Harry ever knew that he did well in Lockhart or Trelawney class and that his well due good grade was withheld from him? Trelawney uses him, yes and he does not like it at all AFAIK. > > Pippin: > > > Is it a reasonable expectation that a Slytherin teacher would treat > > > anyone fairly? I wouldn't hold my breath. Life is unfair. People > > are unfair, > > > especially those who don't idealize fairness. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > Wow, so are you saying that every non Slytherin student should come > > to Hogwarts expecting that he or she would never get a fair grade > > from Slytherin teacher? > > Pippin: > Why be so general? Slytherins aren't noted for fairness, that's all. > Harry knows that from what the Hat says in its first song. Ron warns > him that Snape is said to favor his own students. Harry doesn't > know that he's going to be the special target of Snape's unfairness, > but he does know that the wizarding world tolerates unfairness > and Snape's in particular. > Alla: Because that is how I read your argument Pippin. After all life is unfair, yes? And expect that God forbid, Slytherin teacher would treat you well is too much? So, isn't it reasonable that every non- Slytherin student should have such expectations? But I suppose what you really mean is that Harry and Harry only should **not** expect fair grades from Snape and this how it should be, yes? Is that the correct reading of your argument? That Harry is the one to blame for daring to expect a good grade for potion well done. Sorry, but I find this mind boggling. It is your right to hold this view of course, it is my right to think of this argument as ridiculous. JMO, Alla, who thinks that all students have a right to get good grades for job well done. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Dec 31 00:04:13 2006 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 00:04:13 -0000 Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163312 > > Geoff: > I'm not sure I read it the same way as you. If the date of publication is > either 07/07/07 or 31/10/07, this suggests that Jo Rowling has been > working to this timetable since before 1997 when the first book came > out. Julie: I don't think it suggests that at all. As Cat said, it would be felicitious for the book to be released on Oct 31. Or call it serendipity. Jo may not have planned to finish the books by any certain date on any certain year, but she could have foreseen the possibility of taking good advantage of either July 31 (Harry's birthday) or October 31 during *any* year in which she was releasing the 7th book. (7/7/7 is a different thing, and I doubt JKR aimed for this date in any way). Geoff: > I agree that to have Hallowe'en 1997 as seeing the end of the war would > be neatly symmetrical but good stories do not always have such a > symmetry because this can appear to be contrived. Again, I believe that > the Celtic New Year will not be relevant becasue JKR is a Christian and > would not necessarily be influenced by that date. > Julie: Yes, it would be neatly symmetrical, and though JKR couldn't have deliberately aimed for it, once again seredipity may have stepped in, and she must certainly recognize the same symmetry we recognize. Whether she wants to take advantage of it, *can* take advantage of it (we don't know when the 7th book will even enter the editing stage for sure, do we?), or is thinking in another direction entirely is unknown. But I hope she wouldn't dismiss the idea only on the basis that it might *appear* contrived. That's a stupid reason IMO ;-) As for JKR being a Christian, her religion has never had much overt presence in the HP books. While there are certainly concepts and symbols in the books that reflect her religion, there are also concepts and symbols from a variety of pagan myths and legends, including Greek, Egyptian and Celtic, along with Tarot cards, Astrology...you name it, it's there. So I don't know why Samhain wouldn't fit in as easily, should JKR chose to reference it. Though she need not, since the date is highly significant already as the day Harry's parents died and Harry became "The Boy Who Lived." BTW, Halloween falls on a Wednesday next year. That's not usually a day one would expect the final book to be released, since the previous ones have taken advantage of the weekend by releasing on Saturday. But I really don't see a problem, because 1. Harry Potter is such a phenomenon that I can't see the release day--be it a weekday or weekend day--having one iota of effect on the sales numbers. And 2. Halloween is a fairly big holiday in the U.S. now (not sure about England or Australia) and a lot of schools give the kids that day or the following day off, to avoid the whole crazy dressing up/sugar high insanity. Still, even without #2, I can see most parents more than willing to let their kids stay up late on this one special weeknight that will never come again. Can't you? Julie, who has no more clue than anyone else when Book 7 will be released, but who would think it pretty cool if it did happen on Halloween. From MercuryBlue144 at aol.com Sun Dec 31 03:52:48 2006 From: MercuryBlue144 at aol.com (MercuryBlue) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:52:48 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: <948bbb470612291728h1e24436w59bbf4429314df0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163313 > montims: > well, that was when the Potters were AK'd... > Jeremiah: > Was is Halloween? I don't think it was... Where did you get Hallween from? Sorcerer's Stone. I want to say chapter five, but my copy is at home and I am not. It's when Hagrid is telling Harry about how James and Lily really died. He specifically says it's Halloween. MercuryBlue From marilynpeake at cs.com Sun Dec 31 06:25:31 2006 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 06:25:31 -0000 Subject: Just got the book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163314 You'll eventually find out why Snape hates Harry Potter so much. The books are wonderful, and the back stories eventually unfold. Best Wishes, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gold_starrs1" wrote: > >> I was reading the book and I tried to put it down but I can't. > >> Also why does Snape hate Potter so much in the book? From marilynpeake at cs.com Sun Dec 31 06:46:29 2006 From: marilynpeake at cs.com (Marilyn Peake) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 06:46:29 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163315 < "derenmcc" derenmcc at ...> wrote: > I do not however think that that is what the title refers to. My > impression is the All Hallows Eve when his parents died, or perhaps a > graveyard. The word "hallow" means to venerate or show great respect for. I'm wondering if the title might refer to Harry going up against death, trying to set things right for his loved ones who have died. Also, "All Hallows Eve" refers both to showing respect for the dead and when the dead once again walk among the living. Perhaps the dead, including Harry's parents, will return, Harry will face death himself, and all will be resolved in terms of Voldemort and the people who Harry has lost. I expect that Harry will survive and will emerge from the series as a great hero and vanquisher of evil. Best Wishes, Marilyn http://www.marilynpeake.com From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 31 07:43:17 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 07:43:17 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163316 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "derenmcc" wrote: > > wrote: > > > > Why did Sirius have to die by going beyond the veil, if he > > needed to die so that Harry could learn to support himself > > why didn't JK Rowling have Bellatrix Avada Kederva (sic) him? > > Could it be a hint that there is something important beyond > > the veil,... Derenmcc > I think you may have the right idea. I do not think that if Sirius > were Avada Kadavra'd previous to falling through the veil, that he > would have had time to react. All previous mentions of victims simply > have them collapsing. Geoff: I think that you are drawing a conclusion on too little evidence. If I remember correctly, there are only two occasions in the books where an Avadra Kedavra curse is used while we, as readers, are present. One is the death of Cedric in "Goblet of Fire" and the second is when Snape uses it on Dumbledore in "Half Blood Prince". Other instances are referred to: it would seem that the Riddle family in "Goblet of Fire" were killed by this means and it was used on Harry's parents but he only retains a memory of a green flash. The two instances I have quoted produced different effects; Cedric apparently fell directly to the ground - Harry having his eyes closed at that moment only heard the sound of a fall - while Dumbledore was blasted into the air and over the battlements of the tower. This is not the only case of a spell producing differing effects. In the scene in the Shrieking Shack in "Prisoner of Azkaban", the Expelliarmus curse is used twice and on each occasion produces slightly differing results. I think that before we can make general statements about the outcome of curses, we need to be able to look at a larger sample of results. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 08:49:45 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:49:45 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163317 --- "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > --- "derenmcc" wrote: > > Derenmcc > > I think you may have the right idea. I do not think > > that if Sirius were Avada Kadavra'd previous to > > falling through the veil, that he would have had time > > to react. All previous mentions of victims simply > > have them collapsing. > > Geoff: > I think that you are drawing a conclusion on too little > evidence. If I remember correctly, there are only two > occasions in the books where an Avadra Kedavra curse is > used while we, as readers, are present. One is the death > of Cedric in "Goblet of Fire" and the second is when > Snape uses it on Dumbledore in "Half Blood Prince". ... bboyminn: While I completely support your point Geoff, I will point out that we don't actually see Cedric die. At that time we are inside Harry's head, and he is down on his hands and knees vomiting from the pain in his scar. In observing Harry's thoughs we realize that he understands what has happened, but he doesn't actually see it. When Harry finally opens his eyes, Cedric is already dead and on the ground. We don't really see the impact of the AK curse. So, as I said, and as I have said before, and a point which agrees with you, we haven't really seen any AK curses actually strike in real time. Of course, that's other than the AK curse that strikes Dumbledore. That particular curse is somewhat suspect by some people, though I have reasonably explained it by giving examples of the many different 'impact' efffects of the same curse striking under different circumstances. Also, by illustrating the difference in 'impact' between a missed curse and an 'on target' curse. If Dumbledore was already dead when Snape AK curse struck, it would have acted like a missed curse, or so I suppose, and that means a greater impact effect. As to why Sirius died the way he did, I suspect that JKR needed that ambiguity for plot reasons. Either to keep us guessing and keep us wondering, or to give Sirius a route back to the living. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, until such time as it is resolved, it adds mystery and suspense to the story. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From Aixoise at snet.net Sun Dec 31 13:51:18 2006 From: Aixoise at snet.net (Stacey Nunes-Ranchy) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:51:18 -0500 Subject: The Potter's Deathly Halloween was Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <062901c72ce2$bf46d5b0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163318 > montims: > well, that was when the Potters were AK'd... > Jeremiah: > Was is Halloween? I don't think it was... Where did you get Hallween from? >Mercury Blue wrote: Sorcerer's Stone. I want to say chapter five, but my copy is at home and I am not. It's when Hagrid is telling Harry about how James and Lily really died. He specifically says it's Halloween. Stacey: I only have my French edition handy and provided they aren't split differently, it's Chapter 4. I have to say that until I started rereading the series (although this is the first time in French) I, too, had a hard time remembering that it was on Halloween that the Potters met their untimely death. Truthfully, I would have expected some other mention of it when Vernon Dursley is seeing all the caped people (like "..although they did seem a bit old to be still participating in the Halloween thing") or on the TV about the owls and shooting stars (like "Strange things have been known to happen on this day but."). I'm actually not sure if the shooting stars and owls are meant to happen on the same day of the killing or, I strongly suspect, the day after (which would be odd as well since, in France at least, no one works on All Saints Day and Vernon was clearly at work). Even if it were supposed to be the day after Halloween that the caped people, owls and shooting stars take place, you would figure there would be some mentioning of the oddness of these sights to the odd things that go on around Halloween. So is it: Halloween: Murder at Godric's Hollow Nov 1st: Owls, shooting stars, caped people Sometime in the wee hours of Nov. 2nd: Harry delivered at the doorstep This also raises some questions (at least for me) because as Hagrid tells Dumbledore about getting Harry, it sounds to me as if Hagrid rescues Harry from the rubble and immediately sets off for the Dursley's. Can anyone set me straight? Thanks! Stacey [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jnferr at gmail.com Sun Dec 31 15:23:01 2006 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 09:23:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Potter's Deathly Halloween was Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: <062901c72ce2$bf46d5b0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> References: <062901c72ce2$bf46d5b0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40612310723r102a5a8fk5a0f5b596bc12bed@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163319 > > Stacey: > > I only have my French edition handy and provided they aren't split > differently, it's Chapter 4. I have to say that until I started rereading > the series (although this is the first time in French) I, too, had a hard > time remembering that it was on Halloween that the Potters met their > untimely death. Truthfully, I would have expected some other mention of > it > when Vernon Dursley is seeing all the caped people (like "..although they > did seem a bit old to be still participating in the Halloween thing") or > on > the TV about the owls and shooting stars (like "Strange things have been > known to happen on this day but."). I'm actually not sure if the shooting > stars and owls are meant to happen on the same day of the killing or, I > strongly suspect, the day after (which would be odd as well since, in > France > at least, no one works on All Saints Day and Vernon was clearly at work). > Even if it were supposed to be the day after Halloween that the caped > people, owls and shooting stars take place, you would figure there would > be > some mentioning of the oddness of these sights to the odd things that go > on > around Halloween. montims: In the UK, All Saints Day is not a holiday - I think that's only in Catholic countries,,, And Hallowe'en is not celebrated like in America - while some individuals have parties, and some children have leapt on the "trick or treat" wagon, you don't usually see people wandering around in strange costumes these days, and definitely not in the 80s, so the wizards would have stood out... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 31 17:29:43 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:29:43 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163320 Alla: > Is that the correct reading of your argument? That Harry is the one > to blame for daring to expect a good grade for potion well done. > Pippin: Meh, he also expects a good grade for that guff he gives Trelawney. How fair is that? Where did I say that I blame Harry for anything? I'm saying no one was ever promised that they'd be treated fairly in the WW. Certainly Slytherins make no such promise to anyone. I said that IMO, Harry wanted a good grade as a mark of approval, and that it galled him to have Snape's approval withheld unfairly because he wants approval so much. Since he doesn't admit to himself that he wants it, he can't even consider whether he's being realistic trying to get it. I don't blame him for that, but it's not a constructive behavior, IMO. > Alla, who thinks that all students have a right to get good grades > for job well done. > Pippin: And this right is worth dying for, as long as it's Snape who has to do it? YMMV, but as people have only one life to give for human rights, I would prefer that it be spent on the big ones, especially when there are killers on the loose. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 17:51:06 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:51:06 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163321 > Pippin: > I said that IMO, Harry wanted a good grade as a mark of approval, > and that it galled him to have Snape's approval withheld unfairly > because he wants approval so much. Since he doesn't admit to > himself that he wants it, he can't even consider whether he's > being realistic trying to get it. > > I don't blame him for that, but it's not a constructive behavior, IMO. Alla: Well, OK, you do not blame him for that, but you still think that his behaviour is wrong, yes? I mean **not constructive** is close enough to **wrong** in meaning, yes? So, I do not see much difference, frankly. And I refuse to think for one second that there is something wrong in Harry's behaviour, when he expects good grade. That is of course since I also do not buy that he wants Snape's approval. I think he wants a good grade as any student would have done and I think if he were to decide that there is something wrong with that, I would advise him to check his priorities. The fact that Snape is unfair and everyone knows that makes one and only person's behaviour being wrong - **Snape** IMO. Undefensibly wrong and even if other people accept it, ( and not everybody does, actually), I do not see why Harry should. I had my fair share of unfair grading experience back in Ukraine. I am sure I mentioned it on the list, maybe even more than once. I never had bastard like Snape in school( thanking my lucky stars again and again) but when I was trying to get in to college, it was pretty much a well known fact that jews cannot get into prestigious college, any of them. I guess by your logic Pippin by refusing to give up and refusing to think that there is something wrong with me, but something very very wrong with the system, I was engaging in not constructive behaviour, lol :) I tried for three years over and over and over. I always got the grade on the college entrance exams just a tiny bit lower than it was necessary to get in it. But never ever ever I thought that my expectations were incorrect. Well, I eventually got into college Pippin ( which while was not my first choice, truly ended up the very best one for me) and you know, I placed the blame where it belonged - with the bastards, who thought that *fifth line** in your passport ( where it used to say what nationality the person is) somehow makes your second sort citizen. And going back to Harry and Snape, I refuse to think that there is anything wrong with Harry by expecting to be graded fairly, sorry. > > > Alla, who thinks that all students have a right to get good grades > > for job well done. > > > > Pippin: > > And this right is worth dying for, as long as it's Snape who has > to do it? YMMV, but as people have only one life to give for > human rights, I would prefer that it be spent on the big > ones, especially when there are killers on the loose. Alla: Huh? Worth dying for? No it is not, but certainly worth IMO fighting to change the system and if it was a different story certainly worth trying to make sure that Snape changes his methods or say good bye to Hogwarts. Because maybe again if it was a different story, even if Snape would win such fight, another bastard teacher who would want to treat other students the way Snape treats Harry and Neville, would think twice, because he would know that the methods would not be tolerated. From dougsamu at golden.net Sun Dec 31 17:53:01 2006 From: dougsamu at golden.net (doug rogers) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:53:01 -0500 Subject: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret? Message-ID: <1ECC449C-8A02-44DD-9BFB-FAE0D821C29D@golden.net> No: HPFGUIDX 163322 One line that has always puzzled me - and can clearly be read in a very ambiguous fashion, that Lupin is surprised at Harry's hearing the voice of his own old friend - an innocent reading of the line for sure - is Lupins saying "You heard James?" when Lupin is teaching the Patronus, as Harry recounts one of his flashbacks. I like Lupin as much as anyone, I have great sympathy for his plight. But what it suggests to me is that he knows a bit more than what he's saying about what happened. There is no suggestion of subtext in the line, how it is delivered, what Lupin looks like when he is saying it, as Harry is so wrapped up in his own retelling of the thing. Such information would be more telling. Google submits to Chinese Gov't. Tibetan cybercafe warning: "Do not use Internet for any political or unintelligent purposes." ____________________ From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Dec 31 18:06:12 2006 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 31 Dec 2006 18:06:12 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 12/31/2006, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1167588372.188.90991.m32@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 163323 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday December 31, 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 All Rights Reserved Copyright 2006 Yahoo! Inc. http://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: From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 18:10:19 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:10:19 -0000 Subject: The Potter's Deathly Halloween In-Reply-To: <062901c72ce2$bf46d5b0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163324 --- "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" wrote: > > Stacey: > > ... > > So is it: > > Halloween: Murder at Godric's Hollow > > Nov 1st: Owls, shooting stars, caped people > > Sometime in the wee hours of Nov. 2nd: Harry delivered > at the doorstep > > > > This also raises some questions .. because as Hagrid > tells Dumbledore about getting Harry, it sounds to me > as if Hagrid rescues Harry from the rubble and > immediately sets off for the Dursley's. Can anyone > set me straight? > > Thanks! > > Stacey bboyminn: I think you have the timeline correct. There is the infamous 'Missing 24 Hours' that has been frequently discussed. It refers to the missing 24 hour period between Hagrid rescuing Harry from Godric Hollow and when he delivers him to Privet Drive. On Halloween night at approximately Midnight, Voldemort attacks. Some time after that, making it very early on the mornining of Nov 1, Hagrid picks up Harry. Then just after midnight, early in the morning of Nov 2, Hagrid meets Dumbledore and McGonagall at Privet Drive and they leave Harry. So, the big question is, 'What happened during that 24 hours. We know Hagrid spoke to McGonagall briefly, and that lead her to spend the day at the Dursley's waiting for Dumbledore to arrive. We know that Hargid flew near Bristol on his way to Privet Drive. But that is about all we know. Some have speculate that Gordics Hollow is in Wales based on Hagrid flying over or near Bristol, but would Hagrid likely have hid out at Godrics Hollow, and how would he have communicated with McGonnagall if he stayed at Godrics Hollow? I suppose this could be a continuity error, or it could be that regardless of the location of Godrics Hollow (may or may not be in Wales) Hagrid found someplace in or near Wales to hide Harry. I've always suspected that Harry hid at the Longbottom's since they would have a kid of roughly the same age and would have been equiped to take care of Harry. This also explains why Bellatrix thought the Longbottoms might have some inside information on Voldemort. I have always speculated that when Harry does go to Godrics Hollow, he will be put in contact with a witch or wizard who lives there to act has his guide while visiting. It is possible that Hagrid hid Harry with a local wizarding family while he made other arrangements or ran other errands for Dumbledore. Then he returned to Gordics Hollow, picked up Harry, and flew to Privet Drive. I can't say for sure about Britian, though I don't think Halloween is very big over there, but in the USA Halloween is not a 'banking holiday'; stores, banks, businesses, and schools are all open. So, in summary, I think you timeline assessment is correct. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 31 18:48:51 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:48:51 -0000 Subject: Lupin as spy? (was Re: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163325 > lone_white_werewolf: > Interesting theory, what actions of Lupin's lead you to believe > he could be a spy? > Pippin: He is concealing something about his past. He claims that he's been shunned all his adult life and never had paid work, but his case says, "Professor R J Lupin" in peeling letters. He scolds Harry for not turning in the Marauders Map, but he doesn't turn it in himself. He doesn't tell anyone about the unguarded secret passage in the One-eyed Witch. He is strangely incurious about how Harry got the map, though he knows that Sirius has been inside the school. His excuse for not telling anyone about Sirius's animagus ability sounds lamer the more you think about it. He chides Harry for gambling James and Lily's sacrifice for a bag of magic tricks, but he gambles it himself for job security. That's not what James and Lily died for. He claims not to be an expert about fighting Dementors, but meanwhile he must be teaching NEWT DADA -- if he's not an expert, who is? He ends the anti-dementor lessons before Harry has been shown able to produce a patronus under an actual threat. His behavior the night of the Shrieking Shack is simply bizarre. He leaves the map activated on his desk, runs right past the valuable and useful invisibility cloak, and rushes on in a tearing haste to reach Peter. You'd think he'd want an explanation from him right away, but he settles down to a long and interesting chat about his own past history which even Sirius can't see the point of. He doesn't demand that Ron produce Peter until after Snape comes out of hiding and has been dealt with. Then Lupin demands that Ron hand over the rat -- but he doesn't ever insist that Ron let him deal with his injuries. Instead he lets Ron linger in obvious pain and ignores Snape's injuries altogether -- until it is time to leave the shack. But the most important thing is that Lupin tries to kill Pettigrew. He stands side-by-side with Sirius, whose motive is clearly revenge, and even though Sirius has already said that he'd be willing to take Peter up to the castle, Lupin rolls up his sleeves, subtly egging Sirius on. His intended last words to Peter, IIRC, are "You should have known, Peter. If Voldemort didn't kill you, we would." Then in HBP, he claims to oppose killing for revenge. But it appears that as usual, his scruples are one thing and his behavior is another. He's always full of remorse about what could have happened, but somehow he never seems to regret anything he's actually *done*. He's haunted by the fear that he might have injured someone in his marauder days, but he still calls them the happiest times of his life. He decides it's time to leave the shack just when his transformation will allow Pettigrew to escape interrogation by Dumbledore. We will learn in HPB that werewolves can position themselves to ambush their victims, which would be difficult if they don't know exactly when they're going to transform. Other internal evidence suggests that werewolves transform when the lunar chart says they will, not when the moon emerges from a cloud. In OOP, he saves Harry from charging through the Veil, but he slacks his grip when Harry goes after Bella, who could kill or torture Harry into insanity with a word. Is that the action of someone trying to protect Harry, or of someone trying to give Voldemort one last chance to get the prophecy? In HBP, he says he hasn't written Harry because he's been out on a secret mission to the werewolves, but he was around during the summer, so why didn't he write to Harry at the Dursleys? Especially after he hinted he'd be watching and told Harry to keep in touch. Pippin who is still canonless and apologizes for any inaccuracies in this post From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 18:40:49 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 18:40:49 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163326 Alla wrote: > The fact that Snape is unfair and everyone knows that makes one and > only person's behaviour being wrong - **Snape** IMO. Undefensibly > wrong and even if other people accept it, ( and not everybody does, > actually), I do not see why Harry should. > > I had my fair share of unfair grading experience back in Ukraine. I > am sure I mentioned it on the list, maybe even more than once. I > never had bastard like Snape in school( thanking my lucky stars > again and again) but when I was trying to get in to college, it was > pretty much a well known fact that jews cannot get into prestigious > college, any of them. > > I guess by your logic Pippin by refusing to give up and refusing to > think that there is something wrong with me, but something very very > wrong with the system, I was engaging in not constructive behaviour, > lol :) I tried for three years over and over and over. I always got > the grade on the college entrance exams just a tiny bit lower than > it was necessary to get in it. > > But never ever ever I thought that my expectations were incorrect. > > And going back to Harry and Snape, I refuse to think that there is > anything wrong with Harry by expecting to be graded fairly, sorry. Carol responds: I agree that there's nothing wrong with Harry's expecting a fair grade, but I wonder if perhaps, because of your personal experience, you're reading more into Snape's zeroes than is warranted by the books themselves. Both of the zeroes that I recall occurred in Harry's fifth year, OWL year, and neither affected his final mark in the course for that year. Granted, Snape would not have allowed Harry into his NEWT Potions class based on his E, but that E nevertheless indicates that Harry was learning Potions in Snape's class in spite of both Snape and his own inattention (for example, when he's more interested in the conversation between snape and Umbridge than what he's putting into his cauldron). Snape passes Harry every year up until OWL year, and in OWL year, its his OWL score, not the marks he earns in Snape's class, that determine whether he will be in Potions the next year. Snape, understandably, wants Harry to pay attention and follow directions, and most of the time, his low marks are for failing to do so. I agree that the zero for the broken flask was unfair and that Snape's gloating over it was petty revenge for the violation of his privacy in Harry's Pensieve visit, but it does Harry no more long-term harm than Harry's fantasies of crushing Snape like a dried beetle do to Snape. Snape is, unfortunately for both of them, fanning the flames of Harry's hatred with such pettiness, but he isn't ruining Harry's career prospects, which depend on his OWL and NEWT scores, not the marks he earns (or receives, earned or not) in any particular class. (Harry's marks in Slughorn's NEWT Potions class are equally unearned, but for the opposite reason. Harry is using Snape's knowledge and experiments without knowing it to earn high marks he doesn't deserve. There's your Karma or ironic retribution!) Sweet are the uses of adversity. It strengthens character if we allow it to do so. Carol, who agrees that Snape is unfair but thinks that it's possible to exaggerate the significance of such incidents by reading too much into them or relating them to RL experience From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 19:17:33 2006 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:17:33 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163327 > Carol responds: > > I agree that there's nothing wrong with Harry's expecting a fair > grade, but I wonder if perhaps, because of your personal experience, > you're reading more into Snape's zeroes than is warranted by the books > themselves. Alla: No, I do not think I do. We all bring up our personal experiences in reading the books and bring them up to intepret them, but we do not know what is warranted by the books itself exactly. JKR said that she is writing about degrees of evils and for all I know, she means to show that everyday evil of Snape unfairness may harm the person just as badly as evil maniac Voldemort can. Carol: Both of the zeroes that I recall occurred in Harry's fifth > year, OWL year, and neither affected his final mark in the course for > that year. Granted, Snape would not have allowed Harry into his NEWT > Potions class based on his E, but that E nevertheless indicates that > Harry was learning Potions in Snape's class in spite of both Snape and > his own inattention (for example, when he's more interested in the > conversation between snape and Umbridge than what he's putting into > his cauldron). Alla: You said it - Harry gets an E with all crap Snape throws at him, so for all I know with different teacher, whom Harry would not hate so much and was more motivated, he could have gotten an O. If DD did not bring Slughorn, Harry carreer prospects could have been effectively ruined. Carol: Snape passes Harry every year up until OWL year, and in > OWL year, its his OWL score, not the marks he earns in Snape's class, > that determine whether he will be in Potions the next year. Alla: Actually in Harry's third year ( or was it GoF?) narrator thinks that DD has to interfere to make sure that Snape did not fail Harry. I will take the narrator's word for it. Carol: > Sweet are the uses of adversity. It strengthens character if we allow > it to do so. Alla: Yeah, or it can hurt us so badly, that we will deal with the consequences of emotional abuse for years and years. Have you read Sherry's post about her experiences with RL Snape like teacher, who targeted her? Highly recommend. > Carol, who agrees that Snape is unfair but thinks that it's possible > to exaggerate the significance of such incidents by reading too much > into them or relating them to RL experience > Alla: Or it is possible to decrease the significance of those incidents by not seeing what harm can be done to the young people by teachers like Snape both in fiction and RL. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 31 19:53:37 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:53:37 -0000 Subject: The Potter's Deathly Halloween was Re: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: <062901c72ce2$bf46d5b0$66fea8c0@outlooksoft.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Stacey Nunes-Ranchy" wrote: montims: > > well, that was when the Potters were AK'd... Jeremiah: > > Was is Halloween? I don't think it was... Where did you get Hallween > from? Mercury Blue: > Sorcerer's Stone. I want to say chapter five, but my copy is at home > and I am not. It's when Hagrid is telling Harry about how James and > Lily really died. He specifically says it's Halloween. Stacey: > I only have my French edition handy and provided they aren't split > differently, it's Chapter 4. I have to say that until I started rereading > the series (although this is the first time in French) I, too, had a hard > time remembering that it was on Halloween that the Potters met their > untimely death. Geoff: The exact quote and location from the UK edition are: '"Maybe he thought he could persuade 'em... maybe he just wanted 'em outta the way. All anyone knows is, he turned up in the village where you was all living, on Hallowe'en ten years ago. You was just a year old. He came ter yer house an' - an'" Hagrid suddenly pulled out a very dirty, spotted handkerchief and blew his nose with a sound like a foghorn.' (Philosopher's Stone, "The Keeper of the Keys", p.45 UK edition) From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 19:56:20 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 19:56:20 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163329 In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > I agree > that the zero for the broken flask was unfair and that Snape's > gloating over it was petty revenge for the violation of his privacy in > Harry's Pensieve visit, but it does Harry no more long-term harm than > Harry's fantasies of crushing Snape like a dried beetle do to Snape. And yet, had it not been for a heavy-handed plot intervention on JKR's part -- i.e. switching the rules at the last moment -- Harry's career prospects would have been ruined, as Alla quite rightly points out. And even under a DDM scenario, Harry's fantasies about Snape are hardly harmless. After all, even the mythical St. Severus Snape, totally innocent and aggrieved in his DDMness, would find it hard to get Harry to pay any attention to him -- at least in part, and I think VERY large part, due to his abuse of Harry. Not an example of something not doing long-term harm. > Snape is, unfortunately for both of them, fanning the flames of > Harry's hatred with such pettiness, but he isn't ruining Harry's > career prospects, which depend on his OWL and NEWT scores, not the > marks he earns (or receives, earned or not) in any particular class. And yet, as Alla points out, Harry's prospects would have been ruined save for the heavy-handed plot manipulations mentioned above. And Snape's "fanning the flames" is yet another example of Dumbledore's contemptible incompetence. If he really needs the two of them to work together, then letting Snape abuse Harry constantly is the height on ineptitude on fronts other than "just" the moral. Lupinlore, who is wondering how long the last book will be, but unfortunately suspects most of the time will be wasted on a MaGuffin hunt From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 20:04:45 2006 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:04:45 -0000 Subject: More Objects of Power Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163330 Sorry, not quite sure if I can get away with this post here in the main group. It doesn't necessarily relate to the books, but it does relate to previous discussions here and to my own, though now I find not unique, 'Objects of Power' theory. Currently at the Leaky Cauldron, they have yearly summaries of HP related news, in one of these, there is a link to a Scribbulus Essay titled - [Scribbulus - Issue 8] "The Four Founders and the Magician Card: Searching for Relics with the Tarot as a Guide" By Erin Dolmage http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/#scribbulus:essay:230 It is an excellent essay (relatively short) tying the Horcruxes to the suits of the Tarot Cards. Also, the Tarot Card "I the Magician" has four 'objects of power' on the table in front of him that seem very significant and related to the HP story. (Essay contains photos of various significant Tarot Cards) Not sure how much there is to discuss, but it is an excellent Essay. Steve/bboyminn From unicornspride at centurytel.net Sun Dec 31 20:42:09 2006 From: unicornspride at centurytel.net (Lana Bingenheimer) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:42:09 -0000 Subject: Could Deathly Hallows refer to Harry going beyond the veil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163331 > > Akash > > Hi. > > > > Why can't it be Halloween? Does anyone have a strong reason? I > think it should be Halloween time and related somehow with the horror > festival. > > > > > > lone_white_werewolf > If it was Halloween wouldn't JK have called it something like Harry > Potter and All Hallows Eve. I don't see how Deathly could be related > to Halloween. > Lana writes: While i think it could refer to Halloween in many ways, it is unlikely since Halloween is so early in the year. No time for anything storywise to be built up. It would require alot of story in a very short amount of time. Lana From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Dec 31 21:02:46 2006 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:02:46 -0000 Subject: Halloween Release Speculation (Was:Re: Clue to Release of Book 7?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "julie" wrote: Geoff: > > I agree that to have Hallowe'en 1997 as seeing the end of the war > > would be neatly symmetrical but good stories do not always have > > such a symmetry because this can appear to be contrived. Again, > > I believethat the Celtic New Year will not be relevant because JKR > > is a Christian and would not necessarily be influenced by that date. Julie: > Yes, it would be neatly symmetrical, and though JKR couldn't > have deliberately aimed for it, once again seredipity may > have stepped in, and she must certainly recognize the same > symmetry we recognize. Whether she wants to take advantage > of it, *can* take advantage of it (we don't know when the > 7th book will even enter the editing stage for sure, do we?), > or is thinking in another direction entirely is unknown. > But I hope she wouldn't dismiss the idea only on the basis > that it might *appear* contrived. That's a stupid reason IMO ;-) Geoff: I think there are also plot-driven reasons as to why Hallowe'en 1997 would not see the end of Harry's fight against Voldemort. HBP ends somewhere about the end of June or beginning of July 1997. Harry intimates to Ron and Hermione that he will not return to Hogwarts because he feels that he ought to visit Godric's Hollow and then set out to find the remaining Horcruxes. The others then remind him that he will have to come to the Burrow for the wedding before anything else is tackled. So, it is probably going to be well into August before Harry is free to tackle his own personal agenda. With all the luck in the world, I cannot see him finalising the identification of and tracking down of the remaining Horcruxes, destroying them and then finding Voldemort and fighting him iall in the space of about two months.... I commented in another recent post that we all have our own pet ideas and, if we are not cautious, can allow ourselves to manipulate the facts to fit our theories. This is possibly one reason why the "Deathly Hallows = Hallowe'en" hypothesis seems to have taken hold. Personally, as I have just said, I cannot see the Hallowe'en '97 scenario being feasible and - as someone proposed - if you stretch it to the following year, we go the other way and seem to have a lot of time to use up in the story line. Again, just my own gut feeling, I have said that I see the Deathly Hallows as being a place, although "Hallowe'en = All Hallows Eve = All Saints Eve" is the interpretation which has been bounced around, which leads me to the intriguing point that in the DVD of the "Prisoner of Azkaban", there is an interview involving Jo Rowling and Alfonso Cuar?n. In it, the latter remarks that he wanted the execution scene with Buckbeak to be in a graveyard but JKR vetoed this because, although there was a graveyard at Hogwarts, it was not in that location and she explained to Alfonso that it had a part to play later. Suspicious.... Julie: > As for JKR being a Christian, her religion has never had much > overt presence in the HP books. While there are certainly > concepts and symbols in the books that reflect her religion, > there are also concepts and symbols from a variety of pagan > myths and legends, including Greek, Egyptian and Celtic, > along with Tarot cards, Astrology...you name it, it's there. > So I don't know why Samhain wouldn't fit in as easily, should > JKR chose to reference it. Though she need not, since the > date is highly significant already as the day Harry's parents > died and Harry became "The Boy Who Lived." Geoff: JKR, like Tolkien, has never made her faith too overt but it can be sensed there. Tolkien also used concepts from other sources - some from his own Middle-earth creation. However, the idea of Samhain has never been raised in the books. Hallowe'en has usually been celebrated with a feast not unlike the parties which are sometimes held in the UK with food and pumpkins etc. and little of its significance as a non-Chrsitian event is touched on. JKR has used Hallowe'en for several other events, not related to legends. Among the events chronicled on this night are: Voldemort's attack on James and Lily; the appearance of the troll in the dungeon; Harry first hearing the Basilisk; Sirius attacking the Fat Lady's portrait; the Goblet of Fire revealing the names of the Champions.... All vital to the story but not venturing into myths, astrology or legends. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 31 21:12:06 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:12:06 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163333 > Alla: > > Well, OK, you do not blame him for that, but you still think that > his behaviour is wrong, yes? I mean **not constructive** is close > enough to **wrong** in meaning, yes? Pippin: Er, no. **Not constructive** means it's not helping. Harry's not under an obligation to be helpful in solving this problem, so it's not wrong that he isn't helping, it's just not getting him anywhere. Harry knows there's something wrong with the system, and he knows that fuming about Snape isn't going to change it. Frankly I'm not sure that he'd want to change it, since he laps up teacher favoritism whenever he's "lucky" enough to get it. Harry's experience in Slughorn's class shows, IMO, that he isn't O material in potions. He isn't curious about why the Prince's recipes work better. He doesn't have the talent or the interest that manifests in DADA. You compare Snape to an anti-Semite. I think I've said this before, too, that Snape and Slytherin seem to me to occupy a cultural niche analogous to European Jewry: accepted as part of the founding story but villified for their role in it, constantly suspected of dark and morally dubious practices, and always automatically the first to be blamed for anything that goes wrong. And now a Slytherin stands accused of murdering the most beloved, morally perfect wizard who ever existed. Yeah, that fits. Funny how people's minds work :) > > Pippin: > > > > And this right is worth dying for, as long as it's Snape who has > > to do it? YMMV, but as people have only one life to give for > > human rights, I would prefer that it be spent on the big > > ones, especially when there are killers on the loose. > > Alla: > > Huh? Worth dying for? No it is not, but certainly worth IMO fighting > to change the system and if it was a different story certainly worth > trying to make sure that Snape changes his methods or say good bye > to Hogwarts. Pippin: Well, that's it, you want a different story, because in this story, if DDM!Snape said goodbye to Hogwarts he'd be dead along with a lot of other people. In this story, some of the people who are putting their lives on the line to oppose a genocidal murderer are, unfortunately, guilty of discrimination themselves on a lesser scale and not at all prepared to see the error of their ways. Life's not simple. If Dumbledore withholds his protection from anyone who doesn't meet his moral standards, then it has the effect of punishing only those people who are helping him oppose Voldemort (because they are the ones who need it) while those who are just as bad but aren't involved in the struggle can tell DD to take a hike. Doesn't work for me, I'm afraid. Pippin From fairwynn at hotmail.com Sun Dec 31 21:13:42 2006 From: fairwynn at hotmail.com (wynnleaf) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:13:42 -0000 Subject: Lupin as spy? (was Re: Why would Sirius need to be killed to keep a secret?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163334 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > lone_white_werewolf: > > Interesting theory, what actions of Lupin's lead you to believe > > he could be a spy? > > > wynnleaf Pippin has given some of the actions of Lupin that are particularly suspicious. But there are excellent literary reasons to see Lupin as the perfect traitor for DH. JKR has had a surprise traitor in every book. The question for DH is not "will there be a traitor?" but "who will be the traitor?" Given that JKR has already said that there are no new major characters, we are left with wondering who of the current characters could be the surprise traitor. Regardless of how much many readers like Lupin (even me), Lupin is the most perfectly positioned, from a literary prespective, to be that traitor. 1. Motive. JKR has already given us what could become Lupin's motive by showing us in OOTP Lupin's distress over the anti-werewolf legislation. Voldemort has been promising rights for werewolves all along. Lupin himself said that the goblins could support Voldemort if he assured them certain rights. 2. Disposition. JKR has said Lupin's biggest weakness is in allowing his friends too much latitude in order to keep their friendship. We assume that's just the Marauders, but could also mean his friendships among werewolves who he says he considers his "equals." Suppose Lupin also has friends among the werewolves for whom he is willing to give Order information or help protect in other ways, resulting in betraying the Order? 3. Past history. JKR has already shown us that Lupin was willing to betray Dumbledore's trust for almost an entire year. He was willing to place the entire school and Harry at risk from a person all considered to be a crazed murderer, solely for his own self-interest. 4. Opportunity. Lupin is currently spying among the werewolves. He has a perfect opportunity to be a double agent. 5. Large gap in his history. Lupin is the only major character for whom we've been given no information about what he was doing between the Potter's deaths and POA. Everyone else we're at least given some idea -- teaching at Hogwarts, being an auror or ministry official, retired (Slughorn and Moody). When an author leaves such a large gap in just one character's history, it means there's a great place to suddenly reveal some very unexpected history that is completely different from whatever the reader assumed. 6. The protagonist trusts him. This often makes a very satisfactory traitor, when the protagonist and the reader are completely shocked to discover that the traitor is someone they never suspected and even trusted. 7. JKR has already previously revealed that others (Sirius and James) thought Lupin was a spy, without ever revealing *why* Sirius and James suspected this. One assumes that Sirius changed his mind simply because it was Peter who gave up the secret of the Fidelius Charm, but we never really know why Sirius or James were concerned about Lupin. 8. Lupin as traitor would create some great literary parallels, most especially if Snape turned out to be loyal. Parallels or juxtapositions could include: The histories of both, and their connections with the whole story, run back to the beginnings of the story -- from the James and Lily era. Harry hates Snape and trusts Lupin, but would find that Snape is trustworthy while Lupin is not. Two spies for the Order - both turn out to be double agents, but while one is assumed to be supporting Voldemort, he's really supporting the Order, while the one assumed to be supporting the Order is really helping Voldemort. Remember the theme of choosing what is easy versus what is right? If Lupin betrayed the Order because of a willingness to support the werewolves, we could have Lupin's weakness of allowing his friends (in this case the werewolves) anything in order to keep their good opinion leading to his betraying the Order. He chooses what is "easy" over what is right. Snape, however, is willing to loose the good opinion of all in order to do what is right. One spy (Snape) has betrayed his friends on Voldemort's side (the Malfoys, for instance) to support the Order. One spy has betrayed his friends on the Order side to help Voldemort. Seems like there are more parallels that I'd thought of in the past, but I can't recall them right now. Anyway, I can't think of any other character in the series who is so perfectly positioned to become JKR's traitor in the last book. It's like he's already set up for it. Yeah, I like Lupin, but he's just in a perfect position to be used as a triator. Personally, I doubt if it would be "evil Lupin." I think we'd be more likely to see "weak Lupin," because that's the way JKR has tended to characterize him in showing his big weakness in allowing his friends to get away with anything, and trying to keep the good will of others for himself regardless of who is placed at risk. I would guess that if Lupin turns out to be a spy, he'd be someone trying to play both sides, unable to thoroughly commit to either side. wynnleaf From belviso at attglobal.net Sun Dec 31 22:39:35 2006 From: belviso at attglobal.net (Magpie) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 17:39:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? References: Message-ID: <00a801c72d2c$8cffe520$5766400c@Spot> No: HPFGUIDX 163335 Lupinlore: > And yet, as Alla points out, Harry's prospects would have been ruined > save for the heavy-handed plot manipulations mentioned above. Magpie: Well....as much as I agree that an unfair teacher can have much farther results than just not liking class, I don't know that we can really talk about Snape's ruining Harry's career through his unfairness. It's more like Snape's ruining the career of any student not getting an O in Potions, because its his higher expectations for NEWT classes that would have kept Harry out (which seems to be okay by Dumbledore, just as McGonagall is allowed to only accept E students and above etc.) Since Harry isn't an O student in any other class except DADA that I remember, and has never shown a particular interest or aptitude in Potions, I can't just assume that with another teacher he'd have gotten an O on his NEWTS. One might suggest that Binns might have been more harmful to him by boring him in class--and Trelawney's class seemed to be worthless too. So while I think it's totally valid to say that Harry should not have to put up with the stuff he puts up with in Potions, I don't think I'd blame Harry getting anything less than an O on Snape given Harry's experience in class. Ironically, as Pippin pointed out, there's a lot of blatant favoritism going on in Slughorn's class too--even more so, only it favors Harry. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Dec 31 23:08:07 2006 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:08:07 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: <00a801c72d2c$8cffe520$5766400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163336 > Lupinlore: > > And yet, as Alla points out, Harry's prospects would have been ruined > > save for the heavy-handed plot manipulations mentioned above. > > Magpie: > Well....as much as I agree that an unfair teacher can have much farther > results than just not liking class, I don't know that we can really talk > about Snape's ruining Harry's career through his unfairness. Pippin: Especially since the Ministry can bend the rules any time it likes. Scrimgeour was all set to do it, too. They do hire genuinely talented people now and then, if only by accident :) But no matter how much JKR tortures Dolores, her kind will continue to infest the Ministry, and what's Harry going to do about that? Pippin From rdoliver30 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 20:09:18 2006 From: rdoliver30 at yahoo.com (lupinlore) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:09:18 -0000 Subject: Oyez, Oyez, the I Hate Horcruxes Society is Now in its Second Session Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163337 Well folks, it is beginning to look like Horcruxes are the key to the seventh book, very unfortunately. Personally, I strongly suspect that the "Deathly Hallows" of the title are none other than the Horcruxes themselves, which leads to all sorts of unfortunate corollaries. The most unfortunate is that I think we will have to suffer through the hunting and destruction of all four of them -- each and every one in wearisome detail. I don't think we are going to have relief from coincidences or "off-screen" developments. I don't think two or more of the horcruxes are going to be hidden in the same spot. I don't think the horcruxes are going to turn out to be unimportant after all. And I don't think anyone off-screen, be it Snape, Regulus, Wormtail, or God in a Clown Suit, is going to destroy any of them. I think the heart of the book is going to be four mini-quests after four seperate "hallows," followed by a major confrontation at the end. Now this leads to some opportunities. Ron/Hermione could be developed in the course of the quests. Also perhaps one of the Hallows is hidden at Durmstrang, which could provide an appearance by Victor Krum. But much else we have been promised or kind-of promised, including a Weasley wedding and an Umbridge come-uppance, or that we desire, such as an end to Percy's arc, will have to be sandwiched among, around, and between McGuffin chases. Sigh. Thus we reach the end to find ourselves immersed in a video game -- or a rather familiar retelling of a plot device derived from Koschei and utilized in dozens of movies, role-playing games, and novels ever since. As Alla, I believe it was, said, the worst thing about it is that it's all so ordinary -- and ordinary at a time when much more interesting and pressing issues are hanging. Lupinlore, who fully expects a horcrux game for PS3 to hit the market very quickly From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Dec 31 23:21:03 2006 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (justcarol67) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:21:03 -0000 Subject: Broken potionvial and Harry expectations WAS: Re: Bad Writing? In-Reply-To: <00a801c72d2c$8cffe520$5766400c@Spot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163338 Magpie wrote: > Well....as much as I agree that an unfair teacher can have much farther results than just not liking class, I don't know that we can really talk about Snape's ruining Harry's career through his unfairness. It's more like Snape's ruining the career of any student not getting an O in Potions, because its his higher expectations for NEWT classes that would have kept Harry out (which seems to be okay by Dumbledore, just as McGonagall is allowed to only accept E students and above etc.) > > Since Harry isn't an O student in any other class except DADA that I > remember, and has never shown a particular interest or aptitude in Potions, I can't just assume that with another teacher he'd have gotten an O on his NEWTS. One might suggest that Binns might have been more harmful to him by boring him in class--and Trelawney's class seemed to be worthless too. So while I think it's totally valid to say that Harry should not have to put up with the stuff he puts up with in Potions, I don't think I'd blame Harry getting anything less than an O on Snape given Harry's experience in class. > Ironically, as Pippin pointed out, there's a lot of blatant favoritism going on in Slughorn's class too--even more so, only it favors Harry. Carol responds: Exactly. Harry has seen Snape give the marks that students would receive on a piece of homework if it were part of the OWL exam, and he knows how far he needs to go to get an O on that OWL. He knows that Snape will not be scoring the exams, so he only needs to worry about the difficulty of the exam, not the fairness of the grading. He knows that Snape allows only the very best (those who get Os) into his NEWT Potions classes. And he knows that he needs NEWT Potions to become an Auror. He's had plenty of fair warning. Only Harry can study what he needs to know to do well on the OWLs. and only Harry is to blame if he doesn't get an O in every subject he needs to take the following year. Of course, JKR also needed Harry to be in NEWT Potions in HBP, so she would have manipulated the plot in whatever way was required to get him into that class despite his expectations, even if it meant direct interference from Dumbledore. But JKR knew that Snape wouldn't be teaching NEWT Potions the following year. Quite possibly Dumbledore (and maybe Snape) knew it, too. The time was ripe for Snape to teach DADA, after all, even before Dumbledore's Horcrux-related injury. Carol, who thinks that Harry still has a lot to learn from and relating to Snape and can't wait for that particular aspect of DH From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Dec 31 23:53:37 2006 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:53:37 -0000 Subject: Practicing Legilimency against an Occlumens In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 163339 > bboyminn: > On this issue I have to agree with Carol. There is a very > real difference between the art of Legilimency and the > spell of Legilimency. The art or skill is very subtle, > and I suspect from the examples in the books, the subject > barely knows that it is happening. However, when Snape casts the > Legilimency Spell, it is not subtle at all. Jen: The structure of the story matters here, JKR has Snape explain Legilimency and Occlumency and then demonstrate with Harry so the reader can later say, "Oh, I know what Dumbledore is doing when he mentions using Legilimency on Kreacher, that's like what Snape was doing to Harry during his lessons." (Or substitute another example here.) In fact, the lessons give us much more information about how Legilimency works than Occlumency since Harry can't perform the latter skill very well. JKR has never proposed there is real Legilimency and teaching Legilimency; Snape's explantion and first- hand example are the basis for understanding Legilimency during the rest of the story. Also, such a distinction assumes Snape's lessons look exactly like a lesson Dumbledore or Lupin would teach. Perhaps another teacher wouldn't call forth entire streams of humiliating and/or bad memories in order to teach Harry, maybe they would access memories one at a time (as Snape did in the bathroom) in order to teach Harry bit by bit how to block them. We don't know yet if Snape seeing so many of Harry's memories serves another purpose for the story. I think it's very possible plot is the reason Snape accesses so many memories and it has nothing to do with the process of teaching Legilimency vs. practicing Legilimency. Steve: > Harry is completely lost in his memories. Snape and Snape's office > completely disappear. We don't see the completely loss of > immediate awareness when the subtle skill of Legilimency is > practiced. Jen: The bathroom scene is the other opportunity to understand how Legilimency feels to the person experiencing the process: "The bathroom seemed to shimmer before his eyes; he struggled to block out all thought, but try as he might, the Half-Blood Prince's copy of 'Advanced Potion-Making' swam hazily to the forefront of his mind...And then he was staring at Snape again in the midst of the wrecked, soaked bathroom." (Sectumsempra chap. HBP) Harry sees the copy of the book in his mind's eye and then 'he was staring at Snape again, in the midst of the wrecked, soaked bathroom', so for a moment Harry is not in the bathroom, he loses awareness of where he is and then his surroundings come into focus again. Yes, there is only one memory taking over but no, the experience does not feel any different from the lessons. bboyminn: > Consequently, I don't think Snape has to block each and > every positive thought he has. I think he mearly has to > block the details of his true allegiance, plus a few > details of specific information that Dumbledore doesn't > want Voldemort to have just yet. Jen: I believe the same as you and Carol, that Snape only needs to block details of his allegiance. My point was if Snape holds views widely divergent from Voldemort's, say if he is secretly opposed to the principles of pure-blood ideaology or believes in House- Elf/Werewolf/Goblin rights or dreams of a WW free from the oppression of tyranny, *those* are not just single thoughts or memories but wide- ranging concepts that impact a person on a daily basis. There is less risk on Dumbledore's part to employ a double-agent who is *not* like Dumbledore in ideaology, outlook or values but rather can resemble a DE in thought and feeling enough to pass muster with Voldemort. IOW, Dumbledore trusts Snape completely because he knows exactly who Snape is, Snape would not be a lesser man in Dumbledore's eyes if he holds different values than Dumbledore. More important is whether Dumbledore will risk his plan to send Snape to spy on Voldemort. Pippin: > Oh, of course Voldemort knows that Snape is an occlumens. It would > be folly to send anyone to spy on Dumbledore who wasn't. But > Voldemort doesn't think that any occlumens is good enough to fool > *him*. Jen: The question was whether LV knows Snape is using Occlumency around him, not Dumbledore. Carol said LV probably doesn't detect Snape using Occlumency when they are together. I said maybe Voldemort doesn't or maybe he does but needs to use Snape a little longer so hasn't blown Snape's secret yet. You seem to be saying Voldemort knows Snape is using Occlumency in his presence but doesn't care because no one can fool him. I'm not so sure Voldemort would think it's fine for DE's to lie and practice Occlumency around him without pointing out he knows what they are doing and punishing them, as well as expect they won't try doing those things again without harsher punishment.